EPA 440/1-74/041
Group I, Phase II
i
Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Proposed New Source Performance
Standards for the
FISH MEAL, SALMON, BOTTOM FISH,
SARDINE, HERRING, CLAM, OYSTER,
SCALLOP, AND ABALONE
Segment of the
CANNED AND PRESERVED
SEAFOOD PROCESSING
Point Source Category
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
January 1975
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR INTERIM FINAL
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND PROPOSED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
FISH MEAL, SALMON, BOTTOM FISH, CLAM, OYSTER, SARDINE,
SCALLOP, HERRING, AND ABALONE SEGMENT OF THE
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND
SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell E. Train
Administrator
James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Elwood H. Forsht
Project Officer
January 1975
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago , Illinois 60608*
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of
the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, clam, oyster, sardine,
scallop, herring, and abalone segment of the canned and
preserved fish and seafood processing industry of the United
States to develop effluent limitations guidelines for point
source and new source standards of performance in order to
implement Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act) .
Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of
the "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available" and the "Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable" which must be achieved by existing point sources
by July 1, 1977 and July 1, 1983 respectively. The
"Standards of Performance for New Sources" set forth a
degree of effluent reduction which is achievable through the
application of the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods or other
alternatives. The proposed regulations require the best
primary or physical-chemical treatment technology currently
available for discharge into navigable water bodies by July
1, 1977 and for new source performance standards. This
technology is generally represented by screens and air
flotation. The recommendation for July 1, 1983 is for the
best physical-chemical and secondary treatment and in-plant
control as represented by significantly reduced water use
and enhanced treatment efficiencies in existing systems, as
well as new systems. This technology is generally
represented by air flotation, aerated lagoons, or activated
sludge.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards of
performance are contained in this report.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Pa9e
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 13
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 13
SCOPE OF STUDY 14
INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 16
INDUSTRIAL FISHES 28
FINFISH 34
SHELLFISH 50
IV INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 65
INTRODUCTION 65
FISH MEAL PRODUCTION 70
SALMON CANNING 82
FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON 94
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH 101
SARDINE CANNING 119
HERRING FILLETING 123
CLAMS 131
OYSTERS 142
SCALLOPS 152
ABALONE 154
V WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 161
INTRODUCTION 161
-------
Section CONTENTS CQNT'D Page
FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARAC-
TERISTICS 164
SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 191
FRESH/FROZEN SALMON PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 206
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 215
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 248
HERRING FILLETING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 264
CLAM PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 265
OYSTER PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 277
SCALLOP FREEZING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 300
FRESH/FROZEN ABALONE PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 301
DETERMINATION OF SOBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA 308
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 311
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE 31]
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL METHODS 329
PARAMETER ESTIMATION ANALYSIS 339
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 346
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES 346
IN-PLANT CONTROL RELATED TO SPECIFIC
PROCESSES 362
END-OF-PIPE CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND
PROCESSES 368
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
-------
Section CONTENTS CQNT'D Page
419
SUMMARY
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 4°
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Sfll
XII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS DU1
XIII REFERENCES 505
XIV GLOSSARY 51 ]
APPENDIX A: Bibliography - Air Flotation Use
Within the Seafood Industry
APPENDIX B: Bibliography - Air Flotation Use
Within the Meat and Poultry
Industry 531
APPENDIX C: List of Equipment Manufacturers
vn
-------
FIGURES
Number Pa9e
1 Total U.S. supply of fishery products
1960-1972 ^°
22
2 Location and commodities sampled in the
contiguous United States
3 Alaska region locations and commodities sampled
U Northwest region locations and commodities
sampled ^
5 New England region locations and commodities
sampled 24
6 Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities
sampled 25
7 Gulf region locations and commodities sampled 26
8 California region locations and commodities
sampled 27
9 Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 31
10 California landings of Pacific sardines and
anchovies 33
11 Alaska salmon landings by species 36
12 Distribution of the Pacific halibut 45
13 U.S. landings of halibut 1947-1972 47
1U U.S. production and imports of canned sardines
1960-1972 49
15 Oyster meat production by region 56
16 Comparison of raft and bottom grown oysters 57
17 California abalone landings 62
18 Typical large fish meal production process 72
19 Typical small fish meal production process 75
-------
Number FIGURES CONT'D Page
20 Fish meal process plot (with solubles plant) 80
21 Fish meal process plot (without solubles
plant) 81
22 Typical salmon canning process 85
23 Typical salmon by-product operations 88
2H Alaska salmon cannery size distribution 89
25 Northwest salmon cannery size distribution go
26 Salmon canning process plot 92
27 Typical fresh/frozen salmon process 95
28 Fresh/frozen salmon process plot 99
29 Typical New England ground fish process ]Q2
30 Typical New England whiting process
31 Typical Mid-Atlantic or Gulf finfish process
32 Typical fish flesh process -]QQ
33 Typical Pacific Coast bottom fish process iQ9
31 Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process m
35 Conventional bottom fish process plot ^3
36 Mechanized bottom fish process plot ]-\q
37 Typical sardine canning process 121
38 Sardine canning process plot 128
39 Typical herring filleting process ]2g
UO Herring filleting process plot ^
41 Typical mechanized surf clam process 135
42 Typical hand shucked surf clam process 138
43 Conventional or mechanical clam process plot ^Q
UH Typical steamed or canned oyster process
-------
Number
FIGURES CONT'D Page
H5 Typical hand shuck oyster process 146
46 Fresh/frozen, steamed, or canned oyster process
plot 148
47 Typical scallop process 153
48 Alaskan scallop process plot 155
49 Typical abalone process 159
50 Abalone process plot 160
51 Fish meal process time sequence of activities 166
52 Fish meal process plot (with solubles plant)
intake and discharge 169
53 Log-normal formulas for the subcategory
mean and standard deviation 309
54 Chloride correction curves for COD
determination on seafood processing wastes 332
55 Finfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs 5-day BOD
scatter diagram 340
56 Shellfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs 5-day BOD
scatter diagram 340
57 Seafood wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 341
58 Industrial fish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD
scatter diagram 341
59 Finfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 342
60 Shellfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 342
61 Schematic drawing of in-plant dry solids removal
system (Temco, Inc.) 354
62 Pneumatic unloading system (Temco, Inc.) 354
63 Alaskan physical treatment alternative,
remote plants with adequate flushing available 369
XI
-------
Number FIGURES CONT'D Page
61 Increase in waste loads through prolonged
contact with water 372
65 Typical horizontal drum rotary screen 373
66 Typical tangential screen 376
67 Typical screen system for seafood processing
operations 379
68 Typical dissolved air flotation system for sea-
food processing operations 389
69 Dissolved air flotation unit (Carborundum Co.) 390
70 Removal efficiency of DAF unit used in Louisiana
shrimp study - 1973 results (Dominique, Szabo
Associates, Inc.) 393
71 Air flotation efficiency versus influent COD
concentration for various seafood wastewaters 394
72 Typical extended aeration system for seafood
processing operations 401
73 Removal rate of filtered BOD in a batch aeration
reactor 493
7H Removal rate of unfiltered BOD in a batch
aeration reactor 404
75 Typical aerated lagoon system 409
76 Daily maximum and maximum 30-day average based on
log-normal summary data 417
77 Daily maximum and maximum 30-day average based on
arithmetic-normal summary data 418
78 Costs and removal efficiencies for alternative
treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 421
79 Operation and maintenance costs for alternate
treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 421
80 Capital costs and daily operation and mainten-
ance cost curves for a wastewater screening
system 422
-------
Number FIGURES CONT'D Page
81 capital cost curves for a wastewater air flota-
tion system 423
82 Operation and maintenance costs of an air flo-
tation system 424
83 Capital costs and daily operation and mainten-
ance cost curves for an aerated lagoon 425
84 Capital costs and daily operation and mainten-
ance cost curves for an extended aeration
system 426
85 Waste disposal costs for landfill or ocean
disposal 475
xm
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Proposed July 1, 1977 effluent limitations 4
2 Proposed July 1, 1983 effluent limitations 7
3 Proposed new source performance standards 10
H Disposition of landings, 1971 and 1972 17
5 Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 18
6 Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 19
7 Production of industrial fishery products
1962-1972 30
8 Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons 30
9 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values 37
10 Processing season peaks for Alaska salmon and
halibut 38
11 Major species of Atlantic and Gulf bottom fish 43
12 Major species of Pacific bottom fish 44
13 U.S. landings of shellfish by species 52
14 Scallop landings by species, 1963-1972 60
15 Relative importance matrix — industrial fish
and finfish 55
16 Relative importance matrix — shellfish 67
17 Fish meal waste load reduction using bailwater
evaporation 78
18 Summary of average waste loads from fish meal
production and unit operation waste
characteristics for fish meal processing without
a solubles plant 79
19 Fish meal process summary (discharge from
solubles plant only)
xv
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
20 Fish meal process summary (without solubles
plant) 84
21 Mechanically butchered salmon process summary
93
22 Annual production of Northwest fresh/frozen
salmon 97
23 Daily peak production rates of Alaska fresh/
frozen salmon plants 97
24 Hand butchered salmon process summary 100
25 Alaska bottom fish (halibut) process summary 115
26 Non-Alaska bottom fish size distributon 117
27 Conventional bottom fish process summary 118
28 Mechanical bottom fish process summary 120
29 Waste load reduction using dry conveyor 124
30 Sardine canning process summary (combined
discharge) 125
31 Sardine canning process summary (can wash
and pre-cook water) 126
32 Sardine canning process summary (operations
screened discharge) 127
33 Herring filleting process summary 133
3H Conventional clam process summary 141
35 Mechanical clam process summary 143
36 Steamed or canned oyster process summary 149
37 West Coast hand-shucked oyster processing
summary 150
38 East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster
processing summary 151
39 Alaskan scallop process summary 156
i*0 Abalone process summary 158
xvi
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
41 Fish meal production with solubles plant
material balance 170
42 Fish meal production with bailwater material
balance 171
43 Menhaden reduction process (discharge with
bailwater) 172
44 Menhaden reduction process (discharge) 173
45 Menhaden reduction process (intake) 174
46 Menhaden reduction process (discharge with
bailwater) 175
47 Menhaden reduction process (intake) 176
48 Menhaden reduction process (bailwater only) 177
49 Menhaden reduction process (discharge no
scrubber water) 178
50 Menhaden reduction process (intake no scrubber
water) 179
51 Menhaden reduction process (discharge with
bailwater) ISO
52 Menhaden reduction process (intake) 181
53 Menhaden reduction process (bailwater only) 182
54 Menhaden reduction process (discharge) 183
55 Menhaden reduction process (intake) 184
56 Menhaden reduction process (discharge without
scrubber) 185
57 Anchovy reduction process (discharge with
scrubber water) 186
58 Anchovy reduction process (intake) 187
59 Fish meal production without solubles plant
material balance 188
60 Anchovy reduction process (discharge) 189
xvn
-------
Number TABLES CQNT'D Page
61 Anchovy reduction process (with air scrubber
water) 190
62 Salmon canning process material balance (iron
chink) 192
63 Salmon canning process material balance (hand
butcher) 194
64 Salmon canning process 195
65 Salmon canning process 196
66 Salmon canning process (with grinding) 197
67 Salmon canning process (hand butcher) 198
68 Salmon canning process (hand butcher) 199
69 Salmon canning process 200
70 Salmon canning process (before screen) 201
71 Salmon canning process (after screening) 202
72 Salmon canning process 203
73 Salmon canning process (without fluming) 204
71 Salmon canning process 205
75 Fresh/frozen round salmon process material
balance 207
76 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round) 208
77 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round) 209
78 Salmon fresh/frozen process (pre-dressed) 210
79 Salmon fresh/frozen process (pre-dressed) 211
80 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round) 212
81 Salmon fresh/frozen process (pre-dressed) 213
82 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round) 214
83 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance (with skinner) 216
xvi ~\
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
84 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance (with descaler) 217
85 Percent recovery for New England ground fish 219
86 Whiting freezing process material balance 220
87 Recovery of fillets and fish flesh from bottom
fish 221
88 Halibut freezing process material balance 222
89 Ground fish fillet process 223
90 Ground fish fillet process 224
91 Finfish process 225
92 Finfish process 226
93 Finfish process 227
94 Finfish process 228
95 Bottom fish fillet process 229
96 Bottom fish fillet process 230
97 Bottom fish fillet process (without sealer) 231
98 Bottom fish fillet process (without sealer) 232
99 Bottom fish fillet process 233
100 Bottom fish fillet process 234
101 Bottom fish fillet process 235
102 Bottom fish fillet process 236
103 Bottom fish fillet process 237
104 Bottom fish fillet process 238
105 Whiting freezing process 240
106 Whiting freezing process 241
107 Croaker fish flesh process 242
xix
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
108 Bottom fish fillet process (with sealer) 243
109 Bottom fish fillet process (with sealer) 244
110 Halibut freezing process 246
111 Halibut fletching process 247
112 Sardine canning process material balance 250
113 Sardine canning process 251
114 Sardine canning process (pre-cook and can
wash water) 252
115 Sardine canning process (operations for
screened discharge) 253
116 Sardine canning process (dry conveying) 254
117 Sardine canning process (pre-cook and
can wash water) 255
118 Sardine canning process (operations for
screened discharge) 256
119 Sardine canning process (with flume to packing
table) 257
120 Sardine canning process 258
121 Sardine canning process (pre-cook and can wash
water) 259
122 Sardine canning process (operations for
screened discharge) 260
123 Sardine canning process 261
124 Sardine canning process (pre-cook can wash
water) 262
125 Sardine canning process (operations for
screened discharge) 263
126 Herring filleting process material balance 266
127 Herring filleting process 267
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
128 Herring filleting process 268
129 Herring filleting process 269
130 Surf clam canning process material balance 270
131 Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked) 271
132 Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked) 272
133 Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked) 273
134 Surf clam canning process (pre-shucked) 274
135 Surf clam canning process (mechanically
shucked) 275
136 Hand-shucked clam process material balance 278
137 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 279
138 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 280
139 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 281
H»0 Steamed oyster process material balance 284
141 Hand-shucked oyster process material balance 285
142 Oyster steam process 286
143 Oyster steam process 287
144 Oyster steam process (steam/hand-shucked) 288
145 Oyster stew canning process 289
146 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 290
147 Oyster fresh/frozen process 291
148 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 292
149 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 293
150 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 294
151 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 295
152 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 296
xxi
-------
Number TABLES CQNT'D Page
153 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 297
1514 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 298
155 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) 299
156 Scallops freezing process 302
157 Scallops freezing process 303
158 Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance 304
159 Abalone fresh/frozen process 305
160 Abalone fresh/frozen process 306
161 Abalone fresh/frozen process 307
162 Summary of precision analysis for suspended
solids, COD, and grease and oil 334
163 Summary of precision analysis for ammonia and
organic nitrogen 336
164 Summary of ammonia recovery precision analysis 337
165 Summary of grease and oil recovery precision
analysis 338
166 20-day BOD/5-day BOD ratio estimation for
finfish and shellfish wastewater 344
167 5-day BOD/COD ratio estimation for industrial
fish, finfish and shellfish wastewater 344
168 Typical composition of fish and shellfish
(portion normally utilized) 348
169 Recovery using 20-mesh screen for various
seafood commodities 355
170 Recovery of proteins with hexametaphosphate 357
171 Coagulation of proteins with SLS 357
172 Typical fish meal process bailwater charac-
teristics 364
173 Fish meal stickwater characteristics
364
XXU
-------
Number TABLES CONT'D Page
17U Northern sewage screen test results 374
175 SWECO concentrator test results 374
176 SWECO vibratory screen performance on salmon
canning wastewater 374
177 Tangential screen performance 377
178 Gravity clarification using F-FLOK coagulant 387
179 Results of dispersed air flotation on tuna
wastewater 387
180 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator pilot plant on
tuna wastewater 395
181 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator full-scale plant
on tuna wastewater 395
182 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Gulf
shrimp wastewater 396
183 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Alaska
shrimp wastewater 396
184 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on
menhaden bailwater 397
185 Efficiency of full-scale dissolved air flotation
on sardine wastewater 397
186 Efficiency of full-scale dissolved air flotation
on Canadian seafood wastewater 398
187 Activated sludge pilot plant results 405
188 Efficiency of Chromaglas package plant on blue
crab and oyster wastewater 405
189 Removal efficiencies of screens for various
seafood wastewater effluents 413
190 Removal efficiencies of treatment alternatives 414
191 Estimated practicable in-plant waste water
flow reductions and associated pollutional
loadings reductions (1983 and new source) 415
xxm
-------
Number
TABLES CONT'D
Page
192 Estimated potential in-plant water and BOD
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
200
205
206
207
208
reduction
Treatment system cost equations
Water effluent treatment costs:
with solubles plant
Water effluent treatment costs:
without solubles plant
Water effluent treatment costs:
salmon canning - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
salmon canning - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
conventional bottom fish - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
bottom fish - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
bottom fish - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
conventional bottom fish - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
bottom fish - small
fish meal
fish meal
Northwest
Northwest
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
Non-Alaskan
Non- Alaskan
Non-Alaskan
Non- Alaskan
Non-Alaskan
427
429
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
XXIV
-------
Number
TABLES CONT'D
Page
209 Water effluent treatment costs:
conventional bottom fish - small
210 Water effluent treatment costs:
mechanized bottom fish - large
211 Water effluent treatment costs:
mechanized bottom fish - small
212 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
213 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
214 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
215 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
216 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
217 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
218 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
219 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
220 Water effluent treatment costs:
claims - small
221 Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
222 Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - large
223 Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - medium
224 Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - small
225 Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - medium
Non-Alaskan
Non-Alaskan
Non-Alaskan
conventional
conventional
convent i ona1
conventional
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Eastern
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
XXV
-------
Number
TABLES CONT'D
Page
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Sardine
Sardine
Sardine
non-Alaskan
Aba lone
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
Water effluent treatment costs: Steamed
or canned oysters
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
Non-Alaskan scallops
Water effluent treatment costs:
herring filleting
Water effluent treatment costs:
herring filleting
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Salmon Canning
and Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Bottom Fish
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Herring Filleting
Energy consumption of alternative treatment
systems
Cost of construction and operation of a fish
deboning plant
Capital and operating costs for batch and con-
tinuous fish meal facilities
Proposed July 1, 1977 effluent limitations
Proposed July 1, 1983 effluent limitations
Proposed new source performance standards
Conversion Factors, English to Metric Units
470
472
473
474
477
478
484
491
496
539
XXVI
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guide-
lines for existing sources and standards of performance for
new sources, the canned and preserved seafood processing in-
dustry covered in this study was divided into 19
subcategories:
1) Fish meal processing
2) Alaskan hand-butchered salmon processing
3) Alaskan mechanized salmon processing
4) West Coast hand-butchered salmon processing
5) West Coast mechanized salmon processing
6) Alaskan bottom fish processing
7) Non-Alaskan conventional bottom fish processing
8) Non-Alaskan mechanized bottom fish processing
9) Hand-shucked clam processing
10) Mechanized clam processing
11) West Coast hand-shucked oyster processing
12) Atlantic and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster
processing
13) Steamed/canned oyster processing
14) Sardine processing
15) Alaskan scallop processing
16) Non-Alaskan scallop processing
17) Alaskan herring fillet processing
18) Non-Alaskan herring fillet processing
19) Abalone processing
The major criteria for the establishment of the categories
were:
1) variability of raw product supply;
2) variety of the species being processed;
3) degree of preprocessing;
4) manufacturing process and subprocesses;
5) form and quality of finished product;
6) location of plant;
7) nature of operation (intermittent vs. continuous);
and
8) amenability of the waste to treatment.
The wastes from all subcategories are amenable to biological
waste treatment under certain conditions and no materials
-------
harmful to municipal waste treatment processes (with
adequate operational controls) were found.
A determination of this study was that the level of waste
treatment throughout the seafood industry was generally
inadequate, except for the fish meal production industry
where there are several exemplary plants. Technology exists
at the present time, however, for the successful reduction
of respective wastewater constituents within the industry to
the point where most plants can be in compliance by July 1,
1977. Because waste treatment, in-plant waste reduction,
and effluent management are in their infancy in this
industry, rapid progress is expected to be made by the
industry in the next four to six years.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Guidelines recommendations for discharge to navigable waters
are based in general on the reduction of wastewater flows
and loads through in-plant housekeeping and modifications
and the characteristics of well operating screens, dissolved
air flotation units, aerated lagoons, and extended aeration
systems. Parameters designed to be of significant
importance to warrant their routine monitoring in this
industry, are 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-5), total
suspended solids (TSS), grease and oil (GfiO), and pH.
The recommended guidelines limitations based on the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA)
are presented in Table 1; the guideline limitations based on
the best available technology economically achievable
(BATEA) in Table 2; and recommended new source performance
standards, in Table 3.
-------
Table 1 Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory Technology BOD5_ TSS Grease & Oil
(BPCTCA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Hax. Day, avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
0.
p.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Fish Meal
1 . with solubles unit
2. w/o solubles unit
Ak hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
1 . greater than 2 ton/day
2. less than 2 ton/day
Ak bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2. remote
H 4.7 3.5
B 3.5 2.8
H,S,B
Grind * *
H.S.B
Grind * *
H,S
H,S, DAF 41 34
H,S
H.S.B
Grind * *
2.3
2.6
1.7
*
27
*
1.7
8.2
27
1.9
*
1.3
1.7
1.4
*
22
*
1.4
6.7
22
1.7
*
0.80
3.2
0.20
*
27
*
0.20
4.0
27
0.11
*
0.63
1.4
0.17
*
10
*
0.17
1.6
10
0.09
*
U. Non-Ak conventional bottom fish H,S - - 2.1 1.6 0.55 0.40
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
Steamed/Canned oysters**
Sardines
Ak scallops**
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak scallops**
Ak herring fillet
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Technology BOD5 TSS
(BPCTCA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avq.
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S,GT***
H,S
Grind * *
H,S
H,S,B
Grind * *
14
29
7.7
37
19
54
4.2
0.82
*
0.82
25
*
10
18
6.1
35
15
36
3.3
0.62
*
0.62
24
*
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avq.
5.7
0.28
0.55
1.7
0.77
1.6
2.9
0.63
*
0.63
8.4
*
3.3
0.18
0.48
1.6
0.70
1.3
1.6
0.32
*
0.32
6.9
*
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Technology BOD5_ TSS
(BPCTCA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day, avg. Max. Day avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
AF. Non-Ak herring fillet
AG. Abalone
H,S
H,S
25
11
24
9.2
6.9
0.98
H = housekeeping; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical optimization;
B = barge solids; GT = grease trap
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension
**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations are based on treatment of the pre-cook water by screening
and skimming, and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
Table 2 Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
Non-Ak conventional bottom fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
Technology
(BATEA)
IP
IP.S.B
IP,S,DAF,B
IP.S.B
IP.S.DAF
IP.S.DAF
IP.S.B
IP.S.AL
IP.S.DAF
IP,S
IP.S.AL
BOD5 TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avq.
4.0 2.6
-
16 13
1.2 1.0
16 13
-
0.73 0.58
6.5 5.3
-
2.9 2.7
2.3
1.5
2.6
26
0.15
2.6
1.1
1.5
1.1
29
7.4
1.3
1.2
2.2
21
0.12
2.2
1.0
0.73
0.82
18
3.7
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avq.
0.80
0.18
2.6
2.6
0.02
2.6
0.07
0.04
0.46
0.28
0.18
0.63
0.15
1.0
10
0.02
1.0
0.06
0.03
0.26
0.18
0.09
-------
00
Table 2 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
East Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
Steamed/Canned oysters*
Sardines
Ak scallops*
Non-Ak scallops*
Ak herring fillets
1 . non-remote
2 . remote
Technology BODS TSS
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,EA 3.6 3.5
,EA 2.5 2.3
,AL 7.4 5.2
,DAF** 5.3 4.6
,B
-
,DAF,B 8.6 6.7
,B
8.7
4.5
22
2.2
0.80
0.80
1.9
19
8
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
.3
.6
1
.8
.60
.60
.7
7
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
6
.78
.45
.56
.7
.62
.62
.1
.7
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
5.
26
15
28
87
31
31
2
2
-------
Table 2 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
AF.
A6.
Non-Ak herring fillets
Abalone
Technology BODS TSS Grease & Oil
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
IP, S, DAF 8.6 6.7 1.9
IP,S - - 10
1.7
8.7
3.1
1.1
1.2
0.93
IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation with chemical optimization;
AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*Effluent Limitations in terms of finished product
**Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
Table 3 Proposed Mew Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Technology BODS^ TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day, avg. Max. Day avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.
p.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak conventional bottom fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
IP 4.0 2.9
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP,S,B
grind * *
IP,S,DAF 1.7 1.4
IP,S,DAF 36 32
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP,S,AL 0.73 0.58
IP.S.DAF 9.1 7.4
IP.S
IP,S,AL 2.6 2.7
2.3
1.5
*
26
*
0.46
7.9
1.1
*
1.5
3.3
29
7.4
1.3
1.2
*
21
*
0.37
6.5
1.0
*
0.73
2.5
18
3.7
0.80
0.18
*
26
*
0.03
3.8
0.07
*
0.04
0.68
0.28
0.18
0.63
0.15
*
10
*
0.02
1.5
0.06
*
0.03
0.39
0.18
0.09
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd) Proposed New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
Steamed/Canned oysters*
Sardines
Ak scallops**
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak scallops
Ak herring fillets
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Technology BODS TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
IP.S.EA 3.6 3.5
IP.S.EA 2.5 2.3
IP.S.AL 7.4 5.2
IP,S,DAF*** 7.1 6.2
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP,S
IP.S.B
grind * *
8.7
4.5
22
2.9
0.80
*
0.80
19
*
8.3
3.6
11
2.1
0.60
*
0.60
17
*
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.78
0.45
0.56
1.8
0.62
*
0.62
6.7
*
0.26
0.15
0.28
0.97
0.31
*
0.31
5.2
*
-------
ro
Subcategory
Table 3 (Cont'd) Proposed New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Technology
BOD5. TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day, avg. Max. Day avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
AF.
AG.
Non-Ak
Abalone
herring fillets
IP
IP
,S,DAF
,s
21
16
5.6
10
5.2
8.7
3.
1.
3
1
1.4
0.93
IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical
optimization; AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension
**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Section 301(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (the Act) requires the achievement by not
later than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point
sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which
are based on the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined by the E.P.A.
Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) of the Act.
Section 304(b) also requires the achievement by not later
than July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations for point
sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which
are based on the application of the best available
technology economically achievable and which will result in
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined
in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator
pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act. Section 306 of the
Act requires the achievement by new sources of a federal
standard of performance providing for the control of the
discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree
of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to
be achievable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control tech' >logy, processes, operating
methods, or other ai _ernatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants.
Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to
publish within one year of enactment of the Act, regulations
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth
the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best practicable control technology
currently available and the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best control
measures and practices achievable including treatment
techniques, process and procedure innovations, operational
methods and other alternatives. The regulations proposed
herein set forth effluent limitations guidelines pursuant to
Section 304 (b) of the Act for the fish meal, salmon, bottom
fish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring and abalone
segment of the canned and preserved fish and seafood
processing point source category. The recommended
guidelines for the shrimp, tuna, crab, and catfish segment
13
-------
of the industry were promulgated in the June 26, 1974
Federal Register (39 F.R. 23134).
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within
one year after a category of sources is included in a list
published pursuant to Section 306(b)(1)(A) of the Act, to
propose regulations establishing federal standards of
performance for new sources within such categories. The
Administrator published in the Federal Register of January
16, 1973 (38 F.R. 1624), a list of" 27 categories.
Publications of the list constituted announcement of the
Administrator's intention to establish, under Section 306,
standards of performance applicable to new sources for the
canned and preserved fish and seafood point source category,
which was included in the list published January 16, 1973.
SCOP E^QF^ STUDY
The scope of this study is defined as the "remainder of the
industry" not included in the promulgated regulations
covering farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna (39 F.R.
23134). The species specifically mentioned are: oyster,
lobster, clam, bottom fish, the oily species such as
menhaden, anchovy, herring, and salmon. The "industry" to
be covered by both phases is defined as falling into SIC
2031, Canned and Cured Seafood, and SIC 2036, Fresh and
Frozen Packaged Seafood. More complete definitions of these
two classifications as obtained from the 1972 Standard
Industrial Classification Manual are quoted below. It was
noted that SIC 2031 and SIC 2036, as defined in the
Department of Commerce i96>7 Census of Manufacturers,
Publication MC67 (2)-20C, were changed to SIC 2091 and SIC
2092 respectively in the 1972 S.I.e. Manual.
SIC 2091 - Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods
"Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and canning
fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, and other seafood,
including soups; and those engaged in smoking, salting,
drying or otherwise curing fish for the trade.
Establishments primarily engaged in shucking and packing
fresh oysters in nonsealed containers, or in freezing and
packaging fresh fish, are classified in Industry 2092."
Canned fish, Crustacea,
and mollusks
Caviar: canned and
preserved
Fish, canned
Fish egg bait, canned
Herring: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
14
-------
Clam bouillon, broth,
chowder, juice:
bottled or canned
Codfish: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
Crab meat, canned and
preserved
Finnan haddie (smoked
haddock)
Fish: boneless, cured
dried, pickled, salted,
and smoked
Mackerel: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
Oysters, canned and pre-
served
Salmon: smoked, salted,
dried, canned and pickled
Sardines, canned
Seafood products, canned
Shellfish, canned
Shrimp, canned
Soup, seafood: canned
Tuna fish, canned
SIC 2092 - Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish and Seafoods
Seafood: fresh, quick
frozen, and cold pack
(frozen) —packaged
Shellfish, quick frozen
and cold pack (frozen)
Shrimp, quick frozen
and cold pack (frozen)
Soups, seafood: frozen
Crab meat, fresh: packed
in non-sealed containers
Crab meat picking
Fish fillets
Fish: fresh, quick frozen,
and cold pack (frozen)—
packaged
Fish sticks
Frozen prepared fish
Oysters: fresh, shucked
and packed in non-sealed
containers
The reduction of the oil species for animal feed, oils and
solubles is not included in either classification, but is
specified in the contract. Therefore, the study encompassed
the following segments of the United States fishery
industry:
1) All processes falling ii.to either SIC 2031 (2091)
or 2036 (2092), which are considered to produce a
significant waste load; and
2) the reduction of oily species such as menhaden and
anchovy for fish meal, oil and solubles, including
the reduction of fish waste when processed at the
same facility.
Fish or shellfish which are canned or processed fresh or
frozen for bait or pet food were not included in this study
unless the operation was an 'integral part of a process
covered by item number one or two, above. The distribution
of landings between fresh and frozen human food, bait and
animal food; canned human food, bait and animal food; and
cured and reduced fish for 1971 and 1972 is given in Table
15
-------
U. It can be seen that the disposition for bait and animal
food is a relatively small portion of the total.
INDUSTRY BACKGROUND
The canned and preserved fish and seafood industry,
including industrial products, has been expanding steadily
from the early days of drying and curing to the various
technologies involved in preserving, canning, freezing, and
rendering of fishery products. The characteristics of the
industry have been influenced by changing market demands and
fluctuating raw product availability. The total value of
fishery products processed in 1972 from both domestic and
imported raw materials was a record $2.3 billion, 23 percent
above the previous record reached in 1971 (Table 5). In
addition to the value of these processed products, the total
supply of fishery products increased in 1972, largely due to
greater imports (Figure 1 and Table 6). The per capita U.S.
consumption of fish and shellfish in 1972 was 5.5 kg (12.2
Ibs) totaling 1.14 million kkg (1.25 million tons), up seven
percent from 1971 ( . 1973a) .
The seafood industry considered in this study was organized
into three general segments: industrial fishes, finfishes,
and shellfishes. General background material such as:
species involved, volumes, values and locations of landings,
and methods of harvesting and handling are discussed in this
section. A more detailed discussion of specific processes
and wastes generated will be found in Sections IV and V,
which deal with industry categorization and waste
characterization, respectively.
Monitoring of individual processors included four months of
intensive study of the major seafood processing and fish
rendering centers in the contiguous United States and
Alaska. The general sampling locations are identified in
Figures 2 and 3. Selection of representative plants was
based on several factors, including: size, age, level of
technology, and geographic location. For the purpose of
organizing the sampling effort, the country was divided into
seven regions: Alaska, Northwest, Great Lakes, New England,
Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf, and California.
Maps of each region, excluding the Great Lakes, showing the
location of the plants monitored during this study and the
types of fish or shellfish commodities sampled are in
Figures 3 through 8. The Great Lakes region was not sampled
because of a lack of fish processing activity.
16
-------
Table 4. Disposition of landings,
1971 and 1972 ( . 1973a).
Product
Fresh and Frozen:
Human food
Bait and animal food
Canned:
Human food
Bait and animal food
Cured:
Reduced to meal, oil,
solubles , etc . :
TOTALS
Average
Lbs x 10b
1420
92
862
126
74
2266
4840
Average
Percent
29.3
1.9
17.8
2.6
1.6
46.8
100.0
-------
Table 5. Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (
. 1973a).
00
Item
Edible fishery products:
Finf ish
Shellfish
Industrial fishery pro-
ducts :
Finfish
Shellfish
Total:
Finfish
Shellfish
Domestic
1971
257
338
44
4
301
34?
landings
1972
278
380
40
6
318
386
Imports
1971
Million
483
404
187
N.A.
670
404
1972
dollars
498
735
261
N.A.
759
735
Total
1971
740
742
231
4
971
746
1972
776
1115
301
6
1077
1121
Total
643
704
1074
1494
1717
2198
-------
Table 6. Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (
1973a).
Item
Edible fishery products:
Finfish
Shellfish
Industrial fishery pro-
ducts :
Finfish
Shellfish
Total:
Finfish
Shellfish
Domestic
1971
1509
891
2545
24
4054
915
landings
1972
Million
1432
878
2383
17
3815
895
Imports
1971
pounds ,
2967
615
3204
N.A.
6171
615
1972
round
3751
703
4589
N.A.
8340
703
Total
1971
weight
4476
1506
5749
24
10,225 12
1530
1972
5183
1581
6972
17
,155
1598
Total
4969
4710
6786
9043
11,755
13,753
-------
ro
o
16
cn
Q
2
ID
O
O
H
H
CQ
8
0
DOMESTIC CATCH
I960
1964
1968
1972
Figure 1. Total U.S. supply of fishery products, 1960-1972
. 1973a)
-------
r\j
I SALMON
2 BOTTOM FISH
3 RETAIL PACKAGING
4 OYSTERS
5 ANCHOVY REDUCTION
6 FROZEN ANCHOVY
7 ABALONE
8 SEA URCHIN
9 JACK MACKEREL
10 SPINY LOBSTER
II MENHADEN
12 FIN FISH
13 CROAKERFISH CAKES
14 PICKLED HERRING
15 CLAMS
16 SEA HERRING
17 AMERICAN LOBSTER
18. WHITING
19 SARDINE
Figure 2. Locations and commodities sampled in the contiguous United States
-------
PETERSBURG
I. SALMON
2. SCALLOPS
3. HALIBUT
4. HERRING
Figure 3. Alaska region locations and commodities sampled,
22
-------
o
Z!
o
o
o
m
I. BOTTOM FISH
2. SALMON
3. RETAIL PACKAGING
4. OYSTERS
Ficrure 4. Northwest region locations and commodities sampled.
23
-------
BOSTON
MASSACHUSETTS
I.BOTTOM FISH
2. SEA HERRING
3. LOBSTER
4. MENHADEN
5. WHITING
6.SARDINE
Fiqure 5. New England region locations and commodities sampled,
24
-------
I CLAMS
2 OYSTERS
3.MENHADEN
4. PICKLED HERRING
5 FINFISH
NORFOLK
Figure 6. Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities sampled,
25
-------
I. FINFISH
2.CROAKER FISH CAKES
3. MENHADEN
Figure 1. Gulf region locations and commodities sampled,
26
-------
I. SPINY LOBSTER
2. ABALONE
3. ANCHOVY REDUCTION
4. SEA URCHIN
5.JACK MACKEREL
6. BOTTOM FISH
7. FROZEN ANCHOVY
TERMINAL
3,57J\ISLAND
Figure 8. California region locations and commodities sampled,
27
-------
INDUSTRIAL FISHES
Industrial fishery products include such commodities as fish
meal, concentrated protein solubles, oils, and also
miscellaneous products including liquid fertilizer, fish
feed pellets, kelp products, shell novelties and pearl
essence.
Only that portion of this industry, the reduction of anchovy
and menhaden, involving rendering fish to meal, oil and
solubles was specifically studied. The use of herring for
meal is declining because of the decline of the resource and
because of its greater utilization for direct human
consumption. The use of alewives for meal has been
declining in recent years; however, the utilization of this
species may increase as demand increases and the world
supply of fish meal decreases. Table 7 shows the volume and
value of the meal, oil, and solubles products for the last
ten years. The value for 1973 is expected to have increased
dramatically due to the current fish meal shortage.
With respect to the rendering of fish to meal, solubles, and
oils, the two most common species harvested for this purpose
are the Atlantic menhaden and the Pacific anchovy. These
fishes and the attendant reduction industry were considered
to be important from a pollution impact viewpoint and were
studied relatively thoroughly.
Menhaden
Menhaden are small oily fish belonging to the herring
family, Clupeidae, and members of the genus Brevoortia. Of
this genus only two species are important to the menhaden
fishery. On the Atlantic Coast B. tyrannus dominates, while
on the Gulf Coast B. pa-bronug is more important. The fish
are generally 12 inches in length and weigh less than a
pound. They are found migrating in schools of 50,000 to
200,000 along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
Menhaden utilization in the United States preceeded the
landing of the pilgrims. The East Coast Indians planted
corn along with a fish called munnawhatteaug (menhaden) as a
fertilizer. They passed this technique on to the early
settlers. The early 1800«s saw the organization of a number
of small companies to supply manhaden for fertilizer. In
the 1850's the first largescale reduction plants appeared on
the New England Coast, and since then the fishery has grown
to a multi-million dollar industry. Landings totaled
863,000 kkg (1.94 billion Ibs) for 1972, comprising 41
percent of the total U.S. landings for that year. Fifty-
28
-------
seven percent of the landings were from the Gulf of Mexico
with the balance from the Atlantic Coast ( . 1973a).
Landing statistics from 1950 to 1956 show that catches from
the Atlantic increased from 318,000 kkg (0.700 billion Ibs)
to 699,000 kkg (1.54 billion Ibs), comprising 73 percent of
the catch in 1956, and since then have shown a general
decline. The Gulf fishery, on the other hand, has been
increasing, and first exceeded the Atlantic in 1963, when
440,000 kkg (0.968 billion Ibs) were landed. The Gulf
fisheries have held their lead over the Atlantic
consistently since 1963 (Figure 9) ( . 1973a).
Both Atlantic and Gulf menhaden are caught with purse seine
nets, the principal gear utilized by the industry since
1850. The menhaden seine is 400 to 600 m (1312 to 1969 ft)
long, 25 to 30 m (82 to 98 ft) deep with 3 to 6 cm (1.2 to
2.4 in.) mesh. A typical operation consists of two smaller
seine boats which accompany a carrier vessel 20 to 60 m (197
ft) in length and which has a hold capacity ranging from 45
to 544 kkg (50 to 600 tons). Fishing generally takes place
during the day within 60 km (37 mi) of the reduction plant.
A small plane is used to spot concentrations of fish and
direct the carrier boats to them. At the fishing site a
suitable school of menhaden is selected and the seine boats
dispatched. The boats separate at the school and each plays
out its half of the net until the fish are enclosed. The
net is then joined and its perimeter reduced to concentrate
the fish. The carrier vessel comes alongside the net and
pumps the catch aboard. The catch is generally delivered to
the reduction plant within one day of landing. The holds of
some vessels are refrigerated, allowing the carrier to
remain at sea for longer periods.
The fishing season in the Atlantic runs from April to De-
cember. Table 8 lists the typical seasons for the North,
Middle and South Atlantic.
The fishing season on the Gulf Coast runs from May to
October with peak months in July and August (Stansby and
Dassow, 1963).
Ninety-nine percent of the menhaden landed in the U.S. are
reduced for fish meal, oil, and fish solubles. The fish
meal is primarily utilized as a protein supplement in animal
feeds. That oil which is exported is used in shortening and
margarine, domestically it is used in protective coatings,
lubricants, medicinals, cosmetics and some soaps. A limited
market exists for fish solubles as a liquid fertilizer.
29
-------
Table 7. Production of industrial
fishery products, 1962-1972 ( . 1973a).
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Fish
Meal
tons
312,259
255,907
235,252
254,051
223,821
211,189
235,136
252,664
269,197
292,812
285,486
Quantity
Fish
Solubles
tons
124,649
107,402
93,296
94,840
83,441
74,675
71,833
81,692
94,968
111,188
134,404
Marine
Animal
Oil
thousand
pounds
250,075
185,827
180,198
195,440
164,045
122,398
174,072
169,785
206,084
265,450
188,445
Value
Fish Meal,
Oil, and
Solubles
thousand
dollars
53,210
47,842
46,998
56,498
49,916
36,738
41,294
53,272
69,485
70,377
67,371
Table 8. Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons.
Area
Earliest Date
Peak Months
Latest Date
North
Middle
South
May 25
May 16
March 23
July-August
July-September
June
October 20
November 19
December
30
-------
1000 --
800 --
200 --
TOTAL LANDINGS
ATLANTIC LANDINGS
— GULF LANDINGS
\
'960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
1967 1968 1969 1970
—I
1971
Figure 9. Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 ( . 1973a)
-------
They are also combined with fish meal for use as animal
feed.
Meal, oil, and solubles are extracted from the fish via a
wet reduction process. This process consists of cooking the
fish with live steam at about 240°F. The cooked fish are
then pressed, separating the fish into press cake (solids)
and press liquor (liquid). The press cake is dryed, ground,
and sold as fish meal. The press liquor is clarified and
the oil is separated. The oil is then further refined,
stored and shipped. The de-oiled press liquor, known as
stickwater, is usually evaporated to about 50 percent solids
and sold as fish solubles.
Anchovy
The northern anchovy (Enqraulis mordax) is a small pelagic
fish, averaging six inches in length at maturity, which is
found in large schools off the west coast of North America.
Feeding on plankton as well as small fish, the anchovy is a
direct competitor with the Pacific sardine throughout its
range (Frey, 1971). Coincident with the failure of the sar-
dine fishery, the anchovy fishery has exhibited a dramatic
increase in the last 15 years, as shown in Figure 10.
During the summer and fall large schools of anchovy, which
remain in deeper water during the daylight hours, disperse
to the surface in the evening and re-form into dense schools
until dawn when they again submerge. This behavior pattern
allows the use of purse seines in the early morning. The
harvesting methods are much like those used for menhaden and
the catch is usually delivered to the processor on the same
day it is harvested.
The anchovy is utilized for canning, reduction and live
bait; sportsmen use more than 4500 kkg (5000 tons) yearly as
bait. Because of economic conditions and (presumably) low
consumer acceptance of the canned product, landings declined
to 17,600 kkg (19,400 tons) in 1957 and 4720 kkg (5200 tons)
in 1958 (Frey, 1971). Landings did not again exceed 4500
kkg (5000 tons) until 1966 when, for the first time in over
40 years, anchovy were fished mainly for reduction purposes
(Messersmith, 1969). The major portion of the anchovy
harvest is now utilized by the reduction industry. The
season quota for the industry is currently 104,000 kkg
(115,000 tons) ( . 1973a).
The total adult biomass of anchovy has been estimated to be
4.1 to 5.1 million kkg (4.5 to 5.6 million tons), 50 percent
32
-------
ANCHOVIES
PACIFIC SARDINES
-100
-95
-90
-85
-60
-75
r
-65
2 -60
CO g
oo 5
z-55
fj
fUo
£
fe-45
Z
O
-J -40
£
-35
- 30
- 35
-20
•
-(0
- 5
0
-I.5OO
- ,4OO
- ,300
- 200
-MOO
Z -),OOO
Q
tt
v>
0 -900
U.
§
tf))800
o
z
o
o
z
3 -600
5
hsoo
-400
-300
-.00
- 100
/
°L
1915
f,
/\
1 \
\
1 \
; \
/
/\ '
/
PACIFIC SARDINES /
f' ' /
\/
_. ANCHOVIES
I92O 1925 1930
1940 1945
Figure 10. California landings of Pacific sardines and anchovies (Frey, 1971)
-------
of which resides off California (Messersmith, 1969). The
1972 harvest of anchovy was 67,678 kkg (74,535 tons), up 41
percent from 1971 ( . 1973a). Preliminary figures
indicate the catch for 1973 was higher than previous years
( . 1973a) .
Once caught, the anchovy are stored in the boat holds, until
they are pumped directly into the plant. Reduction of
anchovy to fish meal, oil and solids is essentially the same
process as that employed using menhaden.
FINFISH
The term "finfish" is used in this section to refer to those
fishes (excluding shellfishes) which are processed for human
consumption. Included are pelagic species such as salmon,
herring, ocean perch, mackerel, etc.; and benthic species
such as halibut, flounder, cod, sole, etc. Finfish landings
in 1972 totaled 650 million kg (1432 million Ibs), which
represented about 30 percent of the total landings for that
year ( . 1973a) .
As changes in species availability, consumer demand, and
food technology occur, the quantities of various types of
fishes harvested and the methods of processing vary
considerably. Over the years the industry has shifted
emphasis from salting, drying, smoking, and pickling to
freezing and canning as methods of preservation. In most
cases the fish are prepared by evisceration, then reduction
to fillets or sections, and subsequently application of
preservation technology. Each of the various finfish
processing industries considered during this study are
introduced below; a more detailed process description for
each appears in Section IV.
Salmon
One of the most important finfish processing segments
covered was the preservation of salmon by canning and
freezing.
The first salmon cannery was located on the Sacramento River
in California and produced 2000 cases in 1864. Soon
canneries appeared along most major river systems of the
West Coast. Local regulation of the fishery began in 1866.
However, growing urbanization and resultant pressure on the
salmon spawning runs has significantly reduced the number of
34
-------
plants along the West Coast. The largest segment of the
fishery is now centered in Alaska.
Five species of Pacific salmon are harvested in Alaska,
Oregon and Washington. This harvest comprised 8.4 percent
of the total United States landings and 16.1 percent of the
relative value in 1972 ( . 1973a). Eighty-six percent
of the salmon harvested in 1972 were caught in Alaska and
were processed by 43 plants. Figure 11 shows the Alaska
salmon catch by species for the past 15 years. Most of the
remaining 14 percent of the salmon harvest was landed in
Oregon and Washington, and processed by 20 plants. The 1972
Pacific salmon pack of 98,400 kkg (217 million Ibs), down
43,300 kkg (95.4 million Ibs) from 1971, was one of the
poorest years on record. The 1973 season in Alaska was less
productive than the 1972 season; the 1973 Puget Sound season
was also unimpressive.
Processing plants in Alaska are typically located in
isolated areas or in small towns. Centers of production in
Alaska include Dillingham, Naknek, Chignik, Kodiak, Seward,
Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan. Most salmon processing
in Washington takes place in the Puget Sound area, and, in
Oregon, around the mouth of the Columbia River.
The salmon are most often frozen and canned; relatively few
are sold on the fresh market. There recently has been a
trend toward an increase in the volume of frozen salmon and
a decrease in canned salmon. The 1972 canned salmon pack is
described by area and species in Table 9.
Because of short seasons (Table 10) and the large numbers of
fish to be processed, the plants in Alaska are typically
larger and operate longer hours than plants in Washington
and Oregon. Season peaks in Oregon and Washington are not
as well defined as those in Alaska; good fishing is
available for longer periods of time. Alaska salmon canning
plants were observed to contain as many as five lines
(individual canning lines) and process "around the clock" if
enough fish were being caught. The freezing operations were
also often observed to be processing 24 hours per day in
Alaska.
Severe winters, foreign fishing pressure and "off" years
have greatly reduced the recent Bristol Bay red, (also
called sockeye or blue back) salmon (Oncgrhynchus nerka)
runs. These fish populations typically fluctuate on a five-
year cycle. The largest portion of the 1970 red salmon
catch was harvested in Bristol Bay with the main center of
processing located at Naknek. The red salmon average 2.3 kg
35
-------
ANNUAL CATCH IN POUNDS X 10
H-
•3
C
n
(D
0)
W
tn
3
O
3
0)
3
a
H-
3
03
tn
cr
*<
C/J
T3
ft)
O
H-
fD
Ul
U)
;* O ^
HI
06
-------
Table 9. 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values (
. 1973a).
00
Alaska Washington
Cases Value ($) Cases Value ($)
Species x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
Red or 519.9 35,013 107.6 7,894
sockeye
Pink 610.8 28,008 12.8 580
Chum 473 18,761 52.8 2,113
Silver 50.4 2,566 9.5 944
or coho
King or 13.2 652 7.6 393
chinook &
steelhead*
TOTAL 1,667.3 85,000 190.3 11,924
Oregon
Cases Value ($)
x 1000 x 1000
4.7 351
•
0.4 38
1.0 42
7.3 274
21.1 1,229
34.5 1,934
* Note that the steelhead is not truly a salmon; rather it is an anadramous rainbow trout
-------
CO
oo
SALMOf
HALIBIT
M
PINK
SOCKEYE
CHUM
COHO
KING
r
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
i~<
JUNE
**<
>****<
JULY
!**<
>+*!
*****
>****<
AUG
"H
1*^
i*^
*****
>****<
SEPT
^**j
^**1
^****<
OCT
NOV
DEC
Table 10. Processing season peaks for Alaska salmon and halibut ( . 1972a)
1973b)
-------
to 3.2 kg (five to seven Ibs) at maturity. The last "peak"
year occurred in 1970, when over 68,100 kkg (150 million
Ibs) were harvested. Only 22,200 kkg (49 million Ibs) were
harvested in the U.S. in 1972. In addition to Bristol Bay,
other areas with good sockeye runs are Chignik, Copper
River, Fraser River (British Columbia) and the rivers
flowing into Puget Sound. The red salmon cycle in the
Fraser River is typically a four year cycle. Many Fraser
River fish are harvested by U.S. fishermen before entering
Canadian territorial waters.
Pink, or humpbacked salmon (CK gorbuscha) range from
Northern California to the Bering Sea, but most are
harvested in Central and Southeastern Alaska and Puget
Sound. These salmon peak typically on a two-year cycle,
with large runs occurring in even-numbered years. However,
some areas may have runs of equal sizes in successive years.
In 1972, 22,200 kkg (48.8 million Ibs) of this species were
harvested. Each fish at maturity weighs 1.4 kg to 2.3 kg
(three to five Ibs).
Caught incidentally along with the red and pink salmon, over
18,600 kkg (41 million Ibs) of chum, or dog salmon (O. keta)
were harvested in 1972. This fish, like the pink salmon,
ranges from Northern California to the Bering Sea. Special
late seasons for gill netting the dog salmon are held in
Alaska. Their average weight is 2.7 kg to 3.6 kg (six to
eight Ibs). Coho, or silver salmon ((X kisutch) and the
king, or Chinook salmon (Oj,. tschawytscha) are caught mainly
in Southeastern Alaska and along the Oregon and Washington
coasts. A well-known king salmon run also occurs at
Dillingham in Bristol Bay. The coho salmon caught in 1972
totaled 2400 kkg (5,. 3 million Ibs) and the kings harvested
weighed 1500 kkg (3.2 million Ibs). King salmon average 5.4
kg to 11.4 kg (12 to 25 Ibs), while coho salmon range from
2.7 to 4.1 kg (six to nine Ibs) at maturity.
Regulation of the salmon fishery is accomplished by
employing quotas (limiting the catch) and limitations on
vessel and equipment size and efficiency. Seasons in
Bristol Bay are generally set on a day-to-day basis with
closures in peak years occurring when the daily capacity of
the canneries is reached. In "off" years, closures are
enforced when escapement is not adequate to sustain the
population. Central and Southeastern Alaska seasons are set
on a weekly basis. The Puget Sound red salmon fishery is
regulated by a bilateral commission involving the United
States and Canada, since many of the fish come from the
Fraser River in British Columbia. Seasons are set to
39
-------
provide proper escapement levels in the other areas of
Oregon and Washington, too.
Salmon are harvested primarily by three different methods:
trolling, purse seining and gill netting. Trolling involves
four to eight weighted lines fished at various depths. One
or two men handle the relatively small boats. Both
artificial lures and natural bait are used. Troll harvested
fish are dressed and iced as soon as they are caught,
allowing a boat to be at sea seven to ten days at a time.
Salmon caught in this manner are usually frozen, but may be
canned. High prices are paid for fish caught in this
manner, making trolling economically attractive. Coho and
king salmon are most often caught by the trolling method.
The purse seine is a very effective harvesting method when
fish can be found congregated or schooled. The net is laid
in a circle with one end attached to the power skiff. Once
the circle is closed, the net is pursed at the bottom to
prevent fish from escaping. The net is retrieved by passing
it through a power block. Once the salmon are in a
sufficiently small area, they are bailed onto the boat.
This type of net is used effectively in Central and
Southeastern Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area.
The last method, gill netting, can be fished from boats
(drift gill netting) or from shore (set gill netting). Both
types catch the fish by entanglement; nets are usually set
across migration routes. The nets are periodically "picked"
so the fish can be taken to the processing plant. This
method is used primarily in Bristol Bay.
A limited number of fish are also taken by Indians using
traps and fish wheels. These harvesting methods are illegal
for all but native fishermen.
Larger vessels, called tenders, usually bring the salmon
from the fishing grounds to the processing plant. Fishing
boats coming into the plant because of breakdowns and supply
shortages also deliver fish to the plant. It is more common
for trollers to deliver directly to the plant than seiners
and gill netters. Tenders using chilled brine can store the
fish up to four days without freezing. Dry tenders, which
are rapidly becoming obsolete, must return to the processing
plants daily. A few tenders ice (their fish.
The salmon are unloaded from the vessels by means of either
air/vacuum, elevator, or bucket systems, conveyed into the
plant and sorted by species into holding bins. Salmon to be
canned are usually put through a butchering machine which
40
-------
removes the head, tail, fins, and viscera; manual butchering
is still practiced in some plants. The cleaned salmon are
inspected and conveyed to filling machines equipped with
gang knives which cut the salmon into appropriate sized
sections designed to fit the various sized cans. The filled
cans, which may be handpacked in some plants, are then
seamed and retorted. Other products, such as eggs and milt,
are retained for human consumption; heads, fins, and viscera
are either discharged or rendered into oil and meal.
Salmon to be frozen are beheaded and manually eviscerated
before a final cleaning in a rinse tank. Troll-caught fish
are cleaned at sea and need only beheading and rinsing. The
fish are then quick-frozen in blast or plate freezers at
approximately -34°C (-29°F). After glazing (covering of the
fish with ice or a polymer solution), which protects them
from dehydration, the fish are stored until export. Most
frozen salmon are exported to Japan and Europe.
Bottom Fish
"Bottom fish," for the purpose of this report, refers to
several species of Atlantic, Gulf, or Pacific food fishes.
The types of fish included vary according to the geographic
area and the harvesting method employed. Also, depending on
the locality, different generic names are applied to these
kinds of fishes. The term "bottom fish" is used primarily
on the West Coast. The term "finfish" usually refers to
those species of fish which are caught together, are
predominantly pelagic varieties, and are primarily handled
by plants located in the Middle, Southern Atlantic and Gulf
Coast regions. "Ground fish" refers to varieties of fish
that inhabit the North Atlantic region.
Bottom fish are ordinarily limited to the continental shelf,
living on or near the ocean bottom. On the East Coast the
shelf may extend (in places), over 200 miles, while the West
Coast is characterized by a narrower shelf extending about
ten miles. These continental shelves provide a rich
environment for the proliferation of this fishery resource.
United States landings of classified species of bottom fish
were 238,000 kkg (525 million Ibs) in 1972, which represents
35 percent of the total landings of edible finfish for that
year.
Individual plants may utilize both mechanical and
conventional means to prepare fish portions or whole fish
for market. The majority of the fish is frozen while the
remainder is marketed fresh.
41
-------
With respect to the bottom fish found off the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts, more than 40 different species are harvested.
Table 11 lists the species which constitute the majority of
the landings.
The fishing season is open all year, with the peak occurring
during the summer months. Because of the infringement of
foreign fishing vessels, the ground fish industry in the
North Atlantic is decreasing in size. However, recent
legislative action has been aimed at re-defining the limits
of these rich fishing grounds, and hopefully will result in
an equitable distribution of the catch among the various
countries.
The Pacific Coast bottom fishery appears to be a relatively
stable industry at present. The current limits on the
growth of the industry are determined mainly by fishing
conditions and market demand. The peak season usually
occurs during the summer months; however, for most species,
the season is continuous. Table 12 lists average landings
of the major Pacific bottom fish species. Market demand is
affected by consumer preference, special seasons, and labor
availability. Future expansion of the industry will
probably be dependent on an increased demand for such
products as fish protein concentrate or fish flesh.
Ground fish in the North Atlantic and bottom fish on the
Northwest Coast are harvested primarily by large trawlers.
A trawler is a boat equipped with a submersible net, termed
an otter trawl, which is dragged behind the boat at various
depths depending on the types of fish pursued. The mouth of
the net is kept open by a cork line on top, a lead line on
the bottom, and "doors" (metal or wood planning surfaces) on
the sides. The fish are swept into the mouth of the net and
accumulate in the heavily reinforced rear portion, the cod
end.
The smaller "finfish" fishery on the south Atlantic Coast
and Gulf Coast is harvested by various methods, depending on
locality. The otter trawl is the major method used in the
Gulf. Haul netting and pound netting are two methods
regularly used along the mid-Atlantic Coast; the third
method is gill netting. Haul netting is a. form of beach
seining in which a long net is anchored to the shore, pulled
out to sea, then circled around and brought back into the
beach. The area impounded by the net is then shrunk by
pulling the net onto the beach, and the trapped fish are
collected. The second method, "pound netting," involves
stringing a net perpendicularly to the shore and creating a
circular impoundment at the offshore end of the net. As the
42
-------
Table 11. Major species of Atlantic
and Gulf bottom fish ( . 1973a).
Landings
Species 1967-1971 average (kkg)
Flounder:
yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea) 30,267
blackback (Psuedopleuronectes
americanus) 10,438
other 4673
Ocean perch (Sebastes marinus) 27,545
Whiting (Marluccius bilinearis) 24,646
Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) 23,892
Cod (Gadus morhua) 23,325
Mullet (Musel cephalus) 14,482
Seatrout:
gray (Cynoscion regalis) 2811
other (CynoscTon spp.) 3230
Pollock (Pollachius virens) 4036
Croaker (Micropogon undulatus) 3126
43
-------
Table 12. Major species of
Pacific bottom fish ( . 1973a).
Species
Landings
1967-1971 average (kkg)
Flounders (numerous species)
Rockfishes (numerous Sebastes
species)
Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus)
Hake (Merluccius productus)
Red Snapper (Sebastes rubirrimus)
Cod (Gadus macrocephalus)
20,697
12,047
6194
6030
4811
2560
44
-------
fish swim into the net, they tend to follow it seaward until
they reach the impoundment, in which they are trapped.
Bottom fish processing primarily involves the preparation of
filleted portions for the fresh or frozen market. Whole
fish and fish cakes may also be prepared depending on the
region and kind of fish processed. The fish are delivered
to the docks and, if not previously done on the vessel, are
sorted according to species. Fish to be filleted are passed
through a pre-rinse and transported to the fillet tables
where skilled workers cut away the two fleshy sides. These
portions are then either mechanically or manually skinned
prior to packaging. Whole fish are run through a descaling
machine, or may be descaled by hand, and eviscerated. Most
whole fish go directly to the fresh market.
A relatively new process being accepted within the United
States, utilizes recently-developed flesh separating
machinery to extract flesh from fish. Frozen cakes and
blocks are the end products. Although new, the process
holds much promise because it can attain high yields,
utilize previously ignored fish species, and serve large
markets. The foundation for this process was laid when
Japanese and German inventors created the prototype
machinery for extracting flesh from eviscerated fish without
incorporating bone and skin into the finished product. The
method of operation essentially is a shearing and pressing
action created by a rotating perforated drum bearing against
a slower moving belt that holds the fish tightly against the
drum.
Halibut
Two species of halibut are harvested in the United States.
The Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoqlossus), which is
harvested off the Northeast coast, comprised less than one
percent of the total halibut catch in 1972. The Pacific
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is harvested from Northern
California to Nome, Alaska (Figure 12). Alaska and Wash-
ington accounted for 69 and 31 percent, respectively, of the
West Coast harvest in 1969. Processing plants in Alaska are
typically located in small towns such as Sand Point, Kodiak,
Seward, Juneau, Pelican, Sitka, Petersburg and Ketchikan.
The centers of production in Washington are Bellingham and
Seattle.
The halibut fishery was first conducted over the entire
year, with most of the catch occurring between March and
October. season closures and catch limits were instituted
-------
en
165° 180° 165° 150° 135°
North Pacific Ocean
-I--I—
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PACIFIC HALIBUT
MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS
2
-------
in the early 1930's when the stocks became severely
depleted. The Pacific halibut fishery is now regulated by
the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) to which
the United States, Canada, and Japan belong. It is the IPHC
that does most research on and regulation of the fishery.
The harvest of the halibut in the United States has been
dropping in recent years (Figure 13) and the 1974 halibut
quota may be less than 30 million pounds for both the United
States and Canada combined (Phillips, 1973). IPHC figures
estimate the 1970 annual loss to Canadian and American
fishermen at 3400 kkg (7.5 million Ibs). Japan and Russia
harvested most of their halibut while trawling for ocean
perch and shrimp. As a member of the Commission, Japan is
supposed to return the caught halibut to the ocean, but
survival of these fish is poor ( . 1973b).
Halibut fishing is effected with "longlines," which are com-
posed of numerous smaller units, called "skates," that are
approximately 457 m (1500 ft) long. Hooks and smaller lines
called "beckets" are attached to the skate at intervals
ranging between 4.0 m (13 ft) to 7.9 m (26 ft). The hooks
are baited with a variety of fish including salmon heads and
tails, herring, and octopus. The longlines (sometimes
several miles in length) are usually fished at depths of 82
m (270 ft) to 274 m (900 ft) from four to 30 hours. Anchors
are used to keep the longlines in place and flags are used
to mark the ends of the lines.
Once the halibut are brought on board the boat, they are
immediately butchered and iced. Some halibut are beheaded,
others are not. Depending on vessel size, 4.5 kkg (5 tons)
to 36.3 kkg (40 tons) of crushed or powdered ice is used on
each trip. The average length of a trip in Southeastern
Alaska is 13 days, whereas 20 to 25 days is common in the
Alaskan Gulf (Bell and St. Pierre, 1970).
After delivery to the processing plant the halibut may be
either frozen whole or reduced to skinned, boneless meat
sections known as "fletches." Upon receipt at the docks,
the fish are beheaded, if they haven't been previously, the
coelom flushed of ice, and then the fish are graded
according to size. Depending on the plant, fish to be
frozen whole are washed either manually or mechanically and
transferred to freezing tunnels which quick freeze the fish
at -45°C (-49°F). Further processing of the halibut into
portions then takes place after shipment to a retail
packaging firm. Processors that "fletch" the halibut grade
them into lots of under 27 kg (60 Ibs) and over 27 kg (60
Ibs); the fish under 27 kg are frozen whole as previously
mentioned. Those fish greater than 27 kg are butchered to
46
-------
ANNUAL US WEST COAST LANDINGS ( X I06 pounds)
0>
M
Ul
C
cn
cn
O
Hi
0)
i— '
p-
tr
-J
NJ
cr
-------
remove four fletches. These sections are then trimmed,
washed, and quick frozen. Larger trimmings are marketed to
be smoked, breaded, etc., and the large fletches are usually
distributed to institutional outlets from which steaks are
then cut.
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus) are one of the
most abundant food fishes in the North Atlantic, especially
in the Gulf of Maine. The Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pollasi) fishery has never been large and has been steadily
declining since 1952. The same is true of the Pacific
sardine (Sardinops caeruleus), which has been on the decline
since 1948; commercial landings ceased after 1949 in British
Columbia, Washington and Oregon (Frey, 1971). A law was
passed by the California legislature in 1967 establishing a
moratorium on the taking of sardines in California waters.
No Pacific sardines have been canned since 1968 ( .
1973a) .
The canning of small, immature fish as sardines is the most
important use of Atlantic herring. The use of herring for
reduction to fish meal has declined as the resource declined
and as the value for direct human food increased. The
filleting of both the Atlantic and Pacific herring is a
small but expanding industry. Landings of sea herring in
1972 totaled 46,300 kkg (102 million Ibs), up 17 percent
from 1971 ( . 1973a). The North Atlantic harvest
comprised 85 percent of the 1972 total; Maine supplied well
over half the sardines consumed in the United States.
Sardines
The first United States commercial sardine canning operation
was established at Eastport, Maine in 1871 and the industry
has remained centered in that state. During the 1950*8, the
number of canneries averaged about 45; however, because of
decreasing fish supplies, foreign competition,
consolidation, and other factors, the number of active
processing operations has decreased to 17 (Reed, 1973).
Most of the plants are relatively old and are built on
piling over the water. Figure 14 shows the U.S. production
of canned sardines for the past 12 years.
Sardines are harvested by three methods: purse seines,
weirs, and stop seines. Stop seines and weirs are used to
trap the fish while they are in a cove at high tide. When
48
-------
617
MILLION POUNDS/YEAR
"3
H-
ifl
c
n
(15
C
cn
ro
n
rt
H-
O
H-
3
-o
o
tn
O
i-ti
o
0)
3
3
(D
&
cn
a,
H-
P
(D
01
CTl
o
I
01
o
01
O
o
CO
a>
o
CD
CD
a>
a>
CD
->i
ro
vo
•>0
U)
fl)
-------
the tide starts to recede the fish try to leave the bight
and become entrapped in the net.
After the fish are caught the scales are removed prior to
storing. The "pearl essence" from the scales is used in the
manufacture of cosmetics, lacquers, and imitation pearls.
The fish themselves are salted down, layer by layer, to pre-
serve them while in the hold. The fish are usually pumped
out of the boat and transferred to refrigerated brine tanks
for storage. They are then flumed or mechanically conveyed
to the cutting tables, where the heads and tails are
removed. Depending on size, four to twenty fish are hand-
packed into the characteristic flat sardine can. The fish
are then precooked in a "steam box" for 30 minutes in the
open cans. The cans are then removed, drained, and oils or
sauces are added, after which they are vacuum sealed. The
sealed cans are retorted to sterilize the product prior to
storage or shipment.
Herring Filleting
Sea herring fillets are produced on both the East and West
Coasts, with the processing centers located in Southeastern
Alaska and in New England. The filleting operation is a
relatively recent development, having been used in New
England for only three years and having started in Alaska
just last year. The market for herring fillets is
expanding; the future of this new utilization method looks
promising.
The fish are harvested and delivered to the processor in the
same manner as described for the sardine canning operation.
They are passed through a machine which first removes the
head, tail, and viscera and then splits the fish into
boneless sections or fillets. The fillets are sorted,
boxed, and frozen for export. During the spawning season,
the roe and milt are also recovered and exported to Japan
and England, respectively.
SHELLFISH
The term "shellfish" in this report applies to those species
of marine animals belonging to the following phyla: 1)
mollusca, such as clams, oysters, abalone, scallops, and
conchs; 2) arthropoda, such as lobsters; and 3)
echinodermata, such as sea urchins. Shellfish processing is
practiced along much of the U.S. coast, with both isolated
and concentrated centers of production. In 1972, 86,000 kkg
(190 million Ibs) of edible shellfish were landed in the
50
-------
U.S., with a value of 380 million dollars ( . 1973a).
Table 13 summarizes the 1972 landings and values for the
most important shellfish species. Statistics on landings
for clams, oysters and scallops are shown in weights of
meats excluding the shell. Landings for lobsters are shown
in round (live) weight.
The harvesting of clams accounts for about two percent of
the volume of the landings in the U.S. seafood industry and
U.8 percent of the total value. The most important types
are the surf, hard, and soft clams.
About 87 percent of the clam harvest occurs in the mid-
Atlantic region, with about 11 percent in New England and 2
percent in other areas. Of the clams harvested in the mid-
Atlantic region, 61 percent are surf, 20 percent hard, and
17 percent soft, with 2 percent being miscellaneous species
( . 1973a).
The surf clam (Spisula solidissinai, also known as bar,
hand, sea, beach, or skimmer clam, is found from the
southern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the northern
shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Commercially harvested clams
are found at depths of from 8 to 58 m (25 to 190 ft). The
clams bury themselves to a depth of about 15 to 20 cm (6 to
8 in.) in a a substrata of gravel, sand, or muddy sand.
Their size varies with geographic location. In the most
productive area, from Long Island to Virginia, the clams
range from 15 to 22 cm (6 to 8-3/4 in.). The marketed clams
average 5 to 6 years in age; natural life spans are about 17
years.
Surf clams are harvested all year, weather permitting, for 8
to 12 hours per day, about 20 miles from shore, using a 1 to
2m (3 to 6 ft) wide steel dredge. A hose pumping about
5700 to 11,000 1 of water per minute (1500 to 3000 gpm)
breaks up the ocean bottom in front of the dredge, enabling
the clams to be loosened and netted. A full dredge yields
from 760 to 910 1 (25 to 30 bu) (Roper, et al., 1969).
The processing of surf clams consists of three basic oper-
ations: shucking, debellying, and packing. The clams are
either mechanically or hand shucked. Hand shucking
operations generally use a hot water cooker before removing
the clam from the shell. Mechanical operations use a steam
cooker or a shucking furnace. The meat is then removed from
the shell by the use of a brine flotation tank. The shells
are stockpiled and utilized in landfills or road
51
-------
Table 13. U.S. landings of shellfish by species (
1973a)
1971
1972
1967-1971
(average)
Species
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
Value ($)
x 1000
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
Value ($)
x 1000
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
en
IX)
Clams:
Hard
Soft
Surf
Other
Oysters
Scallops;
Bay
Calico
Sea
17,216
11,829
52,552
1062
54,585
1455
1566
6264
17,025
6467
6905
143
30,426
2428
783
8829
16,336
8769
63,441
554
52,546
479
1342
6995
18,501
5252
7931
175
33,819
786
843
12,625
16,206
11,680
51,010
1374
56,446
1574
1019
9386
-------
construction or piled to dry for subsequent use as media for
shellfish larvae attachment.
The clams are often debellied manually, although there is a
trend to automate this operation. The viscera and gonads
removed from the surf clam are either dumped directly into
the adjacent receiving waters, or saved for bait or hog
food. There are several final products: fresh pack as
whole clams, canned, and frozen clams.
The several washing operations result in a high volume of
wastewater, especially in the mechanized plants.
Hard Clams
"Hard clam" refers to a quahog or quauhog (Meicenania men-
cenania, Venus meicenania, Cyprina islandica. Arlica
islandica) , butter clam fSaxidgnus nuttali) , and little neck
clam (Papes stamjnea). The hard clam, also known as cherry
stone, chatter, little neck, or round clam, is found from
the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico with a few
Pacific Coast locations; however, the main centers of
industrial activity are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
York, North Carolina, Florida and Washington.
The adult clam is 5 to 10 cm (2-4 in.) long. It is found on
sandy, muddy substrata from the high tide line to depths of
about 18 m (60 ft) and 24 to 46 m (80 to 150 ft) deep, three
to twelve miles off shore. The clam meat has a similar
chemical composition to oyster, but contains more protein
per unit weight. Manual means such as rakes, and oyster
tongs are used inshore, whereas, power operated Nantucket-
type dredges are used offshore. The dredge acts as a multi-
toothed plow, digging through the bottom and scooping the
shellfish into an attached bag.
Ocean quahogs are harvested all year and the clam beds,
unlike inshore areas, remain unmanaged. The clams arrive at
the shucking houses by truck 15 to 30 hours after being
harvested. They are then washed and shucked into metal
colanders, washed, weighed, and packaged. The operation is
very similar to a manual oyster shucking operation. The
hard clams have a longer frozen shelf life than the other
clams; however, a few are sold fresh for use in chowder
(Prier, 1973).
53
-------
Soft Clams
The soft clam (Mya anenonia) is located on the East Coast
from Labrador to North Carolina, with a few locations on the
West Coast. The economically important centers range from
Maine to Massachusetts and the Chesapeake Bay region. It is
a small industry which operates in conjunction with the
oyster and blue crab business. Clams are processed all year
except during bad weather, in parts of the summer when
normal dieoff takes place, and when water quality fails to
meet state regulations.
In New England, where the soft clams are mainly intertidal,
hand forks or hand hoes are the dominant harvesting
techniques. The hydraulic dredge is used in the Chesapeake
Bay area. The dredge utilizes water pressure to disturb the
bottom sediments and a conveyer belt brings the clams from
the 2.5 to 6 meter (8 to 20 ft) depth to the surface, where
the mature clams are sorted out. At the present time, about
21,000 cu m (700,000 bushels) are harvested by 150 liscensed
dredgers per year in the Chesapeake Bay area (Wallace, et
al., 1965).
The number of clam beds is being reduced by a combination of
factors such as pollution from municipal and industrial
wastes, high temperatures, siltation, low salinity and
dredging which has stunted growth and led to high bacterial
counts. The market demand is increasing due to the
increasing use of the surf clam. Recent trends are toward
further processing using breading and for chowders.
The processing of soft clams is very similar to the
processing of hand shucked oysters. The entire clam is
removed from the shell, washed, fresh packed, and shipped
for further processing since they are rarely eaten raw.
Those which are not fresh packed are canned, sold in the
shell, or used for bait by fishing boats. Most plants are
small, employing 8 to 30 shuckers (Prier, 1973).
OYSTERS
The three species of oyster important in the United States
are the American, Eastern, or Virginia oyster fCassostrea
virginica), the Japanese or Pacific oyster (Cassostrea
gigass), and the Olympia or native oyster (Ostrea lurida).
The eastern oyster is found on the east coast of North
America and on the Gulf Coast. In the north it takes four
to five years to reach a marketable size of 10 to 15 cm (U
to 6 in.) and less than one-and-one-half years in the Gulf.
54
-------
Pacific oyster seed originates in Japan and is planted along
the West Coast. The shell is elongated and grows to 30 cm
(12 in.) or longer. The Olympia oyster, native to the
Northwest, rarely exceed six cm (2.75 in.) (Galtsoff, 1964).
Oysters are marketed in the shell, fresh packed, steamed,
smoked, frozen, breaded, and in chowders and stews. A large
amount is utilized by restaurants. The shell is used
commercially as poultry food, in fertilizer, concrete,
cement, Pharmaceuticals, road construction, and as media for
oyster larvae attachment.
Harvesting varies according to the area. On the West Coast,
the oyster seed used is sent from Japan annually and may be
strung on wires which are suspended from wooden racks, which
are then suspended in the water. After a year the wires are
cut, allowing the oysters to continue to grow on the bottom.
In New England, oysters are harvested by large suction
dredges, with most of the beds being privately owned and
managed. In contrast, only antiquated techniques are
allowed by State law in Maryland1s Chesapeake Bay.
Harvesting occurs between September 15 and the end of April
using hand tongs and sail dredging. In Virginia, the season
is from October to March on public grounds and all year on
beds leased from the State. Oysters are harvested using a
boat towing a four foot wide dredge. The dredge acts as a
plow, digging through the bottom and scooping the oysters
into attached bags. In the southern states the oyster flats
are often exposed at low water and hand picking, grabs, and
hooks are most often used, overall, dredges harvest about
63 percent; tongs, about 36 percent; and forks, rakes, and
hand picking, the remainder.
The harvest of oysters in the United States by all methods
totals about 22,000 to 27,000 kkg (50 to 60 million Ibs)
live weight. About 80 percent of the total production is
taken from the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf Coast regions, with
the largest volume landed in the Chesapeake Bay,
particularly in Maryland (Loosenoff, 1965). Figure 15
reviews the history of oyster meat production in the United
States by region.
Aquaculture, using techniques developed by the Japanese, is
being used increasingly to raise production. It has been
found that by "artificially" optimizing conditions more
oysters can be grown per unit area of bottom, the growth
rate can be doubled, they can be grown in areas where the
bottom is unsuitable, the quality of the meat is improved,
and predator loss is reduced. Figure 16 shows a comparison
55
-------
MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MEAT
MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MEAT
cn
CTl
(0
o
rf
fD
i-f
3
CD
o
rt
H-
O
3
tr
H-
O
o --
3--'
O
-------
SONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ J A S 0 N D
Figure 16. Comparison of raft-and bottom-grown oysters (Shaw, 1970;
57
-------
of the growth of raft and bottom grown oysters at one
location in New England. Today, Japan uses aquaculture
nearly exclusively and harvests 21 kkg (23 tons) of meat per
acre per year; the United States averages about 2 tons per
acre per year.
There are several factors which will influence the oyster
industry in the future. The application of scientific tech-
niques must increase to raise production. Due to a shortage
of workers and high labor costs, mechanical shucking devices
must be designed. It may be possible to increase production
by developing hybrids which are faster growing, disease
resistant, better adapted to environmental conditions,
uniform in size and shape, and more prolific. Oysters are
very sensitive to environmental conditions. The number of
acres from which oysters can be harvested has been
decreasing yearly and low cost foreign imports have been
cutting into the American market.
The process for hand shucked oysters is essentially the
same, regardless of species, plant size, or location. On
the West Coast, the oysters are unloaded from the boat at
the plant by hand or conveyor belt and washed by nozzles
suspended above the belt. On the East Coast, more of the
oysters are trucked to the plants. The oysters are then
shucked, washed, and fresh packed in jars or cans.
Oyster canning, in this country, is rapidly becoming uneco-
nomical due to the import of Japanese and Korean products.
Broken oysters are sometimes canned as stew. The oysters
are first cooked with spices and preservatives in large vats
for 30 minutes. The meat is then added to the cans along
with whole milk and butter, sealed and retorted.
The steamed oyster process, which is used in the Middle
Atlantic, is considerably more mechanized than the hand
shucked oyster process. The oysters are first mechanically
shucked to jar the shells far enough apart to allow steam to
enter during the cooking. After steam cooking, the meat is
separated using brine flotation tanks, washed and packed
into cans. The juice from the steaming operation is added
to the can before sealing. A small number of oysters are
also smoked. The shucked oyster is smoked with apple wood
or other hardwood species. The meat is then placed in a
glass or tin with a small amount of vegetable oil and
sealed.
58
-------
Scallops
Four species of scallops are economically significant in the
United States: bay scallops fAequipecten irradians), calico
scallops (Pecten gjbbus)/ sea scallops fPlacgpecten
magelanicus), and Alaskan scallops (Platinopecten carinus).
In this report, sea and Alaskan scallops will be treated
collectively as sea scallops. The total scallop harvest in
the United States has been steadily declining, with the 1972
landings being 21 percent lower than the five year average.
Table 14 shows the scallop landings by species for the last
10 years.
Of the three species of scallops harvested in the United
States, sea scallops comprise the majority of the landings,
constituting an average of 78 percent of the total catch for
the 1968-1972 period. Bay scallop landings averaged 13
percent of the total for the five year period. Calico
scallops, a relatively new resource, comprised the remaining
9 percent of the average catch from 1968-1972. The calico
scallop fishery is centered in the Cape Canaveral area of
Florida and in North Carolina. Estimates for the future
indicate that all species are being harvested below the
level of maximum sustainable yield, but calico scallops are
virtually untapped as a resource.
The 1972 harvest of calico scallops was less than one
percent of the estimate of the maximum sustainable yield.
The calico scallop is very temperature sensitive, which
causes great fluctuations in the harvest. The 1973 market
was poor due to low temperatures, with only about 1200 kg
(2600 Ibs) of meat obtained; however, January, 1974 was
reported to be a very good month (Johnson, 1974).
Scallop harvesting is usually accomplished by scraping the
bottom with iron dredges of varying design. Sea scallops
and calico scallops are usually found on sandy or rocky
bottoms at depths up to 270 m (150 fathoms). Most dredging
is conducted 12 or more miles from the coast. Sea scallops
are commercially harvested along the Atlantic Cost from
Maine to Virginia, with the larger Alaskan species currently
being harvested only in the Gulf of Alaska. Calico scallops
inhabit warmer waters, and are commercially harvested from
North Carolina to the east coast of Florida. Bay scallops
reside in eel grass on sandy or muddy flats of bays and
estuaries along the Atlantic Coast from Massachusetts to
Florida. Harvesting is accomplished either with dredges or
with dip nets and rakes, and the scale of operation is much
smaller than that of sea scallops.
59
-------
Table 14. Scallop landings by
species, 1963-1972 ( . 1973a).
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Bay
1517
1887
1859
1780
1097
1491
2114
1700
1455
479
U.S. Landings
Calico
___
—
872
1857
1410
89
199
1833
1566
1342
x 1000
Sea
19,939
16,914
20,070
15,975
10,243
13,818
9312
7304
6264
6995
Ibs
Total
21,456
18,801
22,801
19,612
12,750
15,398
11,625
10,837
9285
8816
Imports
x 1000 Ibs
13,397
16,175
16,495
16,712
13,461
14,581
14,322
16,830
17,387
20,820
60
-------
Processing is similar for the sea and bay scallops. To
avoid degredation scallops are hand shucked immediately
after landing on the vessel. The shell closing muscle is
removed and placed in muslin bags which are held on ice for
shipment to the processing plant, and the remainder of the
organism is discarded overboard. The processing of sea and
bay scallops involves only a washing and freezing operation;
hence, the effluent has a small waste load. The calico
scallop process involves a heating operation which opens the
shell to facilitate the shucking and evisceration.
Aba j, one
Eight species of abalone are found off the West Coast of the
United States, four of which comprise the bulk of the
commercial catch. These are the red, pink, white, and green
varieties: Haljotus rufescens, H. corruqata, H. sorenseni,
and H. fulgens, respectively. The abalone range extends
from Sitka, Alaska through Baja, California; however, the
commercially important species are concentrated in the
California area from Monterey to San Diego.
Abalone are relatively large gastropods which are found from
the intertidal zone out to deep water. The shells of the
harvested animals range from about 10 to 25 cm (U to 10
in.). Abalone feed almost exclusively on macroalgae and
thus, are concentrated in and around areas where large
amounts of these algae flourish. Although utilized by the
Indians for thousands of years, abalone were not
commercially collected until the early 1850's. Rapid
depletion of the resource soon prompted the passing of a law
in 1900 making it unlawful to fish commercially for abalone
except in deep water. Figure 17 summarizes the history of
abalone landings in California.
Restricted to deeper water, various diving methods have
evolved from early Japanese "sake barrel" diving, to the
hard hat method, and to the present use of light-weight
gear. However, California commercial fish laws still
require the diver to be supplied by a surface air source,
thereby excluding scuba gear from all except the sport
fishery. Divers operating in 8 to 24 m (25 to 80 ft) of
water measure their catch, then pry the abalone off the
medium and collect it in a mesh basket which is hauled
aboard the boat by the surface tender. The tender boat,
which may serve one or more divers, then transports the
catch to a receiving area from which it is trucked to the
various processing plants.
61
-------
en
rx>
Figure 17. California abalone landings (Frey, 1969).
-------
At the processer the abalone are shucked; then the large
foot muscle is cleared of viscera and washed. The outer
sheath of the muscle is trimmed off, the head portion
removed, and it is then sliced into several steaks. The
steaks are pounded to tenderize them before packaging and
freezing. The usual product form is either fresh or frozen
steaks which may or may not be breaded at the plant.
63
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The objective of categorization is to organize the industry
into segments whose uniqueness and internal homogeneity
suggest the consideration of separate effluent guidelines.
The initial categorization of the fish meal, salmon, bottom
fish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and abalone
segment of the seafood processing industry study fell along
commodity lines. The advantage of initial commodity
categorization is that it automatically segments the
industry into relatively homogeneous groups, in terms of:
type and variability of raw product utilized, manufacturing
processes employed, wastewater characteristics, typical
plant locations, and (often) economic stature, geographic
regionalization, and production levels. First, three broad
groups of subcategories: industrial fish, finfish, and
shellfish, were established because of basic differences in
processes or species. Excluded were the four commodities
covered under a previous study (Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of
the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source
Category, June 1974, EPA-U40/l-7U-020-a). Since this study
covered a a large number of commodities, the approach was to
group the industry into the "more significant" and "less
significant" wastewater sources to make the most effective
use of the time and money available.
Through preliminary contacts with the industry and with
experts close to the industry, a "relative importance
matrix" was developed. This matrix used four basic
parameters to determine an "importance score" for each of
several seafood commodities. These parameters were: 1)
organic waste loading (kg BOD/day), 2) flow (cu m/day), 3)
number of plants, and U) season variability. A score of
"one" or "zero" was assigned to each element in the matrix
and a total score obtained for each commodity by adding the
individual scores. A high score indicated that a relatively
large effort should be exerted to characterize the waste
from that segment of the industry; and a low score, a
relatively small effort. Tables 15 and 16 show the results
of the matrix analyses for the finfish and shellfish
commodities, respectively.
65
-------
Table 15. Relative importance matrix--
industrial fish and finfish.
Commodity
and
Process
Menhaden
reduction
Anchovy
reduction
Salmon
canning
Sardine
canning
Bottom/
misc. fin-
fish (con-
ventional)
Bottom/
misc. fin-
fish (mech-
anized)
Fresh/
frozen
salmon
Halibut
freezing
Herring
filleting
Fish
flesh
Load
(BOD/
day)
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
Flow
(volume/
day)
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
Size
(number of
plants)
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Seasonality
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
Score
3
2
4
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
66
-------
Table 16. Relative importance matrix—
shellfish.
Commodity
and
Process
Clam meat
(mech-
anized)
Clam meat
(hand
shucked)
Fresh/
frozen
oysters
(hand
shucked)
Steamed/
canned
oysters
Abalone
Scallops
Load
(BOD/
day)
1
0
0
1
0
0
Flow
(volume/
day)
1
1
0
1
0
0
Size
(number of
plants)
1
1
1
1
0
0
Seasonality Score
0 3
0 2
0 1
0 3
0 0
1 1
67
-------
Consultants and other knowledgeable persons in the
particular industry, government organizations, and
universities were contacted to determine specifics about
major processing areas, identities of plants, typical
processing operations, seasons, raw products utilized,
production rates, and treatment facilities. Plants that
practiced exemplary in-plant control and/or end-of-pipe
treatment were identified. Typical plants with processing
operations that are commonly used, and with average water
use and production rates were also identified.
The field investigations were organized on a regional basis
by locating areas where suitable plants and industries
tended to be concentrated. The number of locations, plants,
and samples required to obtain the desired information were
determined with the help of the importance matrix. It was
estimated that there were about eight commodities with
potentially high pollutional significance, about twelve
commodities with potentially medium significance, and
several other commodities of minimal signficance.
A maximum of 1000 samples was allocated for this study. The
commodities of greatest pollutional significance wer^
characterized more accurately (by investigating more plants
and taking more samples) than those of lesser significance.
About 60 to 70 space-time total effluent and unit operation
samples were budgeted for each of the most important com-
modities. The unit operations samples would be used to
estimate material balances and to indicate areas where pro-
cess changes could reduce the waste load. Medium-importance
commodities were budgeted about 30 to 40 space-time samples
each of total effluent unit operations. The commodities of
minimal importance were budgeted about 100 samples total.
As the study progressed and more information was obtained,
the emphases on certain commodities changed. Those
commodities producing less waste than anticipated were
sampled less frequently and those producing more, were
sampled more frequently.
In addition to collecting water samples, the field crews
kept daily logs reporting on factors regarding the plant and
its environment.
All data were reviewed and final subcategorization made
based on the following major factors: 1) form and quality
of finished product (commodity); 2) manufacturing processes
and unit operations; 3) wastewater characteristics
(particularly flow, total solids, 5-day BOD, and grease and
oil) ; and 4) geographic location (particularly Alaska or
non-Alaska). Several other factors, such as variability in
68
-------
raw product supply and production, condition of raw product
on delivery to the processing plant, variety of species
being processed, harvesting method, degree of preprocessing,
age of plant, water availability, and amenability of waste
to treatment were also considered. It was determined that
these other factors were highly correlated with one or more
of the major factors.
Variability of raw product supply and production is strongly
correlated with the type of product being processed and
occasionally with geographic location and production
capacity.
For example, all operations producing canned salmon have
highly variable raw product supplies, with the variations
being most extreme in some parts of Alaska. This
necessitates large production capacities to allow
utilization of the raw product during the short time that it
is available.
The condition of the raw product on delivery to the plant is
generally related to the finished product and occasionally
to geographic location. Many shellfish typically arrive at
the plants fresh (e.g., clams, oysters, lobsters). Seasonal
variations within some commodity groups may change the
wasteload; however, the duration of this study and the
frequent lack of sufficient historical data bases made
estimation of the quantitative effect on the wastewater
impossible. Qualitatively, raw product condition
variability within a commodity group is considered to be a
second order effect, which does not warrant the
establishment of separate effluent guidelines.
The variety of species utilized in each commodity group is
usually limited to those which are quite similar. In
general, the processes which have the largest capacities and
produce the most waste have the fewest species. Those which
handle a large variety of species, such as conventional
bottom fish processes, are typically smaller and utilize
manual unit operations, which produce lower waste loads. It
was not considered necessary to establish separate effluent
guidelines based on species when they were processed in a
similar manner and the waste load from any one type was
minimal.
Harvesting methods are generally similar within a commodity
group. Different methods only affect the condition of the
raw product and/or the degree of preprocessing. Therefore,
this factor does not have to be considered as a separate
variable for the establishment of subcategories.
69
-------
The degree of preprocessing can be an important influence on
wastewater quality. However, this is included under the
consideration of the unit operations, which is one of the
major factors. The greater the degree of preprocessing, the
fewer unit operations are utilized in the processing plant.
The ages of the plants were considered to be minor factors
in the establishment of subcategories, since similar unit
operations are generally employed in both old and new plants
for a particular type of process. Furthermore, the plant
age seldom correlated with the age of the processing
equipment; to remain competitive (in most subcategories) the
processors must employ efficient, up-to-date, well-
maintained equipment. This factor tends to standardize each
subcategory with respect to equipment type and (usually)
age.
Raw water availability was not considered to be a factor for
the establishment of effluent guidelines since the in-plant
and end-of-pipe control techniques recommended for the sea-
food industry involve reductions in water use.
The quality of the raw water does affect the quality of the
effluent for some processes in certain regions and was con-
sidered in the establishment of guidelines. For example,
large percentages of some waste loads in solubles plant ef-
fluents from fish meal plants are attributable to the poor
quality of the intake water.
Amenability of the waste to treatment is an important factor
but is included as part of the wastewater characteristics
considerations. In general, the wastewater from seafood
processing operations is amenable to treatment except for
those cases where strong brines or pickling or preserving
acids are being discharged. Even for these cases, dilution,
although costly, will allow the wastes to be treated in
conventional systems.
FISH MEAL PRODUCTION
The processing of Atlantic menhaden and Pacific anchovy into
meal, oil and solubles was considered to be one of the most
important segments of the seafood industry, in terms of its
significance as a wastewater source. A concerted effort,
therefore, was made to exhaustively characterize the
effluents and to obtain as much information as possible on
methods of wastewater control for the industry. A total of
eight plants in New England, the Middle Atlantic, the Gulf
of Mexico and California were investigated and 191 unit
70
-------
operation and end-of-pipe composite samples of the
wastewater collected.
Process_Description
A generalized process flow diagram for menhaden and anchovy
wet rendering is presented in Figure 18.
Menhaden are delivered to the plant in the holds of large
carrier vessels. Because of the volume of fish to be pro-
cessed, the industry must employ fast, efficient means of
unloading. A mechanized bailing system is generally used
for this purpose. The operation consists of filling the
holds with water (usually local estuarine water) and pumping
the fish-water slurry with a reciprocating piston pump.
Plants usually employ from one to three such pumps when
loading 140 to 180 kkg (150 to 200 tons) of fish per hour
(Stansby, 1963). The pumps discharge over rotating or
static screens, which separate the fish from the bailwater.
These screens are generally followed by other (smaller mesh)
rotating screens which remove much of the remaining scales
and small pieces from the bailwater. The bailwater is then
collected in large holding tanks located below the screens.
These tanks range in capacity from 75 to 190 cu m (20,000 to
50,000 gal.).
As the bailwater is collected, it may be treated to remove
suspended solids, or it simply may be recirculated. Treat-
ment of bailwater may be effected with centrifugal decanters
or dissolved air flotation units. Whether the bailwater is
treated or not, it is usually retained and recirculated
throughout the unloading process. The fish, once separated
from the bailwater, are weighed and collected in holding
bins, referred to as "raw boxes" in the industry.
Depending on plant location, anchovy are generally vacuum
drawn from the boat holds directly into the processing
plant. Some plants located inland transport the anchovy by
tank truck. These fish are flushed out of the truck with
high pressure hoses. The bailwater is normally
recirculated, while the fish are dry-conveyed to the
weighing room. From the weighing room they are conveyed to
large holding bins from which they are augered into the
reduction facilities.
The first step in the rendering process is the steam cook.
The cookers are basically screw conveyers with steam
injection ports located along their lengths. They are
generally 9.1 m (30 ft) in length and 60 to 76 cm (24 to 30
71
-------
PROCESS FLOW
AVAILABLE SURFACE
WATER
— — BAILWATER AND
WASHWATER FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
available surface
WATER
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 18. Typical large fish meal production process
72
-------
in.) in diameter. The temperature at the inlet of the
cooker is about 110°C (230°F) and at the outlet, about 116°C
(240°F). The retention time of the fish in the cookers is
about 10 to 15 minutes. Cooking is the most critical stage
in the process. The fish are cooked to facilitate release
of oil and water. Undercooking or overcooking results in
excessive oil in the meal and poor oil recovery (Pigott,
1967).
From the cookers the fish proceed to a battery of screw
presses where the liquid and solid portions of the cooked
fish are separated. The screw presses contain rotating
augers whose flights progressively decrease in pitch along
the major axis of the press. This causes increasing
pressure to be exerted on the fish as they progress through
the presses. Liquid passes out of each press through a
cylindrical screen with perforations of decreasing diameter
from 1.2 to 0.8 mm (0.05 to 0.03 in.). The fish solids
exiting the press contain about 55 percent moisture and some
oil. The press solids are referred to in the industry as
"press cake."
The press cake is next conveyed to dryers to remove most of
the moisture. Two classes of dryers are commonly used: di-
rect dryers and indirect, steam jacketed dryers. The former
is the more typical; however, indirect dryers are used in
some plants. In the direct dryer, heat is generated by a
gas flame. The gas from this combustion plus secondary air
is passed, along with the wet press cake, through large
rotating drums. The temperature at the entrance of the
dryer is typically about 540°C (1000°F) and at the outlet of
the dryer is typically about 93°C (200°F). Drying time is
generally about 15 minutes. Hot air and vapors are drawn
through the dryer at about 450 to 700 cu m/min (265 to 410
cu ft/sec), depending on the dryer size. The flow of hot
air, fish meal, and vapor is passed through a cyclone which
separates the meal from the air flow. The hot air, vapors,
and volatiles from the dryers then pass through a scrubber
system to remove most of the entrained organic material.
The scrubber off-gases may then be recirculated to the dryer
inlet and burned. Steam jacketed dryers cannot reburn the
vapors. This sometimes necessitates the use of two
scrubbers to reduce odors.
The meal is ground and stored for shipment. The liquid
separated in the pressing operation is referred to as press
liquor. It contains solid and dissolved fish protein, oil,
fats, and ash. The larger solids are separated from the
mixture by the use of vibrating screens and/or centrifugal
decanters. The separated solids join the press cake flow at
73
-------
the drying operation. oil is extracted from the press
liquor by the use of centrifugal oil separators. These
devices operate in a continuous manner, spinning the press
liquor at a high velocity to effect a three phase separation
of solids, oil, and stickwater by nature of their different
densities. The oil produced in this process is usually
refined or polished by the reintroduction of water, known as
washwater. The oilwater mixture is then reseparated. This
polishing removes fish protein and solubles which cause
putrefaction of the oil during storage. The oil is then
piped to large storage tanks and held for shipment. The
water separated from the press liquor mixture contains
dissolved and suspended protein, fats, oil, and ash. This
mixture is termed "stickwater." As the stickwater is
generated, it is piped to large tanks and stockpiled,
awaiting further processing. At some plants it is joined
there by the spent unloading water (bailwater) and washwater
from oil polishing and from plant washdown. Further pro-
cessing of stickwater involves concentration by evaporation.
The stickwater is evaporated from a consistency of five to
eight percent solids to one of about 48 to 50 percent
solids. Typical for the industry is the triple effect
evaporator, where a vacuum of about 0.87 atm (26 in. Hg) is
placed on the third body while the first body is supplied
with steam at 2 atm (absolute) and 121°C (15 psig, 250°F).
The vapor from this first body is used to heat the second,
and the vapor generated in the second, in turn, heats the
third. The first effect will typically operate at ambient
pressure (0 psig) and 100°C (212°F) with the second at 0.5
atm, 81°C (-7.5 psig, 178«F); and the third at 57°C, 0.13
atm (135°F, -12.8 psig). Two effects are sometimes used
instead of three, and product flow direction may be opposite
to that of the vapor. In addition, some plants operate with
vapor from the first two effects feeding the third.
The stickwater exits from the evaporators at about 30
percent solids. From here it may enter one or two
concentrators for further evaporation to 50 percent solids.
The concentrators consist of steam-fed heat exchangers and
evaporation bodies evacuated to 0.09 atm (-13.4 psig),
termed "flash evaporators.11 The stickwater, which has been
evaporated to 30 percent solids, enters the heat exchanger
and, after heating to boiling temperature, it enters the
flash evaporator. The stickwater is recirculated between
the heat exchanger and flash evaporator until the proper
concentration of solids is reached, at which point it is
drawn off and pumped to the storage area.
A barometric condenser is used to place a vacuum on the
evaporators. Condenser water is usually obtained from
74
-------
available surface water and is pumped 9 to 12 m (30 to 40
ft) above ground level and allowed to fall through the
condenser and back to surface level. This condenser water
entrains vapor produced in the last evaporator body and in
the concentrators. The falling water is collected at the
end of this pipe in an open tank called a "hot well." It is
joined by evaporator condensate and is directed to the
plant's outfall and discharged into nearby surface waters.
The solubles plant discharge typically has a high flow
(30,000 1/kkg; 7200 gal./ton) and low concentrations of BOD
and suspended solids (less than 100 mg/1) .
Stickwater and fish solubles tend to deteriorate rapidly
during storage. This is usually prevented by adjusting the
pH of the stickwater or solubles to 4.5 with sulfuric acid.
It may be done before or after evaporation. If the
stickwater is stored for a considerable period without being
evaporated, the pH is usually adjusted before evaporation.
The pH of the fish solubles resulting from evaporation is
then readjusted to 4.5. However, if the plant can evaporate
stickwater rapidly enough to avoid extended holding periods,
no pH adjustment takes place before evaporation. After
evaporation and pH adjustment, fish solubles are stored in
large tanks to await shipment.
Small plants with no evaporator discharge the bailwater and
stickwater, or barge them to sea. Some plants have
sufficient evaporator capacity to evaporate the stickwater
while still discharging the bailwater. Figure 19 shows the
process flow diagram for a typical small wet rendering
facility with no solubles plant. The discharge of
stickwater and bailwater represents a very high waste load
with concentrations of BOD and suspended solids typically in
the tens of thousands (mg/1) and flows of 1900 1/kkg (460
gal./ton) or greater.
Subcatecrorization Rationale
Regardless of the species being rendered, there are three
general types of discharges from a wet reduction process:
evaporator water, bailwater/washwater, and stickwater. In
general, most large plants discharge only evaporator water.
Some medium-size plants evaporate the stickwater but
discharge the bailwater, and the smaller, older plants often
discharge both stickwater and bailwater.
A total of eight fish meal plants were investigated.
Historical information was also available from two of these
plants prior to installation of bailwater utilization
75
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
BAILWATER
1
PRESS LIQUOR
SOLIDS
REMOVAL
<
LIQUID
OIL
SEPARATOR
i
OIL
OIL
STORAGE
SOLIDS
PRESS
PRESS CAKE
'
DR
<
DUST AIR SCRUBBER SPENT
" ^ UN'T ^VATET
' (WHERE AVAILABLE
GRIND
'
STICKWATER
BAG a
EFFLUENT
Figure 19.Typical small fish meal production process,
76
-------
systems. A total of 56 end-of-pipe composite samples and a
total of 145 unit operation samples were collected. Five of
the plants were menhaden reduction plants located on the At-
lantic and Gulf Coasts and three were anchovy reduction
plants located in California.
Figure 20 shows a normalized summary plot of the wastewater
characteristics taken from all the fish meal reduction pro-
cesses with solubles plants. Five parameters: flow, BOD,
suspended solids, grease and oil, and production are shown
for each plant sampled. The vertical scale is in inches
with the scaling factor shown at the bottom of the figure.
The average value of the parameter is at the center of the
vertical spread with the height of the spread representing
one standard deviation above and below the average. A plant
code is shown at the bottom of each group, where "M"
indicates menhaden and "A" indicates anchovy. The number in
parentheses under the plant code is the number of flow-
proportioned full-shift composite samples taken from each
plant.
The four plants on the left (M2, M3, M5, and A2) discharged
water only from the solubles plant while the three plants on
the right (Ml, M2H, and M3H) also discharged the bailwater
instead of evaporating it. It can be seen that the waste
load from the plants not discharging bailwater was generally
lower. Plants M2 and M3 provided good examples of the
reduction in waste loads that can be achieved by bailwater
evaporation. The codes M2H and M3H represent historical
data collected when both plants discharged or barged
bailwater, while the codes M2 and M3 represent recent data
when both plants were treating and evaporating the
bailwater. Note, that water use was not reduced when the
plants were modified; the flow reduction realized by
eliminating bailwater discharge was more than offset by the
necessary increase in condenser dropleg flow. Table 17
shows the average waste loads both before and after
bailwater treatment and evaporation and the percent
reduction obtained.
Figure 21 shows a summary of the waste loads from two plants
discharging both stickwater and bailwater. The waste loads
were on the order of 20 to 40 times greater than those of
the plants utilizing evaporators.
Table 18 summarizes the average waste loads from plants with
three types of discharges: Solubles plant only, solubles
plant plus bailwater, and stickwater plus bailwater
discharge.
77
-------
Table 17. Fish meal waste load reduction
using bailwater evaporation.
Parameter Plant M2 Plant M3
(kg/kkg) Before After Reduction Before After Reduction
BOD 5.9 1.7 71% 10 3.6 64%
Suspended Solids 4.1 0.9 78% 5.6 1.2 79%
Grease and Oil 3.0 0.5 83% 3.5 1.0 71%
78
-------
Table 18. Summary of average waste loads
from fish meal production.
Parameter Solubles
(kg/kkg) Plant
Suspended solids
BOD
Grease and oil
1.0
2.9
0.7
Solubles Plant Stickwater
and Bailwater and Bailwater
3.8 41
6.1 59
2.5 25
Unit operation waste characteristics for fish meal
processing without a solubles unit (Plant A3).
Unit Operation
Stick water
(press liquor)
Scrubber water
Wash down
Bail water
(single pass
fish unloading)
Flow
1/kkg
(% of total )
842
(45%)
277
(15%)
24
(1%)
726
(39%)
BODS
kg/kkg
(% of total
66
(93%)
v^
(>1 %)
^
(>1 %)
5
(79%)
TSS
kg/kkg
)(% of total )
55
(94%)
>1
(>1%)
>1
(>1%)
3
(6%)
G&O
kg/kkg
(% of total )
36
(95%)
>1
H%)
>1
£l%)
2
(5%)
79
-------
Figure 20. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLCT IMTH SOLUBLES PLANT) .
6.
5.
.
<*.
.
•
.
.
.
3.
•
•
.
•
.
2.
.
*
.
•
.
1.
.
.
.
.
.
P
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
G Q
Q Q
Q P Q
Q Q
BS
S 8SG 8
BS BSG B P
BSG BSG S
BSG S SG
H2 M3 M5
(5) <<*) (9)
Q
Q
Q
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
Q
Q
Q
G
Q S
P Q S
BS P SGP
BSG BSGF
8SG BSGP
G BSG
A2 Ml
U) (6)
P
P
P
P
P
P
Q GP
Q GP
Q GP
GP
SGP
SG
SG
SG
SG
esc
BSG
E G
B G
B G
B G
E G
G
G
G
M2H
(16)
S
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
QBS
CBS
QBS
BSG
BSG
BSG
6SG
BSG
BSG
BSGP
B GP
B GP
B GP
B P
B P
B P
B
B
M3H
(17)
SYMBOL
PARAMETER
SCALING FACTOR
Q
B
S
G
P
FLOW
5 DAY BOO
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
1 INCH = 100CO L/KKG
1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 2 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 2 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 20 TON/HR
80
-------
Figure 21. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLOT (WITHOUT SOLUBLES PLANTV
*
5.
2.
1.
,
.
.
•
Q
0 P
09 P
08 P
Q8 P
09 F
QB P
G8
G9
Q9
08
. GB
QBS
QBS
CBS
Q9SG
. BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
Al
(3)
BS P
BS P
ES P
BS
BS
BS
BS
es
9SG
BSG
9SG
8SG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
G
Q
A3
(5)
SYHBCL PARAMETER SCALING FACTCR
»•••••• *••**»*• ••«•*••*»•••«•»• •««WWWIBWW*BMI»W4VW««Ba»«»«W*«* ••»«»•»•-••«••
Q FLCW 1 INCH = 500C L/KKG
8 5 DAY 900 1 INCH = 20 KG/KKG
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1 INCH = 20 KG/KKG
G GREASE < OIL 1 INCH = 20 KG/KKG
P PKOOUCTION i INCH = 2 TCN/HR
81
-------
It was concluded that the fish meal production industry
should constitute one subcategory with a provision for the
July If 1977 limitations for plants without a solubles unit
operation. The exemplary plants treat, recycle, and
evaporate the bailwater and washwater; therefore, other
plants with evaporators might be required to modify their
facilities and take similar action. The older, smaller
plants typically have no existing solubles plant facilities
to expand or modify for stickwater or bailwater.
Statistics from plants sampled in these two subcategories
are shown in Tables 19 and 20. The tables show the
estimated logrithmic-normal mean, the logrithims of the mean
and standard deviations, and the 99 percent maximum for each
of several selected summary parameters.
It was assumed that the waste loads per unit of production
did not change with production level.
SALMON CANNING
The canning of Pacific salmon was, from the outset of this
study, considered to be an important segment of the
industry, because of the relatively large waste loadings,
high flow rates, and large number of plants. A total of
eight plants, in two areas of Alaska and two areas of the
Northwest, were investigated; 99 composite samples of unit
operations or total effluent were collected.
Process Description
Figure 22 shows the flow diagram for the typical salmon
canning process used in Alaskan and lower Western plants.
Vacuum unloaders, pumps and flumes, high speed elevators and
belts and winch-operated live boxes are the common methods
of unloading the salmon from the tender holds and
transporting them into the cannery. Water used to pump fish
from the boats is usually recirculated and discharged after
the unloading operation; however, this method is used at a
relatively small number of plants.
The salmon are sorted by spqcies and conveyed into holding
bins. If the fish are to be held for some time before pro-
cessing, they are iced or placed in chilled brine.
A butchering machine known as the "iron chink" is used by
most plants to accomplish the butchering operation. Many
82
-------
Table 19
FISH KEAL PROCESS SUMMARY
CF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(SOLUBLES PLANT CISCHARGE ONLY)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR>»
TIMF (HR/CAV)'
FLOW (L/SEO*
(6AL/MIN)»
FLOW RATIC (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCM
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-5 (MG/L)
(K&/KKG)
GREASC ANC C1L (hG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH»
*£AN
33. <«
22.1
2<«2
38«»0
35000
8<«00
26.2
O.S2C
8<«.(<
2.96
16.0
0.562
6.07
LOG KCRMAL
MEAN
10.5
9.0<»
3.27
•0.085
l4.<«t»
1.09
2.70
-0.577
LCG NORMAL
STO OEV
26.2
2.22
155
2<«70
0.0<»6
0.0
-------
Table 20
FISH KEAl PROCESS SUMHAR*
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(WITHCLT SCLUGLES PLANT)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TCN/HR)'
TIME (HR/OAV)*
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIM*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOO-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND GIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH»
LCC NCSMAL LCG NORMAL
MEAN MEAN STO OEV
7.60
15.7
13.1
208
1<300
456
18300
32700
62.2
12000
22.8
6.60
7.55
6.12
S.81
3.55
10.4
S.39
3.13
11.8
12.9
204
0.120
0.120
0.273
0.273
!:1U
0.534
0.534
0.026
99X
MAXIMUM
2510
602
34500
65.
45700
87.
41600
79.
6
0
1
PLANTS Al
NOTCt THt OUTPUTS FCR THcSfc PARAMETERS
AR£ THE NORMAL (UNWEIGV-TE C) MEAN
ANC STANCAR3 CEtflATIOK, RESPECTIVELY
84
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
(WHERE AVAILABLE
Figure 22.Typical salmon canning process
85
-------
plants in the Northwest manually butcher the better grades
of silvers, chinooks, and (occasionally) sockeye, or employ
a manual butchering operation in conjunction with the iron
chink, since the more laborious method is considered to
produce a finer product. The fish are marketed fresh,
frozen, or canned, depending on demand.
The salmon are flushed from the holding bins and transported
by flume or elevator to "chink bins" where the mechanical
eviscerator is employed. The iron chink removes the heads,
tails, fins, and viscera; the eggs and milt are manually
separated later. The "K11 model iron chink has a maximum
capacity of about 120 fish per minute. A scrubber is some-
times used following the chink to clean more thoroughly the
coeloms of the fish. The fish then pass to "sliming
tables," where each fish is inspected for defects and
rinsed, usually with warm water to keep the worker's hands
from getting too cold.
The manual butchering operation involves three steps. The
fish are first eviscerated, after which they are passed to
another table where they are cleaned of blood, kidneys and
slime. The head and fins are next removed if the fish are
to be canned. The cleaned fish are then transported to a
set of gang knives. These knives are located within the
filler machine for the one-haIf-pound lines and separately
for the one-quarter-pound lines and hand-packed product.
All can sizes can be manually filled; however, most of the
salmon is mechanically packed in one-half and one-pound
cans. The hand-packed cans are weighed as they are packed.
Mechanically packed cans go through a weighing machine which
rejects the light-weight cans onto a "patch table" where
workers add patch material (supplemental meat) to bring them
up to their proper weight. The workers also remove bones
and other material that may interfere with the seamer, which
closes cans using a vacuum pump or steam.
After seaming, the cans are washed, placed in cooler trays,
and loaded into the retorts. The four-pound cans are cooked
for about four hours, the one-pound cans for 90 minutes, the
one-haIf-pound cans for 60 minutes, and the one-quarterpound
cans for UO minutes at about 120°C (250°F). The cans are
water cooled by either flooding the retort, placing the cans
in a water bath, or spraying the cans with water. These
cans are then further air-cooled before casing and shipping.
Many canneries do not employ water cooling of retorted cans;
they simply air-cool them. This method requires more time
(and, therefore, more space), but reduces water consumption.
86
-------
By-Product Operations
Further milt, roe, and head processing is an integral part
of most salmon canning plants. Figure 23 shows the typical
operations involved. Salmon milt is usually frozen and
shipped to Japan for further processing. The roe is
agitated in a saturated salt brine before being packed in
boxes. Salt is added to each layer of eggs to aid in the
curing process. Some eggs are also sold for bait.
The heads are handled in a variety of ways. Some plants,
particularly those in Bristol Bay and Puget Sound, render
the heads for oil. Fish oil is then added to cans to
improve the quality of the finished product. Other plants
grind and freeze the heads, which are later processed for
animal food. Whole heads are sometimes frozen and used for
bait or pet food. Some plants grind the heads with the
other solid wastes and discharge them to the receiving
waters. Most plants in the Northwest send recoverable
wastes to rendering plants for fish meal production.
Subcateqorization Rationale
Since the salmon canning process is essentially the same
from plant to plant, the only major factor which may prompt
further subcategorization is geographic location.
The salmon canning industry was subcategorized into Alaska
and western regions because of the much greater costs and
treatment problems encountered in Alaska. Furthermore, due
to the large size range of the industry in both areas, the
Alaska industry was divided into three sizes and the Western
industry into two sizes for the purpose of costing control
and treatment technologies. Figures 24 and 25 depict the
size distributions of the Alaska and Western salmon canning
plants, respectively ( . 1971a). The information is
expressed in the form of histograms or probability density
functions. The vertical axis represents the number of
plants whose output falls in the range shown on the hori-
zontal axis, which is expressed as the average annual output
in cases from 1966 to 1970; for example, the data show that
15 plants in Alaska produced between 0 and 20,000 cases
annually. The histograms are skewed to the right in a
manner similar to a theoretical log-normal density function.
There is no obvious, distinct grouping of plant sizes;
however, the following divisions were established to develop
criteria which would adequately cover the range:
87
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
TO CAN FILL OPERATION)
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 23. Typical salmon by-product operations
88
-------
20 --
oo
to
io -
S 10 -
U
z
z
o
U.
0
(T
^ K
0) 5 -
•x.
z
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUT IN THOUSANDS OF CASES
Figure 24. Alaska salmon cannery size distribution,
-------
15 --
en
UJ
z
<
o
10
-------
Alaska salmon canning—large: greater than 80r000
cases annually;
Alaska salmon canning—medium: 40,000 to
80,000 cases annually;
Alaska salmon canning—small: fewer than 40,000 cases
annually;
Western salmon canning—large: greater than 20,000
cases annually; and
Western salmon canning—small: 20,000
cases annually or fewer.
Figure 26 shows a summary plot of the wastewater charac-
teristics of three salmon canning plants in Alaska (CSN2,
CSN3, CSN4) and four plants in the Northwest (CSN5, CSN6,
CSN7, and CSN8). CS6M represents the manual butchering
operation at plant CSN6. Codes CS7H and CS8H represent
historical data from the same plants as CSN7 and CSN8,
respectively. Two of the Alaskan plants sampled, CSN2 and
CSN4, are in the "small" range (less than 40,000 cases), and
one, CSN3 is in the "medium" range (40,000-80,000 cases).
All of the plants sampled in the Northwest are in the large
range (over 20,000 cases).
It was noted that, in general, the waste loads from the
plants in Alaska were greater than those from the Pacific
Northwest plants. The main reason for this is that one
Northwest plant (CSN5) did all butchering by hand and two
other Northwest plants (CSN6 and CSN7) practiced a high
percentage of manual butchering during the sampling period,
using the iron chink only when large quantities of fish
arrived. The three salmon plants in Alaska also ground
their solids before discharge, which increased the waste
load. The waste load at CSN3 appears to have been higher
than average; however, this may have been due to the fact
that samples were taken from a sump where solids accumulated
over the sampling period. The historical information from
plant CS8H was obtained during a high production period when
the iron chink was being used extensively. This data
appears to be lower and may be attributable to plant
modifications accomplished after the historical data was
collected.
Table 21 shows summary statistics of the waste loads from
all the plants sampled which used the iron chink exclusively
(CSN2, CSN3, CSN4, CSN8). The flow ratio was not included
for CSN8, as it was not considered to be typical. These
91
-------
Figure 26. SALMCK CANNING PF.CCESS FLCT.
6.
B
B
a
B
s
. B
3
B
B
B
S
S
s
S P
S P
Q Q S P
. Q P Q S P
C P Q 5
QB P OS
QB P S
. B P S
B P S
B S
BS
S G
SG
G
G
CSN2 CSN3
(7) (it)
G
B G
B G
e G
B G
6 G
8 G
Q8 GP
QB GP
QB GP
QB GP
06 GP
QB GP
C6SGP
QBSGP
QESGP
Q SG
Q SG
G
G
G
G
G
G
CSN<«
(6)
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
P
Q
0 P
C GP
Q P P
P P
B P P
8S P QB P
CSN5 CS6M
(8) (6)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 DAY BOO
SUSPENDED SOLICS
GREASE AND OIL
PRODUCTION
G
1
B
S
P
F
P
F
CSNfc
(6)
P
P
B F
B F
CB F
C6 F
S
SG
G
CSN7
<<*>
e
BS
CES
BS
BS
BS
es
ES
BS
S
5
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
F
F
F
CS7H
(
0 8
C 8
C B
Q B
G B
Q B
G 3
B
B
B
B
B
BS P
BS
BS
BS
QBS
QBS
B QBS
E CBS
B QBS
S
S
s
s
s
s
G
GP
CSN8 CS8H
(3) (6)
SCALING FACTOR
1
1
1
1
1
INCH
INCH
INCH
INCH
INCH
= 10000
= 20
= 20
= 10
2
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
-------
Table 21
MtCHAMCtLLY 6UTCHEREO SALf-CN
PPOCESS SUMPARY
OF SfcLECTEO PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)*
TIME (HR/OAY)»
FLOW (L/sec>»
(&AL/MIN>»
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL /TON)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
800-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE. AND OIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
McAN
3.32
6.67
17.2
27 «»
18500
•4
-------
data provided the base which was used as the typical raw
waste load from salmon canning processes in both Alaska and
the West Coast. It was assumed that the waste loads per
unit of production were the same regardless of the size of
the plant.
The canning operations in the Northwest which hand butcher
are included with the fresh/frozen salmon subcategory, which
is discussed next, since the unit operations are similar
except for the canning operation, which does not increase
the load by a significant amount.
FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON
The processing of Pacific salmon as a fresh or frozen
commodity was considered to have smaller waste loads and
wastewater flows than the canning segment of the salmon
industry. A total of six plants in three areas of Alaska
and one area of the Northwest were investigated; 77 unit
operation and effluent composite samples were collected.
Process Description
Figure 27 shows the flow diagram for the typical fresh/
frozen salmon process used in Alaska and Northwest plants.
The unloading of fish from boats in Alaska and the Northwest
is usually accomplished with a crane and bucket. In the
Northwest, fish also arrive by flatbed or semi-trucks from
the coast or from other ports in Washington and Oregon. To
keep the fish fresh during transport, they are packed in ice
in wooden bins.
At the plant the fish are sorted by species, and when nec-
essary, by quality, and placed in metal or plastic totes, or
gondola carts. If the fish are to be kept until the
following day, they are iced.
There are three processes used in Alaska for freezing
salmon. The most common is to receive the fish in the
round, and subsequently to butcher them in the plant.
Troll-caught fish are dressed at sea and need only be
beheaded and washed at the plant prior to freezing. Some
fish are also frozen "in the round," without butchering.
Freezing "in the round" is common in peak years, when the
canneries cannot handle the large volume of fish, and is
expected to become more widely used in Alaska as labor
prices increase. Alaskan salmon frozen in this manner are
94
-------
WATER, SLIME
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SORT
& GRADE
TROLL DRESSED FISH
SOLIDS
COLLECTED <==:
FOR PET FOOD
OPERATION
(WHERE AVAILABLE)
(WH
•
r
:>LE)
BUT
1 HEADS, ROC, MILT (CJFF FIGURE TV-6)
1 dPTIOMAI )l VISCERA.WATER
1
HEADCUTTER
(OPTIONAL )
i
WATER, BLOOD,VISCERA_
en
PACK
a SHIP
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
SCREEN
[WHERE AVAILABLE
Figure 27. Typical fresh/frozen salmon process,
-------
later further processed, usually in Oregon or Washington.
Few fish are processed for the fresh market in Alaska.
Round salmon are butchered by hand on an assembly line
basis. The salmon is beheaded, the viscera removed and the
kidney slit and removed. Some plants use a semi-automatic
beheader. The roe and milt are separated from the viscera
and processed in the manner described in the "Salmon
Canning" subcategory process description. After butchering,
the salmon are washed in a cleaning tank to remove remaining
blood, slime, and parasites.
In Alaska, the salmon are frozen at about -51°C (-60°F),
then glazed and packaged, or stored for shipping at -23°C (-
10°F). In contrast to Alaska, a significant portion of
Northwest salmon are marketed fresh, mainly to local retail
outlets and restaurants and (via air freight) to Eastern
outlets.
Excess salmon are sometimes cured in brine. In this process
the salmon are butchered and split into halves, the
backbones are removed, and the fish are washed in a brine
solution. Then they are dipped in salt and packed into
wooden barrels. When the barrels are filled with salmon
halves, saturated brine is added and the fish are stored at
about 2°C (36°F) to preserve the pack and prevent oil loss.
Subcateqorization Rationale
Since the fresh/frozen salmon process is essentially the
same throughout the industry, geographic location was
considered to be the only major factor affecting sub-
categorization.
It was decided that the fresh/frozen salmon industry be sub-
categorized into "Alaska" and "West Coast" regions because
of the greater costs and more serious treatment problems en-
countered in Alaska. The size range of the industry is
significant in both regions; however, it is not as great as
the range for salmon canning.
Information on the size range of the industry in terms of
annual production is limited. Table 22 summarizes data
obtained from a study conducted by the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (Peterson, 1970) involving Northwest
fresh/frozen salmon plants.
For the purpose of costing control and treatment
technologies, Table 23 estimates the daily peak production
96
-------
Table 22. Annual production of
Northwest fresh/frozen salmon.
Raw Product Processed Annually
Plant Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
(kkg)
360
680
725
1815
2720
4535
(tons)
400
750
800
2000
3000
5000
Table 23 . Daily peak production rates of Alaska
fresh/frozen salmon plants (Phillips, 1974) .
Daily Peak Production Rate
Size
Large
Medium
Small
(kkg)
80-110
45-70
27-45
(tons)
90-120
50-75
30-50
97
-------
rates for Alaskan fresh/frozen salmon plants. Based on
these figures and observations made during the plant
investigations, the dividing line between large and small
Alaskan and Northwest fresh/frozen salmon plants was placed
at 2370 kkg (2500 tons) of raw product processed annually.
Figure 28 is a summary plot of the wastewater character-
istics of four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska
(FS1, FS2, FST1, FST2) and three operations in the Northwest
(FS3, FS4, FST3). The code FS represents processes which
butcher round salmon, while the code FST represents the
processing of troll-dressed salmon, which have been
eviscerated at sea. The four processes in Alaska (FSl,
FST1, FS2, FST2) fall into the "large" range, while the
three Northwest processes (FS3, FST3, FS4) are in the
"small" range.
It can be seen that the waste loads from the troll-dressed
processes were lower than those from the round processes and
that the waste loads from the Alaskan plants seem to have
been slightly higher than those from the Northwest plants.
The waste loads from all these operations, however, are
relatively low, with BOD's less than 3 kg/kkg.
Since the unit operations, where most of the waste is gener-
ated, are similar for either the hand butcher fresh/frozen
process or the hand butcher canning process, they are
included in one subcategory. The average waste loads from
the round fresh/frozen processes (FSl, FS2, FS3, FS4) and
from the hand butcher canning process (CSN5, CS6M) are used
to characterize both segments of the industry.
It would not be efficient to further subdivide the industry
into "round," "troll dressed" and hand butcher canning pro-
cesses with the corresponding regulations and enforcement
efforts required. The slight advantage of those plants pro-
cessing mostly troll-dressed fish was considered to be of
little importance, since the waste loads from any of these
processes are relatively low. Table 24 lists summary
statistics of the waste loads from all hand butcher salmon
processes sampled. These were used to determine the typical
raw waste loadings from fresh/frozen salmon or hand butcher
salmon canning processes in both Alaska and the West Coast.
Hand butcher salmon canning processes are typically small.
The plants sampled in the Northwest are considered to be
large; however, the hand butcher salmon line only averaged
about 4.5 kkg/day (5 tons/day). This is much less than the
ratio shown for fresh/frozen salmon in Tables 22 and 23.
98
-------
Figure 28 . p^Sh/FROZE N SALMON FKOCLSS PLCT.
6.
5.
t
.
.
.
.
3.
.
t
.
.
.
2.
.
,
.
.
,
1.
,
.
,
.
.
P
da P
BS P
es P
8S P
SS P
as P
es P
33 r
qq p
6SGF
•2SGP
53 GP
dSGF
B5GP
Q9ii GP
nes G*3
Q32GP
fj^S GP
Q3SGP
G6SG
0 S
0 S
0
Fal
(5)
C
G
G
G
P G
P G
F G
P G
F Q C
P Q C-
Q SG
= G SG
E Q SG
3 Q SG
5 G SG
5 Q SC
~J Q SC
C-S 0 5G
i 0 SG
S iDRSG
S QBSG
Q3SG
3S(-
9 G
G 6 GP
G GP
P
3 P
P
FS2 FSli
( Cf)
PflRAMCTEf?
SCALING FACTC*
1
•j
^
G
P
5 DAY 30D
SUSFcNOtU SOLIDS
G-^LAic * OIL
F^COUCTION
1
1
1
1
1
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
lOCuO
i
0.5
0.2
1
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCK/h*
99
-------
Table 24
HAND 3LTCHERED SALMCN
PROCESS SUMMARY
CF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)'
TIHf (HR/OAY)*
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS (1G/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GRLftSE ftN3 OIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH»
MEAN
1.9<+
6,3t«
2.36
37.5
3960
976
305
1.21
53<«
2.11
39. i
0.153
6.73
LQC NORMAL
MEAN
fa. 23
e.ea
5.72
0.166
6.29
0.7!»9
3.65
-1.86
LCG NORMAL
STD OEV
1.19
1.80
i.m
22.3
0.079
0.1C2
0.1<47
D.Ik?
C.108
0.108
0.119
0.118
0.31<*
99X
MAXIMUM
•*750
12<«0
<»29
1.70
686
2.72
50.8
0.202
PLANTS CSNS,cs6*i,F5i ,FSZ ,FSS ,FS*«
» NOTC« TH£ OUTPUTS FCR THESt PARAMETERS
ARE THE NGRfAL ( UNWc I Gf-TE C ) »»EAN
AND STANDARD CLVIATICN, RfcSPLCTIVELY
100
-------
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH
The processing of bottom fish (or groundfish) and finfish as
fresh or frozen commodities was considered to be an impor-
tant segment of the industry because of the large number of
plants engaged in this activity. The industry has
wastewater flows and loads which are quite variable, is
located in all regions of the country and encompasses a
large range of sizes. Therefore, a total of 20 plants in
six regions of the country were investigated. This included
three plants in Alaska, six in the Northwest, four in New
England, two in the Middle Atlantic, two in the Gulf, and
three plants in California. A total of 207 unit operations
or effluent composite samples of the bottom fish industry's
wastewaters were collected.
Process Description
Although many species of fish are involved in several
regions of the country, the processing of bottom fish (or
groundfish) and finfish primarily involves the preparation
of fillets or whole fish for the fresh or frozen market.
Most fillets are frozen in blocks and processed later as
fish sticks or portions. Whole fish processing is also
important for some species such as halibut and the larger
groundfish. The amount of whole fish processing varies with
the species of fish, the region, and market demands.
The processing descriptions below are organized by region,
since the species involved and the processing methods
employed are relatively uniform within each.
1. New England Groundfish—Figure 29 shows the flow diagram
for a typical New England groundfish filleting process.
Fish arrive at the major T processing centers, such as
Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford, by truck and boat. The
resource has been declining in recent years; consequently,
increasing numbers of fish are being trucked from northern
New England and from Canada. Fish such as flounder and
ocean perch arrive in the round, while larger species, such
as cod and haddock, are often eviscerated at sea to minimize
spoilage and maximize efficiency. The fish are typically
unloaded from boats (by hand) into boxes, and then
transported by forklift or dolly to the processing areas.
Some ice accompanies the fish and a certain weight
percentage is subtracted from the gross value to allow for
this when the fish are weighed. The fish are stored on ice
in the plant while awaiting processing.
101
-------
HEADS,BACKBONE, MEAT
,!*= = = = =
MEAT, PARTICLES
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ICE MELT WATER
* WATER, SCALES
WATER, PARTICLES
WATER, PARTICLES_
INE, PARTJCLES_ I
BRINE ,
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 29. Typical New England ground fish process
102
-------
Included in the plans to build a new fish pier in Boston is
a vacuum system to transport fish from the boat holds into
palletted bins. This will increase the unloading rate,
while at the same time decreasing the amount of contaminated
ice.
The fish are filleted by hand. Plants employ from 3 to 25
fillet cutters. The fish will be descaled prior to
filleting if requested by the customer. Descaling is
usually accomplished by hand; however, some descaling
machines employ highpressure water jets. The flow from
these mechanical descalers is relatively large and contains
heavy waste loadings. Some plants use a continuous brine
flow to keep the fish moist and firm on the filleting table,
while other plants use an intermittent water flow to clean
the tables between species. The fillets may be skinned
manually (for special orders) except for various species of
flounder, which are passed through a skinning machine. The
skinning machine commonly used in New England is the German-
made Baader 47 skinner.
The prepared fillets are placed in a preserving dip tank
containing chilled brine with 10 percent sodium benzoate
solution. The fish are removed from the dip tank by hand or
by inclined conveyor, manually packed into boxes, and stored
in a cooler. The great majority of groundfish are filleted
and sold fresh. Some of the larger species, which are sold
to markets, are handled whole, while those which are to be
shipped longer distances are frozen.
Plant washdowns typically occur only once per day, in the
last 20 minutes to one-half hour of operation. Both chlori-
nated salt water and fresh water are used. The solid
material is typically shoveled into bins and trucked to a
nearby rendering plant. During the peak lobster fishing
period, carcases are often sold for lobster bait.
A frozen-whole process used in New England for whiting is
shown in Figure 30. The whiting are taken from the boats in
bushels which hold between 80 kg and 100 kg (176 to 220 Ibs)
of fish. Each bushel is weighed prior to being emptied onto
a conveyor which transports the fish into the plant*s
holding bins. The plants sampled each had a holding
capacity of about 100 kkg (110 tons). The relatively soft
flesh of whiting dictates care in , handling. Consequently,
the fish are flushed from the bins by high-pressure hose
into sumps, from which they are transported by inclined
conveyor to the sorting and beheading area. The beheading
operation consists of lines of horizontal conveyors with 4
to 5 cm (1.8 to 2.0 in.) slots, into which the fish are
103
-------
oriented manually by women standing along the line. The
line conveys the fish past a circular beheading saw. The
heads fall onto an inclined auger and are transported into a
waiting truck. The headless bodies are flumed into an
inclined cylindrical descaler which tumbles the fish,
removing the scales and washing them away with water sprays.
The fish are then conveyed to the eviscerating table where
the remaining viscera are removed by hand. All fins are
left on the fish and the belly is not slit. Usually 15 to
20 women manually eviscerate the fish, throwing the viscera
into flumes running along both sides of the table, then out
to a main collecting sump. After evisceration, the fish are
boxed according to size and are quick frozen.
The whiting process uses a large amount of water and
produces relatively large waste loads. Most of the water
comes from fluming. It may be possible to replace the
flumes with conveyors; however, it is claimed by the people
in the industry that fluming is the best method for moving
the fish, because of the softness of their flesh.
The solids, including heads, viscera, and screened solids,
are typically collected and trucked to a nearby rendering
plant.
2. Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Miscellaneous Finfish-Figure 31
shows a typical miscellaneous finfish process used in the
Middle and South Atlantic and Gulf regions.
The fish are received by boat or truck and unloaded by hand
or by vacuum. The fish are washed, sorted by species, and
weighed. At this point, some plants box, ice, and ship the
whole fish to markets or other plants for further
processing. Fish that are processed at the originating
plant are descaled manually or mechanically, and then
eviscerated or filleted. The whole fish fillets are next
packaged and shipped fresh or frozen. It was observed that
more fish were handled in the round or eviscerated and
frozen in these two regions than in New England. The solid
fish wastes, including heads, viscera, and carcasses, are
usually recovered for pet or mink food.
A relatively new process developing in the Gulf region is
the utilization of flesh separating machinery. The process
holds much promise because it can improve yields, utilize
previously-ignored fish species, and satisfy ready markets.
These factors tend to reduce operating costs and make the
process economically attractive. At present, few such oper-
ations are on-line, and only one plant was sampled, this
utilizing croaker on the Gulf Coast.
104
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
RECEIVE
& WEIGH
RETENTION
BINS
HEADS
f=
SORT a
BEHEAD
DESCALE
VISCERA
EVISCERATE
_WATER_, JUICES
SMALL PARTICLES
WATER, ORGANICS
WATER, SCALES
WATER
BOX 8
WEIGH
FREEZE
a SHIP
EFFLUENT
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 30. Typical New England whiting process
105
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
GRINDER
WATER, SCALES, SLIME
SCALES
WATER,SCALES
HEADS,VISCERA
I CARCASSES
WATER, BLOOD, SLIME
WATER, BLOOD, SLIME
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
Figure 31. Typical Mid-Atlantic or Gulf finfish process,
106
-------
The foundation for this process was laid when Japanese and
German inventors created the prototype machinery for extrac-
ting boneless and skinless flesh from eviscerated fish. In
one design, the separation is effected through a shearing
and pressing action created by a rotating perforated drum
bearing against a slower-moving belt which holds the fish
tightly against the drum. Although one pass through the
machine will produce a high flesh yield, the carcasses can
be recycled through the machine to increase recovery. The
flesh obtained is in a comminuted form which is further
processed by compressing it into blocks. Occasionally,
other materials are added to modify the flavor, texture, or
appearance of the final product. The actual formation of
the blocks, the machinery, and the binding agents used are
considered by the industry to be confidential. Thus, the
following description is general.
Figure 32 shows a typical fish flesh process. The receiving
operations are similar to other fish operations; fish are
brought into the plant, dumped into wash tanks, sorted, then
held prior to processing. Scales, heads, fins and viscera
must be removed. This can be done manually, but automatic
equipment is being introduced into the industry to stream-
line the operation. After dressing, the fish are passed
through the flesh-separating machinery. The solid wastes
produced by the dressing and flesh separating operations are
collected and ground for animal feed. Little water is
involved in either operation, but that produced is highly
contaminated with blood, slime and small flesh particles.
The ground flesh produced is stored in bins, into which
other ingredients are added, after which the batch is mixed.
It is then formed into blocks, either by extrusion or
molding. The blocks, or cakes, as they are also called, are
placed on trays and rapidly frozen. The frozen blocks are
then processed further by cutting them into different sizes
and shapes, which are subsequently breaded and packaged.
Clean-up operations involve washing down the equipment with
water and detergents. The wastewater from such operations
is high in dissolved proteins, organics and detergents, as
well as solid particles of flesh and fish parts. In the one
plant observed, the clean-up lasted several hours, with the
flow being greater than that produced during processing and
constituting the greatest part of the effluent.
3. Pacific Coast Bottom Fish—Figure 33 shows the flow
diagram for a Pacific Coast bottom fish filleting operation,
the most common processing method. Some of the larger
species, such as the black cod, are processed whole; and a
small demand in fish markets exists for other whole fish.
107
-------
TRASH FISH
ir= = = = = = =
HEADS , VISCERA
MUTILATED FISH
MEAT PARTICLES,SKIN.CARCASSES
: —
SAW DUST
CHLORINATED WATER, PARTICLES
u
TO SOLIDS
REDUCTION PLANT
EFFLUENT
Figure 32. Typical fish flesh process
108
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
SCALES
DE-SCALE
(OPTIONAL)
WASH
CARCASSES
SKIN
FILLET
SKIN
(MECHANICAL OR
BY HAND)
RINSE
SLIME .WATER
MEAT, WATER
ORGANIC S, WATER
ORGAN1CS, WATER
PACK
CHILL OR
FREEZE 8 SHIP
TO BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY OPERATION
EFFLUENT
Ficmre 33. Typical Pacific Coast bottom fish process,
109
-------
The fish usually arrive by boat and are unloaded by hand. A
few plants are converting to the vacuum unloading system.
The fish are weighed and sent to the filleting tables; the
larger plants use a conveyor system for fish transport from
the receiving room to the filleting room. Some plants use
manual or mechanical descaling before filleting, depending
on the ultimate product form. The fish are spray-washed on
the conveyor or washed by hand as they are filleted. Water
is available from a hose at each filleting position and in
many plants is flowing constantly. Most plants use
mechanical skinners after filleting; however, some skinning
is done by hand and a few products require no skinning at
all. The fish are rinsed in a tank containing preservatives
and then packed for the fresh or frozen market.
Most of the solid waste from the Pacific Coast plants is
ground and bagged for the pet or animal food market.
Some halibut are processed on the Northwest Pacific Coast in
centers such as Bellingham and Seattle. The methods of
processing are the same as described in the following dis-
cussion on Alaska bottom fish.
4. Alaska Bottom Fish—The only species of Alaskan bottom
fish processed in any quantity at this time is halibut.
Figure 34 shows the flow diagram for a typical halibut
processing operation.
Since the average length of a trip in Alaska ranges from 13
to 25 days, the halibut are butchered at sea and iced.
After receipt at the docks, the fish are beheaded, if this
has not already been done at sea, and the body cavity is
flushed to remove ice. The fish are graded by size and then
processed whole or fletched. Smaller fish, under about 27
kg (60 Ibs) are usually frozen, while those greater in size
are butchered to remove four large sections of flesh called
fletches. Some plants in Alaska freeze all sizes of fish,
which are processed later in the Northwest.
The fish to be frozen whole are washed by spray or by hand
and quick-frozen. The waste loadings from this operation
are minimal. The sections of flesh from the fletched fish
are trimmed, washed, and quick-frozen. The larger trimmings
are marketed for smoking and breading. The edible cheeks
are removed from the heads, and are trimmed, washed, bagged
and frozen.
The solid wastes in Alaska are used for bait or are
discarded.
no
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
HEADS
HEADS
WATER, SLIME
WATER,OR6ANICS
FLETCH PROCESS /\ WHOLE PROCESS
— :
CARCASSES
|| SKIN, TRIMMINGS
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
WATER, SLIME
WATER,FLESH
MEAT, WATER
EFFLUENT
Figure 34. Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process.
-------
Subcateqorization Rationale
Although there are many species and processing operations in
the bottom/miscellaneous finfish subcategory, only two
factors were considered to require further subcategor-
ization: geographic location and degree of mechaniza-
tion/water use. The bottom fish, groundfish, and miscellan-
eous finfish industry was subcategorized into "Alaska11 and
"non-Alaska" regions because of the greater costs and more
complex treatment problems encountered in Alaska.
In Alaska, the only bottom fish industry of importance is
halibut. The problem is complicated by the fact that the
processing of halibut usually is practiced in conjunction
with other processes, such as fresh/frozen salmon
processing.
With respect to non-Alaska regions, the bottom fish/finfish
industry was subcategorized into "conventional" and "mech-
anized" processes, due to the increased water and waste
loads associated with the latter. A conventional process is
defined as one in which the unit operations are carried out
essentially by hand and with a relatively low water volume.
A mechanized process is defined as one in which many of the
unit operations are mechanized and relatively large volumes
of water are used.
Figure 35 summarizes the wastewater characteristics for what
are considered to be conventional processing operations with
little or no mechanization. Figure 36 depicts a summary
plot for what are considered to be high-water-use mechanized
processing operations. In Figure 35 codes FRH1 and FFH1
refer to halibut processing operations in Alaska; codes Bl
and 2 refer to groundfish plants in New England; codes FNFl,
2, 3, and 4, to finfish plants in the Middle Atlantic and
Gulf regions; codes B4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 refer to bottom
fish plants in the Northwest; and codes B7r 8, and 9 refer
to bottom fish plants in California. With respect to Figure
36, codes Wl and 2 refer to whiting plants in New England,
CFC1 to a fish flesh plant in the Gulf, and B6 and B6H to a
bottom fish plant in the Northwest. Code B6H represents
historical data obtained for plant B6 ( . 1969b).
The plants represented by codes FRHl and FFHl are considered
to be large halibut processing operations. The waste loads
from the halibut processing operations are relatively low,
being of the same order of magnitude as the Alaska
fresh/frozen salmon process. Table 25 shows summary
statistics of the waste loads from the Alaska halibut
process. It is assumed that the waste per unit of
112
-------
Figure 35. CONVENTIONAL BOTTOM FISH PROCESS PLOT,
6.
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
. p
p
p
p
p
. p
p
p
, F
F
. P
. F
. Q P
. Q S
. Q S
. Q S
. Q S
. Q SG
SG B
SSG B
BSG
B G Q P
.3 Q P
Q
G
FRH1 FFH1
(9) (3)
S
S
s
s
s
BS
BS
BS
BS
QBS
Q P
GP
31
(3)
S
S
S
s
s
Q S
Q S
S
S
S
S
BS
BS
as
BS
BS
BS
BSG
BSG
3 G
P
32
(5)
G
G
G
G
SG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
SG
P
Q P
Q P
Q P
Q
FNF1
U)
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
p
8
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BSG
BSG
BSG
QBSG
Q SG
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q G
G
P
P
FNF2
U)
Q
Q
Q
Q
QB
QB
QB
QB
QB
06
QB
QB
QB
BS
BS
BS
BS
BSGP
SGP
SGP
GP
GP S P
GP QBS
p oesi
P QBS3
CBS P P a
G
FNF3 FNFi« 8<»
(1) (5) (it)
PARAMETER
FLOW 1
5 DAY BOD 1
SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1
GREASE AND OIL 1
PRODUCTION 1
P
Q8 P
Q8S P
QBS P
08SGP
QBSG
SSG
B G
85
(5)
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
B
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS P
B G
G
67
(3)
S
BS P
BS P
8S P
BS P
8SGF
BSGP
BSGP
8SG
QBSG
QBSG
Q G
G
G
G
G
G
G
88
(
S
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
QBS
QBS
Q8S
Q8S
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
8SG
SGP
GP
GP
89
(2)
Q
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
Q
Q
G
S
S
s
BS
as
s
s
p
p
p
p
G
810
(9)
S
S
S
SG
S
Q S
Q S
Q8S
Q
P
P
P
Bll
(11)
S
S
S
as
s
Q
Q P
P
P
912
(7)
SCALING FACTOR
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
5000
2
i
0,5
2
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
-------
Figure 36. MECHANIZED BOTTOM FISH PROCESS PLOT.
6.
2.
»
•
B
e
B
B G
B G
B G
B G
B G
. BSG
BSG
BSGP
BSGP
BSGP
BSGP
. BSGP
BSGP
QBSGP
0 SGP
Q G
. Q G
Q G
G
•
,
.
.
.
•
K2
(7)
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B P
B P
B P
B
8
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
Q SG
C SG
Q G
Q G
Q G
G
V«l
(5)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 DAY BOD
SUSPENDED SO
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
8
8
B
08
08
C8
CB
CB
03
08
CB
OBSG
G SG
Q SG
0 SG
G SG
SGP
SGP
G
CFC1
(5)
LIDS
B
3
8
B
3
8
3
8
8
08
QB
08
C8
S
SGF
SGP
SG
SG
SG
G
G
86
(<*)
SCAL
1 INCH =
i INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
B
e
GB
oe
ce
08
ce
CB
QB
OB
CB
ces
OBS
Q8S
ces
CBS
QBS
CBS
OBS
ces
BS
S
S
S
S F
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
66H
(6)
ING FACTOR
10000 L/KKG
5 KG/KKG
5 KG/KKG
2 KG/KKG
2 TCK/HR
114
-------
Table 25
ALASKAN 9CTTC* FISH (HALI5LT)
PROCESS SUMMARY
OF StLECTLC PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/Hfi)'
TIME (HR/OAY)'
FLOW (L/SFJO*
(GAL/MIS)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL /TON)
TSS (HG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOO-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE" ANO OIL
-------
production is the same for plants in either the large or
small categories.
A relatively large size range exists for both the non-Alaska
conventional and non-Alaska mechanized portions of the
industry, with the mechanized portion being larger, on the
average. Information on the annual production of bottom
fish is limited. Based on studies conducted in the
Northwest (Peterson, 1970), and observations made during
this study, the following divisions were made to break the
industry into approximately equal-size ranges for the
purpose of costing control and treatment technologies. The
division between "large" and "medium" conventional plants
was set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product processed
annually and the division between "medium" and "small"
conventional plants was set at 1810 kkg (2000 tons) of raw
product processed annually. The division between "large"
and "small" mechanized plants was set at 3630 kkg (1000
tons) of raw product processed annually.
Table 26 indicates distribution within the selected size
ranges, of the plants investigated.
Although some variability was evident between the plants in
the "conventional" and "mechanized" subcategories,
especially the flow ratio and production parameters, the
following observations were noted. The waste loads (in
terms of BOD, suspended solids, and grease and oil) were
four to five times greater for the mechanized operations
than the conventional operations. The highly variable flow
ratios for the conventional operations were attributed
mainly to the different methods of washing the fish before
processing. For example, the high flow ratio exhibited by
plant BIO was due to the fact that a high-velocity jet spray
was used to wash the fish as they were conveyed to the
processing lines.
Since the waste loads were relatively low and were uniform
for all the conventional bottom/miscellaneous finfish pro-
cesses, it was reasonable to place them into one
subcategory. Table 27 summarizes the waste parameters for
the non-Alaska conventional bottom/miscellaneous finfish
plants. Plant FNF3 was not included in the average because
only a small number of fish were being handled in the round
on the day the sample was taken, a situation which was
considered to be atypical.
The plants used to represent the mechanized
bottom/miscellaneous finfish process were two New England
116
-------
Table 26. Non-Alaska bottom fish
size distribution.
Size
Type of Process
Conventional Mechanized
Large
Medium
Small
FNF4, B8
B5, B7, B9,
FMF1, FNF2,
BIO, Bll, B12
Bl, B2 , B4,
FNF3
Wl, W2, B6
CFC1
117
-------
Table 27
CONYENT ICNAL 30TT01 FISH
PROCESS SUMKARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PA*/i"EUK
PRODUCTION (TON/H*)*
TIME (HR/OAY)*
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)»
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
900-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (MG/L)
(KG/ KKG)
PH*
ME AN
1.79
6.98
3.75
59. t
52nO
1270
271
633
3.32
66. V
6.79
LOG NORMAL LCG NORMAL
MEAN STD OEtf
1.32
0.6«*2
3.00
47. 6
6.56 0.053
7.15 0.052
5.60 0.163
0.353 0.163
6.<45 0.152
1.20 0.152
«».20 0.199
-1.06 0.199
0.561
99X
MAXIMUM
5990
14,1.0
396
2.08
901
k.72
105
0.553
PLANTS 81 ,62 ,Q* ofc ,57 ,P3
311 ,612 ,FNFl,FKF2,FNFi«
.89
.610
• NUTFI THc OUTPUTb FOR THcSE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UN*L1GHTEC> H£AN
ANO STANDARD DEVIATION, RtSFLCTItfuLY
118
-------
whiting plants (Wl, W2), a fish flesh plant on the Gulf
(CFCl)i and a bottom fish plant in the Northwest (B6, B6H).
Plant B6 was included in the mechanized subcategory because
it used a mechanical sealer with high-velocity water jets.
Since this was the only sealer of this type observed, and it
contributed a high percentage of the waste load, it could
not be considered typical. Plant CFCl was also included in
the mechanized subcategory, since mechanical beheading and
eviscerating machinery was used. The waste loads for the
two whiting plants and the fish flesh plant were considered
to be the most representative of the mechanized segment of
the industry and are summarized in Table 28.
SARDINE CANNING
The canning of sea herring for sardines was considered to be
an important segment of the seafood industry from a waste
impact viewpoint due to its relatively large waste loads and
flows and its seasonal or variable nature. Four sardine
canning plants were visited in Maine; however, only two were
sampled, as considerable historical data were available from
a study conducted by the Maine Sardine Council (Atwell,
1973). A total of 86 unit operation and effluent composite
samples were collected (or otherwise made available) from
the sardine industry.
Process Description
Figure 37 shows the flow diagram for a typical Maine sardine
canning plant. Although the process varies somewhat from
plant to plant, it consists essentially of the following
unit operations.
The fish arrive at the plant by boat or truck. Fish
arriving by boat are pumped out of the holds and transported
to storage bins by flume or dry conveyor. The water used is
composed of transport brine from the hold and tidal water of
varying salinity. This unloading water is usually
discharged back to the local tidal waters. Fish arriving by
truck are flumed or conveyed to storage tanks, or directly
to the packing table.
Fish that are stored for significant lengths of time (one to
two days) are preserved by the addition of concentrated
brine solution to the storage bins. This is generally
recycled through refrigeration units to maintain low
temperatures within the tanks. The fish are removed from
the storage bins by dip net, or are flushed out with large
119
-------
Table 28
MECHANICAL EOTTCM FISH
PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PPOOUCTION (TCN/HR)*
TIME (HR/OAY)»
FLOW (L/SEC)'
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
900-5 (MG/L)
( KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH»
LOG NORMAL LCG NORMAL
MEAN MEAN STO OEV
,.21
6.27
13.3
211
135CO
659
8.92
878
11.9
183
7.29
9.51
6.09
6.1*9
2.19
6.78
2.<*8
5.21
0.909
3.18
2.86
8.73
139
0.211
0.211
0.163
0.183
0.132
0.132
0.357
0.357
0.393
MAXIMUM
22100
5E90
1010
13
1190
16
5
.7
.2
.70
PLANTS CFCI,M
» NOTE I THE CLTFLTS FCR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THt NORMAL (UNhEIGHTEC) *E«N
AND STANJARO CEVIATICN, RESFfCTIVtLY
120
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
BAILWATER
BLOOD, DEBRIS, FISH
BRINE WATER _
SALT, OR6ANICS
_BELT__WASHER WATER
SLIME; ORGANICS
_COOKIiNG WATER
STICKWATER
CUSHION WATER
OIL, FISH PIECES
OIL, SOAP, PARTICLES
EFFLUENT
Figure 37. Typical sardine canning process,
121
-------
hoses. Fish are then either flumed or dry-conveyed to the
cutting and packing tables.
The heads and tails are generally removed by hand; however,
cutting machines for packing fish steaks are now being used
on a limited basis. The size of head and tail portions
removed depends on the fish size. The cutting and packing
table is generally supplied continuously with fish, using a
conveyor or flume. Fish remaining at the end of the
conveyor are returned to the head of the line. All solid
waste, consisting of heads, tails, and rejects from the
packing line, are transported by water flume or dry conveyor
to storage hoppers or directly to a waiting truck. These
solids are usually hauled to reduction plants, where they
are processed into fish meal or sold to lobstermen for bait.
After packing, open cans of sardines are placed in racks
which are stacked onto special hand-trucks which are then
rolled into a steam box for precooking. The fish are
precooked for about 30 minutes at about 100°C (212°F), then
removed from the steam box, drained and cooled to room
temperature prior to sealing. This operation partially
cooks the fish and removes undesirable oils. The liquid
waste, or stickwater, generated represents one of the most
troublesome waste loads from the sardine operation.
The sardine cans are sealed by a machine which also adds
oils and/or sauces. After sealing, the cans are washed to
remove any oil or foreign substances which may have adhered
to the can. The wash operation employs a closed system
which is emptied at the end of the day's operation.
The sealed and washed cans are automatically loaded into
vertical retorts which are partially filled with water to
cushion the cans as they enter. In the retort, the cans are
cooked at about 113°C (235°F) for one hour. If sauces, such
as mustard or tomato sauce are utilized, the cooking time
may be reduced to 50 minutes.
After cooking, the cans are water-cooled in the retort to a
temperature of about 52°C (126°F). The cans are then
removed from the bottom of the retort where they are washed
again to remove any spots. They are then conveyed to
holding bins where they are stored prior to manual casing.
Subcategorization Rationale
Since the sardine canning process is essentially the same
from plant to plant and is located mainly in one geographic
region, further Subcategorization was not considered
122
-------
necessary. A relatively low number of sardine plants are
still operating; however, their sizes range widely. Of the
17 active processing operations, five were considered to be
large (over 55 thousand cases annually) for the purpose of
casting control and treatment technology, eight were
considered to be medium (30 to 55 thousand cases annually)
and four small (Reed, 1973) . Ten of the 17 plants are
located outside of population centers.
Figure 38 is a summary plot of the characteristics of four
sardine plants. Plants SA1 and SA2 were investigated during
this study. Information on plants SA2, SA3, and SA4 was
obtained from the Maine Sardine Council study (Atwell,
1973) . All four plants were in the "large" size range.
Plants SA1 and SA2 both used dry conveyors to move the fish
from the holding bins to the packing lines. This should de-
crease the flow and reduce the waste load (because it
reduces the contact time of the fish with the water). Table
29 compares flows and waste loads at plant SA2 before and
after implementation of the belt conveyor.
Table 30 summarizes waste loads statistics for the plants.
Tables 31 and 32 list the summary waste loads statistics for
the can wash and precook water and the remainder of the
plant effluent. It was assumed that the waste load per unit
of production was a constant value, regardless of plant
size.
HERRING FILLETING
The sea herring fillet processing industry is typified by
large flows and waste loadings; however, it was considered
to be less important than the canning segment of the herring
industry because very few filleting operations exist in the
United States. The market outlook is promising; therefore,
two plants, one in New England and one in Alaska, were in-
vestigated. In addition, historical data from a plant in
the Maritime region of Canada were obtained, providing a
total of 11 composite unit operation and end-of-pipe
samples.
Process Description
Figure 39 presents the flow diagram for a typical herring
filleting process. In New England, the herring are received
from boats or trucks and are pumped into the plant as a
fish-water slurry. The scales are removed using a descaler
123
-------
Table 29. Waste load reduction
using dry conveyor (Plant SA2).
Parameter Before After % Reduction
Flow ratio (1/kkg) 20,400 7590 63
Suspended solids (kg/kkg) 8.7 2.0 77
BOD (kg/kkg) 12.3 5.0 59
124
-------
Table 30
SARDINE GfNMNG PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(COM9INLC CISCHA^GE)
PArfAMETcR
PRODUCTION (TCN/HR)*
TIME (HR/OAY)*
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS (HG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOO-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH»
I
McAN
5.<9
5 . f 5
9.62
137
36nO
2100
605
2.93
2750
10.0
1.99
6.<*0
CG NCRMAL I
MEAN
8.20
7.65
6.69
1.08
7.92
2.31
6.30
C.688
.CG NORMAL 99V.
STO OEV MAXIMUM
1.72
0.30<»
6.61
105
0.032 3920
0.030 2250
C.152 11^0
0.152 <».i7
C.093 3<«20
0.093 12.4
0.304 1110
0.30
-------
Table 31
SAR3INE CANMNG FROCEbS SUHHARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(CAN WASH AND PRE-COOK WATER)
PARAMETER
PROOUCTIGN (TCN/HR)*
TIME
»
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS (1G/L)
(KG/KKG)
80D-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (PG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
MEAN
5.*.3
5.19
1.67
26.5
176
<»2.2
3790
1.E5
30000
5.28
10700
1.69
6.70
LOG NORMAL
MEAN
5.17
3.7k
9.08
O.U38
10.3
1.66
9.28
C.636
LCG NORMAL
STO OEV
1.53
0.204
1.61
35.5
0.000
0.000
0.<*35
0.1.35
0.098
0.093
0.322
0.322
0.618
99X
MAXIMUM
176
«.2.2
2*4200
<«.27
37600
6.63
22700
3.99
PLANTS SAl ,SA2
* NOTEt THt OtTPUTS FOR THESE PARA^ET^fiS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWfc I Gt-TE C) MEAN
ANO STANDARD DtVIATICN, RESPECTIVELY
126
-------
Table 32
CtNMNG PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SUECTE3 PARAMETERS
»
FLOM (I/SCO*
(GAL/1IN)*
FLOW 3ATIO (LXKKG)
I GAL XT ON)
TSS MGXL)
(KGXKKG)
600-9 (MG/L)
(KGXKKG)
GREASE ANO CIt <«S/L»
(KGXKKG)
PM»
MEAN
5.39
9.36
e.9%
110
6680
1650
276
576
3.97
8«.e
0.59J
6.37
LOG NCAMAL
6.6%
7. til
5.6?
0.6*3
6.36
1.36
-0.516
LCG NORMAL
STO oe*
1.66
0.573
5.00
79. <•
0.0 3*
0.03%
0.061
0.061
0.096
0.096
0.* «i9
0.<»ii9
0.062
99%
MAXIMUM
1760
333
2.29
722
••.97
1.70
PLANTS SAI ,SAZ
THE OUTPUTS FOR THESt PARAMETERS
AS(E THE NCR*At (UNMEIC-t-TEC) MEAN
ANO STANOASO OEVIATIOh, RESPECTIWELY
127
-------
Fiqure 38.. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS PLOT
6.
<*.
.
.
•
•
.
3.
.
.
•
•
•
2.
•
•
•
•
•
1.
•
.
.
•
*
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
E GP
B GP
BSGP
BSGP
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
Q
C
SA1
(8)
SYMBOL
Q
8
S
G
P
G
8
P
P
GP
GP
Q GP
Q G P
QBSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
G
G
SA2 SA2H
<3> (4)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 DAY 800
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
P
P B
Q
B
Q
SA3 SA<*
(2) (5)
SCALING FACTOR
1 INCH = 5000 L/KKG
1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 2 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 1 KG/KKG
1 INCH = 2 TCNYHR
128
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
IN SEASON
WATER, BLOOD,SCALES
WATER , BLOOD, OIL
_WATER^BLOOD, VISCERA 1
"FAT, HEADS .SCALES, FIN S, SKELETONS
WATER,BLOOD,SCRAPS
WATER , BLOOD, SOLIDS
TO REDUCTION PLANT
OR
RECEIVING WATER
Figure 39. Typical herring filleting process
129
-------
on the boat in a manner similar to that used in the sardine
industry.
The fish may be iced down before being flushed by high
pressure hoses toward an inclined conveyor, which transports
them into the processing room. German-made "Baader 33"
filleting machines were used for processing the herring at
the plant visited in New England.
In the Alaskan operation the herring were transported in
bins and processed using "Arenco" filleting machines, made
in Sweden.
In the filleting machines, the fish are oriented into groves
and conveyed to a saw. The machines remove the heads, tails
and viscera and finally fillet the herring in one operation.
The differences observed between the Arenco and the Baader
filleting machines were:
1) The Arenco machine used two counter-rotating,
grooved wheels which partially eviscerated the
fish after beheading. This pair of wheels
became less effective as viscera accumulated
on them. This problem was reduced by
directing a high-pressure water stream onto
them during operation.
2) Instead of a single circular horizontal knife
for slitting the underside (belly) of the
herring, the Arenco used a set of two
horizontal circular knives, which slightly
overlapped. The adjustment of the Arenco
machine was considered to be finer and tended
to reduce the number of improperly cut fish.
The freshly-cut fillets are flumed onto a sorting conveyor
where the poorly-cut fillets are separated and repaired
manually. Recycled fillets are returned to this conveyor to
be again sorted. The good fillets go to a boxing line where
they are placed in cartons which are subsequently adjusted
for weight and taped closed. The boxes are put onto racks
and finally quick frozen.
During spawning season the roe and milt, which are called
"spawn," are saved and shipped, respectively, to Japan and
England where they are considered delicacies. Production
increases as the size of the fish increases; yields of U3 to
45 percent are expected during spawning season. Fillet
yields increase in the winter when no roe or milt are
130
-------
present. The fish are generally the larger herring, being
20 to 25 cm (8 to 10 in.) long.
The plant in New England flumed the heads, tails, viscera
and other solid wastes to a nearby rendering plant where the
solids were screened out and the water discharged. There-
fore, no filleting plant wastewater existed except the bail-
water, which was discharged. In Alaska the total effluent,
including solid wastes, was discharged. The waste flume
from the New England plant was sampled to obtain the
characteristics of the effluent as if it had been discharged
instead of being sent to the reduction plant.
Subcategorizatjon Rationale
Since the herring filleting process is essentially the same
from plant to plant and the number of plants is too small to
separate the industry into size ranges, geographic location
was considered to be the only factor requiring further
attention in the subcategorization process.
Figure 40 summarizes the characteristics of three herring
filleting plants. Plant HF1 is located in New England,
plant HF2 in the Maritime region of Canada and plant HF3 in
Southeastern Alaska. Information on plant HF2 was obtained
from a study conducted by the Enviornmental Protection
Service of Canada (Riddle and Shikaze, 1973).
It was noted that the waste characteristics for all the
plants were similar. One difference was the relatively high
flow ratio observed at the Alaska plant. This high ratio is
not considered to be typical, since the investigation was
conducted at the beginning of the season and few fish were
being processed. At low processing rates, water use is more
independent of production rate.
Table 33 summarizes statistics of the waste loads from all
three plants excluding the high flow ratio from the Alaska
plant. It was assumed that the process is uniform enough to
allow the industry to be characterized by an average of the
data from the plants in different regions.
Clams
The processing of clams for fresh or frozen meat or for a
canned product was considered to be a moderately important
segment of the seafood industry because of the relatively
large number of plants engaged in this activity. The
131
-------
Figure 40. •IMPING FILLETING PROCESS PLOT-
6.
s as
5. s as
S BS
s as
s es
s is
es as i
<+• ss es
63 BS
es es
? 3S
e as es
5 9
3. e P 3
6 P 3
. 8 P 8
P 9
Q p a
Q P
2. Q
T
G
G F
. G P
G OP
Q P
HPI HF2
(.3) (2)
SY*6CL PARAMETER
Q FLCk i
8 5 DAY 30Q 1
S SUSPENDED SCLIOS 1
G GRLASE < OIL 1
P PRODUCTION 1
HF3
(1)
SCALING FAC
INCH = ECOO
INCH = 1C
INCH = 5
INCH = 5
INCH = e
TCR
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCN/HR
132
-------
Table 33
G FILLtTIKG PSCCfSS SU»"A*Y
CF StLLCHC PAGAIcTfcRS
LOC KCSMAL LCG NORMAL
STC 0£*
99X
HAXIMUM
P5.00LICTION (TON/MR)'
Till
-------
industry produces wastewater flows and loadings which are
quite variable and plant sizes vary widely. Therefore, a
total of eight processing operations were investigated and a
total of 38 unit operation and end-of-pipe composite samples
of the wastewater collected. Although three important types
of clams are processed (surf, hard, and soft), only surf
clam processes were sampled since these are, by far, the
most important, in terms of production and wastes generated.
Plants processing hard and soft clams were visited and
information on the processing methods was obtained.
Process Description
The process description for surf clams is discussed in
detail since it is the most important. The processing of
hard and soft clams is basically the same as surf clam
processing, except that higher percentages are handled
manually.
shucking, debellying, and packing. Most plants produce
frozen or chilled clam meat which is shipped to other areas
for further processing into soup, chowder, or a canned meat
product. Some plants include a canning operation with the
meat operation.
Shucking of the clam involves removal of the organism from
the shell and is accomplished either manually or
mechanically. Mechanized operations are usually large and
the manual operations small.
Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations,
they were investigated in greater detail. Figure 41 shows a
typical mechanized surf clam process including shucking, de-
bellying, and the three observed methods of packing. The
figure also includes an evaporated juice operation which is
used in some processes.
The clams are unloaded from the vessels in heavy wire cages
and conveyed into the plant where they may receive a pre-
liminary wash before shucking. The washing is accomplished
by a spray onto the belt or by a reel washer. The reel
washer is cylindrical, ranges from 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) in
diameter and 2 to 3.5 m (6 to 12 ft) in length and is
usually made of stainless steel. Two basic types of reel
washers are in use: one is partially submerged in a "V"
shaped stainless steel tank filled with water; the other
type is suspended above the same type of tank, which in this
case serves as a drain for water sprayed from a perforated
pipe within the drum itself.
134
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
TO SHELLS
LANDFILL, < =:
SHELLFISH MEDIUM
CONSTRUCTION, ETC
SEWER, BELLIES
DUMPED, OR <= -
USED FOR EEL BAIT
MEAT
SH
»
SKIMMER
TABLE
^r
r— L~ n \
JUICE
7
1 CHILL
OR
I | FREEZE
SEAM ,
ORGANICS, WATER
BOX
S SHIP
Figure 41. Typical mechanized surf clam proces.
135
-------
Heating the clams can be effected using a "shucking
furnacer" steam cooker, or hot water cooker. The shucking
furnace, also known as a shucking machine or the "iron man,"
is a large propane furnace reaching temperatures from 625°C
to 815°C (1160°F to 1500°F). A heavy metal chain belt
transports the clams through the iron man in 50 to 100
seconds, depending upon the internal temperature.
The steam cooker method operates at 2 atm (15 psig) for one
to two minutes at a temperature of 132°C (270°F). The
liquid generated is piped off and condensed for use as clam
broth. The condenser water may be recycled and used in the
first washer. The hot water cooker method immerses the
clams in water at a temperature of approximately 82°C
(180°F) for one to two minutes. This method is most typical
in hand-shucked operations.
After heating, the clams are usually washed using one or
more reel washers. The meat is then removed from the shell,
most often by the use of a brine flotation tank.
Occasionally a hammer mill grinder or a shaker is used ahead
of the flotation tank to help separate the meat from the
shell. Any meat still attached to the shells is removed by
hand and placed in a reel washer which follows the shucking
operation. Some operations will repeat the last two steps;
i.e., brine flotation, then washing. The shells are
stockpiled, and utilized in landfills or road construction,
or piled to dry for subsequent use as media for shellfish
larval attachment.
At this point, the meats are belted or flumed across a
"skimmer table" to the debellying operation. A few plants
fresh pack the whole clams and ship them to other areas for
further processing, but this is not typical. The clam belly
is usually removed manually, however, this step is becoming
automated in many plants. The viscera and gonads removed
from the surf clam are dumped directly into the adjacent
waters, ground and discharged to the local sewer system, or
recovered for bait or animal food.
Only the adductor muscles and the muscle tissue of the foot
and mantle edge of the clam continue on to the next washer,
which may be a reel washer, a circular jet washer, or an air
blow washer. The circular jet washer is a doughnut-shaped
tub with tangential nozzles on the bottom to create a strong
circular current in about 10 cm (4 in.) of water. A small
opening allows a constant overflow of clams. Air blow
washers are large "V" shaped stainless steel tanks. Air is
bubbled the entire length of the tank from the bottom
through the smaller trough, agitating the clams. In
136
-------
addition, an auger creates a current which helps to clean
and move the clams along.
After being washed, the clams normally pass over a skimmer
table. Depending upon the desired end product, the clams
are then either fresh packed as whole clams, or chopped or
minced for further processing.
Three methods of further processing of the minced clams were
observed: chilling or freezing, canning, and cooking for
juice. Little waste is generated by the chilling or
freezing or canning operations. When the clam juice is
evaporated, the waste load is increased, due to volatiles
being entrained in the condenser water.
Figure 42 illustrates the product and waste flow for a
typical hand-shucked surf clam process. The clams arrive by
boat or truck in wire cages holding about 32 bushels per
cage. The clams are belted through a spray washer and into
a hot water blancher which partially opens the clams.
Residence time in the blancher, which operates at about 80°C
(176°F) is approximately twenty seconds. The clams are next
belted to a shucking table where the meat is removed
manually by prying the shell open and scraping it with a
knife. The meats are transported by bucket to a reel washer
where sand is removed. After the clams pass through the
washer, they are again put into buckets and taken to a
debellying and inspection table where the bellies and pieces
of shell and other extraneous matter that may be clinging to
the clam meats are removed by hand. The clam bellies are
stored in barrels and used for bait or animal food or simply
discarded. The clam meats are placed into a jet washer, as
described previously, which removes most of the remaining
bits of sand and shell. From the jet washer they pass onto
a table with perforations (skimmer table) which drains most
of the water and where more shell is manually removed. From
this table they pass into the second reel washer for final
cleaning. The washed meat is then either fresh-packed or
frozen.
The processing of hard and soft clams is similar to a hand-
shucked oyster process. The clam is shucked manually,
washed and packed. Hard clams have a larger frozen shelf
life than other clams so they are usually frozen. A few
hard clams are also sold fresh for chowder and some are sold
in the shell. The soft clam is usually fresh-packed and
shipped elsewhere for further processing. Some soft clams
are also sold in the shell or used as bait.
137
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
SHELL
FOR ^ ZZ
LANDFILL,
CONSTRUTION.OR
SHELLFISH SUBSTRATA
SHUCK
WASH
BELLIES
TO SEWER, <—
DUMPED.OR
USED FOR EEL BAIT
SAND,ORGANICS,WATER
DE-BELLY
WASH
ORGANICS,WATER
FRESH
PACK
FREEZE
BOX
a SHIP
EFFLUENT
Figure 42. Typical hand-shucked surf clam process
138
-------
Some conchs are harvested along with clams and are often
processed in the same plant. In a typical operation, the
meat is manually separated from the shell and the viscera
removed. The meat is then washed, chopped and canned. Clam
juice and salt is added before canning. Conch shells in
good condition are sold for souvenirs. The remaining shells
are discarded, like clam shells, in landfills or road
construction.
gubcategorizatign Rationale
Although there is a variety of clam processing operations,
the only factor which is considered to affect subcategori-
zation is the degree of mechanization.
A conventional clam process is defined as one where the unit
operations are performed essentially by hand and with a
relatively low water flow. A mechanized clam process is
defined as one where most of the unit operations are mech-
anized and where, consequently, water flow is relatively
high. Figure t»3 summarizes the wastewater characteristics
for both the conventional and mechanized clam processes.
Plants represented by codes HCLl, 2 and 3 are conventional
hand-shucking operations, while plants FCLl, 2, 3 and CC12
are mechanized operations. Code CCOl represents a conch
canning process, which is conducted in conjunction with a
clam canning operation. It can be seen that the
conventional hand-shucking operations contribute much lower
wastewater flows and organic loadings than the mechanized
operations.
The data from the three conventional plants are relatively
uniform; however, a greater range in the data from the
mechanized plants are evident. The plant with code FCLl
shucked but did not debelly the clams, resulting in lower
waste loads. The plant with code FCL3 was a highly
mechanized plant with very high water use due to
considerable washing of the product. Plant FCL3 also steam
cooked the clams to facilitate shucking and condensed the
clam juice, leading to higher waste loads due to evaporator
condensate.
All the conventional clam operations were included in one
subcategory; all the mechanized clam operations were
included in another subcategory for the above reasons.
Table 34 summarizes the waste parameters from the
conventional clam plants. The large standard deviation of
suspended solids was caused by the highly variable nature of
139
-------
Figure 43. CONVENTIONAL OR MECHANIZED CLAM PROCESS PLOT.
•
•
5.
•
•
•
•
•
**.
•
.
•
•
•
3.
•
•
•
•
.
2.
•
•
.
G
•
1.
S
. Q8
.
P
.
HCLl
(1)
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S
S
8 GP
B GP G
B GP Q G Q G
QB G 8 P QB G
Q BS
HCL2 HCL3 FCL1
(<+) (1) (4)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 OAY 300
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
B G
B G
B G
QB G
Q SG
S
S P
S P
FCL2
(4)
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q SG
QBSG
QBSG
BSG
BSG
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
S
P
FCL3
(5)
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q G
Q G
Q G
G Q G
G Q
Q G Q
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q G B
Q G S
B G S
B S
BS S
S S
S P S
P S
P S
P
CCL2 CC01
(7) (3)
SCALING FACTOR
1
1
1
1
1
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
INCH =
10000 L/KKG
10 KG/KKG
5 KG/KKG
0.2 KG/KKG
10 TON/HR
140
-------
Table 34
COIWtUTION/L CLAM PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)*
TIHL (HR/OAY)»
FLOW (L/SEC)'
(GAL/HIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)**
(GAL/TON)
TSS (MG/L) **
(KG/KKG)
800-5 (MG/L) **
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (MG/L)**
(KG/KKG)
PH»
MEAN
<*.fc9
4.60
5.36
65.1
3700
886
3680
13.6
1543
5.71
38.1
0.141
6.99
STD DE.V
1.63
2.01
2.07
32.9
771
185
1910
7.06
657
2.43
16.8
0.062
0.069
99*
MAXIMUM
7290
1750
8110
30.0
3080
11.4
77.0
0.285
PLANTS HCL1,HCL2,HCL3
* NOTE I TH£ OUTPUTS FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNHE1GHTEC) MEAN
ANO STflNOARJ CFVIATICN, RESPECTIVELY
** These parameters are the normal (weighted)
mean and standard deviation, respectively
141
-------
the sand content in the effluent, especially during
washdown.
Table 35 summarizes the waste parameters from the mechanized
clam plants. Plant FCL1 was not included, since it was a
hybrid operation and did not include the debellying
operation.
OYSTERS
The processing of oysters for fresh or frozen meat or for a
canned product was considered to be a moderately important
segment of the seafood industry due to the large number of
plants engaged in this activity. The industry uses both
conventional and mechanized techniques, which result in a
wide range of wastewater flows and organic loadings. In
addition, plant sizes vary widely. Therefore, a total of 14
processing operations were investigated and a total of 99
unit operation and end-of-pipe composite samples of
wastewater collected.
Process Description
The processing of oysters consists of two basic operations:
shucking and packing. The oyster process is less
complicated than the surf clam process, since oyster viscera
are not removed. Most plants produce fresh or frozen meat,
while some produce a canned meat or canned stew.
Shucking of the oyster is accomplished using either manual
or mechanical methods, although manual operations are more
prevalent. Mechanized operations are generally large, while
manual operations range from very small to moderately large.
Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations,
these were investigated in some detail. Figure 44 depicts a
typical mechanized process, referred to as the steamed or
canned oyster process, as observed in the Middle Atlantic
and Northwest regions. Unfortunately, the oyster canning
season had not started in the Gulf before the end of the
sampling program; therefore, no operations were investigated
in that region. However, the same species and same
processing methods are utilized in both the Gulf and Middle
Atlantic regions.
The oysters arrive at the plant in wire cages and are
conveyed into the plant as needed, to two sequential drum
washers. The first washer cleans the oyster shells, and
removes broken shell, seaweed, and other matter. The second
142
-------
Table 35
MECHANICAL LLAM PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SfcLfcCTEO PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)*
TIME (HR/OAY)*
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL /TON)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
800-5
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
DIRT, DEBRIS,WATER
DIRT, DEBRIS,WATER
HOT WATER
WATER
BRINE
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
TO SHELL PILE
EFFLUENT
Figure 44. Typical steamed or canned oyster process.
144
-------
washer has a different pitch and serves to jar the valves
far enough apart to allow steam to enter during the cooking.
Loose empty shells are manually removed before the oysters
are collected in retort baskets. The oysters are steamed in
retorts under pressure and the resulting oyster juice or
broth piped to a holding tank and later condensed. After
cooking, the meat is separated from the shell manually or by
brine flotation. One mechanized method uses a specially
designed drum washer called the "shucker". This serves to
mechanically separate the meat from the shell as the drum
rotates. Both the meat and the shell are collected in a
brine flotation tank where the buoyancy of the meats allows
the saturated salt solution to float them to a blow tank
which agitates and adds water to the product. The shells
sink to the bottom of the brine tank, where a belt collects
them and deposits them outside the plant. The meats go
through a final drum washer before being manually inspected.
The oyster meat at this point may be fresh packed in large
cans, together with the condensed broth, or canned and
retorted. Some oysters are also smoked prior to packing in
jars or tins.
Figure 45 shows a typical conventional hand-shucked oyster
process as observed on both the East and West Coasts. The
oysters are shucked manually and usually fresh packed, al-
though some are breaded and some cooked for stew. The
oysters arrive at the plant by boat, barge, or truck and are
conveyed into the plant on a belt or in buckets. The shells
may be washed to remove most of the mud, and to facilitate
shucking. shuckers open the shells manually by forcing the
valves apart and cutting the adductor muscle. The meat is
put into buckets, washed on a skimmer table and placed in
the blow washer. The blow washer typically holds about 300
liters (80 gal.) of water. For the first 5 to 15 minutes
air is bubbled through the washer; for the following 20 to
50 minutes, overflow water is added to the tanks. The
oysters are dewatered on a skimmer table and then packed in
cans. A few operations bread and freeze the oysters, which
adds an additional waste load during washdown.
A few plants sort out the broken oyster pieces and can them
as a stew. This is a minor operation and occurs only once
or twice per week depending on the supply of pieces. The
oysters are first cooked in large vats for about 30 minutes,
along with pieces and preservatives. The meat is then
rinsed and added to the cans, along with milk and broth.
The can is then sealed and retorted.
145
-------
SHELL
TO SHELL PILE
Figure 45. Typical hand-shucked oyster process
EFFLUENT
146
-------
Subcategorization Rationale
The only factors which were considered to effect
Subcategorization of the oyster industry were the degree of
mechanization and geographic location. Figure 46 summarizes
the wastewater parameter statistics for all the oyster
processes sampled. Plants represented by codes HSOl through
HSO6 were East Coast hand-shucked oyster operations; plants
represented by codes HSO8 through HS11 were West Coast hand-
shucked oyster operations; codes SOl and SO2 represent
steamed oyster processes; Code COl represents a West Coast
canned oyster operation; and CO2 a West Coast canned oyster
stew operation. It should be noted that the production is
expressed in terms of weight of the oyster meat after
shucking. The reason for this is that the measurement of
final product in this case is much more accurate, due to
variable amounts of loose or empty shells coming into the
plant.
It was noted that the waste loads from the steamed and
canned oyster processes were higher than those from the
hand-shucked fresh/frozen operations. Therefore, it was
decided that the oyster industry be subcategorized into
conventional hand-shucked oyster processes and the more
mechanized steamed or canned oyster processes.
Table 36 summarizes statistics from the steamed and canned
oyster plants sampled and was used as the source of typical
raw waste loads from this segment of the industry. It was
assumed that the waste loads per unit of production were
independent of plant size.
It also appears that the waste loads from the West Coast
handshucked oyster processes were somewhat higher than those
from the East Coast processes. This probably was due to the
fact that the West Coast oyster is larger and tends to break
up easier during handling. Therefore, the hand-shucked
oysters were divided into two subcategories: West Coast
hand-shucked oyster processing and East and Gulf Coast hand-
shucked oyster processing.
Table 37 summarizes statistics from the Pacific hand-shucked
oyster plants sampled. Table 38 summarizes statistics from
the East Coast hand-shucked oyster plants sampled. It was
assumed that the waste loads per unit of production were in-
dependent of plant size.
Since the size range of the hand-shucked oyster industry is
quite large, it was divided into three parts for the purpose
of determining treatment costs. Based on investigations
147
-------
Figure 46. FRESH/FROZEN, STEAMED, OR CANNED OYSTER PROCESS PLOT.
co
Q
Q
Q
Q G
Q G
Q G G
Q G G
da G G
03 G G
B G Q B G
3 G Q QB
08 B
Q QB QB G
QB GP S QB G QB G S
B 8 GP QB G S B G QB G
GP B GP QS GP S P P 6SG P
Q S SP SP S BS P
HS01 HS02 HS03 HSO<» HS05 HS06 HS06
(1) (3) (
-------
Table 36
SU4MEO CR CJNKEC OYSTERS
FRCCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PROOUCTION (TON/MR)*
TIME (HR/O/m*
FLOW (L/SCO*
-------
"Iable 37
CCAS1 t-ANC SMUCKtJ CYSTERS
FfcCCtJi SUGARY
OF SrtECUO PAfcAILTERS
LOG NCNMAL ICG NOftfAL 99X
*tAN *CAM STO 0£¥ HAXHUM
TI*C IMM/OAVI*
(L/SEC»*
<&AL/1JK)»
fLOM «AIIO
fGAL/TCN)
TSS I1G/L»
IKG/«KG>
(KG/KKGI
GKiASE AND OIL «»6/L>
(KG/KKC)
it. 9
$9100
13300
620
1.S5
10.9
3.*1
C.07
3.17
3.3*
C.l*6
t.Sfe
1.09
lfc.6
o.oor
0.007
0.029
0.029
0.019
G.01S
0.036
0.026
0.155
56100
131,00
661
36.6
1,5 0
30.5
1.69
PLANTS MS05,»-scs,hSio,nsii
• NOTE l TH£ OUTPUTS UK THESE F**»«-ETE«S
"<£ TMt NCfclAL (UNHCIChTct) »t*N
ANO STANCA^U CtVIATICK, *tSFtCTI»rLY
150
-------
Table 38
LAST AND GULF CCAST hANC SHUCKcC OYSTERS
PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SE.LECTFD PARAMTEKS
PARAMETER
PROOUCTION (TON/hR)»
TIMP (HR/9AY)"
FLOW (L/SEO*
(GAL/MIN)»
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
MEAN
0.147
6.21
l.€9
26.9
32600
762C
M6
13.6
U55
m.9
20. t,
O.€t3£
7.09
LOG NORMAL
MEAN
10. <«
6.96
6.03
2.61
6.12
2.70
3.01
-c.mo
LCG NORMAL
STO DEV
0.085
1.11
0*966
15.7
0.029
C.029
0.1<»3
0.1<»3
0.075
0.075
0.066
0.066
0.012
99X
MAXIHUH
34600
6350
579
18.9
541
17.7
23.7
0.775
PLANTS HS02,hSC3,HSO*,H30&,HSC6
• NOT-, i THE OUTPUTS FCR THESE
At^E THF. NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEC) "EAN
AND STANDARD Ct>/IATICN, RESFtCTIVELY
151
-------
made in the field the large and medium-size ranges were
divided at 300 tons of finished product per year, and the
medium and small ranges at 150 tons of finished product per
year.
SCALLOPS
The processing of scallops was considered to be less
important than clam and oyster processing, since the waste
loads were lower and fewer plants were in operation. A
total of three Alaskan scallop processing operations were
investigated and 13 unit operation and end-of-pipe composite
samples of wastewater collected. The processing methods
used for bay, sea and Alaskan scallops are similar. The
calico scallop is processed in a different manner from the
others; unfortunately, the 1973 harvest of calico scallops
was very poor and no operations were observed.
Process Description
The bay, sea and Alaskan scallops are processed for the
fresh or frozen market. The scallops are hand-shucked at
sea to avoid deterioration and the meat is iced and brought
to the plant in bags. Figure 47 shows the flow diagram for
a typical scallop process. After receiving the bagged
scallops, the processors re-ice and ship them to other
processors or freeze them immediately. In the plants
investigated the scallops were either frozen in a package or
individually quick frozen (IQF). The former involved a
prewash in a five to seven percent salt brine. In plants
using a fresh-water wash, a continuous flow was observed.
The brine tank wash is merely a holding tank with no flow,
except for make-up water and a complete recharge of the tank
every eight hours or so. From the wash tank, the scallop
meats are belted to inspection belts where debris and
extraneous material are removed. After inspection, the
scallops are put into plastic bags, weighed, boxed, and
frozen in plate freezers. After freezing, the boxes are
placed into cartons and held for shipment. The IQF process
is identical except that after washing, the scallop meats
are placed on a stainless steel mesh belt and conveyed into
a blast freezer tunnel. After rapid freezing, the scallops
are packaged and weighed, then packed in cartons for
storage. In some plants, the larger scallops are first cut
into smaller pieces before being frozen. A small percentage
of the scallops is processed for the fresh market, but the
vast majority is frozen in one form or another.
152
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ALTERNATE
METHOD
WATER, DEBRIS
WATER, MEAT
DEBRIS
EFFLUENT
Figure 47. Typical scallop process
153
-------
The calico scallop production began to become significant in
about 1967, with the development of patented machinery which
shucks and eviscerates the scallops automatically. In the
past, the machinery was sometimes installed on the dredging
vessel and the shucking operation done at sea; however, the
processes are now all land based. The typical unit
operations used are as follows (Johnson, 1974): The scallops
are piled on the dredge and unloaded via conveyor belt to
the plant. The live scallops are separated from the loose
shells by a shucker and conveyed through a heating tunnel.
The heat opens the scallop and loosens the adductor muscle
and visceral mass from the shell. The meat is then
separated from the shell using a shucker and brine
flotation. The meat then passes through a grinder-roller
which removes remaining viscera and is then washed, sorted,
and packed. The yield is quite variable, with the average
being about eight Ibs of meat from two bushels of shell
stock.
Subcateqorization Rationale
The only factor which was considered to influence subcate-
gorization of the scallop industry (excluding calico
scallops) was geographic location, since the processing
operations are essentially the same. It was determined that
the processing operations in Alaska be separated from those
outside of Alaska because of the greater costs. Figure 48
shows a summary plot of the wastewater characteristics of
two scallop processes in Alaska. It was noted that the
flows and waste loads were minimal. Table 39 shows the
average values of the wastewater parameters for the two
plants. There are no data for non-Alaska operations, since
the two Alaska plants were the only ones sampled. Other
plants were observed in the Middle Atlantic region using
essentially the same process; therefore, it should be a good
assumption that the waste loads would be similar.
ABALONE
The processing of abalone was considered to be relatively
unimportant from a wastewater control viewpoint, since the
flows and waste loads are small and because there are rela-
tively few plants. A total of three plants were
investigated and 19 unit operation and end-of-pipe
wastewater samples collected.
154
-------
Fiaure 48. ALASKAN SCALLOP PROCESS PLOT.
6.
5.
3.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
,
t
*
.
.
,
,
,
t
t
.
,
.
•
G
G
G
B G B
8 G
8 GP
G8 GP
QB GP
08 GP
G8 GP S
GB GP
QB G
QB G P
8 G
B G
G
G
G
G
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G G
SPi SF2
(6) (1)
SYMBOL
PARAMETER
SCALING FACTOR
Q
8
S
G
P
FLOW
5 DAY 300
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
1
1
1
1
1
INCH
INCH
INCH
INCH
INCH
=
=
=
-
=
5000
1
0.5
0.1
0.5
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
155
-------
Table 39
$CALLL<=S Ff-CCcSS S
OF SiLECTEO PAPAMiTtKS
P.**
(KG/KKG)
SOO-5 tIG/L)**
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND ClL (fG/U**
(KG/KKG)
PH»
HtIN
1.27
8.64
2.54
40.5
11700
2810
45.0
0.526
244
2.85
13.5
0.158
t.et
STC DEV
0.304
1.69
2.45
39.0
2550
612
10.9
0.127
79.0
0.924
17.4
0.203
ulltw
17600
4230
70.3
0.822
427
5.00
53.9
0.631
PLANTS SPI, SP2
» NOTES THE CUTPUTS FOR THESL
A«£ THC NCR-AL (UNnti-
AN3 STANJA^C/ CLVIftTION, (< £ £ Ft C T I VE L Y
** These parameters are the normal (weighted)
mean and standard deviation, respectively
156
-------
Process Description
Figure 49 shows the flow diagram for a typical abalone pro-
cess. The abalone are received at the plants in lots segre-
gated according to species and the diver who harvested them.
After unloading, the animal is removed from its shell with
the aid of an iron bar known as a "punch out" bar. The
visceral mass is separated from the large foot muscle which
is then put into a washer. Several types of mechanical
washers are in use, including a rotating drum type. The
washwater is often recirculated and dumped at set time
intervals. After washing, the mouth and head sections are
cut away and the foot muscles are arranged on a large
sorting table and allowed to rest. Before further
processing can be accomplished the muscle must sit for an
hour or more to relax. If the muscle is trimmed too soon
after shucking, it still retains a degree of excitability
and is difficult to handle.
Trimming follows the rest phase and is necessary to remove
the pigmented epithial lining of the muscle prior to
slicing. The mantel, the shell forming organ, is sliced off
first, usually with a mechanical slicer of the type commonly
used to slice meats. Next, the epidodium, the pad covering
the bottom of the muscle, is sliced off with a mechanical
slicer, and passed to a number of workers who complete the
trimming manually. This last step, known as "up-trimming,"
is necessary to remove the fascia, a dark pigmented lining
of the muscle. The trimmings are collected to be canned or
made into breaded abalone patties. The abalone is then
sliced and tenderized by pounding. Although attempts have
been made to automate the last step, no satisfactory
substitute has been found to replace the job of manually
pounding the steaks. The steaks are then packaged to be
sold fresh or frozen. Some steaks are breaded prior to
freezing.
Subcateqrorizatipn Rationale
Since the abalone process is a relatively small industry
which is located in one geographical area, it was determined
to constitute one subcategory. The abalone process plot of
selected waste parameters is shown in Figure 50. The
summary statistics for the three abalone processes sampled
are shown in Table 40.
157
-------
Table 40
A?aLCNt Ff-OCISS SUMCftRY
CF StLtCTlD PARAMFTtRS
PARA'-ETi.S *tlAN
PROOUCTION (TCN/HR)»
TIHE
FLOW
FLOW
(HR/0»Y>»
(L/SEC>»
(GAL/1IM*
RATIO (L/KKG)
(GtL/TCM)
TSS (1G/L)
(KG/KKG)
900-
5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GRt«S£ AND CIL (fG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
0.
3.
9.
8.
35700
$570
8.
17.
0.
7.
C71
7fl
£21
2fc
37
1
1
897
18
LOG KCfiMAL LCG NORMAL 9°X
0.
2.
C.
1.
1C. 5 0.
9.C6 0.
5.*e> o.
2.13 C.
t.17 C.
3.22 C.
-0.110 C.
C.
CC2
05
113
87
096
096
115
115
131.
IE*
019
<«<.70d
107CO
306
10.
6E.3
23.
35.
1.
9
3
8
28
PLANTS ABI ,A93
• NOTt I THE OLTPCTS FOR THdSt FARAl-tTcfiS
APE THf SORHAL (UNWE IGf-TE C) "CAN
ANO STANOaRO CLWIATICN, R6SFtCTIi/f LY
158
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
^^ WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 49. Typical abalone process.
159
-------
Figure 50. ABALONE process Plot
D.
•
5.
3.
3S
QJ
Q3S
• J3i> i
•J3b QoS
. So G UBS
SG QBS
t G QBsG
. -j Qd b
. G Q6 G
. o G
P G
P P
A 01 A3 2 Ad 3
(•+) (1) (3)
,Y,",dUL PAKAM.UK a(,ALi
Q FLUW 1 INCH =
B 5 U^Y dOJ 1 INCH =
b SUiPtNUi-L) SuLiJS 1 INCH =
G G-\cAbL S OIL 1 INCH =
P F-
-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
A major effort in the Seafood Effluent Limitations
Guidelines Study involved field investigation of the
wastewater emanating from processing plants in each segment
of the industry. This was necessary because the most recent
previous study concluded that very little knowledge of the
character and volume of canned and preserved seafood
processing wastewater was available (Soderquist, et al.,
1970).
The industry was characterized as follows: first, a pre-
liminary segmentation, as described in Section IV, was con-
ducted and the relative importance of these segments
estimated; second, a representative number of plants in each
segment was sampled; and third, the results of the field
work were analyzed and final subcategories established. The
data from typical plants belonging to each subcategory were
then averaged to obtain an estimate of the characteristics
of that subcategory. These estimates are referred to as the
typical raw waste loads.
This section presents the results of the data analysis which
was performed on the wastewater information collected and
used to help establish the subcategories as discussed in
Section IV. The results are organized by commodity or
process, in the same sequence as Section IV. A brief
introduction to each type of process provides background
information on when and where that segment of the industry
was monitored, and special sampling techniques, if any,
which were required. The water and product material
balances are discussed to indicate the sources of wastewater
and the disposition of raw product to food and by-product
and waste for typical operations. The raw waste loadings
are discussed with special emphasis on major sources of
water, BOD, and suspended solid within the plant as well as
end-of-pipe.
Sampling Procedures
Based on previous experience in examining wastes from the
seafood processing industries, the parameters considered to
be most important from the standpoint of waste control and
treatment and which could be obtained within the alloted
161
-------
time and economic constraints were: flow, settleable
solids, screened solids, suspended solids, 5-day BOD, COD,
grease and oil, organic nitrogen, ammonia, pH, raw product
input rate, and food and by-product recovery.
The field crews were instructed to increase the sampling
frequency at point sources where the variation of the waste
load appeared to be greater. Estimates of the daily fluctu-
ations in the process were used to determine the duration of
the sampling program at the plant. An attempt was made to
increase the duration at plants which showed higher
variability from day to day in order to obtain estimates
with similar confidence intervals.
Depending on the effluent discharge system, plant sampling
was accomplished several ways. For plants with a single
point source, a time flow-proportioned composite sample was
taken over the processing period each day by proportioning
according to the previous flows. In cases where the
effluent was discharged from more than one point source, the
individual discharge flows were spatially composited on a
flow proportioned basis to yield a total-effluent sample.
These total-effluent samples were then time composited over
the processing period. Some situations were difficult to
composite, such as, when two or more unit operations made up
a process, and were carried on at different times of a
processing day. These point sources were then sampled
separately and combined mathematically. The objective in
all cases was to make the final composite sample
representative of the total wastewater effluent discharged
from the plant for that day of production.
Since flow-proportioning was a vital step in the sampling
process, measurement of effluent flow rates were critical to
the representativeness of the samples. Several methods of
flow measurement were used by the field crews and are dis-
cussed in Section VI. Also, since flow rates together with
production rates were the foundation upon which the waste
load calculations are based, several flow measuring
techniques were often used in conjunction to check accuracy.
Production rates were determined from the total volume of
raw product processed during the day and the length of the
processing interval. After determination of the flow rates,
the effluent samples were taken. Every attempt was made to
obtain a well mixed representative sample of the effluent
being discharged at the time of sampling. The correct
volume of effluent was taken from the effluent stream at or
near the point of discharge and the temperature measured
immediately. The sample was then added to the sampling
162
-------
container, which was stored in a cool place throughout the
day at the plant.
After preliminary field analyses for settleable solids and
pH, four one-liter samples were prepared as follows: one
sample was acidified to a pH of less than 2.0 and held at
4°C (40°F), one sample was preserved with 440 ppm of
mercuric chloride and held at 4°C (40°F), and two samples
were frozen with no chemical additions. When sufficient
samples were obtained to make a shipment, the two chemically
preserved refrigerated samples, one of the frozen samples,
and the plastic bag containing the solids from the screen
from each composite sample taken, were packed in styrofoam
shipping cartons and air-freighted to an analytical
laboratory in Portland, Oregon where the remainder of the
parameters were measured. The second frozen sample was
retained in storage locally for use in case of a lost
shipment. Section VI of this report explains in more detail
how the wastewater parameters were measured and the
precisions involved.
Data Reduction
Several computer programs, which proved to be very efficient
tools for analyzing and presenting characterization data,
were developed.
The first program, designated PLANTAVE, was used to
calculate estimates of time averages, standard deviation,
and observed minimums and maximums of wastewater parameters
from individual plants. The input is arranged by the dates
the samples were collected and the points where the samples
were collected. Sample points were grouped together if they
were considered to be correlated, and grouped separately if
uncorrelated. The data from sample points which were
considered to be correlated were composited by adding the
waste loads from each point for each day to obtain daily
estimates of the total load from these points. The data
must be present from each sample point on the same days in
order to perform a correlated calculation. The waste load
for sample points where data was collected infrequently
(such as washdown) was considered to be independent of waste
load from other points. The average load from each of the
independent points was computed over all days and then added
to the daily average from the other points to determine the
overall average. A plant code corresponding to the type of
process and the name of the plant from where the samples
163
-------
were taken was assigned to the output from the program to
prevent data from being related to a particular plant.
An option to the PLANTAVE program was UNITOP. The UNITOP
option calculated the loads from each sample point together
with the percent that the point contributed to the total
effluent. This information was used to develop the waste-
water material balance tables presented in this section and
was very useful in helping to determine where in-plant con-
trols would be the most effective.
The next program, designated PROSPLOT, was used to plot
averages and standard deviations for five selected
parameters for up to 17 processing operations. This allowed
the data from selected plants to be visually integrated to
help determine if they were similar enough to include in one
subcategory. The codes for each of the plants plotted and
the number of samples used to develop the information are
shown on the horizontal axis below their respective
characterization data. The five parameters plotted are:
flow, BOD, suspended solids, grease and oil, and the
production rate. The vertical scale is in inches with the
scaling factor given at the bottom of the plot for each
parameter. This plot allows the relative values of the
plant parameters to be easily compared. The mean of each
parameter is at the center of the vertical spread. The
vertical spread represents one standard deviation above and
below the mean, hence, the wider the vertical spread the
more variable the data. These plots were used in Section IV
to help determine how the industry should be subcategorized
and which plants should be used to compute the average raw
waste loads for each subcategory.
Once a decision was made on subcategorxzation, the data from
the selected plants in the subcategory were used by the next
program to compute and tabularize estimates of spatial
averages (average of the plant means) utilizing a log-normal
transform, log-normal means, log-normal standard deviations,
and maximums for each selected summary parameter. The
plants used to determine each spatial average are indicated
by a code list at the bottom of the table.
FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characterization data from the fish meal
production industry is organized into those facilities with
solubles plants and those without solubles plants, because
of the different sampling techniques and waste loads
involved.
164
-------
Fish Meal Prpduction with Solubles Plant
Five fish meal processes with solubles plants were sampled
on the East, Gulf, and California Coasts. In addition,
historical data taken in 1972 was available from two plants
in the mid-Atlantic region (Parks, et al., 1972). The field
crews sampled the East Coast plants during August and
September of 1973 which was near, or at the period of peak
production. The 1972 data was taken during November which
was past the period of peak production. The data from the
Gulf and California was collected during October of 1973
when catches were intermittent and production was lower than
normal.
Since the solubles plant produces the majority of the waste-
water discharge, the sampling was centered around this
aspect of the plant's operation. As described in Section
IV, the stickwater, washwater, and bailwater generated in
the pressing and drying operations are held in storage tanks
to await processing by the solubles plant. As a result, the
solubles plant operates out of time phase with the rest of
the plant. Figure 51 presents a typical time sequence of
activities showing periods during which fish were being
pressed and dried, periods of corresponding solubles plant
operation and the periods during which samples were taken by
the field crew at a plant in the mid-Atlantic. The vertical
axis presents activity (meal production, solubles plant
operation, or sampling) in an on-off fashion, without
showing the magnitudes. The figure shows that the pressing
and drying operations for meal at this plant took place
during the first six to 12 hours of a 24 hour period, with
the solubles plant operation extending over 30 to 40 hour
periods, depending on the volume of fish processed and the
capacity of the solubles plant. Sampling occurred at
various times during solubles plant operation. The basic
assumption made was that the bailwater, washwater, and
stickwater processed by the solubles plant during a given
period resulted from the volume of fish processed just
previous to the solubles plant operation under
consideration. The amount of fish processed was then
equally distributed over the solubles plant operation period
which followed allowing the waste loads to be properly
proportioned to the production levels. As a result, the
wastewater summary tables show long processing times and
relatively low production rates. It should be noted that
these are in terms of solubles plant operation and not fish
pressing and drying time. For cases where bailwater was
being discharged, the flow rate was determined by averaging
over the period of solubles plant operation so that the two
waste loads could be added properly.
165
-------
Ol
FISH PRESSING AND DRYING OPERATION
ON ,.
OFF
SAMPLING PERIOD
SOLUBLES OPERATION
ON T
OFF
234
TIME (DAYS)
Figure 51. Fish meal process time sequence of activities.
-------
Wastewater material balance
Table 41 shows the wastewater balance summary for plants
with only evaporator and air scrubber discharges (M3, A2)
and Table 42 shows the wastewater balance for plants with
evaporator and bailwater discharges (M2H, M3H). It can be
seen that the largest flows by far are from the evaporator.
Bailwater flows are relatively small but contain substantial
waste loads. Air scrubbers can contribute a relatively
large flow and contain about the same concentration of
wastes as the evaporators.
To determine how much of the waste load from the evaporator
originates in the process and how much is caused by poor
quality surface water, the evaporator intake, as well as the
discharge was sampled at four plants with the results
plotted on Figure 52. The plant codes with the suffix "I"
correspond to data from the intakes. The figure shows that
while most of the BOD load is caused by the evaporator
process, very little suspended solids or grease and oil was
added. By examining the plant average tables at the end of
this section for the intake and discharge water of plants
M2, M3, M5 and A2, it can be determined that the intake
contributes an average of only eight percent of the BOD, but
52 percent of the suspended solids and 78 percent of the
grease and oil (Tables 44, 45, 49, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58). The
tables for plants Ml, M2H, and M3H show the characteristics
of the effluent from fish meal plants discharging both
evaporator water and bailwater (Tables 43, 46, 51).
It can be seen that the waste levels from plants discharging
bailwater are about three to five times higher than from
those evaporating the bailwater.
Tables 48 and 53 show the characteristics of bailwater only
as observed at plants M2H and M3H. It can be seen that the
bailwater waste load concentrations are very high with
suspended solids and BOD exceeding 20,000 mg/1. The waste
loads are also high since the production rates are very high
at fish meal plants.
Product material balance
The end products of fish meal reduction are fish meal, oil,
and fish solubles; fish solubles being a product of stick-
water and bailwater evaporation. The product material
balance portion of Table 41 shows the relative amounts of
each product obtained in the process. Yields will vary
somewhat according to the season, the species processed, and
167
-------
the efficiency of the plant. A significant portion of the
water contained in the fish exits the plant as waste vapor
in the meal drying process and in the evaporator process.
Plants M2, M2H, M3, M3H and M5 were processing menhaden ex-
clusively during the sampling periods with production rates
averaging about 640 kkg/day (700 tons/day). Plant Ml was
processing mostly menhaden along with some scraps from
bottom fish and herring plants and had an average production
rate of about 200 kkg/day (220 tons/day). Plant A2 was
processing anchovy exclusively during the sample period and
had an average production rate of 410 kkg/day (460
tons/day).
Fisih Meal Production Without Solubles Plant
Two fish meal plants without solubles plants were sampled on
the California Coast during October 1973. The sampling
period was during the peak season, however, the weather and
the fact that some fishing boats alternate between squid and
anchovies, caused intermittent operation.
Wastewater material balance
Table 59 shows the wastewater balance summary for a fish
meal plant with no solubles plant discharging stickwater and
bailwater. The largest and strongest flow is the stickwater
which is the liquid remaining after the oil is recovered
from the press liquor. The waste load from the stickwater
is one of the strongest in the entire seafood industry being
very high in BOD, suspended solids, and grease and oil. The
bailwater is also a relatively high flow and load and has
similar characteristics to the bailwater described
previously for the menhaden processes.
Tables 60 and 61 show the discharge characteristics for the
two plants sampled, Al and A3 respectively. Plant A3 had an
air scrubber which contributed about 15 percent of the flow
but almost no waste load. Plant Al used a once pass
bailwater system which increased the flow substantially,
compared to A3 which unloaded the fish using a high pressure
hose from a truck.
Product material balance
Table 59 shows the disposition of the raw product for plants
discharging stickwater. There is more waste from these
plants because the solubles are not recovered.
168
-------
Figure 52. Fish Meal Process Plant (with solubles plant)
Intake and Discharge
6.
5.
.
t
F
,
,
,
3.
,
t
m
t
m
2.
t
0
. Q
. G
. 0 S
1. Q Sb
G SG
SG
SG
G
3 G
M21
(5>
SYM6CL
0
g
S
G
P
P
3
R
BS
es
<3S Q
as c
83
es
Q es G
COSG
QBSG
QBSG
TB G
8 G B
5 8
8
^2 «
(5 ) (
S Q
SGF G
SG
SG
SG
C
S
31
5)
e
5
g
P
8
P
es
ss
es
c c
BS
es
esG
B£G
8SG
esc
BSG
ESGF
SG
SG
SG
SG
S
5
S
$
f3
<<*)
PARAMETER
FLCW
5 CAY
300
SUSPENDED SO
GREOSt
FROOUC
< OIL
TION
LIDS
e
B
e
e
B
B
e
B
5
5
Q Q SG
G G Q SG
G SG
SGP SGF
S SG
B S
M5I M5
(9) (S)
SCALI
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
B
B
e
B
E
C B
c es
C BS
BS
QBSG
SG Q SG
SG SG
SG SG
SG SG
SG G
SG G
F P
P P
B
e
A2I A2
(V U)
NG FACTOR
20000 L/KKG
1 KG/KKG
0.5 KG/KKG
0.5 KG/KKG
20 TCN/HR
169
-------
Table 41. Fish meal production with solubles plant material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) air scrubber
Total effluent average
M3, A2
% of Total
Flow
80 - 85%
15 - 20%
% of Total
BOD
60 - 85%
15 - 40%
% of
Susp.
60 -
10 -
Total
Solids
90%
40%
51,000 1/kkg 3.7 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Products
a) oil
b) meal
By-products
a) solubles
Wastes
a) water
% of Raw Product
6-8%
20 - 21%
15%
1. 6 kg/kkg
56 - 59%
Average Production Rate, 540 kkg/day (600 tons/day)
-------
Table 42. Fish meal production with bailwater material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) bailwater
of Total
Flow
>99%
% of Total
BOD
17 - 48%
52 - 83%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
12 - 36%
64 -
Total effluent average
M2H, M3H
29,300 1/kkg
8 kg/kkg
5 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 450 kkg/day (495 tons/day)
-------
Table 43. MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(WITH BAILWATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
14.1
15.9
77.2
1230
21700
5200
1.13
24.4
—
70.8
1.54
111
2.40
292
6.32
50.5
1.10
12.8
0.279
6.17
0.134
7.63
23.6
STD DEV
3.26
—
30.8
489
11700
2800
0.899
19.5
w«»
34.0
0.738
51.8
1.12
125
2.71
26.6
0.577
8.20
0.178
10.2
0.221
0.288
3.08
MINIMUM
10.8
8.00
49.2
781
10800
2580
1.17
25.4
—
21.4
0.464
31.3
0.679
1OO
2.17
9.66
0.209
2.93
0.064
0.432
0.009
7.39
20.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
19.5
21.5
119
1890
39800
9540
3.11
67.4
—
120
2.60
170
3.69
519
11.2
96.4
2.09
30.6
0.664
25.3
0.549
8.20
26.5
Ml
6 SAMPLES
172
-------
Table 44 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
73.3
22.2
415
6600
22500
5400
—
—
39.0
0.879
75.3
1 .70
147
3.30
23.6
0.532
5.46
0.123
8.36
0.188
7.75
42.6
STD DEV
—
—
131
2080
71 10
1700
__
—
17.3
0.389
49.9
.1 .12
59.2
1.33
9.33
0.210
2.55
0.057
3.90
0.088
0.320
1 .45
MINIMUM
— —
20.0
235
3730
1 2800
3060
— _
__
23.8
0.536
27.7
0.625
84.1
1 .89
14.9
0.336
3.20
0.072
4.17
0.094
7.30
41.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
— —
24.0
559
8870
30300
7260
__
—
60.5
1 .36
138
3.10
210
4.72
35.0
0.787
8.47
0..191
13.9
0.313
8.75
44.4
M2
5 SAMPLES
173
-------
Table 45 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/FKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
73.3
22.2
415
6600
22500
5400
__
__
17.7
0.400
8.83
0.199
69.5
1 .57
13.1
0.296
2.06
0.046
1 .24
0.028
7.81
29.9
STD DEV
__
—
131
2080
71 10
1700
___
—
6.86
0.154
2.10
0.047
9.91
0.223
8.04
0.181
0.585
0.013
0.735
0.017
0.149
0.913
MINIMUM
__
20.0
235
3730
1 2300
3060
—
— my
9.43
0.21 2
6 ,2y
0.142
51.9
1 .17
4.58
0.103
1 .53
0.034
0.710
0.01 6
7.60
28.9
PLANT
MAXIMUM
__
24.0
559
8870
30300
7260
—
—
24.2
0.345
1 1 .b
0.261
75.3
1 .70
25.6
0.575
2.90
0.065
2.42
0.055
8.07
30.6
M2I
5 SAMPLES
174
-------
Table 46 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(WITH BAILWATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
66.8
9.79
511
8120
30100
7220
0.101
3.05
—
136
4.10
197
5.93
429
12.9
100
3.02
27.3
0.822
0.041
0.001
7.58
41.2
STD DEV
17.2
—
140
2220
1880
450
0
0.003
—
33.4
1.01
74.2
2.24
125
3.76
105
3.15
3.77
0.114
—
0.490
1.22
MINIMUM
37.4
2.30
255
4050
26800
6420
0.105
3.16
—
75.0
2.26
96.2
2.90
210
6.32
36.2
1.09
23.8
0.717
—
6.65
40.1
MAXIMUM
76.7
24.0
598
9490
34600
8300
0.105
3.16
—
194
5.86
462
13.9
822
24.8
291
8.78
32.4
0.977
— P
8.83
43.4
PLANT M2H
16 SAMPLES
175
-------
Table 47. MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
66.8
9.79
504
8010
29800
7150
0.153
4.55
__
27.8
0.829
14.4
0.430
130
3.87
56.7
1 .69
2.29
0.068
—
7.63
30.0
STD DEV
17.2
—
139
2210
1840
440
0.072
2.15
—
17.1
0.511
7.84
0.234
45.9
1.37
21.2
0.633
1.34
0.040
—
0.249
1 .26
MINIMUM
37.4
2.30
250
3970
26500
6360
0.102
3.03
M»«M
5.09
0.152
3.08
0.092
68.1
2.03
21.4
0.637
0.509
0.015
—
7.25
28.3
MAXIMUM
76.7
24.0
590
9360
34000
8150
0.204
6.07
—
55.0
1 .64
31.7
0.944
236
7.02
81.4
2.43
5.15
0.154
~
8.09
32.8
PLANT M2HI
16 SAMPLES
176
-------
Table 48. MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(BAILWATER ONLY)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
139
1.95
4.10
65.1
130
31.2
STD DEV
45.4
—
0.272
4.32
53.7
12.9
MINIMUM
86.7
1.50
3.85
61.1
77.8
18.6
MAXIMUM
197
3.00
4.45
70.7
204
48.9
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
20200
2.63
23500
3.05
42300
5.50
4840
0.629
3160
0.411
9.45
0.001
6.64
32.1
5740 13500 26300
0.746 1.76 3.42
4820 18400 30000
0.626 2.39 3.90
13900 22600 52400
1.81 2.93 6.81
1540 2740 6050
0.200 0.356 0.786
874 2350 4350
0.114 0.306 0.565
0.116
3.75
6.50
28.9
6.80
36.1
PLANT M2H
4 SAMPLES
177
-------
Table 49 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(NO SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
32.0
23.2
282
4470
35000
8390
—
__
28.0
0.981
88.1
3.09
196
6.86
25.0
0.876
4.20
0.147
2.32
0.081
6.20
39.7
STD DEV
__
—
4.02
63.9
500
120
— _
__
22.7
0.794
41.8
1.46
83.9
2.94
10.4
0.366
3.74
0.131
0.803
0.028
0.228
0.321
MINIMUM
__
—
278
4420
34600
8300
WM
«...
15.9
0.555
26.8
0.937
86.7
3.04
13,8
0.485
2.24
0.079
1.78
0.062
5.90
39.4
MAXIMUM
•MM
__
287
4560
35700
8560
—
—
62.0
2.17
121
4.22
286
10.0
39.0
1.37
9.80
0.343
3.50
0.123
6.60
40.0
PLANT M3
4 SAMPLES
178
-------
Table 50 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
(NO SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
32.0
23.2
281
4460
35000
8380
STD DEV
—
—
3.66
58.1
455
109
MINIMUM
...
—
278
4420
34600
8300
MAXIMUM
— .
—
287
4560
35700
8560
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-M MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
16.8
0.587
12.0
0.420
60.3
2.11
16.8
0.587
2.50
0.087
1.21
0.042
7.72
29.7
5.82
0.203
3.57
0.125
24.7
0.863
2.84
0.099
0.340
0.012
0.387
0.014
0.223
0.304
11.9
0.416
7.92
0.277
42.7
1 .49
13.0
0.455
1.98
0.069
0.824
0.029
7.50
29.4
26.8
0.937
16.9
0.590
101
3.54
19.9
0.694
2.86
0.100
1.84
0.064
8.60
30.0
PLANT M3I
5 SAMPLES
179
-------
Table 51 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(WITH BAILWATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC P
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
21.1
15.8
155
2460
28500
6830
— —
—
203
5.78
353
10.1
617
17.6
122
3.46
35.7
1 .02
5.59
0.159
5.32
41.1
STD DEV
10.5
—
68.4
1090
2120
507
—
__
92.0
2.62
363
10.3
262
7.46
50.0
1.43
19.0
0.543
1.08
0.031
0.524
3.25
MINIMUM
2.94
5.00
24.9
396
24000
5760
—
—
64.2
1.83
78.0
2.22
283
8.06
57.0
1.62
11.3
0.321
4.62
0.132
4.32
35.9
MAXIMUM
39.1
24.0
273
4340
33700
8080
— _
—
368
10.5
1250
35.7
1130
32.2
234
6.67
81.7
2.33
6.57
0.187
6.35
45.2
PLANT M3H
17 SAMPLES
180
-------
Table 52 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KO/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
21.0
16.2
157
2490
30700
7360
0.095
2.91
__
24.3
0.744
15.1
0.465
129
3.97
40.6
1 .25
1.17
0.036
— -
7.73
28.8
STD DEV
10.0
—
80.2
1270
12100
2890
_„
— -
24.9
0.766
21.3
0.655
71.4
2.19
43.7
1.34
0.831
0.026
—
0 . 300
0.899
MINIMUM
2.94
5.00
21.3
339
11100
2660
—
—
3.86
0.118
0.941
0.029
40.8
1.25
6.50
0.200
0.262
0.008
__
7.12
27.2
MAXIMUM
39.1
24.0
287
4550
73000
17500
__
—
83.5
2.56
83.5
2.56
364
11.2
119
3.65
3.57
0.110
—
8.34
30.0
PLANT M3HI
19 SAMPLES
181
-------
Table 53 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(BAILWATER ONLY)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
114
2.15
6.75
107
251
60.2
__
—
20100
5.05
33400
8.39
49900
12.5
5870
1 .48
3520
0.883
458
0.115
6.54
35.3
STD DEV
30.5
—
3.21
51.0
153
36.8
__
—
10300
2.58
41000
10.3
291 00
7.31
5320
1.34
2130
0.536
116
0.029
0.211
3.66
MINIMUM
73.1
0.700
3.49
55.5
146
35.1
__
—
6240
1.57
6790
1.70
20700
5.19
818
0.205
1180
0.295
376
0.094
6.22
30.0
PLANT
MAXIMUM
168
3.50
13.0
206
601
144
—
•»-•
35400
8.90
131000
33.0
96700
24.3
17400
4.36
7830
1.97
540
0.136
7.02
40.0
M3H
8 SAMPLES
182
-------
Table 54 • MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/KR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ION)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
9.23
18.3
40.3
640
17400
4160
8.18
142
__
22.0
0.382
178
3.08
303
5.26
19.8
0.343
2.99
0.052
1 .33
0.023
4.33
47.0
STD DEV
0.044
—
4.84
76.8
2040
489
19.5
338
— _
17.5
0.304
31 .1
0.540
56.6
0.982
8.54
0.148
2.73
0.047
0.582
0.010
0.181
2.49
MINIMUM
9.15
1 4.0
36.1
573
15600
3730
0.276
4.78
__
11 .9
0.207
126
2.18
205
3.56
12.6
0.218
1 .26
0.022
0.41 5
0.007
4.11
43.3
PLANT
MAXIMUM
9.26
24.0
50.1
796
21500
5150
5b.3
978
_ _
67.9
1.18
219
3.81
385
6.69
39.5
0.686
9.53
0.165
2.53
0.044
9.93
51.1
M5
9 SAMPLES
183
-------
Table 55 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
9.23
18.3
40.3
640
1 7400
4160
STD DEV
0.044
—
4.84
76.8
2040
489
MINIMUM
9.15
14.0
36.1
573
1 5600
3730
MAXIMUM
9.26
24.0
50.1
796
21500
5150
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMOKIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PE
TEMP DEG C
11.0
0.191
6.35
0.110
44.6
0.774
18.5
0.320
0.971
0.017
0.462
0.008
6.11
26.7
2.10
0.037
3.02
0.052
11.4
0.198
4.86
0.084
0.233
0.004
0.130
0.002
0.274
0.735
7.51
0.130
3.61
0.063
30.5
0.529
1 3.8
0.239
0.520
0.009
0.251
0.004
5.65
25.0
PLANT M5I
9 SAMPLES
13.6
0.237
13.2
0.229
70.4
1 .22
29.1
0.505
1.24
0.022
0.689
0.01 2
8.23
27.2
184
-------
Table 56 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(WITHOUT SCRUBBER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SBC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
19.0
24.0
231
3670
48400
11600
—
—
25.1
1.22
67.4
3.26
185
8.93
21.1
1.02
5.76
0.279
0.982
0.048
6.00
14.1
STD DEV
1.13
—
5.48
87.1
603
145
—
«te^
5.99
0.290
15.1
0.730
31.0
1.50
5.16
0.250
1.11
0.054
0.112
0.005
0.353
10.5
MINIMUM
17.5
-.
225
3570
47700
11400
—
--
16.4
0.795
44.7
2.16
144
6.98
15.5
O.749
4.84
0.234
0.807
0.039
5.60
5.99
PLANT
MAXIMUM
20.0
—
238
3790
49200
11800
—
—
30.7
1.49
89.2
4.32
229
11.1
27.8
1.34
7.33
0.355
1.13
0.055
6.68
29.2
A2
4 SAMPLES
185
-------
Table 57. ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE WITH SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GRFASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA- N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PE
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
19.0
24.0
291
4610
60800
1 4600
—
—
32.6
2.00
64.0
3.89
190
11 .6
20.1
1 .22
6.54
0.398
3.36
0.204
6.08
17.1
STD DEV
1 .13
—
5.05
80.1
998
239
—
—
6.34
0.386
12.7
0.774
20.7
1 .26
4.36
0.265
0.417
0.025
2.22
0.135
0.346
8.19
MINIMUM
17.5
—
285
4520
59600
1 4300
^^ ^
—
26.8
1 .63
47.5
2.89
1 57
9.53
15.2
0.927
6.18
0.376
1 .97
0.1 20
5.69
1 0.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
20.0
—
298
4740
62400
15000
::
_^
38.7
2.35
83.4
5.08
209
12.7
24.6
1 .50
7.12
0.433
6.71
0.408
6.75
28.9
A2
4 SAMPLES
186
-------
Table 58 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(INTAKE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
19.0
24.0
291
4610
60900
14600
0
0
0
0
15.1
0.920
3.70
0.225
106
6.46
15.6
0.952
0.789
0.048
0.126
0.008
7.38
15.0
1.13
—
8.06
128
3400
815
—
__
3.39
0.206
1.26
0.077
14.3
0.870
3.83
0.233
0.089
0.005
0.123
0.007
0.224
0.454
17.5
—
285
4530
56700
13600
—
__
11.2
0.680
3.00
0.183
89.1
5.43
10.2
0.624
0.671
0.041
0.050
0.003
7.17
14.4
20.0
—
303
4800
65000
15600
—
__
19.2
1.17
5.58
0.340
122
7.41
19.2
1.17
0.861
0.052
0.307
0.019
7.80
1b.6
PLANT A2I
4 SAMPLES
187
-------
Table 59 . Fish meal production without solubles plant material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) stickwater
b) bailwater
c) washdown
d) air scrubber
of Total
Flow
45%
39%
1%
15%
of Total
BOD
93%
7%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
94%
6%
oo
CO
Total effluent average
A3
1870 1/kkg
71 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
Products
a) meal
b) oil
Wastes
a) stickwater
b) water vapor
28%
8%
35%
29%
59 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day)
-------
Table 60 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. FOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAKIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-K MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
6.57
7.33
22.2
352
1 2900
3090
1 .71
22.1
— _
17»0
23.1
3600
46.4
6160
73.5
968
12.5
399
5.15
19.9
0.257
6.82
21.3
STD DEV
0.910
—
12.5
199
6190
1480
0.47?
6.10
__
935
12.1
1790
23.1
2970
38.3
1 020
13.1
171
2.20
13.2
0.171
0.192
4.02
MINIMUM
5.53
3.80
9.39
1 49
6750
1 620
1 .29
16.7
«> M
1 180
15.2
2070
26.7
3790
48.9
94.9
1 .22
265
3.42
11.0
0.142
6.63
16.7
MAXIMUM
7.15
11.0
34.4
547
1 9100
4590
2.22
28.7
^ —
2860
36.9
5570
71 .8
9490
122
2090
26.9
591
7 .63
35.1
0.453
7.18
23.9
PLANT A1
3 SAMPLES
789
-------
Table 61 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(WITH AIR SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
8.63
24.0
4.00
63.5
1870
448
221
41 2
246
0.459
31400
58.6
37900
70.8
78200
1 46
20100
37.5
2810
5.24
99.7
0.186
6.78
43.3
STD DEV
0.411
—
0.234
3.71
1 14
27.3
51 .3
95.8
—
181 00
33.7
1 1000
20.6
38600
72.1
13800
25.7
1050
1 .95
33.2
0.062
0.060
2.34
MINIMUM
8.33
—
3.72
59.1
1770
425
1 67
313
—
1 1500
21.5
22500
42.0
34200
63.8
2730
5.11
960
1 .79
45.1
0.084
6.68
40.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
9.08
—
4.52
71 .7
2120
509
305
570
—
60800
1 14
49300
92.1
138000
258
39800
74.3
3420
6.39
1 36
0.255
6.87
45.7
A3
5 SAMPLES
190
-------
Both Al and A3 were processing anchovy exclusively during
the sampling period. Production rates ranged from 4U
kkg/day (50 tons/day) at the smaller plant (Al) to 190
kkg/day (210 tons/ day) at the larger plant.
SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Three salmon canning plants in Alaska and two plants in the
Northwest were investigated during the period from July to
August 1973. In addition historical data were obtained from
four plants in the Northwest, including the two sampled.
The 1973 Alaska salmon season was very poor, therefore more
fish were going to the fresh/frozen market and the canning
operations were very intermittent. Most of the canneries
are presently grinding their waste and discharging to a
submarine outfall, therefore, end of pipe samples were
relatively easy to obtain at a common sump.
The Northwest plants investigated were sampled during the
end of September which was near the end of the season. The
Northwest plants usually have both hand butchering and
mechanical butchering lines, hence there was a combined
operation during most of the investigation period. The
butchering machine (iron chink) was usually operated only
during times when large volumes of fish, usually pinks and
chums, arrive at the plant. Silver and Chinook salmon were
usually hand butchered. Hand packing of sockeye was also
done for special orders that required a finer quality
product.
Wastewater Material Balance
The intake water for Alaskan salmon plants located in
isolated places is obtained from nearby surface water
streams. The intake water for plants located in town is
usually from the municipal systems. The water used in the
canneries is chlorinated either by the plant or by the
municipal treatment system. City water is generally used by
Northwest plants for all phases of the operation.
Table 62 shows the wastewater balance for salmon canning
operations using the iron chink butchering machine. It can
be seen that this machine contributes a significant portion
of the flow and a very great portion of the BOD and
suspended solids load. The main reason that the BOD loads
for the Northwest plants were quite variable, and generally
lower than the Alaskan plants (see Figure 22), was because
191
-------
Table 62.
Unit Operation
a) unloading water
b) iron chink
c) fish scrubber
d) sliming table
e) fish cutter
f) can washer and clincher
g) washdown
Salmon canning process material balance (iron chink)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total
Flow
12%
27%
19%
13%
7%
2%
20%
% of Total
BOD
10%
65%
5%
6%
4%
1%
10%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
7%
56%
3%
18%
5%
1 V
1 h
1 1 °/
1 1 lo
IX)
Total effluent average
19800 1/kkg
45.5 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Wastes
of Raw Product
Food products
By-product
a) roe
b ) milt
c) oil
d) heads
e) viscera
62
4
2
12
0
- 68%
- 6%
- 3%
1%
- 14%
- 5%
n - 16%
24.5 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 37 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
the iron chink was used only on a portion of the total fish
processed.
Table 63 shows the wastewater material balance for an ex-
clusively hand butchering operation (CSN5, CS6M). It can be
seen that the total loads are much lower for the hand
butchering operation than for the mechanical butchering
line. The hand butcher canning process is identical to the
fresh/frozen operation except for the wastes from the fish
cutting and can filling operation, which increase the load
about 45 percent more. Plant CSN2 used a hand packing
operation rather than a mechanical filler, therefore, their
wastes were lower.
Tables 64 through 74 show summary statistics of the waste-
water from each plant sampled. Codes CSN2, CSN3 and CSN4
represent Alaskan plants which used the butchering machine
exclusively. Codes CSN5 through CSN8 represent Northwest
plants which used the butchering machine in varying amounts.
Code CSN5 used hand butchering exclusively, plant CS8H
(historical data from CSN8) used the iron chink exclusively,
while the rest of the plants used it occasionally.
Plant CSN8 had a poor water conservation practice of letting
water run through the butchering machine in between periods
of operation. This practice caused the flow ratio to be
much greater than normal at this plant. CSN8 also used a
flume unloading system which was not observed at the other
plants and which produced an added flow of about 4170 1/kkg
(1000 gal/ton). The added waste load in terms of BOD,
however, was very small.
Most of the plants in Alaska grind the larger solids before
discharge to submerged outfalls. Some plants were beginning
to install screens in 1973 but none were operational during
the sampling interval.
Most plants in the Northwest discharge the wastewater after
coarse screening to remove the larger particles. Plant CSN7
had a tangential screen in place and samples were taken to
determine its effectiveness(see Tables 70 and 71). The
tangential screen removed the screenable solids effectively,
however, the BOD and suspended solids were observed to
increase slightly (it should be noted that the "before
screening" samples were passed through a 20 mesh Tyler
screen prior to analysis). The reason for this is believed
to be due to the type of pump used to deliver the water to
the screen. The pump could have pulverized some of the
solid material causing the number of undersize particles to
increase (see Section VII, Screening).
793
-------
Table 63. Salmon canning process material balance (hand butcher).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) butchering line
b) fish cutter
c) can filler
d) can washer
e) washdown
% of Total
Flow
20%
20%
5%
22%
33%
% of Total
BOD
24%
16%
21%
5%
34%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
17%
17%
30%
5%
30%
Total effluent Average
CSN5, CS6M
5400 1/kkg
3.4 kg/kkg
2.0 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day)
-------
Table 64. SALMON CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/IIR
PROCESS TIMS HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD WG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
3.16
b.OO
13.9
220
18300
4370
2.97
54.3
1390
25.4
726
12.2
1330
24.2
2470
45.1
175
3.19
175
3.20
5.33
0.097
6. 88
11 .9
STD DEV
0.761
—
2.o7
42.5
3690
884
1 .26
22.9
573
10.5
252
4.61
451
8.23
490
3.95
62.0
1 .13
48.9
0.392
1 .41
0.026
0.109
0.554
MINIMUM
1 .67
2.50
1 0.1
1 60
1 3600
3270
1 .68
30.7
824
15
448
8.17
719
13.1
1670
30.4
99.2
1 .81
81 .5
1 .49
2.93
0.053
6.71
11.3
MAXIMUM
3.94
1 0.0
17.8
283
2510C
6010
4.81
87.8
2610
47.7
1 190
21 .6
2100
3P.3
3090
56.4
271
4.95
236
4.30
7.16
0.131
7.09
1 2.6
PLANT CSN2
7 SAMPLES
195
-------
Table 65 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
P 4.62
8.25
22.0
349
19000
4560
46.3
882
__
2140
40.8
4300
81 .8
7510
143
341
6.49
816
15.5
16.7
0.317
6.82
12.9
STD DEV
0.548
—
3.38
53.6
2470
592
9.37
178
__
1080
20.6
756
14.4
1450
27.6
2.11
0.040
394
7.49
6.26
0.119
0.080
1.07
MINIMUM
4.06
4.00
17.8
283
15100
3620
34.5
657
—
1020
19.5
3470
66.0
5460
104
339
6.46
410
7.81
7.97
0.152
6.73
11 .8
MAXIMUM
5.32
12.0
26.5
421
21300
5100
54.2
1030
—
3270
62.2
5190
98.8
8890
169
343
6.53
1260
24.0
22.3
0.424
6.96
13.8
PLANT CSN3
4 SAMPLES
196
-------
Table 66. SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(WITH GRINDING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION 1ON/HR
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PK
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.49
7.13
21 .2
336
20400
4900
25.5
522
2360
48.3
1 460
29.6
2610
53.4
5560
1 14
842
17.2
409
8.35
10.2
0.208
6.62
15.4
STD DEV
1 .34
—
3.76
59.8
8050
1930
22.5
459
2010
41.1
384
7 .86
1170
24.0
2720
55.6
1 110
22.6
185
3.77
3.59
0.073
0.151
0.705
MINIMUM
2.63
4.50
1 4.6
231
13200
31 70
4.20
85.8
552
11.3
857
17.5
1400
28.7
2770
56.6
232
4.74
192
3.93
4.12
0.084
6.45
14.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
5.89
9.50
26.8
425
31 400
7520
64.3
1320
5580
114
1980
40.4
4670
95.5
9790
200
3080
62.9
729
1 4.9
14.2
0.290
6.88
16.7
CPN4
6 SAMPLES
197
-------
Table 67 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(HAND BUTCHER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(CAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.02
5.20
2.21
35.1
8980
2150
1.92
17.3
—
342
3.07
455
4.08
1260
11.3
875
7.85
86.7
0.779
1 .35
0.012
6.98
13.7
STD DEV
0.818
—
0.463
7.35
2230
534
0.625
5.61
_
60.5
0.544
114
1.02
310
2.78
—
22.9
0.206
0.507
0.005
—
2.11
MINIMUM
0.286
2.80
1.28
20.4
4240
1020
0.732
6.57
—
220
1.98
311
2.79
616
5.53
—
40.5
0.364
0.631
0.006
—
12.4
MAXIMUM
2.62
7.50
3.79
60.1
16000
384C
3.10
27.8
__
491
4.41
598
5.37
2230
20.0
_
143
1.28
2.19
0.020
—
1b.O
PLANT CSN5
8 SAMPLES
198
-------
63 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(HAND BUTCHER )
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SBC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATTJ KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
0.786
6.20
0.222
3.53
1780
427
1.91
3.41
—
419
0.746
1540
2.74
2520
4.48
—
185
0.329
2.44
0.004
6.97
13.4
STD DEV
0.684
—
0.100
1.59
646
155
0.839
1.49
_
224
0.399
814
1.45
1070
1.91
—
82.5
0.147
1.30
0.002
0.064
0.702
MINIMUM
0.203
3.10
0.092
1.46
958
230
1.07
1.90
—
258
0.460
815
1.45
1300
2.31
—
96.9
0.172
0.871
0.002
6.92
12.7
MAXIMUM
1.81
7.70
0.379
6.02
3060
735
3.05
5.44
_
742
1.32
2260
4.02
4650
8.28
_
358
0.637
4.98
0.009
7.06
14.5
PLANT CS6M
6 SAMPLES
199
-------
Table 69. SALMON GANNINL,
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L P
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.786
6.20
9.73
154
7900
1890
3.02
23.9
—
429
3.39
841
6.64
1550
12.3
__
127
1.00
2.73
0.022
6.88
15.4
STD DEV
0.684
—
0.100
1.59
646
155
0.189
1.49
—
50.5
0.399
183
1.4
242
1.91
—
18.6
0.147
0.292
0.002
0.012
0.106
MINIMUM
0.203
3.10
9.60
152
7070
1700
2.83
22.4
— —
393
3.11
678
5.36
1280
10.1
—
107
0.843
3.41
0.027
6.87
15.4
MAXIMUM
1 .81
7.70
9.88
157
9180
2200
3.28
25.9
— -
502
3.97
1000
7.93
2030
16.1
—
166
1.31
4.34
0.034
6.90
15.4
PLANT CSN6
6 SAMPLES
200
-------
Table 70 • SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(BEFORE SCREEN)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASF & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAMC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TFKP DEG C
MEAN
2.90
7.38
7.70
1 22
1 0600
2550
15.6
1 66
451
4.80
1 340
14.2
2430
25. ^
5060
53.9
537
5.71
270
2.57
4.91
0.052
6.59
1 4.3
STD DEV
0
—
1 ,
24
1 040
250
1 0
111
143
1
1 63
1
440
4
600
6
83
0
67
0
0
0
0
—
.782
.56
.8
.4
.52
.73
.68
.39
.4
.687
.6
.719
.81 C
.009
.178
MINIMUM
2.
7.
5.
9300
2230
9.
96.
265
2.
1 150
1 2.
2080
22.
4320
45.
472
5.
1 83
1 .
3.
0.
6.
—
04
00
96
6
02
0
82
2
2
*
02
95
99
,042
,43
MAXIMUM
3.
8.
9.
152
1 1800
2840
27.
293
603
6.
1540
1 6.
3030
32.
5760
61.
657
6.
79
00
55
5
42
4
3
3
,9
348
3.70
5.50
0.059
6.93
—
PLANT CSN?
4 SAMPLFS
201
-------
Table 71 . SAM3N CANNING PIECES^
(AFTER SCREENING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-M MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-M MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
2.90
7.38
7.70
122
10600
2550
16.0
170
—
1540
16.4
2800
29.8
5530
58.9
611
6.51
348
3.71
6.33
0.067
6.58
14.3
STD DEV
0.782
— •
1 .56
24.8
1040
250
10.1
107
— -
228
2.43
597
6.35
423
4.50
122
1 .30
53.0
0 . 56 5
0.723
0.008
0.157
—
MINIMUM
2.04
7.00
5.96
94.6
9300
2230
9.02
96.0
—
1240
13.2
2200
23.4
5160
54.9
489
5.21
289
3.08
5.50
0.059
6.43
—
MAXIMUM
3.79
8.00
9.55
152
11 800
2840
27.5
293
_-_
1770
18.9
3580
38.1
6100
64.9
748
7.96
418
4.45
6.82
0.073
6.85
—
PLANT CSN7
4 SAMPLES
202
-------
Table 72. SALMON CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/WIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
1 .88
1 .96
6.28
8.00
13.9
221
15000
3590
5.87
93.2
21 .4
5.12
8.52
135
15000
3590
22.0
349
1 5000
3600
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
1 210
18.1
1530
22.9
2970
44.6
«*.•-
—
213
3.19
— _„
—
6.76
1 3.3
922
13.8
925
13.9
2050
30.8
^*~
—
197
2.95
«w
—
0.156
358
5.37
585
8.76
1050
15.8
__
—
88.2
1 .32
«> — •
—
6.56
—
2120
31 .8
2480
37.1
4870
73.0
—— .
—
440
6.60
^.M
6.y3
—
PLANT CS7f{
4 SAMPLES
203
-------
Table 73• SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(WITHOUT PLUMING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
( GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.03
6.10
11.9
189
47800
11500
12.2
582
505
24.1
384
19.3
1030
49.1
1990
95.2
110
5.25
152
7.27
3.58
0.171
6.51
15.6
STD DEV
0.104
—
0.380
14.0
5040
1210
4.20
200
338
16.1
66.4
3.17
88.7
4.24
387
18.5
23.8
1.14
39.1
1.87
0.365
0.017
0.103
—
MINIMUM
0.913
2.30
11 .0
175
42700
10200
7.36
352
266
12.7
342
16.3
930
44.4
1600
76.3
94.1
4.50
117
5.57
3.23
0.154
6.41
—
MAXIMUM
1.11
9.50
12.8
203
52800
12600
15.0
715
744
35.5
460
22.0
1100
52.7
2370
113
137
6.56
194
9.27
3.95
0.189
6.65
—
PLANT CSN8
3 SAMPLES
204
-------
Table 74 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 7.28
PROCESS TIME HK/DAY 8.00
PLOW L/SEC 48.9
(GAL/MIN) 777
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 26700
(GAL/TON) 6400
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L —
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG —
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH 6.68
TEMP DEG C —
5.61
89.1
3060
734
40.2
638
21900
5260
0.061
6.59
55.9
888
30500
7320
2090
55.9
3090
82.6
7030
188
696
18.6
1340
35.8
— —
•«.
1220
32.6
1400
37.5
mm-9m
• *»
3360
89.6
5340
143
_„.
6.76
PLANT CS8H
6 SAMPLES
205
-------
Product Material Balance
Table 62 shows the product material balance which is similar
for either hand or mechanical butchering. The food recovery
varies with species and is a little greater for the hand
butchering operation. Solid wastes such as the heads and
viscera are usually discharged to the receiving water in
Alaska and are usually recovered in the Northwest for pet
food, mink food, or fish meal.
The production rates averaged 27 kkg/day (30 tons/day) for
the Alaska plants, however, this was considered to be lower
than normal due to the poor 1973 season. Plant CS8H in the
Northwest which was sampled from late July through early
September, 1969 at a time of peak production averaged 53
kkg/day (58 tons/ day).
Fresh/Frozen Salmon Process Wagtewater Characteristics
Four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska and three in
the Northwest were investigated. The four Alaskan
operations were monitored during August of 1973 which
corresponded to a relatively heavy period of fresh/frozen
salmon processing. All operations were located on the
waterfront in urban areas, utilized a domestic water source,
and discharged their effluent directly into a receiving body
of water.
The three Northwest operations were monitored during
September of 1973 near the end of the season, were located
on the waterfront in metropolitan areas, utilized domestic
water and discharged their effluent to the municipal
treatment facilities.
Various species of both pre-dressed (troll caught) and round
salmon were being processed during the sampling period.
Wastewater Material Balance
Table 75 shows that the primary source of wastewater from
the fresh/frozen salmon process is the wash tank operation,
in which the eviscerated fish are cleansed of adhering
blood, mesentaries, sea lice, and visceral particles. Also,
depending upon the condition of the fish, a preliminary
rinse of the round fish prior to butchering may also be
implemented. This latter rinse is employed to reduce the
amount of slime adhering to the fish to facilitate handling.
The wash tank or wash tank plus pre-rinse contributes about
90 percent of the total effluent flow. The butchering table
206
-------
Table 75. Fresh/frozen round salmon process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
% of Total
Flow
88 - 96%
4 - 12%
% of Total
BOD
76 - 92%
8 - 24%
% of
Susp.
74 -
3 -
Total
Solids
97%
26%
Total effluent average
FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4
3750 1/kkg
2 kg/kkg
0.8 kg/kkg
rv>
O
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
a) salmon
b) eggs
c) milk
By-product
a) heads
b) viscera
Waste
% of Raw Product
65 -
80%
5%
3%
7%
2%
Average Production Rate, 16.4 kkg/day (18 tons/day]
-------
is essentially a dry operation except for short hose-downs
of the area at the discretion of the crew. Some plants use
small hoses attached to cleaning spoons and other use a
small constant flow on the table.
Tables 76 through 82 show summary statistics of the waste
water from each plant sampled. Alaska plants are
represented by codes FSl, FS2, FST1 and FST2, where FS
represents a round fish process and FST a pre-dressed
process. Northwest plants are represented by codes FS3,
FST3, and FS4. It can be seen that the round fish processes
have consistently higher waste loads in terms of BOD than
the pre-dressed processes. The samples of the pre-dressed
processes were taken at the same plants as the round fish
processes, however, the waste flows could be separated since
they are usually not conducted at the same time.
The waste flows and loads for both pre-dressed and round
fresh/frozen processes are relatively low and are comparable
to the loads from the conventional bottom fish processes
which will be discussed later in this section. No freezing
salmon in the round processes were observed due to the poor
season in Alaska, however, the waste loads from this process
should be less than from the dressing operations.
Product Material Balance
The production rate varies considerably due to raw product
availability. The rates observed at the round fish
operations averaged about 16 kkg/day (18 tons/day). Round
fish processing predominates in both Alaska and the
Northwest, however, large volumes of pre-dressed fish are
handled on occasion as can be seen from the production rates
for plant FST3. Table 75 shows that the food recovery of
whole salmon varies from 65 to 80 percent. Chum and silver
salmon yield approximately 75 percent; sockeye, 78 to 80
percent; and pinks, 65 to 70 percent. These figures refer
only to round salmon which are eviscerated and beheaded.
The recovery of finished product for troll caught fish is
about ten to twelve percent higher for each species since
they are eviscerated at sea. The recovery of eggs and milt
represents about five and three percent of the round salmon
weight, respectively. Other by-product recovery, such as
the grinding and baggng of heads and viscera, is done only
occasionally in Alaska and for the most part these solids
are disposed of directly into the receiving water. The
heads and viscera in the Northwest plants are usually
collected for pet food or for reduction to fish meal.
-------
Table 76. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
2.36
6.74
3.17
50.4
8820
2110
0.204
1 .80
49.4
0.435
117
1 .04
253
2.23
545
4.81
33.8
0.298
50.1
0.442
1 .78
0.016
6.25
11.4
STD DEV
1.60
—
1 .99
31.7
6680
1600
0.194
1.71
42.5
0.375
101
0.890
173
1.53
417
3.68
18.0
0.159
42.1
0.371
1.27
0.011
0.328
0.842
MINIMUM
0.725
4.00
0.649
10.3
572
137
0.048
0.426
1.93
0.017
4.99
0.044
26.3
0.232
47.3
0.418
17.4
0.154
0.765
0.007
0.071
0.001
5.79
10.00
MAXIMUM
4.51
10.5
6.20
98.4
16600
3990
0.482
4.25
115
1.02
270
2.38
403
3.55
1080
9.48
51.4
0.453
108
0.950
3.53
0.031
10.2
12.2
PLANT FS1
5 SAMPLES
208
-------
Table 77. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
3.76
7.38
3.14
49.8
3390
814
0.717
2.44
132
0.449
271
0.920
747
2.54
1540
5.21
41.0
0.139
122
0.414'
3.85
0.013
6.59
9.19
STD DEV
0.412
~
0.137
2.17
480
115
0.401
1.36
76.5
0.260
47.5
0.161
144
0.489
325
1 .10
6.46
0.022
27.2
0.092
0.928
0.003
0.210
0.687
MINIMUM
3.31
5.50
2.94
46.7
2770
664
0.346
1.17
46.2
0.157
200
0.680
565
1 .92
1120
3.81
34.3
0.116
91 .0
0.309
2.79
0.009
6.40
8.52
PLANT
MAXIMUM
4.30
10.5
3.26
51.7
3940
943
1,24
4.20
193
0.654
299
1,02
913
3.10
1920
6.51
47.6
0.162
151
0.513
4.72
0.016
7.07
10.1
FS2
4 SAMPLES
209
-------
Table 78 . SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(PRE-DRESSED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.573
4.25
2.56
40.6
23900
5720
0.119
2. S3
37.9
0.904
45.0
1 .07
54.7
1 .31
147
3.51
22.9
0.545
10.6
0.253
1 .40
0.034
6.40
11.2
STD DEV
0.341
—
0.906
1 4.4
11000
2630
0.046
1 .10
13.8
0.329
21.7
0.517
16.9
0.404
65.2
1 .56
17.5
0.417
3.14
0.075
0.583
0.014
0.200
0.889
MINIMUM
0.133
1 .50
1 .69
26.8
14300
3420
0.078
1.87
20.8
0.497
20.7
0.493
35.8
0.854
77.6
1.85
7.80
0.186
6.91
0.165
0.674
0.016
6.19
10.3
MAXIMUM
1 .07
9.50
4.13
65.6
44300
10600
0.204
4.87
50.8
1 .21
72.9
1 .74
75.1
1 .79
235
5.61
57.1
1 .36
14.9
0.355
2.12
0.050
6.82
1 2.2
PLANT FST1
6 SAMPLES
210
-------
"able 79 . SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(PRE-DRESSED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/ L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .75
2.30
2.30
36.5
8010
1 920
0.153
1 .22
53.1
0.425
59.7
0.479
77.6
0.621
157
1 .26
1 7.0
0.137
19.9
0.160
1 .42
0.01 1
6.61
9.93
STD DEV
0.721
—
0.734
11.7
1220
292
0.01 6
0.127
39.7
0.31 8
1 9.8
0.159
18.9
0.151
48.7
0.390
5.25
0.042
1 6.0
0.1 28
0.440
0.004
0.062
0.201
MINIMUM
0.960
1 .00
1 .42
22.5
5970
1 430
0.1 30
1 .04
25.1
0.201
40.8
0.327
61 .4
0.492
115
0.919
1 1.0
0.088
5.69
0.046
0.881
0.007
6.55
9.63
MAXIMUM
2.aO
3.00
3.38
53.6
8950
2150
0.168
1 .34
81 .3
0.651
87.6
0.702
1 05
0.841
233
1 .87
23.7
0.190
47.1
0.377
1.79
0.014
6.70
10.00
PLANT FST2
5 SAMPLES
211
-------
Table 80. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS 1IME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
2.29
3.67
2.32
36.8
4330
1 040
0.895
3.87
385
1 .66
154
0.665
404
1 .75
765
3.31
39.9
0.173
48.2
0.209
2.49
0.011
7.03
15.6
STD DEV
0.866
—
0.723
11.5
1270
304
0.580
2.51
290
1.25
36.3
0.157
95.0
0.411
150
0.648
9.03
0.039
20.3
0.088
0.600
0.003
0.192
0.372
MINIMUM
1 .28
1 .00
1 .44
22.9
2570
616
0.218
0.943
121
0.526
102
0.443
254
1 .10
502
2.17
25.9
0.112
12.4
0.054
1 .66
0.007
6.64
15.0
MAXIMUM
3.50
8.00
3.41
54.1
7060
1 690
1 .86
8.05
828
3.58
220
0.950
539
2.33
951
4.11
52.7
0.228
74.5
0.322
3.66
0.016
7.30
16.1
PLANT FS3
9 SAMPLES
212
-------
Table 81. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(PRE-DRESSED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME hR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RA1IO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
3.15
1.75
2.60
41 .3
3250
780
0.554
1 .80
44.8
0.146
88.5
0.288
180
0.587
303
0.985
27.7
0.090
21 .6
0.070
4.88
0.016
b.79
15.5
STD DEV
0.495
—
0.056
0.884
266
63.6
0.585
1 .90
7.94
0.026
57.7
0.188
138
0.448
265
0.861
2.55
0.008
18.3
0.061
4.14
0.013
0.059
0.31 -
MINIMUM
2.80
1 .50
2.5b
40.7
3070
735
0.140
0.456
39.2
0.128
47.8
0.155
82.9
0.270
116
0.376
25.9
0.084
8.35
0.027
1 .95
0.006
6.74
15.4
MAXIMUM
3.50
2.00
2.64
42.0
3440
825
0.967
3.15
50.4
0.1 64
129
0.421
278
0.904
490
1 .59
29.5
0.096
34.9
0.114
7.80
0.025
b.S3
15.7
PLAN1 FST3
2 SAMPLES
213
-------
Table 82 . SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
2.54
8.88
1 .81
28.8
2920
701
0.720
2.10
456
1 .33
236
0.6R9
538
1 .57
1070
3.13
43.9
0.1 ?a
93.1
0.272
2.81
0.008
6.52
15.7
STD DEV
0.898
—
0.539
8.56
555
133
0.589
1.72
62.5
0.183
72.2
0.211
208
0.609
459
1.34
13.9
0.041
40.8
0.119
0.850
0.002
0.179
0.261
MINIMUM
1.29
5.00
1.09
17.2
2110
507
0.113
0.329
398
1 .16
133
0.388
247
0.722
500
1.46
25.0
0.073
40.4
0.118
1.59
0.005
6.38
15.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
3.40
10.5
2.24
35.5
3360
806
1.29
3.78
540
1.58
300
0.877
691
2.02
1600
4.67
55.?.
0.161
136
0.397
3.52
0.010
7.08
16.0
FS4
4 SAMPLES
214
-------
Bottom fish and Miscellaneous Finfish Wastewater
Characteristics
The wastewater characterization data from the bottom fish
and miscellaneous finfish industry is organized into the
conventional processes (essentially manual unit operations),
the mechanized processes, and the Alaskan processes, because
of the different methods, and regions involved.
Non-Alaska Conventional Bottom Fish
Twelve conventional bottom fish, ground fish, and finfish
plants in all non-Alaska regions were sampled in August and
September, 1973. In addition, historical data were
available from four Northwest operations (Parks, et al.,
1972 and . 1969b). Bottom fish are often located in
urban areas, use municipal water and sewer systems and
operate year round with the species composition changing
with the seasons. In general, there was no lack of fish
during the monitoring periods except in New England where
landings have been decreasing.
Wastewater material balance
There are a variety of conventional bottom fish processing
operations. However, for the filleting process, which is
considered to be the most important, there appears to be
only two main options: the use of skinners, and/or sealers.
Table 83 shows the wastewater balance for three operations
(B2, BU, B8) which used skinners most of the time. The
skinners are mechanical and can constitute a large
percentage (13 to 64 percent) of the flow and load (six to
36 percent of BOD) depending on the type used. The flow
from the fillet tables is quite variable depending on water
conservation practices. It is common practice for a small
hose to be continually running at each filleting position.
Fish are sometimes rinsed before filleting or eviscerating,
and are usually dipped in a wash tank afterwards to clean
and preserve the flesh. The flows from either of these
operations is relatively small, however, the BOD and
suspended solids loads can be moderately high.
Table 8U shows the wastewater balahce for three operations
(Bl, B6, Bll) which often used a descaler. It can be seen
that the descaler can contribute a substantial flow and
waste load. Descalers which use high pressure water jets in
a revolving drum were observed to contribute high loads.
215
-------
ro
Table 83 • Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with skinner)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) skinner
b) fillet table
c) pre-rinse or dip tank
d) washdown
Total effluent average
B2, B4, B8
% of Total
Flow
:nk
Product
13 -
22 -
1 -
O _
8000
Material
End Products
64%
83%
13%
21%
1/kkg
Balance
% of Raw
% of Total
BOD
6 - 36%
43 - 76%
7 - 26%
4 - 20%
2.8 kg/kkg
Summary
Product
Food products 20 - 40%
By-products
a) carcass
(reduction,
animal food) 55 - 75%
Average Production Rate, 16.5 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
% of Total
Susp. Solids
5
39
5
7
39%
80%
34%
21%
1.8 kg/kkg
-------
IN3
—I
Table 84. Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with descaler)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) descaler
b) fillet table
c) pre-wash or dip tank
d) washdown
% of Total
Flow
42 - 66%
21 - 36%
k 3-10%
7 - 18%
% of Total
BOD
56 - 61%
16 - 30%
4-8%
6 - 19%
% of
Susp.
26
12
4
7
Total
Solids
- 70%
- 19%
- 8%
- 18%
Total effluent average
Bl, BIO, Bll
10,000 1/kkg
2.5 kg/kkg
1.6 kg/kkg
-------
One plant (B6) occasionally used a sealer which increased
the water flow and waste load by a factor of four (see
Tables 97 and 108). This type of sealer was so large and
contributed such a large waste load that it was not
considered to be a conventional operation. In general, the
waste loads were about the same whether skinners or sealers
were used. Tables 89 through 104 summarize the wastewater
characteristics for each of the conventional bottom fish
processes monitored. Plants represented by codes Bl and B2
are small ground fish processes in New England, plants FNFl,
FNF2, FNF3 are finfish processes in the mid-Atlantic region,
FNF4 is a finfish process in the Gulf region, and B4 through
B12 are bottom fish plants on the West Coast. Plant FNF3
was not considered typical since all the fish were handled
in the round and no eviscerating or filleting operations
were carried out on the one day of sampling. There is a
relatively large variability in flow ratios and waste loads
between all the plants. This is caused partly by different
processing methods and mostly by different degrees of water
conservation. The average flows and loads from all these
plants are relatively low and are comparable to the
fresh/frozen salmon process discussed previously.
Product material balance
The production rate of conventional bottom fish processes
varies considerably. The average production level observed
was 11 kkg/day (12 tons/day) but varied from 2.8 kkg/day to
31 kkg/day.
Table 83 shows the disposition of the raw product for food
and by-products. The food product varies considerably (20
to 45 percent) depending on the species, season, and whether
it is processed whole or filleted. Table 85 shows the re-
covery figures for various species of New England ground
fish. All figures are for fillets unless noted.
The solid wastes (carcasses, viscera, etc.) are usually re-
covered for various by-products. In New England it is com-
monly used for lobster bait or sent to reduction plants. On
the West Coast it is commonly used for pet or animal food or
sent to reduction plants.
Non-Alaska Mechanized Bottom Fish
Four mechanized plants which used a high percentage of
machinery and water were sampled in the New England, Gulf
and Northwest regions between August and October, 1973. It
was a particularly good year for whiting in New England and
218
-------
Table 85. Percent recovery for
New England ground fish (Shinney, 1973).
Species (process) % Recovery
Ocean perch 29
Cod (with skin) 40
Cod (boneless) 35
Cod (no skin) 37
Haddock 40
Haddock (no skin) 37
Sea catfish (dressed) 45
Sea catfish (filleted) 30
Pollock (with skin) 45
Pollock (no skin) 40
Flounder (small) 20
Flounder (large) 30
219
-------
Table 86. Whiting freezing process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
c) visceral flume
; of Total
Flow
70 - 75%
3 - 8%
22%
; of Total
BOD
74 - 77%
2 - 5%
21%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
74 - 78%
2 - 6%
20%
rv>
ro
o
Total effluent average
Wl, W2
13,500 1/kkg
14 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
11 kg/kkg
End Products
Food Products
% of Raw Product
50%
By-product
a) heads, scales,
viscera (to 48%
reduction plant)
Waste - 2%
Average Production Rate, 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day)
-------
Table 87. Recovery of fillets and fish
flesh from West Coast bottom fish (Steinburg, 1973)
% Recovery
Species Fillets Flesh
English sole 30 60
Flounder 31 47
Ling cod 28 43
Pacific cod — 38
221
-------
Table 88 . Halibut freezing process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
ro
K>
ro
Unit Operation
a) head cutter/grader
b) washer
c) washdown
Total effluent average
FRH1
of Total
Flow
3%
79%
18%
8600 1/kkg
of Total
BOD
11%
72%
17%
1.5 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10%
62%
28%
1.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) heads
Wastes
% of Raw Product
90%
10%
minimal
Average Production Rate, 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day)
-------
Table 89- GROUND FISK FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW PATIO L/KKG
( GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY EOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.528
5.83
0.226
3.59
1760
422
9.49
16.7
4530
7.96
737
1 .30
1010
1.78
1590
2.79
40.2
0.071
147
0.259
6.96
0.012
7.15
20.9
STD DEV
0.119
—
0.050
0.797
443
106
3.03
5.33
2640
4.64
444
0.781
397
0.699
742
1.31
19.6
0.034
66.9
0.11 8
2.20
0.004
0.144
2.41
MINIMUM
0.418
4.50
0.188
2.98
1210
290
5.74
10.1
2690
4.73
343
0.603
584
1 .03
757
1 .33
21.1
0.037
76.5
0.135
3.33
0.007
6.96
18.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.653
7.50
0.284
4.51
2390
572
13.5
23.7
7650
13.5
1420
2.49
1410
2.49
2620
4.62
70.3
0.124
241
0.425
10.9
0.019
7.33
22.5
E1
3 SAMPLES
223
-------
Table 90 . GROUND FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.654
6.84
2.27
36.0
13800
3310
4.69
64.7
—
186
2.56
196
2.71
423
5.83
25.1
0.347
26.6
0.367
2.70
0.037
6.47
16.0
STD DEV
0.018
—
0.004
0.059
359
86.0
3.89
53.7
^T,
115
1.58
86.1
1.19
124
1.71
6.80
0.094
16.7
0.230
0.961
0.013
0.149
2.55
MINIMUM
0.632
4.70
2.27
36.0
13300
3190
1.46
20.2
__
58.0
0.801
65.8
0.908
243
3.35
14.5
0.200
9.76
0.135
1.51
0.021
6.27
12.5
MAXIMUM
0.681
7.70
2.28
36.1
14300
3420
10.1
139
TTBJ
366
5.04
303
4.19
613
8.46
37.7
0.520
52.6
0.726
4.00
0.055
6.65
17.9
PLANT B2
5 SAMPLES
224
-------
Table 91 . FINFISH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
2.04
6.48
2.37
37.7
4370
1050
4.1 6
18.2
579
2.53
496
2.17
1030
4.52
1610
7.05
239
1 .05
76.8
0.336
7.19
0.031
6.78
10.3
STD DEV
0.494
—
0.754
12.0
1180
282
2.17
9.51
403
1 .76
160
0.701
180
0.789
561
2.45
142
0.622
20.6
0.090
2.33
0.010
0.121
1.93
MINIMUM
1 .38
4.50
1 .67
26.5
3020
725
1 .40 ,
6.14
252
1 .10
244
1.07
870
3.80
719
3.14
55.7
0.244
50.6
0.221
4. se
0.021
6.57
9.14
MAXIMUM
2.47
7.40
3.05
48.4
5920
1420
6.38
27.9
899
3.93
672
2.94
1190
5.22
2240
9.77
434
1 .90
102
0.444
10.5
0.046
6.88
12.5
PLANT FNF1
4 SAMPLES
225
-------
Table 92. FINFISH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN7)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASF & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAKIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .14
6.00
1 .95
30.9
to790
1 630
6.18
41 .9
894
6.07
402
2.72
864
5.66
1 470
9.98
119
O.S06
110
0.745
7.53
0.051
6.86
24.3
STD DEV
0.075
—
0.641
10.2
2200
526
3.02
20.5
609
4.14
155
1 .05
317
2.15
472
3.20
52.8
0.358
83.5
0.567
3.31
0.022
0.1 67
0.791
MINIMUM
1 .09
—
1 .29
20.4
4540
1090
2.36
16.0
271
1 .84
226
1 .54
429
2.91
973
6.61
77.0
0.522
1 6.9
0.114
3.15
0.021
6.b8
23.7
MAXIMUM
1 .25
—
2.63
41 .7
8940
2140
9.67
65.6
1630
11.0
578
3.92
1200
8.12
1960
1 3.3
163
1 .11
235
1 .59
11.6
0.079
7.33
25.2
PLANT FNF2
4 SAMPLES
226
-------
Table 93. FINFISH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY EOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE S, OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM
0.640
2.50
0.210
3.33
1300
313
3.00
3.91
35.0
0.046
216
0.282
456
0.595
835
1.09
42.0
0.055
154
0.201
3.90
0.005
6.60
5.00
PLANT FNF3
1 SAMPLE
227
-------
Table 94. FINFISH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/KR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMOMA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
Ph
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
1 .93
5.50
11.4
181
17500
4200
47.1
825
630
1 1 .0
1 06
1 .65
318
5.58
571
10.00
35.7
0.626
56.0
0.981
3.95
0.069
7.12
1 9.0
STD DEV
1 .26
—
3.39
53.9
5200
1 250
13.7
239
501
8.78
28.5
0.499
1 25
2.18
21 1
3.70
11.9
0.209
25.7
0.451
1 .68
0.030
0.1 61
2.11
MINIMUM
0.375
2.50
5.89
93.5
1 1100
2670
35.9
628
29.5
0.517
55.9
0.980
1 28
2.24
231
4.05
15.9
0.279
1 8.7
0.327
1 .82
0.032
6.85
17.6
MAXIMUM
3.80
8.00
1 6.6
263
28000
671 0
59.0
1 030
1730
30.4
1 47
2.57
465
8.15
81 1
14.2
53.7
0.942
89.4
1 .57
7.52
0.132
7.45
20.7
PLANT FNF4
5 SAMPLES
228
-------
Table 95. B01TOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIK)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ION)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PK
TEMP DEG C.
MEAN
1 .99
6.00
1 .41
22.4
2840
631
3.06
8.69
264
0.750
225
0.638
388
1 .10
741
2.11
64.2
0.182
49.7
0.141
3.55
0.01 0
7.19
16.5
STD DEV
—
—
0.1 41
2.24
770
184
0.662
1 .88
54.6
0.155
91.2
0.259
140
0.399
31 3
0.888
20.7
0.059
23.8
0.063
0.893
0.003
0.1 15
1.73
MINIMUM
—
—
1 .21
1 9.2
2150
516
2.68
7.60
216
0.615
151
0.428
229
0.649
455
1 .29
41 .5
0.118
28.5
0.081
2.77
o.oos
7.08
14.7
PLANT B4
4 SAMPLE
MAXIMUM
__
—
1 .54
24.5
3860
924
3.90
11.1
323
0.^19
354
1 .01
565
1 .61
1 150
3.27
91 .6
0.260
82.2
0.234
4.53
0.01 3
7.34
17.4
S
229
-------
Table 96 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GR15ASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN 1C -H MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-M MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
2.61
8.00
3.62
57.5
5880
1410
4.88
28.7
202
1.19
171
1.00
346
2.04
608
3.58
60.9
0.358
44.9
0.264
2.4R
0.015
7.09
16.8
STD DEV
0.633
—
0.712
11 .3
1790
428
1.82
10.7
33.7
0.198
62.6
0.368
157
0.922
239
1.41
18.1
0.106
22.4
0.1 32
1.19
0.007
0.146
0.251
MINIMUM
1.66
—
2.38
37.7
3920
939
2.16
12.7
163
0.956
85.9
0.505
153
0.901
300
1.76
34.9
0.205
20.7
0.121
1.25
0.007
6.89
16.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
3.34
—
4.52
71.7
9310
2230
7.24
42.6
241
1.42
266
1 .56
581
3.42
914
5.38
89.0
0.523
80.0
0.471
4.25
0.025
7.36
17.0
B5
5 SAMPLES
230
-------
Table 97 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
(WITHOUT SCALER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCT IOW 1ON/HR
PROCESS IIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TE'MP DEG C
MEAN
3.18
6.50
5.16
82.0
61 40
1470
3.09
1 9,0
322
1 .93
327
2.01
768
4.72
1210
7.45
54.5
0.335
^2.3
0.567
7.94
0.049
6.55
15.o
STD DEV
0.005
—
0.549
8.72
692
1 66
1 .05
6.46
21.9
0.1 35
82.2
0 .505
252
1 .55
390
2.40
15.0
0.092
26.7
0.164
1.73
0.01 1
0.287
—
MINIMUM
3.18
5.00
4.77
75.8
5660
1360
2.34
1 4.4
306
1 .88
268
1 ,o5
590
3.62
937
5.7€
43.9
0.270
73.4
0.451
6.72
0.041
6.33
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
3.19
8.00
5.55
88.1
6630
1 590
3.83
23.5
337
2.07
385
2.36
946
5.81
1 4^0
9.15
65.1
0.400
1 11
0.683
9.17
0.056
7.02
—
B6
2 SAKPLES
231
-------
Table 98 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
(WITHOUT SCALER)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN1C-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
7.21
0.160
6.96
MAXIMUM
3.75
8.00
13.7
218
14600
3490
—
—
2.01
31.9
2130
511
—
—
10.2
163
10800
2600
—
— —
16.
260
17400
4170
4
276
4.02
725
10.6
85.6
1.25
209
3.04
190
2.77
453
6.60
421
6.14
1150
16.7
7.49
PLANT B6H
8 SAMPLES
232
-------
Table 99
BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION 10N/HR
PROCESS 1IME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PK
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .30
7.00
3.19
50.7
9990
2390
2.05
20.5
63.0
0.630
96.2
0.961
198
1 .97
359
3.59
22.2
0.222
31 .8
0.318
1 .74
0.017
7.26
1te.3
STD DEV
0.007
—
0.672
10.7
2050
492
0.515
5.15
5.34
0.053
33.1
0.331
90.9
0.909
171
1 .71
6.33
0.063
15.8
0.158
0.818
0.008
—
1.12
MINIMUM
1 .29
5.00
2.53
40.2
7950
191 0
1 .51
15.1
59.6
0.596
60.2
0.601
1 02
1 .02
186
1 .86
16.9
0.169
15.9
0.159
0.844
0.008
—
1 5.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1 .30
8.00
3.88
61 .6
12100
2890
2.54
25.3
69.2
0.691
125
1 .25
283
2.83
529
5.28
29.2
0.292
47.6
0.475
2.45
0.024
—
17.0
B?
3 SAMPLES
233
-------
Table 100 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION 10K/KR
PROCESS 1IME HR/EAY
FLOW L/EEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SE1T. SOLIDS ML/L
RA1IO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN! C-N MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
Ph
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
5.12
6.75
9.08
144
7550
1810
3. b8
27.8
203
1 .53
301
2.27
594
4.48
1050
7.91
86.7
0.655
73.4
0.555
4.30
0.032
7.13
1 D.6
STD DEV
1 .00
—
0.807
1 2.8
1020
245
0.764
5.77
154
1.16
108
0.815
208
1.57
308
2.32
65.2
0.492
29.8
0.225
2.57
0.019
0.1 26
0.711
MINIMUM
3.73
5.50
7.a2
1 26
6150
1480
2.65
21.5
o7.0
0.506
176
1 .33
388
2.93
680
5.13
34.9
0.263
28.4
0.215
2.1 1
0.01 6
7.01
1 6.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
6.1 0
8.00
9.84
156
8910
2140
4.53
34.2
383
2.69
464
3.51
934
7.05
1530
11.5
1 76
1 .33
1 06
0.797
3.41
0.064
7.38
17.0
R6
4 SAMPLES
234
-------
Table 101 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIK)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ION)
SETT. SOLIiiS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RA1IO KG/KKG
PH
1EMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .ye
7.00
7.53
1 20
15700
3750
4.29
67.2
94.1
1 .47
1 61
2.52
263
4.11
451
7.05
36.4
0.570
35.4
0.554
1 .58
0.025
7.26
16.1
STD DEV
0.362
—
0.490
7.7S
3890
934
1 .41
22.1
86.5
1.35
91.5
1 .43
99.0
1 .55
214
3.35
8.38
0.131
1 2.4
0.195
0.257
0.004
0.037
—
MINIMUM
1 .70
6.00
7,18
1 14
12900
3090
3.30
51.6
33.0
0.516
96.4
1 .51
193
3.02
299
4.68
30.5
0.477
26.6
0.417
1 .40
0.022
7.23
—
MAXIMUM
2.21
8.00
7.88
1 25
1 8400
4410
5.29
82.8
155
2.43
226
3.53
333
5.21
602
9.42
42.3
0.663
44.2
0.692
1 .76
0.028
7.28
—
PLANT B9
2 SAMPLES
235
-------
Table 102- BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
1.25
6.70
6.58
104
22700
5440
1.72
39.0
—
79.1
1.80
156
3.53
298
6.78
3.92
0.089
22.5
0.511
1.21
0.027
6.59
14.4
STD DEV
0.419
— —
1.20
19.0
5910
1420
0.814
18.5
__
21.4
0.487
8.07
0.183
89.8
2.04
__
7.72
0.175
0.362
0.008
0.262
2.73
MINIMUM
0.741
4.20
5.08
80.7
13800
3310
0.800
18.2
__
46.5
1.06
148
3.35
171
3.89
__
12.8
0.290
0.622
0.014
6.10
10.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1.88
9.30
9.14
145
31700
7610
2.92
66.4
—
124
2.82
164
3.72
492
11.2
—
39.0
0.886
1 .90
0.043
7.00
18.8
B10
9 SAMPLES
236
-------
Table 103 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET FROCKSS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIMB HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO XG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG p
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
PATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
1.08
7.08
1.50
23.8
5630
1350
3.63
20.5
—
285
1.61
381
2.14
902
5.08
143
0.805
74.0
0.417
4.93
0.028
5.82
12.4
STD DEV
0.318
—
0.368
5.84
1420
340
1.78
10.0
-_
96.9
0 . 546
—
334
1.88
—
22.1
0.125
1 .88
0.011
0.241
3.85
MINIMUM
0.694
3.80
0.750
11.9
2150
516
1.33
7.49
__
101
0.571
— _.
218
1.23
—
32.0
0.180
1.55
0.009
5.40
7.10
MAXIMUM
1.89
9.20
2.51
39.8
9420
2260
8.38
47.2
—
490
2.76
—
1560
8.81
—
118
0.666
10.4
0.058
7.16
17.5
PLANT B11
11 SAMPLES
237
-------
Table 104 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
1.40
6.60
1.58
25.1
4690
1120
4.78
22.4
__
322
1.51
597
2.80
1300
6.08
—
107
0.504
6.42
0.030
5.89
13.2
STD DEV
0.432
—
0.250
3.97
653
156
1.99
9.31
__
70.6
0.331
—
407
1.91
—
32.7
0.153
2.58
0.012
0.222
3.65
MINIMUM
0.800
4.00
0.971
15.4
3500
838
1.87
8.78
^ _
184
0.865
—
668
3.13
—
54.8
0.257
2.36
0.011
5.57
9.00
PLANT B1
MAXIMUM
2.13
9.00
2.07
32.9
6300
1510
10.0
46.9
—
525
2.46
—
2160
10.1
—
160
0.749
12.0
0.056
6.59
17.2
2
7 SAMPLES
238
-------
large quantities of fish were available during the sampling
period in August. The finfish process in the Gulf was
sampled during October, 1973, which was during a period of
higher than normal production.
The two whiting plants sampled (wl, W2) were considered to
be typical mechanized operations where the fish were
beheaded, descaled, and partially eviscerated by mechanical
methods and relatively large water flows were used. The
finfish process in the Gulf (CFCl) was processing croaker
for fish flesh and was highly mechanized. The Northwest
plant (B6) used conventional processing except for the large
sealer which produced a high waste flow.
Wastewater material balance
Table 86 shows the wastewater sources for a typical whiting
process. The process water includes water from the storage
bins, the beheader and the descaler, and is the largest
source of wastewater. The largest portion of the process
water is due to the fluming of fish from the storage bins to
the processing line using a high pressure hose and elevator.
The replacement of the hose by a dry conveyor system such as
is used in the sardine plants would reduce the waste flow
and load significantly. The visceral flume constitutes
about 20 percent of the waste load and could be replaced by
a dry conveyor system.
The unit operations of the fish flesh plant were not
sampled, however, it is estimated that the highest loads
came from the washdown which lasted several hours.
Tables 105 through 109 summarize the wastewater character-
istics from the four mechanized plants sampled.
Product material balance
The production levels for typical whiting processes are
relatively high. The average rate observed at the two
plants sampled was 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day). Table 86 shows
that the food recovery is higher for the whiting than other
ground fish since only the head and viscera are removed.
The solid waste is typically sent to reduction plants.
The production loads at the fish flesh process observed was
lower, -averaging 5.0 kkg/day (5.5 tons/day), however, the
industry is expanding and it is predicted that production
levels will increase. Typical food recovery figures for
239
-------
Table 105. WHITING FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 1
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
7.10
8.76
17.2
274
0200
2450
8.77
89.6
1100
11.3
859
8.77
1160
11 .8
2040
20.8
270
2.75
98.4
1 .01
3.70
0.038
6.93
19.6
STD DEV
1.41
—
2.51
39.8
3730
894
2.21
22.6
722
7.37
282
2.88
353
3.60
789
8.06
178
1 .82
36.2
0.370
0.949
0.010
0.028
1.58
MINIMUM
4.00
5.00
14.9
237
7500
1800
5.90
60.3
209
2.14
491
5.02
683
6.98
1200
12.3
107
1.09
52.2
0.533
2.01
0.020
6.91
17.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
8.05
10.5
21. b
341
18100
4340
12.0
122
2140
21 .9
1320
13.4
1820
18.6
3250
33.2
559
5.71
146
1.49
4.78
0.049
6.97
20.5
W1
7 SAMPLES
240
-------
Table 106 . WHITING FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAYPBOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.71
3.15
19.3
307
16900
4050
5.40
91 .2
649
11 .0
778
13.1
1010
17.0
2150
36.3
323
5.44
79.9
1 .35
4.04
0.068
7.71
—
STD DEV
1.13
—
2.16
34.4
3530
845
3.24
54.7
587
9.91
212
3.57
400
6.75
764
12.9
177
2.99
19.4
0.328
1.18
0.020
—
—
MINIMUM
3.60
2.30
16.1
255
13000
3120
1.77
29.9
234
3.95
492
8.31
434
7.32
974
16.4
104
1.76
53.2
0.899
2.94
0.050
—
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
6.27
4.80
21.7
344
21200
5090
8.30
140
1060
18.0
1040
17.6
1400
23.6
2760
46.6
494
8.34
99.7
1.68
5.37
0.091
—
—
W2
4 SAMPLES
241
-------
Table 107. CROAKER FISH FLESK PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.801
6.90
3.26
51 .8
1 6700
4010
8.27
138
344
5.76
252
4.21
678
11 .3
1210
20.3
91 .3
1 .53
1 24
2.08
4.84
0.081
7.23
21 .6
STD DEV
0.119
—
1 .82
28.9
10700
2570
3.07
51.4
190
3.17
148
2.48
291
4.86
566
9.47
64.8
1 .08
47.1
0.788
2.00
0.033
0.191
1 .33
MINIMUM
0.712
2.50
1 .82
28.9
10200
2430
5.76
96.3
1 16
1 .94
74.1
1 .24
395
6.60
536
8.96
11 .5
0.193
62.5
1 .05
3.27
0.055
6.97
20.0
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.937
8.00
6.45
1 02
35600
8530
13.0
217
575
9.62
468
7.83
1110
18.5
1980
33.1
187
3.13
175
2.93
8.30
0.139
7.75
23.3
CFC1
5 SAMPLES
242
-------
Table 108. BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
(WITH SCALER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
3.07
7.25
20.6
328
25800
6190
3.10
80.2
158
4.07
271
6.99
647
16.7
1060
27.3
91 .5
2.36
71.7
1 .85
6.41
0.165
6.80
15.6
STD DEV
0.135
—
1.48
23.5
1700
407
0.603
15.6
54.7
1.41
77.7
2.01
186
4.81
307
7.94
41.6
1 .08
19.6
0.505
1.76
0.046
0.242
—
MINIMUM
2.95
5.00
19.3
306
24000
5760
2.39
61 .8
112
2.89
196
5.07
457
11 .8
719
18.6
44.4
1.15
46.0
1.19
3.72
0.096
6.47
—
MAXIMUM
3.19
8.00
22.8
363
28200
6760
3.91
101
209
5.39
384
9.92
942
24.3
1500
38.8
132
3.41
100
2.60
8.53
0.220
7.07
—
PLANT B6
4 SAMPLES
243
-------
Table 109. BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
(WITH SCALER)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MIKIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 3.75
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 8.00
FLOW L/SEC 38.1
(GAL/MIN) 605
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 40400
(GAL/TON) 9680
— .
—
13.7
217
14500
3470
....
-.
11.0
175
11700
2800
—
—
49.2
781
52200
12500
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
284
11.5
516
20.8
221
8.94
205
8.28
74.7
3.02
180
7.25
709
28.6
922
37.2
7.23
0.151
7.03
7.84
PLANT B6H
8 SAMPLES
244
-------
fish flesh operations using various species of bottom fish
are listed in Table 87.
Alaska Bottom Fish
The halibut is the most significant bottom fish processed in
Alaska. Two halibut processes in urban areas of Alaska were
monitored during July and August, 1973. The sampling period
was in the middle of the season; however, the operations
were intermittent due to a poor harvest. Two typical
halibut processes were observed; whole freezing and
fletching, but neither contributes a very high waste load.
Wastewater material balance
Intake water was obtained from the municipal water system
and discharges were either to municipal sewer systems or to
the receiving water.
Table 88 shows the wastewater balance for a whole halibut
freezing operation. The first unit operation is the grading
and head cutting operation, which produces a minimal waste
load comprising about three percent of the total flow and a
somewhat larger percentage of the BOD and suspended solids
loads. One plant observed used no water for this operation.
The washing operation is handled in two different manners,
and they produce substantially different waste flows. In
one system, a continuous spray washer is used, as well as
spray hoses for the gut cavity. For this, the flow and
waste loads are rather large, comprising about 80 percent of
the total flow and 70 percent of the BOD. The other method
involves washing the fish in shallow tanks with brushes.
This produces a much lower flow, but higher waste
concentrations such that the waste load is similar to the
other method. For both processes observed, the washdown was
similar, producing about 20 percent of the total flow and
waste loads. The waste flows from a halibut fletching
process are minimal, with the washdown around the trim table
constituting about 80 percent of the total BOD load. Table
110 and 111 summarize the wastewater characteristics for the
two halibut processes sampled.
Product material balance
The production rates at halibut processing plants can be
quite high. The average production for the whole freezing
operation was 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day), while the average
245
-------
Table 110. HALIBUT FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DSG C
MEAN
7.64
4.76
13.1
208
8580
2060
0.328
2.81
944
8.10
137
1 .18
179
1.54
402
3.44
59.4
0.510
24.8
0.213
3.29
0.028
6.95
10.8
STD DEV
3.32
—
0.681
10.3
1920
460
0.259
2.22
321
2.75
38.9
0.334
47.2
0.405
116
0.998
21.8
0.137
13.7
0.117
1.58
0.014
0.057
0.282
MINIMUM
3.91
2.50
11.7
185
5610
1340
0.132
1.13
542
4.65
81.6
0.700
104
0.893
243
2.08
28.5
0.244
3.53
0.030
1.53
0.013
6.85
10.5
PLANT
MAXIMUM
13.2
9.50
14.0
222
10600
2540
1 .03
8.87
1290
11.1
206
1.76
255
2.18
613
5.26
99.1
0.850
54.8
0.470
6.03
0.052
7.02
11 .1
FRH1
9 SAMPLES
246
-------
Table 111 . HALIBUT FLETCHING Pi
-------
production for the fletching operation was 5.6 kkg/day (6.2
tons/day).
Solid waste from the freezing operation is minimal since the
only non-food product is the heads which are often used for
bait. There is no visceral waste since the fish are
eviscerated at sea. Solid waste from the fletching
operation is about 40 percent which consists of the
carcasses and heads which may be used for bait or disposed
to the receiving waters.
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Two sardine canning plants were monitored during the month
of September, 1973. Due to the declining herring fishery,
some difficulty was encountered with raw product
availability during September, 1973, hence the operations
were intermittent and fewer samples were obtained than
originally planned. However, additional historical data
were obtained from the Edward C. Jordan Company, of
Portland, Maine who conducted studies for the Maine Sardine
Council over a period from the fall of 1970 to early 1971.
Wastewater Material Balance
Table 112 shows the wastewater material balance for a
typical sardine canning plant. Each of the plants sampled
used city water for in-plant processing. Available surface
water (salt or brackish) was used to transport the fish from
trucks or boats to brine storage tanks.
The flume to the packing tables was observed to contribute
18 to 62 percent of the water . Another large source of
waste loading is the stickwater from the precooking
operation. The flow is quite low, however, the BOD and
suspended solid loadings are significant. A very great
reduction in BOD, suspended solids, and grease and oil could
be made by storing the stickwater from the precook operation
and transporting it to a reduction plant for oil and
solubles recovery.
Tables 116 and 119 give an indication of the reduction in
water use and waste loadings which can be obtained using dry
conveying by comparing present waste loadings at plant SA2
with historical data at the same plant before the conveyor
was installed (SA2H). These two tables show a reduction in
water use by 63 percent, in BOD by 59 percent, and suspended
solids by 77 percent. These percentages appear to present a
larger reduction than could be obtained using the flume
248
-------
loadings observed at other plants. However, it does
indicate that the use of dry conveyors can reduce the water
use significantly and the waste loads to a lesser but
substantial amount.
Wastewaters were generally discharged directly into the re-
ceiving waters at the plants sampled. Construction was
underway at some plants to tie into municipal waste
treatment facilities. Most plants utilized some form of
screening to remove the solid waste materials prior to
discharging. One plant observed, but not sampled due to
lack of fish at the time, has installed a dissolved air
flotation system for waste treatment (see Section VII).
Tables 113 through 125 show summary statistics of the waste-
water from each plant sampled or where data were available.
The historical data for plants SA2H, SA3 and SA4 were
already reduced to time averages, hence, only one sample
point is shown. Each of these time averages is reported to
have come from three to five daily composite samples
(Atwell, 1973). The flow ratios at SA2H, SA3 and SA4 are
higher than SAl and SA2 since the former were using flumes
to bring fish to the packing tables. There is no
explanation for the BOD load being higher at SAl than SA2,
except that it was more difficult to composite accurately
the several outfalls from SAl. The results from SA2 are
considered to be more accurate.
Product Material Balance
Table 112 shows that the food product yield for the sardine
canning process can vary from a low of 30 percent to a high
of 60 percent. This wide range in yield is related to the
size of fish being canned. Since the same size can is often
utilized for various sizes of fish, more waste originates
from the large fish, which have a higher percent of the head
and tail removed.
The heads and tails that are removed are usually dry
conveyed to trucks which transport the waste to reduction
facilities. Some solid waste is also collected by lobster
fishermen for bait. Scales, another by-product, are removed
on the boats prior to storage, and are used for cosmetics,
lacquers, and imitation pearls.
Product rates varied from a low of 26 kkg/day (29 tons/day)
to a high of 35 kkg/day (39 tons/day) at the plants investi-
gated.
249
-------
en
o
Table 112. Sardine canning process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) flume (boat to storage)
b) flume (brine tank
c) pre-cook can dump
d) can wash
e) retort
f);washdown
Total effluent average
SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
-age)
:o table)
i
Product
% of Total
Flow
14 - 46%
18 - 62%
<1 - 4%
3-4%
8 - 53%
1 - 10%
7600 1/kkg
Material Balance
End Products % of Raw
% of Total
BOD
12 - 28%
14 - 22%
28 - 67%
16 - 23%
1-2%
1-6%
10 kg/kkg
Summary
Product
Food products
30 - 60%
By-products
a) heads and tails 35 - 65%
(reduction or
bait)
b) scales 1 - 2%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11
16
14
9
1
1
- 57%
- 30%
- 51%
- 10%
- 4%
- 12%
7 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 31 kkg/day (34 tons/day)
-------
Table 113. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
6.51
5.34
3.94
62.6
2440
586
1 .33
3.25
148
0.362
1590
3.88
4960
12.1
6930
16.9
1080
2.64
406
0.992
13.6
0.033
6.40
23.0
STD DEV
1.43
—
0.656
10.4
452
108
0.658
1.61
133
0.325
656
1 .60
1240
3.03
2310
5.66
571
1.40
109
0.266
2.71
0.007
0.138
1.45
MINIMUM
4.17
3.30
2.68
42.5
1630
391
0.835
2.04
43.9
0.107
640
1.56
2190
5.35
2740
6.70
343
0.838
137
0.335
7.21
0.018
6.17
22.0
MAXIMUM
8.33
8.00
5.52
87.7
3640
872
3.33
8.14
327
0.800
3440
8.42
7190
17.6
13400
32.8
2780
6.80
629
1.54
20.0
0.049
6.83
23.9
PLANT SA1
8 SAMPLES
251
-------
Table 114
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(PRE-COCK AND CAN MSh HATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUC
TION TON/HR
MEAN
6.
51
STQ OEV
1..3
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY 5. 3«t
FLOW L
(GAL/
/SEC
MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT.
RATIO
SCR. S
RATIO
SUSP.
RATIO
5 DAY
RATIO
SOLIDS ML/L
L/KKG
OLIOS MG/L
KG/KKG
SOLIDS MG/L
KG/KKG
300 MG/L
KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE
RATIO
ORGANI
RATIO
AMMONI
RATIO
PH
< OIL MG/L
KG/KKG
C-N MG/L
KG/KKG
ft-N MG/L
K&/KKG
TEMP D£G C
0.
8.
189
<*5.
1.
0.
115U
0.
10500
1.
8.
56800
10.
11000
2.
2660
0.
1*8.
0.
6.
57.
536
51
3
05
199
217
99
37
7
07
5C3
0
OC9
27
e
0.172
17.7
1.11
0.210
1690
0.319
8090
1.53
2.82
27600
5.23
7020
1.33
1250
0.236
16.8
0.002
0.207
2.1,
MINI
«,
3
0
5
92
22
0
0
0
2290
17000
3
17500
3
3690
0
277
0
23
0
6
57
MUM MAX
.17
.30
.339
.38 1
.6 27
.2 6
.269
,051
.6 309
.006
2730
5700
.21 1
10900
.31 2
2610
.698
390
.052
IMUM
8.
8.
0.
2.
5
6.
0*.
0
0.
0
5,
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
0.
.2 68.
,00<» 0.
.03
.0 5
6.
9;
33
00
753
0
0
3%7
58««
16
8
6
93
738
8
013
81
2
PLANT SA1
8 SAMPLES
252
-------
Table 115
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(OPREATIONS FOR SCREENEC DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PROOUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY 300 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP OEG C
MEAN
6.70
4.96
3.41
54.1
2360
541
1.35
3.05
64.4
0.145
840
1.89
1660
3.74
2740
6.19
251
0.565
217
0.489
10.6
0*024
6.41
17.5
STD DEV
1.40
—
0.633
10.0
446
107
0.707
1.60
27.0
0.061
211
0.477
495
1.12
958
2.1€
192
0.433
54.1
0.122
2.58
0.006
0.149
1.31
MINIfUM
4.17
3.30
2.34
37.2
1540
369
0.883
1.99
43.8
0.099
502
1.13
948
2.14
1500
3.39
62.3
0.141
125
0.283
5.87
0.013
6.18
16.5
MAXIMUM
8J27
7.30
4.77
75.7
3360
606
3.46
7.80
95.9
0.216
1440
3'. 2 5
3010
6.79
5430
12.3
829
1.87
354
0.799
15.'9
OJ036
6.83
18.4
PLANT SA1
7 SAMPLES
253
-------
Table 116. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(DRY CONVEYING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
4.07
5.77
7.79
124
7590
1820
2.53
19.2
21.1
0.160
264
2.01
664
5.04
1060
8.08
152
1.15
74.7
0.567
3.17
0.024
6.31
18.5
STD DEV
0.760
—
1.18
18.7
1130
271
1.85
14.1
— .
97.9
0.743
263
1.99
362
2.75
114
0.866
22,0
0.167
0.742
0.006
0.198
0.292
MINIMUM
3.20
4.00
6.93
110
6240
1500
0.392
2.98
—
155
1.18
367
2.79
654
4.96
67.7
0.514
53.4
0.405
2.35
0.018
6.15
18.3
PLANT
MAXIMUM
4.60
7.50
9.22
146
8300
1990
4.09
31 .1
—
355
2.70
875
6.65
1350
10.3
283
2.15
97.4
0.740
3.86
0.029
6.91
18.8
SA2
3 SAMPLES
254
-------
Table 117
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(FRE-COOK AND CAN HASH WATER)
PARAMETER
PROOUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY
FLOW L/SEC
CGAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
<*.35
5.05
2.81
2530
606
STD DEW MNIfUM MAXIMM
0.095 *»,28 it.ki
*».30 5.80
—
—
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
58.7
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY 900 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
618
1.56
19PO
5.01
1920
^.86
761
1.92
127
0.322
0.010
7.1*.
59.7
105
0.265
137
1330
3.36
87.2
0.221
1^.3
0.036
0.132
0
--
—
5*+<* 69
1.38
1880 208
<*.77
982 286
699 82
1.77
117 13
0.297
**,06
0.010
--
-.
PLANT SA2
2 SAMPLES
3
1.75
0
5.26
0
7,23
2
2.08
8
0.011
-
-
255
-------
Table 118
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(CPREATIGNS FOR SCREENEC DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY 30D MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP D£G C
MEAN
<,. 07
5.77
10.5
166
10200
3.67
37.5
1.26
0.013
231
2.36
583
5.96
926
9.^7
129
1.32
65. 3
0.668
2. 96
0.030
6.33
15. 0
STD DEV
0.760
..
1.13
17.9
772
185
0.071
0.726
—
82.5
210
292
2.98
91. <*
0.93<4
17.3
0.177
0.623
0.006
0.154
t«.80
MIMfUM MAXIMUM
3.20
0,00
9.H» 1
1*5 18
9^00 1100
2250 265
3.62
37.0 3
-.
1*»1 31
i.t*t*
3^0 70
3.U7
607 118
6.20 1
61.0 23
0.623
0.510
2.27
0.023
6.18
9.83 1
i».60
7.50
i.<4
1
0
0
3.72
8.0
-
0
3.17
7
7.23
0
2.1
*4
0.859
3.53
0.036
6.67
7.7
PLANT SA2
3 SAMPLES
256
-------
Table 119. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(WITH FLUME TO PACKING TABLE)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 2.89
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 8.00
FLOW L/SEC 14.8
(GAL/MIN) 235
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 20400
(GAL/TON) 4890
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 424
RATIO KG/KKG 8.66
5 DAY BOD MG/L 603
RATIO KG/KKG 12.3
COD MG/L —
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG —
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
PLANT SA2II
1 SAMPLE
257
-------
Table 120. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 4.61
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY 8.00
FLOW L/SEC 11.1
(GAL/MIN) 176
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 9550
(GAL/TON) 2290
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 1130
RATIO KG/KKG 1 O.S
5 DAY BOD MG/L 1 040
RATIO KG/KKG 9.94
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
PLANT SA2
1 SAMPLE
258
-------
Table 121
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(PRE-COCK AND CAN UASh WATER)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STO CEtf
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
-------
Table 122
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(OPREATIONS FOR SCREENED DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STO OEtf
HIMPUM
MAXIMUM
5 DAY 300 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
8.00
10.6
9160
2200
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 1130
RATIO KG/KKG 10.
960
8.79
PLANT SA3
1 SAMPLE
260
-------
Table 123 . SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 4.99
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY £.00
FLOW L/SFC 13.5
(GAL/MIK) 215
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 10800
(GAL/TON) 2580
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 943
RATIO KG/KKG 10.2
5 DAY BOD MG/L 1 1 00
RATIO KG/KKG 11.5
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
PLANT SA4
1 SAMPLE
261
-------
Table 124
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(PRE-COOK AND CAN WASH HATER)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STO DEY
MIMHUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 4.99
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY 8.00
FLOW L/SEC 0.656
10.A
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 523
(GAL/TON) 125
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 5010
RATIO KG/KKG 2.62
5 OAY 300 MG/L 10700
RATIO KG/KKG 5.60
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
262
PLANT SA4
1 SAMPLE
-------
Table 125
SARDINE CANNING FFCCESS
(CPREATIONS FOR SCREENED DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER MEAN STD DFV MINIMUM MAXIMUM
**«»W<««>»wv«»«»4to**«»«»4W«B» •• «• v «-«» «•»•»«» «»«»*»«MW«»M«»«»M*M«MM«»abv»«»«»««»w«B«»4W^v*»4»fl»»
-------
HERRING FILLETING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Two herring filleting plants were sampled during August,
1973, one in New England and one in Alaska. In addition,
historical data were obtained from a plant operating in the
maritime region of Canada (Riddle, 1972). The sampling
interval was during a period of peak production for New
England, however, due to a poor harvest in 1973 and bad
weather, the plants were operating on an intermittent basis.
There were also breakdowns in the machinery, which was quite
old and needed considerable maintenance and repair. The
sampling interval in Alaska was during a slack season,
therefore, only one day of operation was observed.
Wastewater Material Balance
City water was used in both the New England and Alaskan
plants monitored. Table 126 shows the sources of wastewater
from a herring filleting process. The largest percentage of
the total flow and waste load is produced by the filleting
machines and the associated fluming. The flow from each
filleting machine is only about 0.4 I/sec (6 gpm) however
the fluming of product to and from the machine is much
higher. The bailwater, when a fish pump unloading operation
is used, constitutes a relatively large flow and waste
loading. This could be reduced by using a dry unloading
system.
Tables 127 through 129 summarize the wastewater characteris-
tics of three herring filleting processes. The plants
represented by codes HFl, HF2, and HF3 are in New England;
New Brunswick, Canada; and Alaska, respectively. The waste
loads are similar in terms of BOD and suspended solids. The
flow ratio was much higher at HF3 because only a few fish
were being processed and the flow through the filleting
machine is independent of the rate that fish are being run
through. The wastewater at the New England plant was
screened and discharged to the receiving water, while the
entire load was discharged in Alaska.
Product Material Balance
The New England plant is relatively large and was observed
to process an average of 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day) of raw
fish when they were available. Each filleting machine
operated at about 1.4 kkg/hr (1.5 tons/hr).
264
-------
Table 126 shows percentages of food and by-product recovery
for this process. The food product averages 42 to 45
percent but varies with the season and the type of filleting
machine used. During the spring spawning season roe and
milt are collected in addition to the fillets. This
increases the food recovery by about three to five percent.
The rest of the solid waste is either sent to reduction
plants or discharged with the wastewater.
CLAM PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characterization data from the clam
processing industry are organized into mechanized shucking
and/or canning operations and conventional hand shucking
operations because of the different methods and waste loads
involved.
Mechanized Clam Process
Four mechanical clam shucking and/or canning plants were
monitored during September and October, 1973, in the mid-
Atlantic region. One conch shucking and canning process was
also sampled in conjunction with the clam processes.
Although clams are harvested all year, the plants operate on
an intermittent basis since the clam dredging operation is
highly dependent on the weather and roughness of the sea.
Wastewater material balance
The water supply for the clam plants was from fresh water
wells or municipal water supplies. Table 130 shows the
wastewater balance for a typical clam canning operation and
indicates that most of the flow and waste load is due to the
washing operations. Typically, large amounts of water are
used to wash the product at different stages in the process.
One plant (FCL3) used a total of five drum washers, although
two were more common. The washdown flow was also
considerable at some plants and ranged from 22 percent to 45
percent at the plants observed.
Tables 131 through 135 summarize the characteristics of the
wastewater from the mechanized clam plants sampled. The
waste loads and flows are quite variable due to the various
combinations of unit operations which are used. The plant
represented by code FCLl had a mechanized shucking operation
but did not debelly and shipped the clams to another plant
for further processing. Therefore, the flows and loads were
265
-------
Table 126. Herring filleting process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) bailwater
c) washdown
of Total
Flow
58%
37%
5%
of Total
BOD
70%
27%
3%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
59%
38%
3%
Total effluent average
HF1
NJ
cn
en
10,200 1/kkg
34 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Product
Food products
% of Raw Product
42 - 45%
By-product
a) heads, viscera 55- 58%
(for reduction)
23 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day)
-------
Table \'tf . HERRING FILLETING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
12.9
6.67
33.5
532
10200
2460
14.5
148
—
2210
22.6
3330
34.1
6220
63.7
597
6.11
434
4.45
21.3
0.219
6.91
21.7
STD DEV
2.15
—
0.769
12.2
1050
253
5.03
51.5
—
439
4.50
775
7.94
1050
10.8
95.0
0.973
80.6
0.825
2.40
0.025
0.076
0.639
MINIMUM
10.7
3.50
32.6
519
9490
2270
10.1
103
—
1810
18.5
2560
26.2
5030
51.5
495
5.07
353
3.61
18.6
0.191
6.82
21.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
15.0
9.00
34.1
542
11400
2740
20.0
205
—
2680
27.4
4100
42.0
7010
71 .8
683
7.00
514
5.26
23.3
0.239
6.97
22.1
HF1
3 SAMPLES
267
-------
Table 128 . HERRING FILLETING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCT EON TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
4.72
6.67
5.57
88.4
4820
11 50
STD DEV
1.22
—
0.536
8.52
754
181
MINIMUM
3.63
4.00
5.03
79.8
4020
962
MAXIMUM
6.04
8.00
6.10
96.9
5510
1 320
SETT. SOLDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG 0
4940
23.8
6280
30.2
10000
48.4
1 190
5.73
31 80
15.3
3400
16.4
3700
17.8
3520
16.9
7230
34.8
6080
29.3
9760
47.0
13800
66.6
PLANT HF2
3 SAMPLES
268
-------
Table 129. HERRING FILLETING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY
FLOW L/SSC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY POD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD N-G/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMYONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TFMF DSG C
MEAN7 STD DEV
0.150
2.00
1.01
16.0
26700
6400
2.00
53.4
255
6.81
632
16.9
1220
32.6
2590
69.2
735
21.0
102
2.72
3.90
0.104
6.00
10.00
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
— _ — —
— —
— — __
__ __
— — — _
__ —
— —
— —
— —
_ _ Jm _
— —
— — __
— —
— —
PLANT HF3
1 SAMPLE
269
-------
Table 130. Surf clam canning process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) iron man
b) first washer
c) first skimming table
d) second washer
e) second skimming table
f) washdown
of Total
Flow
35%
16%
15%
33%
of Total
BOD
31%
24%
32%
13%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
52%
25%
15%
8%
o
Total effluent average
CCL2
21,000 1/kkg
13 kg/kkg
5.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) shell
Wastes
a) belly
% of Raw Product
10 - 15%
75 - 80%
7 - 10%
Average Production Rate, 38 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
Table 131. SURF CLAM MEAT PROCESS
(MECHANICALLY-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIMS HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO JU/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC- N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AKMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
Ph
TtIMP DEC C
MEAN
25.6
6.32
26.4
420
4220
1010
1 .95
8.22
371
1 .56
190
0.801
546
2.31
774
3.27
23.0
0.097
76. 6
0.324
4.82
0.020
7.05
25.4
STD DEV
6.00
—
0.946
1 5.0
618
148
0.565
2.39
63.6
0.269
37.7
0.159
126
0.531
140
0.589
6.76
0.029
1 6.4
0.069
2.39
0.010
0.106
0.632
MINIMUM
19.1
4.30
25.1
399
3500
840
1 .30
5.51
328
1.39
155
0.655
404
1.71
626
2.64
13.4
0.056
58.0
0.245
2.59
0.011
6.93
24.7
MAXIMUM
33.0
7.50
27.3
433
4920
1180
2.43
10.3
465
1 .96
235
0.992
707
2.99
915
3.86
28.6
0.1 21
95.3
0.403
8.17
0.035
7.15
26.0
PLANT FCL1
4 SAMPLES
271
-------
Table 132.
SURF CLAM MEAT PROCESS
(MECHANICALLY-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.89
7.50
12.4
197
9570
2290
3.29
31 .5
201
1.92
297
2.84
1280
12.2
1460
14.0
24.5
0.235
167
1 .60
6.16
0.059
7.04
22.5
STD DEV
0.768
—
1 .89
30.1
1210
289
1.48
14.2
190
1.82
164
1.56
256
2.45
425
4.07
7.09
0.068
44.7
0.428
1.13
0.011
0.060
1.33
MINIMUM
3.88
—
10.1
161
7900
1890
2.11
20.2
78.1
0.747
157
1 .50
993
9.50
1050
10.0
15.8
0.151
124
1.18
5.25
0.050
6.97
21 .6
MAXIMUM
5.75
—
14.6
231
10900
2610
5.55
53.1
486
4.65
549
5.26
1590
15.2
2100
20.1
32.3
0.309
224
2.14
7.06
0.068
7.14
23.9
PLANT FCL2
4 SAMPLES
272
-------
Table 133. SURF CLAM MEAT PROCESS
(MECHANICALLY-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN 1C -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH P
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
12.0
7.10
122
1940
39900
9570
4.09
163
~
356
14.2
719
28.7
1380
55.0
22.7
0.905
89.8
3.59
3.81
0.152
6.10
36.4
STD DEV
— —
__
14.8
235
4960
1190
1.02
40.6
—
127
5.06
215
8.57
772
30.8
6.93
0.277
29.6
1 .18
1 .36
0.054
0.238
3.31
MINIMUM
..c-
6.50
97.0
1540
31000
7430
2.32
92.6
—
179
7.13
341
13.6
633
25.3
13.0
0.517
53.5
2.14
2.2R
0.091
5.78
33.9
MAXIMUM
— -
7.50
134
2130
44300
10600
4.94
197
—
534
21.3
980
39.1
2740
109
33.9
1.35
135
5.38
6.09
0.243
6.74
38.5
PLANT FCL3
5 SAMPLES
273
-------
Table 134. SURF CLAM-CANNING PROCESS
(PRESCHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA -N rtG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
5.85
7.70
15.6
248
10700
2570
0.758
8.13
468
5.02
82.8
0.887
493
5.29
692
7.41
20.8
0.223
61.1
0.655
1 .60
0.017
7.10
17.2
STD DEV
0.296
—
8.17
130
5090
1220
—
33.1
0.355
22.4
0.240
68.2
0.730
97.9
1.05
12.5
0.134
4.47
0.048
0.325
0.003
0.141
1.47
MINIMUM
5.64
6.40
9.87
157
7120
1710
— —
445
4.77
67.0
0.713
445
4.77
623
6.67
12.0
0.128
58.0
0.621
1.37
0.015
7.00
16.3
PLANT
MAXIMUM
6.06
9.00
21.4
340
14300
3430
—
492
5.27
98.6
1.06
542
5.80
761
8.16
29.7
0.318
64.3
0.689
1.83
0.020
7.24
18.2
CCL1
2 SAMPLES
274
-------
Table 135. SURF CLAM MEAT PROCESS
(MEGHAN1CALLY-S HUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN 1C -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
6.15
6.74
31 .6
502
21000
5040
3.20
67.3
471
9.91
246
5.17
619
13.0
925
19.5
21.1
0.443
92.5
1.94
2.59
0.055
7.06
17.4
STD DEV
1.49
—
3.89
61.8
3660
877
4.23
89.0
699
14.7
33.5
0.706
73.7
1.55
143
3.01
6.66
0.140
13.3
0.280
0.699
0.015
0.103
1.50
MINIMUM
4.85
1.20
26.7
423
14400
3450
0.719
15.1
141
2.97
182
3.83
515
10.8
686
14.4
10.9
0.230
75.8
1.59
1.51
0.032
6.96
15.8
MAXIMUM
8.97
9.50
36.1
573
26400
6330
12.8
269
1910
40.2
276
5.80
737
15.5
1100
23.1
27.6
0.580
111
2.34
3.52
0.074
7.35
19.6
PLANT CCL2
7 SAMPLES
275
-------
much lower since the debellying and subsequent washing is a
major unit operation in the clam process. Plants FCL2,
FCL3, and CCL2 all produced a clam product with the bellies
removed. Plants FCL2 and FCL3 removed the bellies
mechanically while plant CCL2 used a manual debellying line.
The flows and waste loads at plant FCL3 are higher due to
the fact that considerable washing of the product is done
and also because the clams are opened by steam cooking and
the clam juice is condensed by evaporators. Code CCLl
represents a process which received preshucked clams from
other plants and then washed and canned them. Since there
was no shucking operation, this process had lower flows and
waste loads. The tables indicate that the waste flows and
loads from the mechanized clam operations are substantial
and on the same order of magnitude as from the canned fish
operations.
The wastewaters are commonly discharged to receiving waters;
however, some discharged to municipal systems and one plant
located a few miles inland was using a spray irrigation dis-
posal system. Some plants use grit chambers to remove sand
and shell particles and one plant (FCL3) screened their ef-
fluent through a tangential screen before discharge.
Product material balance
The production rates at the plants monitored were variable
and depended to a large degree on the combination of unit
operations employed. The plant which shucked but did not
debelly (FCL1), handled a large volume of clams, averaging
147 kkg/day (162 tons/day). The ratio between the weight of
clams in the shell to clams before debellying is about four
to one. The average production at plants which shucked and
debellied the clams was about 50 kkg/day (55 tons/day). The
final food product without the bellies is about 10 to 15
percent of the weight in the shell. The clam bellies are
sometimes used for bait or animal food but are often
discharged to the receiving waters or ground up and
discharged to the municipal sewer system. Clam shells are
generally used for fill or road beds but are sometimes
barged back to the clam beds.
Conventional Clam Process
Three conventional hand shucking clam processes were
monitored during September, 1973, in the mid-Atlantic
region. The plants operate all year on an intermittent
basis. The conventional plants are generally smaller than
the mechanized plants.
276
-------
Wastewater materia1 balance
The hand shucked clam plants are usually located in rural
communities or areas and obtain water from domestic supplies
or fresh water wells. Table 136 shows that most of the
waste flow and loads come from the washing operations after
shucking and debellying.
It can be seen that the flows and loads are much lower, ex-
cept for 5-day BOD versus suspended solids, from the hand
shucking operation than from the mechanized operations. The
suspended solids parameter is hard to sample accurately,
especially during washdowns, since the concentration of fine
sand fluctuates greatly at the beginning of the period.
Tables 137 through 139 summarize the characteristics of the
wastewater from each of the three plants monitored. The
wastewater is generally discharged to the receiving water
with no treatment.
Product material balance
The production rates at the three plants sampled averaged
about 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day) which was about half the rate
of the mechanized plants and ranged from 7 kkg/day (8
tons/day) to 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day). The yield of food
product from the hand shucked plants is similar to the
mechanized plants. The final product is shipped to other
plants for further processing into canned clams or chowder.
OYSTER PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characterization data from the oyster proces-
sing industry is organized into mechanical steamed or canned
operations and conventional hand shucking operations because
of the different methods and waste loads involved.
Steamed or Canned Oysters
Two steamed oyster processes in the mid-Atlantic region and
two canned oyster processes in the Northwest were monitored
during September and October, 1973. The two steamed oyster
processes and one canned oyster process were similar, in
that shucking of the oysters was facilitated by steaming the
oyster to loosen the meat from the shell. The other canned
oyster process used pieces of meat from hand shucking
operations and then canned them as oyster stew. There was
some difficulty encountered sampling one of the steamed
277
-------
Table 136. Hand shucked clam process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a)
b)
first and second
washers
washdown
% of Total
Flow
83-92
8-17
% of Total
BOD
65-97
3-34
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10-96
4-89
Total effluent average 5100 1/kkg 5.3 kg/kkg 12 kg/kkg
Average production rate: 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day).
278
-------
Table 137 . CLAM FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN STD DEV
4.08
6.00 —
7.64
121
7440
1780 —
8.04 —
59,8
547
4.06
581
4.32
843
6.27 —
1410
10.5
37.4
0.278 —
138
1 .03
5.18
0.039
6.91 —
19.5
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
— -» TI_—T
— » ....
—*» «•»
^~» _ _
PLANT HCL1
1 SAMPLE
279
-------
Table 138 . CLAM FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
6.53
5.50
3.59
57.0
2280
546
10.0
22.9
2460
5.60
6660
15.2
2680
6.11
4060
9.24
52.2
0.119
421
0.960
8.00
0.018
7.04
18.6
STD DEV
1.21
—
0.657
10.4
771
185
6.57
15.0
1920
4.37
3100
7.06
1070
2.43
1530
3.49
26.8
0.061
164
0.374
3.41
0.008
0.111
1 .10
MINIMUM
4.78
2.50
2.65
42.0
1480
355
1.73
3.94
649
1.48
3990
9.09
1670
3.80
2600
5.92
25.7
0.059
258
0.589
5.60
0.013
6.93
17.8
MAXIMUM
7.48
8.00
4.10
65.0
3330
799
15.9
36.3
5150
11.7
10600
24.2
4180
9.52
6210
14.1
80.6
0.184
648
1.48
12.9
0.029
7.20
19.8
PLANT HCL2
4 SAMPLES
280
-------
Table 139 . CLAM FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
MEAN
3.43
2.30
4.85
77.1
5610
1350
3.01
16.9
273
1.53
2910
16.4
632
3.55
958
5.38
16.4
0.092
102
0.574
3.51
0.020
STD
...
••«
•*•«
•*•
••••
«*•
•»•
mmm
*»•
—
«•»•
•» tm
•»•
PH
TEMP DEG C
7.02
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PLANT HCL3
1 SAMPLE
281
-------
oyster plants (SO2) becuase of the numerous discharge
points.
Wastewater material balance
The two plants on the East Coast were located in small
communities and obtained water from domestic supplies. The
plants on the West Coast were located in more rural areas
and obtained their water from wells.
Table 140 shows the wastewater balance for a typical steamed
oyster process. It is observed that a large portion of the
flow and load is caused by the washdown at these plants.
The largest flow comes from the culler and shocker which is
used to clean and partially open the shell before steam
cooking; however, the BOD load is relatively small.
Tables 142 through 145 summarize the characteristics of the
wastewater from the steamed or canned oyster plants moni-
tored. Codes SOI and SO2 represent the two East Coast
steamed oyster plants. The waste loads appear to be higher
at SOI. This could be caused by the higher water use or
sampling problems caused by the numerous outfalls at SO2.
The results from plant SOI are considered to be the most
accurate. Code COl represents a canned oyster process on
the West Coast which is similar to the East coast operation
except that the oyster meat is removed from the shell
manually after steaming and is then canned and retorted.
The waste load, in terms of BOD, is about the same or a
little higher than from the East Coast operations. The
suspended solids is much lower at the West Coast plant as
the shells are typically washed before they enter the plant.
Code CO2 (Table 145) represents an oyster stew process on
the west Coast. This process uses pieces of broken oyster
from hand shucking operations which are not desirable for
the fresh/frozen market. The wastes are lower since the
process does not include a shucking operation. Wastewater
from the oyster plants are typically discharged directly to
the receiving water.
Product material balance
Production rates at the East Coast steamed oyster plants
averaged 7.0 kkg/day (7.7 tons/day) of finished product.
Oyster production is usually measured in terms of final
product since the ratio between raw and final product is
quite variable due to loose or empty shells. The production
rate at the West Coast oyster canning plants averaged 1.4
282
-------
kkg/day (1.5 tons/day) for the canning operation and 3.2
kkg/day (3.5 tons/day) for the stew operation. The stew
operation, however, is usually done only once a week after
the oyster pieces have accumulated to a sufficient amount.
Hand Shucked Oysters
Six hand shucked oyster processes in the mid-Atlantic region
were monitored during September and October, 1973 and four
hand shucked oyster processes in the Northwest were
monitored during October and November, 1973. In general,
there was no problem with the availability of product in
either region during this period. Processes of all size
ranges, from those employing a few shuckers to those with a
capacity of over 100 shuckers were sampled. Regardless of
size, the processes are similar and relatively easy to
sample.
Wastewater material balance
The plants on the East Coast obtained water either from
domestic supplies or from wells, while the plants on the
West Coast obtained their water from wells.
Table 141 shows the wastewater balance for typical East and
West Coast hand shucked oyster processes. It can be seen
that the two main sources of water are the blow tanks and
the washdowns. The blow tanks, which are used to wash and
add water to the product, are the major sources of
wastewater and BOD loads. The washdowns can be a major
source of suspended solids due to the fine pieces of sand
which are on or in the oyster shells.
Tables 146 through 155 summarize the characteristics of the
waste loads from the ten hand shucked oyster plants sampled.
Codes HSOl through HSO6 represent East Coast plants while
codes HSO8 through HSll represent West Coast plants.
In general, the wastewater loads were higher at the West
Coast plants than the East Coast plants. The reason for
this appears to be due to the difference in the type of
oysters processed and the flows used. The West Coast plants
typically use more water in washing the product than the
Eash Coast plants. The West Coast oyster is also larger and
tends to break easier during handling. One plant on the
East Coast (HSO5) breaded the oysters after shucking. This
operation was found to contribute about 50 percent of the
BOD load at that plant; however, the overall load was about
283
-------
Table HO- Steamed oyster process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total % of Total % of Total
Unit Operation Flow BOD Susp. Solids
a) belt washer 11% 10% 63%
b) shocker 43% 9% 26%
c) shucker 15% n% ]_%
d) blow tanks 7% 6% <1%
e) washdown 23% 64% 10%
CO
•^ Total effluent average
S02 66,500 1/kkg 30 kg/kkg 137 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 6.8 kkg/day (7.5 tons/day)
(production for the oyster processes is measured in
terms of final product)
-------
Table 141 . Hand shucked oyster process material balance
East Coast
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
; of Total
Flow
71 - 94%
6 - 29%
i of Total
BOD
81 - 94%
6 - 19%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11 - 58%
42 - 89%
ro
CD
en
Total effluent average
37,000 1/kkg
West Coast
14 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
; of Total
Flow
45 - 68%
32 - 55%
i of Total
BOD
83 - 95%
5 - 17%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
24 - 75%
25 - 76%
Total effluent average
41,000 1/kkg
25 kg/kkg
26 kg/kkg
(Production for the oyster processes is measured in terms of final product)
-------
Table 142. OYSTER STEAM PROCESS
PARAMETF.R
PRODUCTION TON/KR
PROCESS TIKE faR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.956
7.18
15.4
244
85400
20500
7.14
610
2460
210
1570
134
546
46.7
903
77.2
16.9
1 .44
54.7
4.67
2.54
0.217
7.07
20.1
STD DEV
0.480
—
1 .86
29.5
29600
7100
2.57
219
2260
193
1 180
101
401
34.3
593
50.7
9.32
0.797
40.1
3.42
1 .17
0.100
0.116
1 .74
MINIMUM
0.418
5.50
11.9
1 90
48500
1 1600
3.29
281
420
35.8
714
61 .0
200
17.0
355
30.3
6.70
0.572
17.4
1 .49
0.984
0.084
6.94
16.2
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1 .60
9.30
17.3
275
1 24000
29800
10.4
891
5620
480
3380
289
919
78.5
1 640
140
31 .8
2.72
1 01
8.64
4.06
0.347
7.35
21.6
SOI
5 SAMPLES
286
-------
Table 143. OYSTER STEAM PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.920
\
8.19
13.9
220
66500
15900
11.7
781
2910
193
2060
137
448
29.8
926
61 .6
19.0
1 .26
52.8
3.51
2.93
0.195
7.07
19.8
STD DEV
0.125
—
0.581
9.22
9610
2300
4.05
269
637
42.4
860
57.2
59.7
3.97
172
11 .4
5.41
0.360
9.93
0.661
0.875
0.058
0.087
0.786
MINIMUM
0.675
8.00
13.4
213
58400
14000
7.92
527
2040
136
835
55.6
392
26.1
683
45.8
13.9
0.928
40.0
2.66
2.15
0.143
6.92
18.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1 .04
8.80
15.0
239
85600
20500
18.8
1 250
4070
271
3640
242
570
37.9
1 260
83.9
29.9
1 .99
71 .1
4.73
4.29
0.285
7.16
20.8
S02
7 SAMPLES
287
-------
Table 144 . OYSTER CANNING PROCESS
(STEAM/HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.202
7.60
3.16
50.1
63400
15200
3.33
211
16.8
1.06
199
12.6
834
52.9
1100
69.7
13.4
0.849
97.0
6.14
5.47
0.347
6.78
10.00
STD DEV
0.013
—
0.217
3.44
5280
1270
2.41
152
4.27
0.271
36.7
2.32
251
15.9
318
20.2
5.06
0.321
74.4
4.71
2.36
0,150
0.117
—
MINIMUM
0.188
6.80
2.97
47.2
57300
13700
1.93
122
13.9
0.882
169
10.7
632
40.0
804
51 .0
8.59
0.544
16.3
1.03
4.03
0.255
6.65
—
MAXIMUM
0.213
8.00
3.40
53.9
66900
16000
6.10
387
21.7
1.37
240
15.2
1110
70.6
1440
91.1
18.7
1 .1 8
163
10.3
8.19
0.519
6.87
—
PLANT C01
3 SAMPLES
288
-------
Table 145. OYSTER STEW CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
0.636
5.50
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-*? MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
10.5
166
65400
15700
4.93
323
15.2
0.996
433
28.3
447
29.3
1280
83.9
61.7
4.04
91 .4
5.98
2.94
0.192
6.85
10.00
PLANT C02
1 SAMPLS
289
-------
Table 146. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 0.180
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 5.00
FLOW L/SEC 0.493
(GAL/MIN) 7.82
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 10900
(GAL/TON) 2610
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 0.400
RATIO L/KKG 4.35
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 216
RATIO KG/KKG 2.35
5 DAY POD MG/L 920
RATIO KG/KKG 1 0.0
COD MG/L 2240
RATIO KG/KKG 24.4
GREASE & OIL MG/L 28.0
RATIO KG/KKG 0.305
ORGANIC-N MG/L 208
RATIO KG/KKG 2.26
AMMONIA-N MG/L 4.50
PATIO KG/KKG 0.049
PH 7.40
TEMP DEG C 22.2
PLANT HSO1
1 SAMPLE
290
-------
Table 147 . OYSTER-FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION 10M/KR
PROCESS TIKE KR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
0.282
7.33
2.29
36.4
36600
8780
1 .77
64.6
222
8.14
304
11 .2
302
1 1 .1
569
20.9
15.1
0.552
52.9
1 .94
2.63
0.096
7.07
15.6
STD DEV
0.090
—
0.596
9,47
3990
956
—
3.95
0.145
20.3
0.746
85,2
3.12
120
4.40
3.97
0.145
10.4
0.381
0.152
0.006
0.042
—
MINIMUM
0.213
6.00
1 .66
2b,4
34200
8200
•» , ^ ,
21 a
7.97
286
1 0.5
243
8.89
496
18.2
1 0.5
0.385
45.2
1 .66
2.47
0.090
7.05
—
MAXIMUM
0.383
8.00
2.85
45.2
41200
9890
—
225
8.25
326
12.0
399
1 4.6
70S
25.^
17.7
0.648
64.7
2.37
2.77
0.102
7.13
—
PLANT HSO2
3 SAMPLES
291
-------
Table H8. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCFSS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PE
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.139
5.70
0.831
13.2
24500
5870
2.82
69.1
319
7. 81
437
10.7
346
8.46
699
17.1
20.0
0.490
63.8
1 .56
3.28
0.080
7.10
15.6
STD DEV
0.017
—
0.219
3.47
3800
91 1
0.193
4.71
3.07
0.075
20.9
0.511
66.2
1 .62
166
4.05
3.80
0.093
1 4.4
0.353
0.452
0.01 1
0.076
—
MINIMUM
0.125
4.30
0.650
10.3
21000
5040
2.65
64.8
317
7.77
41 4
10.1
261
6.39
472
11.6
1 4.4
0.353
43.9
1.U7
2.85
0.070
7.01
—
MAXIMUM
0.163
8.00
1.14
18.1
29800
71 40
3.03
74.2
323
7.yQ
464
11.4
404
9.89
856
21 .0
22.6
0.554
77.4
1 .90
3.92
0.096
7.17
—
PLANT HSO3
4 SAMPLES
292
-------
Table 149 . OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKFD)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 1
(GAL/ TON)
SFTT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BCD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMKONIA-K MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PK
1EMP DEG C
MEAN
0.109
5.40
3.1 2
4y .0
12000
26800
0.867
96.8
87.5
9.77
203
22.7
258
28.8
572
63.8
15.4
1 .72
51 .6
5.76
1 .98
0.221
7.10
19.8
STD DEV
0.029
—
1 .28
20.3
32yoo
7880
—
7 .98
0.891
126
14.0
51 .4
5.74
73.0
8.1 4
5.11
0.571
8.21
0.91 6
0.317
0.091
0.112
0.795
MINIMUM
0.091
5.00
1 .35
21 .4
56800
1 3600
—
77.1
8.60
1 39
15.5
187
20.9
474
52. y
7.26
0.81 0
42.3
4.72
1 .02
0.1 14
7.00
18.7
MAXIMUM
0.160
6.50
4.88
77.4
1 39000
33300
—
98.3
11.0
427
47.7
330
36.8
670
74.7
20.6
2.30
60 .7
6.78
3.18
0.355
7.39
20.7
PLANT HS04
5 SAMPLES
293
-------
Table 150 . OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKFD)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS A'L/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE 4* OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.147
7.47
1 .31
20.3
3b900
8850
1 .77
65.5
217
S.01
308
11 .3
372
13.7
680
25.1
16.4
0.605
42.0
1 .55
2.36
0.087
7.10
17.7
STD DFV
0.011
—
0.226
3.62
6340
1b40
—
7.71
0.284
15.8
0.584
91 .2
3.36
182
6.73
2.77
0.102
15.4
0.568
0.323
0.012
0.074
0.799
MIMMUM
0.133
7.30
0.854
1 3.6
24000
5760
— —
209
7.71
293
1 0.8
263
9.72
459
17.0
11.9
0.439
22.8
0.843
1 .89
0.070
7.00
16.9
MAXIMUM
0.160
7 .50
1 .56
24.8
46900
1 1200
— •. _*
224
8.28
332
1 2.2
511
1 8.9
924
34.1
19.4
0.715
66.8
2.46
2.80
0.103
7.29
18.6
PLANT HS05
7 SAMPLES
294
-------
Table 151. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.053
5.13
0.622
9.87
45600
10900
1 .20
54.5
172
7.84
142
6.49
270
12.3
467
21.3
12.0
0.545
37.9
1.73
1.90
0.086
7.10
17.2
STD DEV
0.011
—
0.310
4.93
19600
4700
1.47
66.8
158
7.20
147
6.71
164
7.50
266
12.1
4.91
0.224
26.6
1.21
0.510
0.023
0.155
0.515
MINIMUM
0.039
4.00
0.153
2.43
10300
2480
0.184
8.40
7.84
0.357
35.3
1.61
54.5
2.48
107
4.89
4.77
0.217
4.97
0.227
1.09
0.050
6.98
16.7
MAXIMUM
0.067
6.00
1.00
15.9
60100
14400
3.51
160
409
18.6
400
18.2
559
25.5
931
42.4
21 .8
0.992
84.2
3.84
2.77
0.126
7.74
17.8
PLANT HS06
9 SAMPLES
295
-------
Table 152. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN 1C -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.153
7.50
2.23
35.4
56400
13500
2.05
116
124
7.01
618
34.8
406
22.9
729
41.2
30.1
1 .70
63.2
3.57
1.81
0.102
6.66
10.00
STD DEV
0.011
—
0.090
1.43
697
167
0.281
15.9
26.1
1.47
27.6
1.56
52.5
2.96
87.8
4.95
6.12
0.345
8.59
0.484
0.414
0.023
0.052
—
MINIMUM
0.138
5.50
2.12
33.7
55800
13400
1.75
98.5
104
5.89
583
32.9
330
18.6
608
34.3
25.3
1.43
51.5
2.90
1.43
0.081
6.60
—
MAXIMUM
0.164
8.00
2.33
37.0
57400
13800
2.36
133
168
9.48
650
36.7
476
26.9
848
47.9
38.5
2.17
74.6
4.21
2.46
0.139
6.73
— '
PLANT HSO8
5 SAMPLES
296
-------
Table 153 . OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.380
4.75
2.72
43.2
28700
6880
2.18
62.6
312
8.96
490
14.1
1030
29.6
1610
46.2
37.3
1.07
255
7.32
4.72
0.135
6. 89
1.97
STD DEV
0.028
—
0.120
1.91
2700
648
0.620
17.8
97.4
2.80
108
3.11
165
4.75
228
6.54
9.12
0.262
26.5
0.760
0.047
0.001
0.228
—
MINIMUM
0 . 360
4.50
2.64
41.9
26800
6420
1.74
50.0
243
6.99
413
11.9
916
26.3
1450
41.5
30.8
0.885
236
6.78
4.69
0.135
6.72
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.400
5.00
2.81
44.6
30600
7340
2.62
75.1
381
10.9
566
16.3
1150
33.0
1770
50.8
43.7
1.26
274
7.85
4.75
0.136
7.18
—
HSO9
2 SAMPLES
297
-------
Table 154 . OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA -N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.031
8.00
0.309
4.91
37100
8890
1.67
62.1
245
9.07
416
15.4
619
23.0
1450
53.6
42.9
1.59
129
4.78
2.15
0.080
6.73
10.00
STD DEV
0.009
—
0.041
0.656
1700
'407
0.314
11.7
83.5
3.10
105
3.89
78.1
2.90
182
6.75
4.53
0.168
16.3
0.605
0.202
0.007
0.026
—
MINIMUM
0.025
—
0.280
4.45
35900
8600
1.45
53.8
186
6.88
342
12.7
564
20.9
1320
48.9
39.7
1.47
11 8
4.36
2.01
0.074
6.71
— —
MAXIMUM
0.037
—
0.339
5.38
38300
9180
1 .90
70.3
304
11.3
491
18.2
674
25.0
1580
58.4
46.1
1.71
141
5.21
2.29
0.085
6.75
—
PLANT HS10
2 SAMPLES
298
-------
Table 155. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN )
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
0.150
8.00
1.52
24.1
40200
9630
4.42
178
599
24.1
961
38.6
611
24.6
1370
55.2
39.5
1.59
231
9.30
2.65
0.107
7.00
10.00
STD DEV
__
—
0.149
2.36
3940
945
0.602
24.2
477
19.2
130
5.24
78.9
3.17
169
6.78
5.62
0.226
16.2
0.652
0.331
0.013
0.129
—
MINIMUM
__
—
1.41
22.3
37300
8930
3.91
157
274
11 .0
838
33.7
511
20.5
1250
50.3
31.1
1.25
221
8.88
2.31
0.093
6.86
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
__
—
1.72
27.3
45600
10900
5.03
202
1170
47.2
1140
45.6
711
28.6
1640
65.8
47.6
1 .91
257
10.3
3.24
0.130
7.24
— •
HS11
4 SAMPLES
299
-------
average due to good water conservation practices. The
wastewater from hand shucked oyster processes is typically
discharged directly to the receiving water.
Product material balancg
The average production rate of the East Coast plants sampled
was 800 kg/day (1800 Ibs/day) of final product; however,
there was a wide range of from about 250 kg/day (540
Ibs/day) to 2100 kg/day (4500 Ibs/day). The West Coast
plants observed had higher production rates averaging about
1100 kg/day (2500 Ibs/day). All oyster production volumes
or rates are in terms of final product, since the input
shell weight to final product weight is too variable for
accurate measurements.
Scallop Freezing Process Wastewater Characteristics
Two scallop freezing processes were monitored in Alaska
during July and August of 1973. Although this was about the
middle of an average scallop harvest season, some difficulty
was experienced in obtaining samples due to intermittent
processing.
Wastewater material balance
Both plants sampled used chlorinated municipal water
sources, derived from reservoirs and deep wells. The only
wastewater produced was in the washing operation; however,
each plant sampled had a different method. Plant SP1 used a
two stage continuous flow washing system in which a large
volume of fresh water was used. Plant SP2 used a non-
flowing brine tank which was dumped approximately every
eight hours.
Tables 156 and 157 summarize the wastewater characteristics
for each plant sampled. It can be seen that, although the
flow is much higher for SPl, the BOD loads were similar for
the two processes and relatively low compared to other
seafood processing operations.
The effluent was discharged to the receiving water at one
plant and to the municipal sewer system at the other plant.
300
-------
Product, material balance
Production rates for the two plants were similar, averaging
about 9 kkg/day (10 tons/day) of finished product.
Production rates for the scallops were recorded in terms of
finished product since they are shelled and eviscerated at
sea. The yield is nearly 100 percent since the only wastes
produced are small scallop pieces not suitable for freezing,
solid waste removed during inspection, and small amounts of
dissolved organic matter.
FRESH/FROZEN ABALONE PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Three abalone processors in Southern California were
monitored during the month of October, 1973, which is a
period of average production. All of the plants were
located in metropolitan areas, utilized domestic water
supplies, and discharged the effluent to the municipal
treatment plant.
Wastewater Material Balance
Table 158 shows that the primary source of wastewater is
from the processing area and consists of various small flows
used to keep the area clean. These small flows may be
either continuous or intermittent at the discretion of the
plant personnel. The flat surfaces of the processing table
and the slicing machines are periodically cleansed to
facilitate handling as well as to rinse away accumulated
wastes. Washwater that is used to cleanse the foot muscle
prior to trimming was handled differently in each of the
three plants sampled. The largest plant, AB1, utilized
recirculated washwater which was dumped twice a day. Plant
AB2 used a system which recirculated the washwater during a
single wash cycle and then discharged it, and plant AB3 used
a continuous flow of water through the washing mechanism
during each wash cycle.
The remaining source of wastewater is the washdown of the
entire processing area. Tables 159 through 161 show the
wastewater characteristics of the three plants sampled.
These tables show that relatively large amounts of water and
wastes are generated per ton of product compared to other
seafood processing operations.
301
-------
Table 156. SCALLOPS FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
bLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY POD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.48
5.77
5.00
79.5
13600
3270
0.133
1.81
448
6.11
26.6
0.363
199
2.72
321
4.39
15.2
0.208
56.5
0.771
2.71
0.037
6.86
11.1
STD DEV
0.226
—
0.784
12.5
2550
611
0.054
0.741
122
1.66
9.25
0.126
67.7
0.924
78.1
1.07
14.8
0.202
34.4
0.470
0.724
0.010
0.184
0.680
MINIMUM
1.21
3.30
4.22
67.0
10100
2410
0.074
1.01
306
4. 13
14.7
0.201
93.8
1.35
200
2.73
3.61
0.049
19.7
0.269
1.93
0.026
6.56
10.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1.71
8.00
6.34
101
17400
4170
0.215
2.93
584
7.97
40.6
0.555
285
3.88
396
5.41
31.9
0.435
102
1.39
3.92
0.054
7.19
12.2
SP1
6 SAMPLES
302
-------
Table 157. SCALLOP FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 1.05
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 11.5
FLOW L/SEC 0.089
(GAL/MIN) 1.42
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 338
(GAL/TON) 81.0
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 32.0
RATIO L/KKG 10.8
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 3970
RATIO KG/KKG 1 .34
5 DAY BOD MG/L 10700
RATIO KG/KKG 3.61
COD MG/L 11 300
RATIO KG/KKG 3.82
GREASE & OIL MG/L 26.0
RATIO KG/KKG 0.009
ORGANIC-N MG/L 1 740
RATIO KG/KKG 0.586
AMMONIA-N MG/L 77.1
RATIO KG/KKG 0.026
PH 6.30
TEMP DEC C 5. 55
PLANT SP2
1 SAMPLE
303
-------
Table 158
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) wash tank
c) washdown
Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total
Flow
49%
26%
25%
% of Total
BOD
50%
20%
30%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
39%
42%
19%
Total effluent average
AB1
CO
o
47,100 1/kkg
27 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
11 kg/kkg
End Product
Food Products
a) steaks
b) trimmings
(patties,
canned)
By-products
a) shell
Wastes
a) viscera
Average Production Rate,
% of Raw Product
38 - 42%
34 - 36%
10 - 12%
10 - 12%
.34 kkg/day (.38 tons/day)
-------
Table 159 . ABALONE FRESH/FROZEN
PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.072
5.23
0.604
9.58
47100
11300
4.80
226
95.4
4.50
237
11.2
579
27.3
917
43.2
22.5
1 .06
89.8
4.23
4.04
0.190
7.17
20.3
STD DEV
0.019
—
0.054
0.863
14000
3370
3.78
178
13.2
0.620
91.3
4.30
228
10.8
356
16.8
9.06
0.427
33.5
1.58
1.58
0.075
0.185
1.72
MINIMUM
0,048
4.20
0.517
8.20
31200
7490
2.27
107
85.4
4.02
143
6.74
302
14.2
468
22.1
12.6
0.595
46.2
2.18
1.85
0.087
6.89
19.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.087
7.50
0.676
10.7
69000
16500
10.7
505
105
4.97
410
19.4
885
41.7
1430
67.3
42.0
1.98
135
6.34
6.49
0.306
7.62
21.4
AB1
4 SAMPLES
305
-------
Table 160 . ABALONE FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 0.045
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 2.20
FLOW L/SEC 0.583
(GAL/MIN) 9.25
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 50900
(GAL/TON) 12200
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 4.09
RATIO L/KKG 208
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG —
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 317
RATIO KG/KKG 16.1
5 DAY BOD MG/L 431
RATIO KG/KKG 22.0
COD MG/L 1010
RATIO KG/KKG 51.2
GREASE & OIL MG/L 29.8
RATIO KG/KKG 1.52
ORGANIC-N MG/L 46.0
RATIO KG/KKG 2.35
AMMONIA-N MG/L 2.19
RATIO KG/KKG 0.111
PH 6.91
TEMP DEG C
PLANT AB2
1 SAMPLE
306
-------
Table 161 . ABALOME FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
0.069
2.33
0.437
6.94
25200
6050
2.47
62.2
162
4.08
298
7.52
473
11.9
816
20.6
33.9
0.854
72.3
1 ..92
3.16
0.080
7.19
20.6
STD DEV
0.005
-- .
0.134
2.13
8590
2060
1 .16
29.2
167
4.21
78.0
1.97
165
4.15
148
3.72
13.9
0.352
11.9
0.299
1.05
0.026
0.176
-=,
MINIMUM
0.067
1.50
0.328
5.21
18400
4410
1.21
30.6
23.8
0.599
198
5.01
263
6.64
631
15.9
19.6
0.494
58.1
1.47
2.13
0.054
7.00
—.
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.075
4.00
0.611
9.70
36400
8730
3.50
88.3
297
7.48
388
9.79
633
16.0
992
25.0
51.5
1 .30
87.1
2.20
4.55
0.115
7.35
—
AB3
3 SAMPLES
307
-------
Product Material Balance
The production rates of abalone plants are quite low, with
an average of 0.183 kkg/day (0.202 tons/day). The input
also varies considerably due to fluctuations in raw product
availability.
Table 158 shows the breakdown of raw product into food
product, by-product, and waste. The recovery of food
product varies with species and whether the abalone are
packed whole or prepared as steaks. The average recovery of
sliced steaks is approximately 38 to 42 percent. Good
quality trimmings are retained along with low quality steaks
for the production of abalone patties. The weight of
trimmings is usually around the same as the net weight of
the steaks recovered.
The abalone shells are retained for sale to curio shops and
to producers of jewelry and gift items. These shells con-
stitute the only by-product recovery at present. The
viscera was collected as solid waste and turned over to the
municipalities for disposal.
Determination of Subcateqory Summary Data
The computation of the subcategory summary data for the flow
ratio, total suspended solids, BOD5, and grease and oil
parameters is based, in general, on the log-normal transform
of individual plant summary data. The plants which were
used to compute these subcategory-wide (spatial) averages
are considered to be typical in their water and waste
control practices. Non-typical, or plants which appeared to
be producing excessive waste loads, were not used in the
averages. Also, plants which employed hybrid or partial
processes were not included in the averages.
The log-normal transform incorporated weighing factors for
the number of samples collected at each individual plant and
for the temporal variabity of the individual plant data.
The log-normal formulas utilized to calculate the
subcategory parameter averages and standard deviations
appear in Figure 53.
In three commodity areas the available data was not amenable
to a log-normal data analysis: hand-shucked clam
processing, scallop processing, and herring fillet
processing. In the case of hand-shucked clams and scallops
several samples were available from one plant (HCL2 and SPl
respectively) with one sample available from other plants
(HCL1, HCL3, and SP2, respectively). In these instances, an
308
-------
N
N
N
N
(«•-')
1/2
Where Jk\ MI and -£17 »s are the parameter log-normal mean and standard deviation respectively;
N is the total number of plants sampled; 77 is the number of parameter samples of plant e ; and nt
and ot are the parameter mean and standard deviation of plant c •
FIGURE 53. Log - normal formulas for the subcategory mean and standard deviation.
309
-------
arithmetic mean was calculated utilizing a weighing factor
for the number of parameter samples per plant. The
individual plant standard deviations from HCL2 and SP1 for
hand-shucked clams and scallops, respectively, were utilized
for the subcategory standard deviations. For herring
fillets, grease and oil data was available from one plant
only. In this instance, the plant data was utilized as the
subcategory grease and oil mean.
310
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
The waste water parameters of major pollutional significance
to the canned and preserved seafood processing industry are:
5-day (20°C) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), suspended
solids, and oil and grease. For the purposes of
establishing effluent limitations guidelines, pH is included
in the monitored parameters and must fall within an
acceptable range. Of peripheral or occasional importance
are temperature, phosphorus, coliforms, ultimate (20 day)
biochemical oxygen demand, chloride, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), settleable solids, and nitrogen.
On the basis of all evidence reviewed, no purely hazardous
or toxic (in the accepted sense of the word) pollutants
(e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, etc.) occur in wastes
discharged from canned or preserved seafood processing
facilities.
In high concentrations, both chloride and ammonia can be
considered inhibitory (or occasionally toxic) to micro- and
macro-organisms. At the levels usually encountered in fish
and shellfish processing waters, these problems are not en-
countered, with one class of exceptions: high strength
(occasionally saturated) NaCl solutions are periodically
discharged from some segments of the industry. These can
interfere with many biological treatment systems unless
their influence is moderated by some form of dilution or
flow egualization.
Rationale For Selection Of Identified Parameters
The selection of the major waste water parameters is based
primarily on prior publications in food processing waste
characterization research (most notably, seafood processing
waste characterization studies) (Soderquist, et al., 1972a,
and Soderquist, et al., 1972b). The EPA seafood state-of-
the-art report "Current Practice in Seafood Processing Waste
Treatment," (Soderquist, et al., 1970), provided a
comprehensive summary of the industry. All of these
publications involved the evaluation of various pollutant
parameters and their applicability to food processing
wastes.
31]
-------
The studies conducted at Oregon State University involving
seafood processing wastes characterization included the
following parameters:
1. temperature
2. pH
3. settleable solids
4. suspended solids
5. chemical oxygen demand
6. 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
7. ultimate biochemical oxygen demand
8. oil and grease
9. nitrate
10. total Keldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and ammonia)
11. phosphorus
12. chloride
13. coliform
Of all these parameters, it was demonstrated (Soderquist, et
al., 1972b) that those listed above as being of major pol-
lutional significance were the most significant. The
results of the current study (Section V) support this
conclusion. Below are discussions of the rationale used in
arriving at those conclusions.
1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD51
Two general types of pollutants can exert a demand on the
dissolved oxygen regime of a body of receiving water. These
are: 1) chemical species which exert an immediate dissolved
oxygen demand (IDOD) on the water body due to chemical re-
actions; and 2) organic substances which indirectly cause a
demand to be exerted on the system because indigenous micro-
organisms utilizing the organic wastes as substrate flourish
and proliferate; their natural respiratory activity
utilizing the surrounding dissolved oxygen. Seafood wastes
do not contain constituents that exert an immediate demand
on a receiving water. They do, however, contain high levels
of organics whose strength is most commonly measured by the
BOD5 test.
The biochemical oxygen demand is usually defined as the
amount of oxygen required by bacteria while stabilizing de-
composable organic matter under aerobic conditions. The
term "decomposable" may be interpreted as meaning that the
organic matter can serve as food for the bacteria and energy
is derived from this oxidation.
312
-------
The BOD does not in itself cause direct harm to a water
system, but it does exert an indirect effect by depressing
the oxygen content of the water. Seafood processing and
other organic effluents exert a BOD during their processes
of decomposition which can have a catastrophic effect on the
ecosystem by depleting the oxygen supply. Conditions are
reached frequently where all of the oxygen is used and the
continuing decay process causes the production of noxious
gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane. Water with a
high BOD indicates the presence of decomposing organic
matter and subsequent high bacterial counts that degrade its
quality and potential uses.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a water quality constituent that,
in appropriate concentrations, is essential not only to keep
organisms living but also to sustain species reproduction,
vigor, and the development of populations. Organisms
undergo stress at reduced DO concentrations that make them
less competitive and able to sustain their species within
the aquatic environment. For example, reduced DO
concentrations have been shown to interfere with fish
population through delayed hatching of eggs, reduced size
and vigor of embryos, production of deformities in young,
interference with food digestion, acceleration of blood
clotting, decreased tolerance to certain toxicants, reduced
food efficiency and growth rate, and reduced maximum
sustained swimming speed. Fish food organisms are likewise
affected adversely in conditions with suppressed DO. Since
all aerobic aquatic organisms need a certain amount of
oxygen, the consequences of total lack of dissolved oxygen
due to a high BOD can kill all inhabitants of the affected
area.
If a high BOD is present, the quality of the water is
usually visually degraded by the presence of decomposing
materials and algae blooms due to the uptake of degraded
materials that form the foodstuffs of the algal populations.
The BOD5 test is widely used to determine the pollutional
strength of domestic and industrial wastes in terms of the
oxygen that they will require if discharged into natural
watercourses in which aerobic conditions exist. The test is
one of the most important in stream polluton control activ-
ities. By its use, it is possible to determine the degree
of pollution in streams at any time. This test is of prime
importance in regulatory work and in studies designed to
evaluate the purification capacities of receiving bodies of
water.
313
-------
The BOD5 test is essentially a bioassay procedure involving
the measurement of oxygen consumed by living organisms while
utilizing the organic matter present in a waste under con-
ditions as similar as possible to those that occur in
nature. The problem arises when the test must be
standardized to permit its use (for comparative purposes) on
different samples, at different times, and in different
locations. Once "standard conditions" have been defined, as
they have (Standard Methods, 1971) for the BOD5 test, then
the original assumption that the analysis simulates natural
conditions in the receiving waters no longer applies, except
only occasionally.
In order to make the test quantitative the samples must be
protected from the air to prevent reaeration as the dis-
solved oxygen level diminishes. In addition, because of the
limited solubility of oxygen in water (about 9 mg/1 at
20°C), strong wastes must be diluted to levels of demand
consistent with this value to ensure that dissolved oxygen
will be present throughout the period of the test.
Since this is a bioassay procedure, it is extremely
important that environmental conditions be suitable for the
living organisms to function in an unhindered manner at all
times. This requirement means that toxic substances must be
absent and that accessory nutrients needed for microbial
growth (such as nitrogen, phosphorus and certain trace
elements) must be present. Biological degradation of
organic matter under natural conditions is brought about by
a diverse group of organisms that carry the oxidation
essentially to completion (i.e., almost entirely to carbon
dioxide and water). Therefore, it is important that a mixed
group of organisms commonly called "seed" be present in the
test. For most industrial wastes, this "seed" should be
allowed to adapt to the particular waste ("acclimate") prior
to introduction of the culture into the BOD5 bottle.
The BOD5 test may be considered as a wet oxidation procedure
in which the living organisms serve as the medium for oxi-
dation of the organic matter to carbon dioxide and water. A
quantitative relationship exists between the amount of
oxygen required to convert a definite amount of any given
organic compound to carbon dioxide and water which can be
represented by a generalized equation. On the basis of this
relationship it is possible to interpret BOD5 data in terms
of organic matter as well as in terms of the amount of
oxygen used during its oxidation. This concept is funda-
mental to an understanding of the rate at which BOD5 is
exerted.
314
-------
The oxidative reactions involved in the BOD5 test are
results of biological activity and the rate at which the
reactions proceed is governed to a major extent by
population numbers and temperature. Temperature effects are
held constant by performing the test at 20°C, which is more
or less a median value for natural bodies of water. The
predominant organisms responsible for the stabilization of
most organic matter in natural waters are native to the
soil.
The rate of their metabolic processes at 20°C and under the
conditions of the test (total darkness, quiescence, etc.) is
such that time must be reckoned in days. Theoretically, an
infinite time is required for complete biological oxidation
of organic matter, but for all practical purposes the re-
action may be considered to be complete in 20 days. A BOD
test conducted over the 20 day period is normally considered
a good estimate of the "ultimate BOD." However, a 20 day
period is too long to wait for results in most instances.
It has been found by experience with domestic sewage that a
reasonably large percentage of the total BOD is exerted in
five days. Consequently, the test has been developed on the
basis of a 5-day incubation period. It should be
remembered, therefore, that 5-day BOD values represent only
a portion of the total BOD. The exact percentage depends on
the character of the "seed" and the nature of the organic
matter and can be determined only by experiment. In the
case of domestic and some industrial waste waters it has
been found that the BOD5 value is about 70 to 80 percent of
the total BOD. An analysis of the ratio of 20-day BOD to 5-
day BOD was made using the data base of this study. The
average and standard deviation of the ratios were computed
as well as the correlation coefficient. This analysis
indicates that the 5-day BOD averaged 58 percent of the 20-
day BOD for the finfish commodities and 60 percent for the
shellfish commodities. The details are discussed later in
this section.
2. Suspended Solids
This parameter measures the suspended material that can be
removed from the waste waters by laboratory filtration but
does not include coarse or floating matter that can be
screened or settled out readily. Suspended solids are a
vital and easily determined measure of pollution and also a
measure of the material that may settle in tranquil or slow
moving streams. Suspended solids in the raw wastes from
seafood processing plants correlate well with BOD5 and COD.
Often, a high level of suspended solids serves as an indi-
315
-------
cator of a high level of BOD5. Suspended solids are the
primary parameter for measuring the effectiveness of solids
removal systems such as screens, clarifiers and flotation
units. After primary treatment, suspended solids no longer
correlate with organics content because a high percentage of
the BOD5 in fish processing waste waters is soluble or
colloidal.
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic
materials. The inorganic components may include sand, silt,
and clay. The organic fraction includes such materials as
grease, oil, animal and vegetable fats, and various
materials from sewers. These solids may settle out rapidly
and bottom deposits are often a mixture of both organic and
inorganic solids. They adversely affect fisheries by
covering the bottom of the receiving water with a blanket of
material that destroys the fish-food bottom fauna or the
spawning ground of fish. Deposits containing organic
materials may deplete bottom oxygen supplies and produce
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, and other noxious
gases.
In raw water sources for domestic use, state and regional
agencies generally specify that suspended solids in streams
shall not be present in sufficient concentration to be
objectionable or to interfere with normal treatment
processes. Suspended solids in water may interfere with
many industrial processes, and cause foaming in boilers, or
encrustations on equipment exposed to water, especially as
the temperature rises.
Solids may be suspended in water for a time, and then settle
to the bed of the receiving water. These settleable solids
discharged with man's wastes may be inert, slowly
biodegradable materials, or rapidly decomposable substances.
While in suspension, they increase the turbidity of the
water, reduce light penetration and impair the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When
they settle to form sludge deposits on the receiving water
bed, they are often much more damaging to the life in water,
and they retain the capacity to displease the senses.
Solids, when transformed to sludge deposits, may do a
variety of damaging things, including blanketing the
receiving water and thereby destroying the living spaces for
those benthic organisms that would otherwise occupy the
habitat. When of an organic, and therefore decomposable
nature, solids use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen
available in the area. Organic materials also serve as a
316
-------
seemingly inexhaustible food source for sludgeworms and
associated organisms.
Turbidity is principally a measure of the light absorbing
properties of suspended solids. It is frequently used as a
substitute method of quickly estimating the total suspended
solids when the concentration is relatively low.
3. Oil and Grease
Although with the foregoing analyses the standard procedures
as described in the 13th edition of Standard Methods (1971),
are applicable to seafood processing wastes, this appears
not necessarily to be the case for "floatables." The
standard method for determining the oil and grease level in
a sample involves multiple solvent extraction of the
filterable portion of the sample with n-hexane or
trichlorotrifluorethane (Freon) in a soxhlet extraction
apparatus. As cautioned in Standard Methods. (1971) this
determination is not an absolute measurement producing
solid, reproducible, quantitative results. The method
measures, with various accuracies, fatty acids, soaps, fats,
waxes, oils and any other material which is extracted by the
solvent from an acidified sample and which is not
volatilized during evaporation of the solvent. Of course
the initial assumption is that the oils and greases are
separated from the aqueous phase of the sample in the
initial filtration step. Acidification of the sample is
said to greatly enhance recovery of the oils and greases
therein (standard Methods,1971).
Oils and greases are particularly important in the seafood
processing industries because of their high concentrations
and the nuisance conditions they cause when allowed to be
discharged untreated to a watercourse. Also, oil and grease
are notably resistant to anaerobic digestion and when
present in an anaerobic system cause excessive scum
accumulation, clogging of the pores of filters, etc., and
reduce the quality of the final sludge. It is, therefore,
important that oils and greases be measured routinely in
seafood processing waste waters and that their
concentrations discharged to the environment be minimized.
Previous work with seafood had indicated that the
Standard Methods (1971) oil and grease procedure was
inadequate for some species. In a preliminary study the
standard method recovered only 16 percent of a fish oil
sample while recovering 99 percent of a vegetable oil
sample. To obviate the problem a modification to Standard
317
-------
Methods was used as discussed under Analytical Methods later
in this section. The loss using the modification was
reduced to about 5 to 15 percent.
The follwing general comments may pertain to animal,
vegatable, or petroleum based greases and oils.
Grease and oil exhibit an oxygen demand. Oil emulsions may
adhere to the gills of fish or coat and destroy algae or
other plankton. Deposition of oil in the bottom sediments
can serve to inhibit normal benthic growths, thus
interrupting the aquatic food chain. Soluble and emulsified
material ingested by fish may taint the flavor of the fish
flesh. Water soluble components may exert toxic action on
fish. Floating oil may reduce the re-aeration of the water
surface and in conjunction with emulsified oil may interfere
with photosynthesis. Water insoluble components damage the
plumage and coats of water animals and fowls. Oil and
grease in a water can result in the formation of
objectionable surface slicks preventing the full aesthetic
enjoyment of the water.
Oil spills can damage the surface of boats and can destroy
the aesthetic characteristics of beaches and shorelines.
4. Eg, Acidity and Alkalinity
Acidity and alkalinity are reciprocal terms. Acidity is
produced by substances that yield hydrogen ions upon
hydrolysis and alkalinity is produced by substances that
yield hydroxyl ions. The terms "total acidity11 and "total
alkalinity" are often used to express the buffering capacity
of a solution. Acidity in natural waters is caused by
carbon dioxide, mineral acids, weakly dissociated acids, and
the salts of strong acids and weak bases. Alkalinity is
caused by strong bases and the salts of strong alkalies and
weak acids.
The term pH is a logarithmic expression of the concentration
of hydrogen ions. At a pH of 7, the hydrogen and hydroxyl
ion concentrations are essentially equal and the water is
neutral. Lower pH values indicate acidity while higher
values indicate alkalinity. The relationship between pH and
acidity or alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing
fixtures and can thus add such constituents to drinking
318
-------
water as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium and lead. The hydrogen
ion concentration can affect the "taste" of the water. At a
low pH, water tastes "sour". The bactericidal effect of
chlorine is weakened as the pH increases, and it is
advantageous to keep the pH close to 7. This is very
significant for providing safe drinking water.
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress
conditions or kill aquatic life outright. Dead fish,
associated algal blooms, and foul stenches are aesthetic
liabilities of any waterway. Even moderate changes from
"acceptable" criteria limits of pH are deleterious to some
species. The relative toxicity to aquatic life of many
materials is increased by changes in the water pH.
Metalocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in
toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units. The availability of
many nutrient substances varies with alkalinity and acidity.
Ammonia is more lethal with a higher pH.
The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a pH of
approximately 7.0 and a deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the
norm may result in eye irritation for the swimmer.
Appreciable irritation will cause severe pain.
For these reasons pH is included as a monitored effluent
limitation parameter even though the majority of seafood
processing waste waters is near neutrality prior to
treatment.
Minor Parameters
Of the minor parameters mentioned in the introduction to
this section, eight were listed: ultimate BOD, COD,
phosphorus, nitrogen, temperature, settleable solids,
coliforms, and chloride. Of these eight, two are
considered peripheral and six are considered of occasional
importance. Of peripheral importance are ultimate BOD and
phosphorus. Phosphorus levels are sufficiently low to be of
negligible importance, except under only the most stringent
conditions, i.e., those involving eutrophication which
dictate some type of tertiary treatment system. The
ultimate BOD can be closely approximated with the COD test.
1. Chemical Oxygen Demand fCOD)^
The chemical oxygend demand (COD) represents an alterna-
tive to the biochemical oxygen demand, which in many
respects is superior. The test is widely used and allows
measurement of a waste in terms of the total quantity of
319
-------
oxygen required for oxidation to carbon dioxide and water
under severe chemical and physical conditions. It is based
on the fact that all organic compounds, with a few
exceptions, can be oxidized by the action of strong
oxidizing agents under acid conditions. Although amino
nitrogen will be converted to ammonia nitrogen, organic
nitrogen in higher oxidation states will be converted to
nitrates; that is, it will be oxidized.
During the COD test, organic matter is converted to carbon
dioxide and water regardless of the biological
assimilability of the substances; for instance, glucose and
lignin are both oxidized completely. As a result, COD
values are greater than BOD values and may be much greater
when significant amounts of biologically resistant organic
matter is present. In the case of seafood processing
wastes, this does not present a problem, as is demonstrated
by the BOD/COD ratio analysis which was made during this
study. This analysis showed that the average 5-day BOD to
COD ratio was 0.38 for the industrial fish, was 0.55 for the
finfish commodities, and 0.66 for the shellfish commodities.
Details of this analysis are presented later in this
section.
One drawback of the COD test is its inability to demonstrate
the rate at which the biologically active material would be
stabilized under conditions that exist in nature. In the
case of seafood processing wastes, this same drawback is
applicable to the BOD test, because the strongly soluble
nature of seafood processing wastes lends them to more rapid
biological oxidation than domestic wastes. Therefore, a
single measurement of the biochemical oxygen demand at a
given point in time (5 days) is no indication of the dif-
ference between these two rates.
Another drawback of the chemical oxygen demand is analogous
to a problem encountered with the BOD also; that is, high
levels of chloride interfere with the analysis. Normally,
0.4 grams of mercuric sulfate are added to each sample being
analyzed for chemical oxygen demand. This eliminates the
chloride interference in the sample up to a chloride level
of 40 mg/1. At concentrations above this level, further
mercuric sulfate must be added. However, studies by the
National Marine Fisheries Service Technological Laboratory
in Kodiak, Alaska, on seafood processing wastes have
indicated that above certain chloride concentrations the
added mercuric sulfate itself causes interference (Tenny,
1972).
320
-------
The major advantage of the COD test is the short time
required for evaluation. The determination can be made in
about 3 hours rather than the 5 days required for the
measurement of BOD. Furthermore, the COD requires less
sophisticated equipment, less highly-trained personnel, a
smaller working area, and less investment in laboratory
facilities. Another major advantage of the COD test is that
seed acclimation need not be a problem. With the BOD test,
the seed used to inoculate the culture should have been
acclimated for a period of several days, using carefully
prescribed procedures, to assure that the normal lag time
(exhibited by all microorganisms when subjected to a new
substrate) can be minimized. No acclimation, of course, is
required in the COD test.
The possibility of substituting the COD parameter for the
BOD5 parameter was investigated during this study. The BOD5
and corresponding COD data from industrial fish, finfish,
and shellfish waste waters were analyzed to determine if COD
is an adequate predictor of BOD5 for any or all of these
groups of seafood. The analysis, which is presented later
in this section, indicates tht the COD parameter is not a
reliable predictor of BOD5.
Moreover, the relationship between COD and BOD5 before
treatment is not necessarily the same after treatment.
Therefore, the effluent limitations guidelines will include
the BOD5 parameter, since insufficient information is
available on the COD effluent levels after treatment.
2. Settleable Solids
The settleable solids test involves the quiescent settling
of a liter of waste water in an "Imhoff cone" for one hour,
with appropriate handling (scraping of the sides, etc.).
The method is simply a crude measurement of the amount of
material one might expect to settle out of the waste water
under quiescent conditions. It is especially applicable to
the analysis of waste waters being treated by such methods
as screens, clarifiers and flotation units, for it not only
defines the efficacy of the systems, in terms of settleable
material, but provides a reasonable estimate of the amount
of deposition that might take place under quiescent
conditions in the receiving water after discharge of the
effluent.
321
-------
3. Ammonia and Nitrogen
Seafoods processing waste waters are highly proteinaceous in
nature; total nitrogen levels of several thousand milligrams
per liter are not uncommon. Most of this nitrogen is in the
organic and ammonia form. These high nitrogen levels
contribute to two major problems when the waste waters are
discharged to receiving waters. First the nitrification of
organic nitrogen and ammonia by indigineous microorganisms
creates a sizable demand on the local oxygen resource.
Secondly, in waters where nitrogen is the limiting element
this enrichment could enhance eutrophication markedly. The
accepted methods for measurement of organic and ammonia
nitrogen, using the macro-kjeldahl apparatus as described in
Standard Methods (1971), are adequate for the analysis of
seafood processing wastewaters. It should be remembered
that organic strengths of seafood processing waste waters
are normally considerably higher than that of normal
domestic sewage; therefore, the volume of acid used in the
digestion process frequently must be increased. Standard
Methods (1971) alerts the analyst to this possibility by
mentioning that in the presence of large quantities of
nitrogen-free organic matter, it is necessary to allow
additional 50 ml of sulfuric acid - mecuric sulfate -
potassium sulfate digestion solution for each gram of solid
material in the sample. Bearing this in mind, the analyst
can, with assurance, monitor organic nitrogen and ammonia
levels in fish and shellfish processing waste waters
accurately and reproducibly.
Nitrogen parameters are not included in the effluent
limitation guidelines because the extent to which nitrogen
components in seafood wastes is removed by physical-chemical
or biological treatment, remains to be evaluated.
Furthermore, the need for advanced treatment technology
specifically designed for nitorgen removal has not been
demonstrated through this study. The following is a general
parameter discussion of ammonia and nitrogen.
Ammonia is a common product of the decomposition of organic
matter. Dead and decaying animals and plants along with
human and animal body wastes account for much of the ammonia
entering the aquatic ecosystem. Ammonia exists in its non-
ionized form only at higher pH levels and is the most toxic
in this state. The lower the pH, the more ionized ammonia
is formed and its toxicity decreases. Ammonia, in the
presence of dissolved oxygen, is converted to nitrate (NO3)
by nitrifying bacteria. Nitrite (NO2), which is an
intermediate product between ammonia and nitrate, sometimes
occurs in quantity when depressed oxygen conditions permit.
322
-------
Ammonia can exist in several other chemical combinations
including ammonium chloride and other salts.
Nitrates are considered to be among the poisonous
ingredients of mineralized waters, with potassium nitrate
being more poisonous than sodium nitrate. Excess nitrates
cause irritation of the mucous linings of the
gastrointestinal tract and the bladder; the symptoms are
diarrhea and diuresis, and drinking one liter of water
containing 500 mg/1 of nitrate can cause such symptoms.
Infant methemoglobinemia, a disease characterized by certain
specific blood changes and cyanosis, may be caused by high
nitrate concentrations in the water used for preparing
feeding formulae. While it is still impossible to state
precise concentration limits, it has been widely recommended
that water containing more than 10 mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen
(NO3-N) should not be used for infants. Nitrates are also
harmful in fermentation processes and can cause disagreeable
tastes in beer. In most natural water the pH range is such
that ammonium ions (NHJJ+) predominate. In alkaline waters,
however, high concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in
undissociated ammonium hydroxide increase the toxicity of
ammonia solutions. In streams polluted with sewage, up to
one half of the nitrogen in the sewage may be in the form of
free ammonia, and sewage may carry up to 35 mg/1 of total
nitrogen. It has been shown that at a level of 1.0 mg/1 un-
ionized ammonia, the ability of hemoglobin to combine with
oxygen is impaired and fish may suffocate. Evidence
indicates that ammonia exerts a considerable toxic effect on
all aquatic life within a range of less than 1.0 mg/1 to 25
mg/1, depending on the pH and dissolved oxygen level
present.
Ammonia can add to the problem of eutrophication by
supplying nitrogen through its breakdown products. Some
lakes in warmer climates, and others that are aging quickly
are sometimes limited by the nitrogen available. Any
increase will speed up the plant growth and decay process.
4. Temperature
Temperature is one of the most important and influential
water quality characteristics. Temperature determines those
species that may be present; it activates the hatching of
young, regulates their activity, and stimulates or
suppresses their growth and development; it attracts, and
may kill when the water becomes too hot or becomes chilled
too suddenly. Colder water generally suppresses
323
-------
development. Warmer water generally accelerates activity
and may be a primary cause of aquatic plant nuisances when
other environmental factors are suitable.
Temperature is a prime regulator of natural processes within
the water environment. It governs physiological functions
in organisms and, acting directly or indirectly in
combination with other water quality constituents, it
affects aquatic life with each change. These effects
include chemical reaction rates, enzymatic functions,
molecular movements, and molecular exchanges between
membranes within and between the physiological systems and
the organs of an animal.
Chemical reaction rates vary with temperature and generally
increase as the temperature is increased. The solubility of
gases in water varies with temperature. Dissolved oxygen is
decreased by the decay or decomposition of dissolved organic
substances and the decay rate increases as the temperature
of the water increases reaching a maximum at about 30°C
(86°F). The temperature of stream water, even during
summer, is below the optimum for pollution-associated
bacteria. Increasing the water temperature increases the
bacterial multiplication rate when the environment is
favorable and the food supply is abundant.
Reproduction cycles may be changed significantly by
increased temperature because this function takes place
under restricted temperature ranges. Spawning may not occur
at all because temperatures are too high. Thus, a fish
population may exist in a heated area only by continued
immigration. Disregarding the decreased reproductive
potential, water temperatures need not reach lethal levels
to decimate a species. Temperatures that favor competitors,
predators, parasites, and disease can destroy a species at
levels far below those that are lethal.
Fish food organisms are altered severely when temperatures
approach or exceed 90°F. Predominant algal species change,
primary production is decreased, and bottom associated
organisms may be depleted or altered drastically in numbers
and distribution. Increased water temperatures may cause
aquatic plant nuisances when other environmental factors are
favorable.
Synergistic actions of pollutants are more severe at higher
water temperatures. Given amounts of domestic sewage,
refinery wastes, oils, tars, insecticides, detergents, and
fertilizers more rapidly deplete oxygen in water at higher
324
-------
temperatures, and the respective toxicities are likewise
increased.
When water temperatures increase, the predominant algal
species may change from diatoms to green algae, and finally
at high temperatures to blue-green algae, because of species
temperature preferentials. Blue-green algae can cause
serious odor problems. The number and distribution of
benthic organisms decreases as water temperatures increase
above 90°F, which is close to the tolerance limit for the
population. This could seriously affect certain fish that
depend on benthic organisms as a food source.
The cost of fish being attracted to heated water in winter
months may be considerable, due to fish mortalities that may
result when the fish return to the cooler water.
Rising temperatures stimulate the decomposition of sludge,
formation of sludge gas, multiplication of saprophytic
bacteria and fungi (particularly in the presence of organic
wastes), and the consumption of oxygen by putrefactive
processes, thus affecting the esthetic value of a water
course.
In general, marine water temperatures do not change as
rapidly or range as widely as those of freshwaters. Marine
and estuarine fishes, therefore, are less tolerant of
temperature variation. Although this limited tolerance is
greater in estuarine than in open water marine species,
temperature changes are more important to those fishes in
estuaries and bays than to those in open marine areas,
because of the nursery and replenishment functions of the
estuary that can be adversely affected by extreme
temperature changes.
Temperature is important in those seafood processing unit
operations involving transfer of significant quantities of
heat. These include evaporation, cooking, cooling of
condensers, and the like. Since these operations represent
only a minor aspect of the total process and their waste
flows are generally of minor importance, temperature is not
considered at this time to be a major parameter to be
monitored.
Chloride
The presence of the chloride ion in the waters emanating
from seafood processing plants is frequently of significance
325
-------
when considering biological treatment of the effluent.
Those processes employing saline cooks, brine freezing,
brine separation tanks (for segregating meat from shell in
the crab industry, for instance) and seawater for
processing, thawing, and/or cooling purposes, fall into this
category. In consideration of biological treatment the
chloride ion must be considered, especially with
intermittent and fluctuating processes. Aerobic biological
systems can develop a resistence to high chloride levels,
but to do this they must be acclimated to the specific
chloride level expected to be encountered; the subsequent
chloride concentrations should remain within a fairly narrow
range in the treatment plant influent. If chloride levels
fluctuate widely, the resulting shock loadings on the
biological system will reduce its efficiency at best, and
will prove fatal to the majority of the microorganisms in
the system at worst. For this reason, in situations where
biological treatment is anticipated or is currently being
practiced, measurement of chloride ion must be included in
the list of parameters to be routinely monitored. The
standard methods for the analysis of chloride ion are three
fold: 1) the argentometric method, 2) the mercuric nitrate
method and 3) the potentiometric method. The mercuric
nitrate method has been found to be satisfactory with
seafood processing waste waters. In some cases, the simple
measurement of conductivity (with appropriate conversion
tables) may suffice to give the analyst an indication of
chloride levels in the waste waters.
6. Coliforms
Fecal coliforms are used as an indicator since they have
originated from the intestinal tract of warm blooded
animals. Their presence in water indicates the potential
presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
The presence of coliforms, more specifically fecal
coliforms, in water is indicative of fecal pollution. In
general, the presence of fecal coliform organisms indicates
recent and possibly dangerous fecal contamination. When the
fecal coliform count exceeds 2,000 per 100 ml there is a
high correlation with increased numbers of both pathogenic
viruses and bacteria.
Many microorganisms, pathogenic to humans and animals, may
be carried in surface water, particularly that derived from
effluent sources which find their way into surface water
from municipal and industrial wastes. The diseases
326
-------
associated with bacteria include bacillary and amoebic
dysentery. Salmonella gastroenteritis, typhoid and
paratyphoid fevers, leptospirosis, chlorea, vibriosis and
infectious hepatitis. Recent studies have emphasized the
value of fecal coliform density in assessing the occurrence
of Salmonella, a common bacterial pathogen in surface water.
Field studies involving irrigation water, field crops and
soils indicate that when the fecal coliform density in
stream waters exceeded 1,000 per 100 ml, the occurrence of
Salmonella was 53.5 percent. Fish, however, are cold
blooded and no correlation has yet been developed between
contamination by fish feces and effluent (or receiving
water) coliform levels.
In a recent study undertaken by the Oregon State University
under sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency,
coliform levels (both total and fecal) in fish processing
waste water were monitored routinely over a period of
several months. Results were extremely inconsistent,
ranging from zero to many thousands of coliforms per 100 ml
sample. Attempts to correlate these variations with in-
plant conditions, type and quality of product being
processed, cleanup procedures, and so on, were unsuccessful.
As a result, a graduate student was assigned the task of
investigating these problems and identifying the sources of
these large variabilities. The conclusions of this study
can be found in the report; "Masters Project—Pathogen
Indicator Densities and their Regrowth in Selected Tuna
Processing Wastewaters" by H. W. Burwell, Department of
Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, July 1973.
Among his general conclusions were:
1. that coliform organisms are not a part of the
natural biota present in fish intestines;
2. that the high suspended solid levels in waste water
samples interferes significantly with subsequent
analyses for coliform organisms and, in fact,
preclude the use of the membrane filter technique
for fish waste analysis;
3. that the analysis must be performed within foru
hours after collection of the sample to obtain
meaningful results (thus eliminating the
possibility of the use of full-shift composite
samples and also eliminating the possibility of
sample preservation and shipment for remote
analysis);
4. that considerable evidence exists that coliform
regrowth frequently occurs in seafood processing
waste water processing wastes) and that the degree
327
-------
of regrowth is a function of retention, time, waste
water strength, and temperature.
The above rationale indicated that it would be inadvisable
to consider further the possibility of including the
coliform test in either the characterization phase of this
study or in the list of parameters to be used in the
guidelines.
7• Phosphorus
During the past 30 years, a formidable case has developed
for the belief that increasing standing crops of aquatic
plant growths, which often interfere with water uses and are
nuisances to man, frequently are caused by increasing
supplies of phosphorus. Such phenomena are associated with
a condition of accelerated eutrophication or aging of
waters. It is generally recognized that phosphorus is not
the sole cause of eutrophication, but there is evidence to
substantiate that it is frequently the key element in all of
the elements required by fresh water plants and is generally
present in the least amount relative to need. Therefore, an
increase in phosphorus allows use of other, already present,
nutrients for plant growths. Phosphorus is usually
described, for this reasons, as a "limiting factor."
When a plant population is stimulated in production and
attains a nuisance status, a large number of associated
liabilities are immediately apparent. Dense populations of
pond weeds make swimming dangerous. Boating and water
skiing and sometimes fishing may be eliminated because of
the mass of vegetation that serves as an physical impediment
to such activities. Plant populations have been associated
with stunted fish populations and with poor fishing. Plant
nuisances emit vile stenches, impart tastes and odors to
water supplies, reduce the efficiency of industrial and
municipal water treatment, impair aesthetic beauty, reduce
or restrict resort trade, lower waterfront property values,
cause skin rashes to man during water contact, and serve as
a desired substrate and breeding ground for flies.
Phosphorus in the elemental form is particularly toxic, and
subject to bioaccumulation in much the same way as mercury.
Colloidal elemental phosphorus will poison marine fish
(causing skin tissue breakdown and discoloration). Also,
phosphorus is capable of being concentrated and will
accumulate in organs and soft tissues. Experiments have
shown that marine fish will concentrate phosphorus from
water containing as little as 1 mg/1.
328
-------
Phosphorus levels in seafood processing wastewaters are
sufficiently low to be of negligible importance, except
under only the most stringent conditions, i.e., those
involving entrophication which dictate some type of tertiary
treatment system.
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL METHODS
A brief description of the analytical methods used to
measure each parameter and the results of precision studies
for the suspended solids, COD, grease and oil, and ammonia
and organic nitrogen analyses are presented in the following
portion of this section.
Analytical Methods
The analytical methods for the samples collected for this
project were based on Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition (1971) and Methods for
the" Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. E.P.A. (1971).
There were a few minor modifications, since the organic con-
tent of the samples were extremely variable from one to
another (e.g., BOD-5 of less than one to BOD-5 of more than
20,000 mg/1). A brief description of the analytical methods
follows:
Total suspended solids
Total suspended solids is reported in terms of screened
solids and suspended solids. Screened samples were obtained
from 20 mesh Tyler screen oversize particles and suspended
solids by filtering the undersize through a 4.2 cm Whatman
GF/C glass fiber filter. The screened and filtered solids
were dried in an oven for one hour at about 104°C before
weighing.
Five-day BOD
Five-day BOD was determined according to Standard Methods.
For samples with BOD-5 of higher than 20 mg/1, at least
three different dilutions were made for each sample. The
results among the different dilutions were generally less
than * 6%. The data reported were the average values of the
different dilutions. For samples with BOD-5 of less than 20
mg/1, one or two dilutions with two duplicate bottles were
incubated. Most of replicate BOD-5 in this low range were
within + 5%, but some had as much as * 30% difference. Seed
for the dilution water was a specially cultivated mixed
329
-------
culture in the laboratory using various fish wastes as the
seed.
Twenty-day BOD
Twenty-day BOD was determined using the same procedure as
for five-day BOD except the bottles were incubated at 20°C
for 20 days. Since most samples contained a high concentra-
tion of ammonia and organic nitrogen, nitrification during
incubation frequently occurred. No attempt was made to
supress nitrification during the incubation period, however
the ratio of twenty-day BOD to five-day BOD appeared to be
relatively consistent as discussed later in this section.
Chloride
Chloride levels in the samples were determined for the
purpose of making corrections for COD test. The
argentometric method was used. Samples were adjusted to a
pH of 7-8 and after addition of potassium chromate
indicator, were titrated with 0.0282 N silver nitrate
solution.
Since chloride correction was not necessary when the
chloride level was below 1000 mg/1, a special screening
technique was developed to sort out those samples with a
chloride level of less than 1000 mg/1. One ml of sample was
pipetted into a small beaker and diluted to 10 ml with
distilled water. Three drops of phenolphthalein and 0.5 N
sodium hydroxide were added dropwise until a pink color
persisted. Then the sample was neutralized with 0.02 N
sulfuric acid dropwise until the indicator showed a very
faint pink color. This would make the sample pH about 8.
To this, 1.0 ml of 0.0282 N silver nitrate was added. When
the chloride level was less than 1000 mg/1, a definite
reddish silver chromate precipitate was formed. The
chloride level in these samples was reported as less than
1000 mg/1 and no further precise determination was pursued.
When the chloride level was higher than 1000 mg/1, the red
precipitate would not form when 1.0 ml of silver nitrate was
added. In this case, the sample was titrated with C.0282 N
silver nitrate solution with a semimicroburet until the end
point.
Chemical oxygen demand
COD tests were based on Standard Methods (13th Edition).
When the chloride content was less than 2000 mg/1, 0.4g of
mercuric sulfate was added to the refluxing flask. If more
330
-------
chloride was present more mercuric sulfate was added to
maintain a mercuric sulfate to chloride ratio of 10:1. Even
this extra amount of mercuric sulfate did not prevent some
chloride from being oxidized. Following the recommendation
described in E.P.A.'s "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastesj" (1971) and by Burns and Marshall (Journal
WPCF, Vol. 37, pp 1716-21, 1965), chloride correction curves
were prepared using various concentrations of sodium
chloride and a fixed concentration of potassium acid
phthalate solution. No incomplete oxidation of phthalate
solution was observed, in contrast to the results reported
by Burns and Marshall.
For brine samples, as in the cases of intake water from an
estuary (which had a low organic content), the precision was
low for duplicate COD tests. The precision improved when
the concentration of dichromate solution was reduced from
0.2N to 0.125N. Therefore, for the brine water samples
which had a COD of less than 200 mg/1, 0.125N potassium
dichromate solution was used. The chloride correction
curves are shown in Figure 54.
Grease and Oil
Grease and oil was determined by Soxhlet extraction using
Freon 113 as the solvent, according to Standard Methods ,
13th Edition.
All samples were acidified at the sampling site with
sulfuric acid to a pH of less than 2. For samples with
grease and oil content of higher than 10,000 mg/1,
separation of grease and oil was poor and some modification
of the Standard Methods was used. First, 100 ml of sample
was transferred to a new cubitainer and diluted to 800 ml
with distilled water. One ml of concentrated sulfuric acid
was added to bring the pH to less than one and 80 grams of
sodium chloride was added to salt out the grease and oil.
After the sample was filtered, the cubitainer was cut open
and the sides and bottom wiped out with freon soaked filter
paper to remove any remaining solid material.
Two major sources of error were encountered in this test.
Grease and oil which adhered to the original sample
container were not removed since portions of the sample had
to be used for other tests. This would give results less
than true value. The loss was estimated to be about 5% to
15% for a grease and oil content in the 150 to 250 mg/1
range.
331
-------
025 N DICHROMATE SOLUTION
THEORETICAL COO OF PHTHALATE
SOLUTION 250 mj//
CO
CO
ro
OI25N DICHROMATE SOLUTION
THEORETICAL COD OF PHTHALATE
SOLUTION 250 mg/y
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION (X 1000
Figure 54. Chloride correction curves for COD determinations on seafood processing wastes
-------
The other major source of error (which resulted in a
positive error) , was that some very fine Celite particles
seeped through the extraction thimble and collected in the
flask. The amount of Celite in the flask ranged from 2 to 7
mg. With a sample volume of 500 ml used in most tests, this
would give about H to 14 mg/1 positive error. For samples
less than 15 mg/1 of reported values of grease and oil, they
could be treated as practically no detectable grease and
oil.
Ammonia Nitrogen and_Organic Nitrogen
Ammoniacal nitrogen and organic nitrogen were determined
according to ''Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," 1971, E.P.A.
Since the samples were preserved with 400 mg/1 of mercuric
chloride at the sampling sites, 60 ml of 0.1 sodium thio-
sulfate was added to each 200 ml portion of sample prior to
the distillation of ammonia to complex the mercury ion.
Ammonia in the distillate was determined by Nesslerization
when the concentration was less than 2 mg/1 and by titration
when the concentration was higher than 2 mg/1.
At low concentrations precision was often poor due to
volatile amino compounds in the distillate which interfered
with color development. Precision improved with the
increase in ammonia concentration. Details will be discus-
sed in the following section.
Precision of Analytical Methods
For analytical quality control, periodic replicates tests
were made for each batch of samples received. At the end of
the project further studies on the precision of the
analytical methods were conducted.
Three composite samples of seafood processing wastewater
were prepared from sulfuric acid preserved samples
containing clam, oyster, menhaden, finfish, and anchovy
wastes. Replicate analyses were performed for suspended
solids, COD, and grease and oil, according to the
methodology prescribed and used for this project. Table 162
presents the results of this analysis including statistics
on the observed averages, standard deviations and relative
errors. The suspended solids and COD analyses are quite
precise with an expected error of only about 2%. The grease
and oil analysis is less precise at the low concentrations
333
-------
OJ
oo
Table 162. Summary of precision analyses for
suspended solids, COD, and grease and oil.
Trial
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
Standard
Deviation
Relative
Error
Composite
SS
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
42.7
0.75
1.8%
COD
248
256
266
274
256
258
254
266
266
258
260.2
7.63
2.9%
A
G&O
14
17
14
11
13
14
13.8
1.94
14.0%
Composite
SS
413
413
413
407
413
400
400
408.4
6.16
1.5%
COD
1250
1260
1260
1240
1260
1270
1260
1280
1290
1250
1260.0
14.76
1.2%
B
G&O
66
60
68
58
54
51
71
61.1
7.45
12.2%
SS
8300
7950
7775
7825
7975
8075
8075
7996.4
175.85
2.2%
Composite
COD
19800
20300
19300
19400
19600
19600
19666
355.9
1.8%
C
G&O
1422
1138
1416
1267
1319
1340
1290
1313.
97.
7.
1
06
4%
-------
with an expected error of 14% in the 10 to 20 mg/1 range.
All data are expressed as mg/1.
Percision Analysis for Ammonia and Nitrogen
A composite sample of seafood processing wastewater was pre-
pared from mercury preserved samples collected for this pro-
ject. Replicate analyses were performed on the sample for
ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen using the methodology
applied in this project. Table 163 presents the results of
this analysis.
To determine the precision of the ammonia recovery over a
range of concentrations the following analysis was
conducted. The manual distillation method for ammonia
nitrogen was used to recovery controlled imcrements of
ammonium chloride from deionized water over a concentration
range of 0.25 to 15 mg/1 as ammonia. Nesslerization was
used in the range 0.25 to 1.5 mg/1 and titration with 0.02
sodium sulfate for the 1.5 to 15 mg/1 levels. All samples
were 200 ml. Table 16H shows that the expected error is
relatively high, up to 15%, at the low concentrations (0.25
to 1.5 mg/1 ammonia) but is less than 3X at the higher
concentrations.
Grease and oil recovery analysis
The precision of grease and oil recovery from a one liter
cubitainer and a one liter beaker was determined as follows.
A mixture of partially refined herring and menhaden oils was
added in controlled increments to three composite samples
by: a) shaking in a clean one liter cubitainer in which the
residue was rinsed onto the filter with distilled water
without attempting to wipe oil adhering to the plastic
walls;
b) adding to a mixing sample in a one liter Pyrex beaker on
a magnetic stirrer in which beaker walls and stirring bar
were wiped with solvent-soaked cotton which was placed in an
extraction thimble with filter.
Table 165 shows the results of this analysis. The percent
recovery is equal to the grease and oil extracted after the
addition of a spike of pure oil minus the average grease and
oil contained in the composite before the oil was added, all
divided by the amount of oil added. The loss in grease and
oil recovery averages about 13 percent using the one liter
cubitainer.
335
-------
Table 163 . Summary of precision analyses for
ammonia and organic nitrogen.
Organic Nitrogen
Trial Ammonia as Ammonia
Number mg/1 mg/1
1 1.94 7.00
2 1.81 7.14
3 1.94 7.00
4 1.94 7.28
5 1.81 7.00
6 1.81 7.14
Average Result 1.87 7.09
Standard Deviation 0.071 0.114
Relative Error 3.8% 1.6%
336
-------
Table 164. Summary of ammonia recovery precision analyses.
co
Nessler
mg/1 NH3
microgram NH3
200 ml sample
microgram NH^
recovered
Average
result
Average
recovery %
Standard
deviation
Relative
error %
50
56
58
58
42
67
65
58
116
8
15
.25
.5
.3
.1
.8
.7
.6
.2
.78
.1
100
85
82
90
86
86
4
5
.50
.9
.6
.9
.1
.3
.29
.0
Method
1.0
200
170
173
176
173
86
3.00
1.7
1.5
300
378
379
348
290
281
354
338
113
42.9
12.7
1.5
300
233
267
267
226
196
234
237
79
26.9
11.3
2
500
429
420
448
420
429
86
13
3
Titrate
.5 5
1000
924
924
924
924
924
924
924
92
.2 0
.1 0
Method
10
2000
1876
1876
1904
1895
95
16.2
0.8
15
3000
2828
2856
2828
2837
94
16.2
0.6
-------
Table 165 . Summary of grease and oil
recovery precision analyses.
Cubitainer Recovery
Oil G&O G&O
Added to Extracted Extracted
Composite Minus Avg
G&O for
Composite
Sample mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 % Recovery
Comp A 162 145 132 81%
Comp A 162 151 138 85%
Comp B 162 211 150 93%
Comp B 162 190 129 80%
Comp C 800 2136 823 103%
Comp C 800 1967 654 82%
Beaker Recovery
Sample
Comp A
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp C
Oil
Added to
Composite
mg/1
80
160
160
240
1320
2640
G&O
Extracted
mg/1
109
188
224
276
2851
4329
G&O
Extracted
Minus Avg
G&O for
Composite
mg/1
96
175
163
215
1538
3016
% Recovery
120%
109%
98%
90%
117%
114%
338
-------
PARAMETER ESTIMATION ANALYSIS
To minimize costs and effort it is desirable to describe the
character of wastewater and the performance of treatment
systems in terms of parameters which are easily measured.
Since design parameters and operational performance data are
often expressed in terms of parameters which are more diffi-
cult to measure, it is also desirable to be able to relate
the easily measured to the more difficult to measure
parameters. One example is the 5 day and 20 day BOD pair
which are used to determine the rate that oxygen is consumed
as a function of time. Another is the COD and 5 day BOD
pair, where the COD is used to determine an estimate of the
5 day BOD which is a commonly reported parameter in the
literature. An analysis was, therefore, conducted to
determine the adequacy of estimating the 20 day BOD using
the 5 day BOD and of estimating the 5 day BOD using the COD
for different types of seafood wastewater.
The first problem in estimating one parameter using another
is to establish the most tenable relationship between the
two parameters and the most tenable error structure. The
general form of the model is y = f(x) * e which says that
the parameter y is equal to some function of x plus an error
e. Three models commonly used are: the conventional
regression model (y = A + Bx + e) , the ratio of the means
model (y = Rx + e«) , and the mean of the ratio model (y = Rx
+ e") .
The linear regression model is appropriate when it is not
certain that the relation passes through the origin and when
the variance of the error term is constant regardless of the
value of x. In other words, the scatter diagram should show
points which have about equal variability in the x
dimension. Without performing an analysis of variance, it
is obvious from the scatter diagrams developed (Figures 55
through 60) that the scatter is small for low values of x (5
day BOD or COD) and increases for higher values of x. This
indicates that the linear regression model would not provide
a good estimation of the desired parameter.
The ratio of the means estimator is unbiased when the para-
meters are equal at the origin and when the variance of the
error increases linearly as a function of x. The mean of
the ratios estimator is unbiased when the parameters are
equal at the origin and variance of the error increases
linearly as a function of x squared (Robson and Overton,
1972). There is good reason to believe that the parameters
in both cases are equal to zero at the origin, however, it
is difficult to determine which error structure is more
339
-------
o
x
o
o
CD
84.3
66.6
44.4
22.3
0.120
R = .98
I i
I M I
2 2 I I
I 4 I 2 II
48 2 I
8*3 I
0.060
i 1
11.8 24.5
BODg (MG/LxlO'2)
36.3
48.0
Figure 55. Finfish wastewater 20-day vs. 5-day BOD scatter diagram.
R= .92
20.4
CVJ
'o
^ 14.5
2
Q~ 8.62
O
03
2.70
i
I
2
1
1 1
1
1 1 1
2
2 2 1
1.35
4.60 8.13 11.4
BOD5 ( MG/L * 10-2)
14.6
Figure 56. Shellfish wastewater 20-day vs. 5-day BOD scatter diagram.
340
-------
o
00
5000 --
3000 --
1000 -•
R = .97
2 I
I I I
I
I i
2 2 I
I I
I I I
I I
I
1
12221 I I I
I I 33 3 I 2 I I
I 2794441
6*92
-+-
•+-
-+-
-+-
2000
4000 6000 8000
COD (Mg/L)
Figure 57. Seafood wastewater 5-day BOD vs. COD scatter diagram.
o
o
CO
300 -•
200 --
100 ..
50 -•
R = . 83
I i
i i
i
21
I
I I I
I I
I I 2
I 211 I
21 I 1212 II
I 22 I I I 2 I
I 121 II
II 21 21 I
1 1 1
100 200
300 400
COD (Mg/L)
500
Figure 58. Industrial fish wastewater 5-day BOD vs. COD scatter diagram,
341
-------
R =.96
10
o
o
CD
5000 -
4000 -
3000 -
2000 •
1000 -
2 I
i
I Z I
I I 1
I
I I
I 2 I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I I I I I II I
I 122 M I
I I 3 I 2
289 I I
I
1 1
-t-
H-
1000
3000 5000 7000 9000
Figure t>y.
COD (Mg/L)
Finfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs. COD scatter diagram,
1500 -r-
tooo ••
10
o
o
m
500
I i
R = 88
i
i
I i
I I 2
I 2
I 2 I
I 221
I I I
till I
2 I
I I 1
I I 2
I I
I I
I I
100 500
1000
1500 2000
COD (Mg/L)
Figure 60. Shellfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs. COD scatter diagram.
342
-------
correct. It appears, however, that the width of the scatter
increases approximately proportional to the value of x,
which means that the variance increases directly
proportional to x squared. Based on these observations, the
mean of the ratios was used to estimate the proportionality
factor between the parameters. The unbiased estimator of
the variance of the ratio was computed and the relative
error determined for different types of seafood processing
wastewater. The relative errors computed are considered to
be conservative since the error variance was assumed to
increase in proportion to x squared.
20 day BOD versus 5-dav BOD
A limited number of samples (about 10 percent) obtained
during this study were analyzed for 20 day BOD. The corres-
ponding 20 day and 5 day BOD data were grouped into those
from finfish and shellfish samples and plotted on scatter
diagrams to observe possible relationships and error struc-
tures. Figures 55 and 56 show a good linear relation
between 20 day and 5 day BOD for the finfish and a
relatively good linear relation for the shellfish. The
results of the ratio estimation calculations, including the
number of samples used, the correlation coefficient, the
mean of the ratios estimator and the relative errors, are
presented in Table 166. This analysis indicates that the 20
day BOD to 5 day BOD ratios are about the same for the
wastewater from either finfish or shellfish processes and
that 20 day BOD can be estimated from the 5 day BOD within
about 25 percent.
COD versus 5 day BOP
The 5 day BOD and corresponding COD data from industrial
fish, finfish and shellfish wastewaters were analyzed to
help determine if COD is an adequate predictor of BOD for
any or all of these groups of seafood processes. Figures 57
through 60 show scatter diagrams of the 5 day BOD versus the
corresponding COD for each group of commodities. It can be
seen that although there is a general relationship between
the two parameters, the variance of the scatter tends to be
larger than for the 20 day versus 5 day BOD case. The
results of the ratio estimations for each group and the
total are presented in Table 167.
This analysis indicates that the 5 day BOD/COD ratio
averages about 0.52 for all seafood wastewater but varies
from a low of about 0.38 for industrial fish, to a high of
343
-------
Table 166 . 20-day BOD/5-day BOD ratio estimation
for finfish and shellfish wastewater.
Wastewater
Source
Finfish
Shellfish
Number of
Samples
70
20
Correlation
Coefficient
0.98
0.92
BOD-20
BOD -5
1.7
1.6
Relative
Error
22%
27%
Table 167 . 5-day BOD/COD ratio estimation for industrial
fish, finfish and shellfish wastewater.
Wastewater
Source
Number of Correlation BOD-5 Relative
Samples Coefficient COD Error
Industrial
Finfish
Shellfish
All Seafood
64
110
51
225
0.83
0.96
0.88
0.97
0.38
0.55
0.66
0.52
52%
21%
61%
48%
344
-------
0.66 for shellfish. The relative errors are also estimated
to be quite large except for finfish, which is about 21
percent. . The rather large relative errors indicate that,
except for the finfish commodities, the COD is only a
moderately good predictor of 5 day BOD.
345
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES
There are several incentives for in-plant control of seafood
processing wastes: decrease operating costs, decrease
wastewater and solids, improve raw material utilization,
develop profitable new products and enhance responsibility
to the public.
Processing plants can usually realize substantial savings in
end-of-pipe treatment costs or in sewer costs if the in-
plant change, through either reduced usage or recycling,
decreases the amount of processing water required in the
plant. A decrease in water usage also usually decreases the
waste loads in terms of BOD and suspended solids per unit of
production.
Much of the waste currently being discarded as solid or lost
in the plant effluent has a good market when it is processed
or reclaimed in an acceptable manner. For example, carcass
waste from a filleting plant can seldom be sold for
reduction or animal food for more than a few dollars per
ton, whereas the same waste can be deboned and processed in
such a manner to yield a highly marketable human food.
Many seafood companies are now taking advantage of in-plant
changes to increase their usable raw materials. Other
companies, producing the same primary products, are losing a
major source of profit while being very concerned about how
to comply with the forthcoming restrictions in the quality
of effluent discharge from their plants. The information
and examples presented in this section should help show the
practicality of investing in in-plant changes that will
decrease the solid and effluent waste on a basis that is
profitable to a processing company.
Before much progress can be made in this direction the pre-
vailing concepts of "waste" must be changed. The entire
seafood that comes into a plant as a raw material has essen-
tially a uniform nutritional value. That is, the so called
"waste" that accounts for perhaps two-thirds of the world
fish catch is of the same quality as the one-third now being
consumed by man. Secondary raw materials, formerly known as
waste, from a seafood processing plant can be utilized in a
variety of ways depending on form and the composition. In
general, three categories of products can be prepared:
346
-------
protein foods, supplementary additives, and non-edible pro-
ducts.
Meat, fish and fowl are commonly placed in the category of
"animal proteins" because they all have the essential amino
acid balance required for good nutrition. Meats from these
creatures, regardless of origin, have similar nutritional
properties containing 15 to 20 percent protein. Some
typical compositions of fish and shellfish are shown in
Table 168. Although some of the values (i.e.: fat content
of migrating fish or changing biological status) vary during
the year or season, it can be seen that there is a fairly
uniform composition of protein.
Fish flesh is not only highly desirable as a completely
balanced protein food, but the lipids consist of mostly
polyunsaturated fatty acids. These lipids have been shown
to be most beneficial in limiting certain health problems
that are associated with the saturated fats found in all
other animals. Unfortunately, the desirable unsaturated
lipids tend to oxidize quite rapidly, resulting in
unacceptable flavors. This problem is minimized in the
portions normally sold for human consumption but must be
considered in changing processes to utilize the remaining
portion for new foods.
Hence, new products being prepared from currently discarded
portions (secondary raw materials) must be handled rapidly
so that excess degradation does not occur prior to
processing. This means that the normal procedure of
allowing these portions to accumulate while the more
desirable portions are being processed must be changed to
insure high quality products. If properly prepared, there
are several highly acceptable products now being marketed in
several areas of the country. Furthermore, the wholesale
price approaches that of the primary product being prepared
from the fish.
One of the most promising methods for utilizing whole indus-
trial fish or fish trimmings is to remove the lipid and
water fractions to obtain a high protein dried "flour" that
can be used for supplementing diets deficient in protein.
The principal difference between this type of product and
conventional fish meal is that the oil is removed to the
point whereby the product is not objectionable to the
consumer.
The production of concentrated fish protein has many
advantages where an animal protein supplementation is
desired: 1) the product can be sold at a most competitive
347
-------
Table 168• Typical composition of fish and shellfish
(portion normally utilized).
Item
Menhaden
Anchovy
Herring
Oysters
Sole
Rockf ish
Cod
Salmon
Catfish
Tuna
Clams (meat only)
Crab
Halibut
Shrimp
Protein
18.7
15-20
17.4
8-11
16.7
18.9
17.6
19-22
17.6
25.2
14.0
17.3
20.9
18.1
Fat
10.2
5-15
2-11
2.0
0.8
1.8
0.3
13-15
3.1
4.1
1.9
1.9
1.2
0.8
CHO
0
0
0
3-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
0.5
0
1.5
Moisture
67.9
70.0
79-85
81.3
78.9
81.2
64.0
78.0
70.5
80.8
78.5
76.5
78.2
Ash
3.8
2.1
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
348
-------
price to other concentrated animal proteins on a protein
unit basis; 2) removal of water and lipid stabilizes the
product so that it can be stored indefinitely under many
different climatic conditions; 3) many populations of fishes
now being passed over can be diverted into human food.
Although most discussions regarding the utilization of con-
centrated fish proteins as food additives center around
their use in developing countries, it is predicted that
there will be a tremendous need for such products in the
United States. By 1980, of approximately one billion kg
(2.25 billion Ibs) of protein additives used in the United
States, 0.86 billion kg (1.9 billion Ibs) will come from
proteins other than meat and milk (Hammonds and Call, 1970).
Fish will undoubtedly play a most important role in filling
these future requirements. The first part of this seafood
study (Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of the Canned and
Preserved Seafood Point Source Category, June 1974)
discussed several protein recovery processes.
Low protein-high mineral meals have a good market in animal
feed and will be available from plants that are removing
essentially all of the edible meat from the bones and car-
casses for either food products or food additives.
The shell in several types of shellfish, particularly crab
and shrimp, has a chemical composition containing materials
that have potential as non-edible products for many phases
of commerce. Shells from Crustacea, depending on species
and time of year, contain 25 to 40 percent protein, 40 to 50
percent calcium carbonate, and 15 to 25 percent chitin.
Chitin is an insoluble polysaccharide that serves as the
"binder" in the shell. Chitin, or the deacytelated form,
chitosan, has many outstanding properties for use in floccu-
lating, emulsifying, thickening, coagulating, improving wet
strength of paper, and many other uses. The protein that
can be reclaimed from the shell is high quality and does not
exhibit the amine odor found in fish flesh. The first part
of this study, which included crab and shrimp, discusses the
process and costs for producing chitin and chitosan from
shellfish waste.
No one can argue that the fishing industry should not be
responsible for making necessary improvements to insure that
processing techniques are compatible with the environment.
Fortunately, many of the companies now in the seafood pro-
cessing business can alter their processes to not only meet
the proposed effluent limitations guidelines, but decrease
349
-------
costs and create profitable additions to their present plant
operations. If the only approach to comply with laws and
regulations is to treat the present wastes without trying to
recover saleable products, the results will be undesirable
for the processors and the public who must ultimately pay
for the lack of efficiency and treatment costs.
Plant Surveys for Planning In-Plant Changes
In many cases, the economic survival of a seafood processing
plant depends on implementing in-plant changes rather than
installing out-of-plant waste disposal facilities in order
to comply with local, state and federal pollution laws.
Although someone in top management must take the initial
responsibility of in-plant changes, the complexity of the
program demands that several people with particular special-
ties become involved. Someone familiar with the economic
picture of the company must participate in the team effort
since transferring of the survey data into a form that con-
siders the economics is most important to making decisions.
An engineer or someone with many years of practical
experience with operations and the equipment involved is
important since most of the facilities that are required for
in-plant changes are available on the market. Technology
transfer is the key to economic in-plant changes and a food
technologist can be of major importance in this area.
Before the basic questions of what is going to be designated
waste, who or what is creating waste, and when or where
waste is being created, it is important to organize
information such that it can be analyzed in an efficient
manner. A procedure for doing this is outlined as follows.
1. Make a list of everything coming into the plant, the
form, amount, method of entry, packaging, etc. This
information should be categorized as to raw material,
supplies, utilities and any other items that might
be particular to a given plant or company.
2. Make a list of everything leaving the plant
including volumes, finished goods, trash, waste, etc.
Now, with the above information, draw a schematic diagram of
the entire plant process and label all of the inputs and
outputs both as to amount and to value. A good material and
energy balance around the plant can then be determined. The
next step is to break down the specific areas that are
causing or producing waste and make the same material and
350
-------
energy balance around this isolated item. It might be a
machine, an entire line, or even a group of people.
The above simple engineering approach to a problem will
automatically answer some of the questions regarding waste
reduction and/or potential utilization; however, a
combination of common sense, practical plant experience and
good knowledge of technology involved in food operations are
necessary for completely analyzing the above results and
concluding what direction to take in planning in-plant
changes.
Wagtewater Flow and Pollution Load Reduction
The seafood industry uses large quantities of water (500-
33,000 gals/ton of raw product processed) for various
processing operations. Wastewaters originate from ice or
refrigerated sea water (bilge water) on board the fishing
vessel; from unloading and fluming of the fish (bailwater);
from butchering and filleting operations where water is
required to flow continuously over the cutting knives and
conveyor belts; from thawing, precooking, can washing and
cooling; retorting; washing down; and from various other
unit operations. Data collected during this study indicated
that the water use per ton of production was quite variable
for some commodities and that up to about 38 percent of
total fresh raw material weight processed was discarded in
the processing wastewaters.
The suspended solids loads generally increase as the water
use increases (for a certain type of process). The more
water that is in contact with the product, the greater the
possibility of entraining pieces of the product. Therefore,
a general reduction in the use of water is usually the most
effective first step in a pollution abatement program. This
can be accomplished by reducing the flow of water into cer-
tain unit operations of the process and/or by recycling or
reusing certain flows with or without some treatment.
Further steps which can be taken are: change or optimize
the process design to minimize or eliminate certain flows
and waste loads, and to recover dissolved and suspended
protein and oil as valuable by-products.
Reducing the use of water in general
Increasing workers1 awareness of the cost of water supply
and wastewater treatment is a basic step in a good water
management system. The workers often do not know how much
water they are using and, in some cases, why they are using
351
-------
it. Water use could be minimized by common sense techniques
like turning off faucets and hoses when not in use, or by
using spring-loaded hose nozzles, by using high-pressure
low-volume water supply systems, by using dry clean-up in-
plant prior to washdown, etc. It remains to the plant
personnel to determine the optimum water uses for operations
like fish washing, filleting, descaling, peeling, etc.,
while still maintaining good final quality of the product.
The coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to
the mean) for the various seafood commodities was often
quite high. Large variation in water usage for the same
operation among different plants indicate that there is
plenty of room for the reduction of water usage without
adversely affecting the quality. Mechanized processes were,
in general, found to use considerably more water and produce
greater waste loads. Since mechanization is the only way in
some cases to utilize the resource efficiently or to compete
with other food production operations, improvement in the
design of machines is indicated. Thorough survey and
metering of water flows will show that one or two operations
may be using considerably more water than the rest of the
operations. Efficient handling of these streams will give
significant reductions for the total flow. Similarly, the
individual streams with major pollution load should also be
singled out. While reduction in water use will tend to
increase the concentration of pollution, dry clean-up and
recovery of solids will reduce this effect. In addition,
concentrated effluent streams will increase the economic
feasibility of nutrient recovery, and reduction in total
flow will reduce capital cost on an end-of-pipe treatment
system.
Water Reduction Through Dry Solids Transportation
Much of the water used within the plant serves mainly as a
collection or transport medium, whether of food product or
of waste solids. Oils and solid particles become entrained
in this medium, enter the waste stream and must eventually
be recovered. By incorporating another means of transport,
such as pneumatic, a significant reduction in water use
could be realized. Pneumatic systems are especially adapt-
able to collecting waste solids during butchering and clean-
up requiring only a minimal amount of water to clean the
system. Dry vacuum systems for unloading fish from boat
holds without the use of bailwater are also available.
Figure 61 shows a dry solids recovery system which can be
used to collect solids from butchering or inspection tables
and from the clean-up operation. Collection hoppers are
located under each processing table which eliminates waste
352
-------
fluming and spillage from collection bins which increases
the clean-up waste loads. Another advantage is in the rapid
collection and transport of waste solids which facilitate
further processing into a marketable by-product. Otherwise,
it may have been rendered unusable by lengthy detention
times in collection bins or by contact with the waste
stream.
The use of pneumatic floor brooms and nozzles would greatly
reduce the amount of water that is necessary to maintain
sanitary conditions. Water would no longer be used to flush
large solids into collection drains, but rather only to
rinse the smaller particles not amenable to pneumatic
collection from the equipment, tables, and floors.
Rapid, waterless unloading of fish from boat holds can also
be accomplished with pneumatic unloading systems. The
system, shown on Figure 62, can replace many existing fish
pump systems which utilize bailwater. Bailwater contains a
high concentration of oils and solids and constitutes a
serious treatment problem where solubles evaporation
facilities are not available. The unloader may also be
integrated into a dry transport system which eliminates
fluming of the fish from the docks, another major source of
wastewater.
Recycling or reuse
At this point, a distinction between recycling and reuse
should be made. Recycling refers to using treated water in
the same application for which it was previously used, while
reuse can include other applications where water quality is
less critical. Multiple use of water implies its use more
than once, but each time for a different purpose; for
example, the countercurrent use of water for successively
dirtier applications.
Recycle or reuse can be the key to effective reduction in
total wastewater flow and pollution load, with nominal costs
involved. Often only minimal alterations in the present
plant design are required to segregate and collect
individual streams which can be recycled or reused for some
other purpose. In case of recycling, fractional removal of
pollutants is desirable. Reuse of water should be made
judiciously. The water to be used for the final rinse of
the product should be free of a) any microorganisms of
public health significance, b) any materials or compounds
which could impart discoloration, off-flavor, or off-odor to
the product, or otherwise adversely affect its quality.
353
-------
DUAL RECEIVING CHAMBERS
Figure 62, Pneumatic unloading system (Temco, Inc.).
CONVEYING LINE
V
<
\
p
IN
CKUP
HOP!
SPECTION '
ER
ABLES
1
^
J
\
HOSE
ATTACHMENT
fl
Fiqure 61. Schematic drawing of in-plant dry solids
removal system (Temco, Inc.).
354
-------
Recovery of dissolved and suspended nutrients
As stated earlier, 5 to 20 percent of the fish solids are
lost in the wastewaters as dissolved and suspended
particles. Recovery of these valuable nutrients will not
only offset the cost of recovery, but also reduce
significantly the higher costs of waste treatment
facilities. Pilot plant data have demonstrated economic
feasibility of recovery by screening and coagulation with
various chemicals.
Recovery by Screening
Screens are available in various configurations such as
vibratory disk, rotary drum, and tangential screens. A
complete discussion of screens is presented later in the
end-of-pipe treatment portion of this section. Table 169
shows the percent recovery obtained during this study by use
of a 20-mesh Tyler screen. It should be noted that these
results were not from full scale operations. Recovery from
the few existing pilot or fullscale screen systems are
discussed later in this section. It can be seen that for
some processes a relatively large portion of the raw product
can be recovered from the wastewater by screening.
Recovery by coagulation
A large number of chemicals, such as sodium ligno sulfonate,
hexametaphosphate, lime, alum, glucose trisulfate, and
several polyelectrolytes, are effective in complexing and
coagulating proteins from fish processing wastewaters. The
coagulated proteins are removed by sedimentation or by
flotation. Some of the results with hexametaphosphate and
sodium ligno sulfonate (SLS) are shown in Tables 170 and
171, respectively. Actual design of the system will depend
on the individual plant. Amount of protein in the recovered
dried product ranges from 35 to 75 percent with the rest
being fat and some minerals. Depending on the effluent,
generally two to eight tons of dried material is recovered
from each million gallons of effluent. Practical feeding
trials on poultry have demonstrated that protein concentrate
materials can replace equal weights of herring and soya meal
proteins without significant change in live weight gain,
feed conversion, and mortality. A plant capable of treating
45,000 1 (10,000 gal.) per hour would cost in the order of
$80,000 for the equipment. In round terms, protein for feed
is worth normally $80 to $100/ton (not considering the
present high prices for feed). For consideration of
355
-------
Table 169. Recovery using 20-mesh screen
for various seafood commodities.
Total Suspended Solids % of Raw Product
Commodity % Screen Recovery Recoverable
Salmon
canning 47 18
Fresh/frozen
salmon 45 .8
Bottom fish 58 6.0
Sardines 4 0.13
Herring
filleting 25 3.7
Jack
mackerel 90 13
Clams
(mechanized) 45 1.4
356
-------
Table 170 . Recovery of proteins
with hexametaphosphate (Agarwala, 1974).
Characteristics
Total solids
mg/1
Total organic
nitrogen, mg/1
Protein nitrogen
mg/1
Chemical oxygen
demand , mg/1
Table
Characteristics
Total solids
mg/1
Suspended solids
mg/1
Chlorides, mg/1
Total organic
nitrogen, mg/1
Protein nitrogen
mg/1
COD, mg/1
Influent Effluent % Removal
47,800 21
4245
4185
69,150 12
171. Coagulation
with SLS (Agarwala,
,450 55.0
1628 63.2
690 83.5
,250 82.5
of proteins
1974) .
Influent Effluent % Removal
50,530 41
25,900 11
15,000 14
2585
2115
34,600 12
,900 17.0
,370 56.0
,800 1.3
1525 41.0
903 57.3
,150 65.0
357
-------
economics, one should also take into account the subsequent
reduction in surcharge or the costs for waste treatment.
It is apparent that an efficient in-plant pollution
treatment requires a unified system approach. Actual
modification and recovery system will depend on each
individual process or process combinations. Each process
stream must by analyzed thoroughly before feasible in-plant
modifications can be contemplated and weighed against fresh
water cost, sewer charges and surcharges, and higher costs
for waste treatment facilities.
Solids Waste Reduction
Solids currently being wasted in many plants can often be
reclaimed in the form of protein foods, supplementary addi-
tives, and non-edible products, depending on the particular
raw material. Solids from the following sources can be
economically processed to yield one or more of the three
basic product groups (protein foods, supplementary
additives, non-edible products).
1. Carcasses, frames and trimmings from filleting oper-
ations.
2. Ground fish too small to economically fillet.
3. Trimmings and portions from butchering operation
normally not included in the primary end product.
4. Whole or portions of industrial fish not suitable
for human consumption.
5. Trimmings and waste portions from frozen fish, fish
blocks, or other forms of seafood that are being
trimmed or processed in the frozen state.
6. Frozen sawdust from sawing frozen fish into steaks
or other products.
7. Fresh or frozen shrimp that is too small for peeling.
8. Fresh or frozen waste portions from shrimp cleaning
and peeling operations.
9. Dark meat fish that cannot be sold for fillets but
that can be added to extruded products in some pre-
determined percentage.
10. Waste from butchering after precooking.
11. Shrimp, crab and other shell containing meat after
the primary extraction process.
12. Combined solids removed from plant effluent streams
after screening.
13. Solids reclaimed from effluent streams by floccu-
lation, precipitation or other techniques.
14. Crab and shrimp shell residual from processing
operations.
358
-------
The production of supplementary additives using reduction
processes and the production of non-edible products, such as
chitin, were discussed in the first part of this study (EPA
publication No. EPA-440/l-74-020-ar June 1974). The fol-
lowing part of this section will discuss the relatively new
methods available for producing marketable protein foods.
Raw Materials for Protein Foods
Machines are now available that remove edible meat from most
any carcass, waste portion or shell waste. In fact, with
the national demand for seafood products there is no reason
that any sanitary portion of seafood now treated as waste,
cannot be used in edible products. These include formed
patties, pressed and cleaved frozen formed fillets,
specialty hors d'oeuvre items, and specialty products, the
number of which is only limited by the ingenuity of the
processor. The wide variety of batter and breading
materials adds even further to the array of products
possible.
A complete processing facility for producing protein foods
includes space for filleting and a complete line for
deboning, mixing, extruding, pressing blocks, power cleaving
and battering and breading. The accessory facilities
include equipment for mixing and handling batter and
breading as well as components that are to be mixed with
extruded fish for special flavored or textured products.
Deboning
A deboning facility is capable of removing more than 90
percent of the edible flesh from most frames, whole fish,
fish waste, and trimmings. Several machines are available
on the market that work on the principle of forcing the meat
through a perforated plate while allowing the bone or any
hard cartilage, including skin, to pass through. Normal
fillet waste, trimmings, etc. can be deboned directly while
larger fish and parts from trimming (i.e., halibut, dogfish)
should be preground prior to deboning.
Meat extruded by the deboning process is flaky in appearance
and feel and is an excellent material for further extruding
or forming in marketable products. Fish flesh prepared in
this manner has high binding characteristics and does not
require special binders to be added prior to extruding.
However, various additives can be mixed into the meat to
give custom flavors. This greatly adds to the potential
359
-------
markets because a special product can be prepared for a
company desiring to advertise proprietary seafood items.
Pressing and Cleaving
Deboned meat can be prepared in several manners. Quite
often extruded patties, which are ideal for sandwiches, do
not have the desired appearance or consistancy for main
course items in restaurants. By freezing the deboned meat
prior to forming, a highly desirable artificial fillet line
can be prepared as follows:
a. Pan freeze the meat in block of a given size and
description as determined by the final size of
portion controlled product.
b. Remove the frozen product from cold storage and
allow it to temper at the desired temperature.
c. Press the frozen block into a desired cross section
using a press and die. This can be the shape of
a normal fillet, a novelty shape, etc.
d. Cut fillets or other shape off of the frozen block
using a cleaver with a rotating table feed.
e. Batter and bread the product as desired for the
restaurant trade.
The equipment chosen for this operation is widely used by
the red meat processors but has not been introduced in large
scale to the fish processors. Recent tests run in Seattle
have shown that this equipment produces an excellent fish
product and that the product has excellent acceptability by
the trade. The pressing and cleaving line also has the
advantage of utilizing frozen raw material. This means that
the line can be operated during periods when there is no
fresh fish available, thus stabilizing the operation of a
plant.
Extruding
Many different extruder machines and forming attachments are
available in a wide price range. Production machines range
from single to multiple head with extruded items ranging
from round and square patties to fish balls and other items.
The extruding of fish flesh into various forms for
sandwiches, fish and chips and fillets gives a company
tremendous versatility in products line. Not only can they
use their own and other plant waste and trimmings, but
species of fish that do not have ready acceptance in the
form of fillets or steaks due to poor color, texture or
general appearance. Furthermore, the extruded products are
360
-------
selling on the market at a most favorable price approaching
that of the primary fillet or other edible portion.
Battering and Breading
The major volume of breaded fish products being prepared at
the present time is from fish sticks and shrimp or pawns.
The large producers of these items are primarily finished
processors and do not have their own source of supply.
Hence, the raw materials are being pre-prepared in blocks or
as IQF items. A primary processor will have better control
of part of the fresh fish supply and should be able to
produce these items in his plant, particularly if he is
using scrap, at a competitive price. They will also have a
wider source of raw materials.
Processing Room
The processing room should have the necessary openings for
conveying raw materials into the room and for conveying
finished product to the freezer. If the operation is in a
plant that has a filleting or butchering operation, it
should be in a convenient location for easy transport and
preparation of the remains for deboning and extruding.
Economics
Section VTII discusses the capital investment required for a
deboning, extruding, pressing and cleaving, batter and
breading, and IQF freezer for a plant capable of processing
1200 to 1500 Ibs of product per hour. It must be emphasized
that the figures were for purchases in the fall of 1973. At
the present time, cost of processing equipment is changing
so rapidly that one must not take these figures as current.
It is known that some of the costs have increased as much as
50 to 75 percent during the past few months, and they are
continuing to rise most rapidly.
The total capital investment, $261,100, shown in Section
VIII, is based on a company having no portions of the
equipment necessary and must, with the exception of the
basic building and utilities, design and construct the
entire facility. In most plants many of the items are
available. For example, a company processing fillets or
similar items would probably have a freezer that could be
run extra shifts if necessary to handle an increased load
due to the new line. Also, many plants will have a batter
and breading line. Therefore, the figures presented should
be used only as a guideline in preparing the company plans
for in-plant changes.
361
-------
IN-PLANT CONTROL RELATED TO SPECIFIC PROCESSES
Some methods which can be used to reduce waste loads,
through in-plant control, are discussed below for each of
the processes which are considered to be major sources.
Fish Meal Production In-Plant Control
There are three main sources of wastewater flows in the fish
meal production industry: 1) solubles plant discharge, 2)
bailwater discharge, and 3) stickwater discharge. Other
sources which are of lesser importance are washwater and air
scrubber water.
Solubles Plant Discharge
The primary discharge from the solubles plant is the
barometric drop leg water which is used to draw a vacuum on
the condenser. The average flow is about 31,000 1/kkg (7400
gal./ton) and the average BOD load is about 3 kg/kkq (6
Ibs/ton).
Wastes can enter the evaporator discharge through leaks in
the evaporator bodies, through boiling over into condensate
and tailstock water and through vapor entrainment. Leaks
and boiling over should be controlled by inspection, proper
maintenance, and proper operation of the evaporator such
that the process is as continuous as possible. The batch
method of evaporation, which concentrates the liquid to 50
percent solids and then dumps the entire contents to
solubles storage, causes the pressures, temperatures, and
flow rates from each body to be in a constant state of flux.
This greatly increases the probability of boil over and
spillage and operation of this equipment should be
supervised closely.
Bailwater
The bailwater used to unload the fish from the hold of the
boat consists of relatively large amounts of water and has a
relatively high waste load as shown in Table 172.
The most acceptable method of controlling the bailwater
waste flow is recycling and evaporation. This has the
advantage of yielding a useful by-prqduct (solubles) while
controlling wastes. Bailwater storage capacity is required
to even the flow to the plant. The cost of evaporation can
be reduced by recycling the bailwater after it is separated
from the fish in the plant. Recycling is limited by the
accumulation of fish solids and oil, which results in pump
362
-------
overloading. The rate of accumulation of solids and oil can
be reduced by treating the bailwater before recycling. Two
methods of treatment which can be used are centrifuge and
air flotation. The solids from the treatment can be added
to the process stream before the cooker or pumped to the
solubles plant to be evaporated. A demonstration program
using a dissolved air system for bailwater treatment is
described in the treatment portion of this section.
Stickwater
Stickwater, which remains after the oil is separated from
the press liquor, represents a very high waste load.
Typical characteristics are shown in Table 173.
Stickwater should be controlled by evaporation or barged to
sea. In-plant control of this waste source is especially
important since studies show that end-of-pipe treatment of
Stickwater is particularly difficult. A study on alewife
reduction Stickwater showed 65 percent removal of COD using
chemical additions, however, the final concentration was
still 29,000 mg/1. The detention time in an aeration basin
required to provide a final effluent of 250 mg/1 COD was
estimated to be 26 days (Quigley, et al. 1972).
Salmon Processing In-Plant Control
Whether salmon is canned, frozen, dried, smoked or otherwise
prepared for specialty items, the major loss of solids
occurs during the butchering process. Other major sources
of wastewater are thawing and fluming.
Most salmon are processed in the fresh condition. However,
during periods of heavy harvesting or in remote areas not
having processing facilities, the whole fish are often
frozen and then transported by boat or van to areas that
have the handling and processing plants. Salmon are
sometimes gutted prior to freezing in order to prevent
deterioration caused by the viscera being in contact with
the belly wall during freezing and during long term cold
storage. A salmon, however, if frozen rapidly, adequately
glazed and then stored and frozen under proper conditions,
can be a high quality product.
The thaw tank water at one plant samplec contributed about
30 percent of the total flow. The solids and BOD loads,
however, were only about 6 percent of the total. The fish
being thawed in this case were whole and had not been
deteriorated by spoilage. Fish which have been gutted prior
to freezing can lose a significant amount of solids due to
363
-------
Table 172 Typical fish meal process
bailwater characteristics,,
Average Value
Parameter Per Unit Production
Flow ratio 210 1/kkg (50 gal./ton]
5 day BOD 8 kg/kkg (16 Ib/ton)
Suspended solids 5 kg/kkg (10 Ib/ton)
Grease and oil 3 kg/kkg (6 Ib/ton)
Table 173 Fish meal stickwater characteristics.
Average Value
Parameter Per Unit Production
Flow ratio 850 1/kkg (200 gal./ton)
5 day BOD 65 kg/kkg (130 Ibs/ton)
Suspended solids 55 kg/kkg (110 Ibs/ton)
Grease and oil 25 kg/kkg (50 Ibs/ton)
364
-------
washing out and leaching. This can be reduced by cleaning
the fish more thoroughly before freezing. Using spray or
air thawing can reduce the water use in this area; however,
care must be taken to prevent lowering the quality of the
flesh.
Dissolved and suspended solids are lost in the holding bins
prior to processing. The amounts are dependent on the
quality of fish, the depth of fish, and the length of time
held.
Flumes used to carry fish from holding bins to the
butchering machines can use a relatively large amount of
water. One plant sampled in Alaska used about 1100 1/kkg
(260 gal./ton). The waste loads were relatively low. Im-
plimentation of a dry conveyance system would be offset by
savings in water treatment costs.
Salmon are butchered either by hand or mechanically by the
"iron chink." The solid waste consists of the viscera, and
depending on the type of dressing, head, collar, fins, tail,
and organs. The actual amount of the fish removed varies
tremendously for the various operations. For example, fish
being prepared for the fresh or frozen market usually have
the offal and head removed but seldom the collar and fins.
Fish being prepared for canning have the collars, tails and
fins removed. The solid portion removed during butchering
ranges from 10 to 35 percent. The flows from the "iron
chink" were about 40 percent of the total effluent and
contributed about 75 percent of the waste load. Salmon
should be processed through the butchering machine at near
the optimum rate since the water flow is independent of the
production rate for each machine.
Cannery butchered fish are hand or mechanically cut into
steaks that fit into the designated can size. The only
solid loss at this point is the meat that is extruded around
the knives or dropped on the floor during processing. This
meat should be cleaned up prior to washdowns.
There is quite frequently a loss of solids due to the
mechanical filling machines' extruding or dropping meat. The
larger pieces are usually used to "patch cans" while the
extruded portion becomes waste and is quite often washed out
in the clean-up water.
Salmon are steaked or filleted for many different processes.
Steaking operations leave little waste since the entire
carcass is used. However, there is an appreciable solid
residue during filleting operations since the backbone is
365
-------
removed. There is a signigicant percent of usable meat that
can be removed from the backbone and used as extruded meat
for patties or forming.
There are several organs in salmon waste that now have com-
mercial value and that can be removed from the waste during
or after the butchering operation. Much more work should be
done in finding use for various organs in fish.
It has become a practice to add oil to many salmon packs.
This is usually determined by a market that requires large
amounts of free oil in the cans or by a desire to upgrade a
pack of extremely low oil salmon. Recovered salmon heads
are boiled and the oil is skimmed from the surface; the
remaining portion consists of cooked meat and bone. The
waste from this cooking process is very high in organic
matter and should be handled separately from the other waste
flows until the wastes can be recovered, treated, or trucked
to a solubles plant.
Bottom Fish and Miscellaneous Fjnfish In-Piant Control
Filleting of fish leaves the largest amount of waste when
compared to other processes and yet is one of the simplest
from the standpoint of unit operations. As previously
stated, 70 percent or more of the landed fish is classified
as waste from the filleting step. This waste consists of
offal heads and the carcasses that can be deboned for meat
recovery. Wastewater from manual filleting lines is
generally minimal except when certain types of sealers are
used. Some plants were observed to be operating descalers
even when the fish were to be skinned later. The water flow
through the descaler should also be interlocked with the
motor, such that when the descaler is not operating the
water flow is shut off.
The wastewater flows and loads from mechanized lines such as
those used in the whiting industry can be quite large. Much
of the water results from the fluming of fish from holding
bins to the eviscerating line. A dry-conveying system, as
used in the sardine industry, would reduce flows and loads
substantially.
Halibut arrives at the plants either frozen or fresh. The
offal and often the head are removed by the fishermen before
delivery. Therefore, the processing scheme for halibut is
rather simple and results in small amounts of waste. The
fletching of halibut results in backbone and trimming waste
-------
that can be deboned and made into excellent meat products.
The sawdust from sawing of frozen halibut can be processed
into a high quality fish flour for human consumption.
Herring Food Processes In-Plant Control
The wastewater flows and loads from the canning, filleting
or pickling of herring can be substantial.
Most of the waste loads from the sardine canning industry
come from the pumping of fish to the holding bins and/or to
the packing tables and the dumping of stickwater from the
precook operations. Bailwater used to transport fish to the
holding bins can be recycled or pneumatic fish unloading
systems, as discussed previously in this section, could be
used. Flumes from the holding bins to the packing tables
have been replaced at several plants with conveyor systems.
The stickwater from the precook can dumps should be
collected separately for by-product recovery as this is very
concentrated liquid with BOD loads of 20,000 to 50,000 mg/1.
Herring filleting produces a high waste load due to
unloading water and the fluming of fish to and from the
filleting machines. The filleting machines should also be
maintained properly to reduce the number of mutilated fish.
Ideally, herring filleting operations should be located near
reduction plants which can take the large volume of
carcasses generated. If this is not possible, fluming water
should be reduced by dry-conveying. Bailwater should be
recycled or air unloading systems can be used.
Herring pickling produces a high waste load due to the
scaling, cutting and curing operations. Water used for
descaling could be recycled and flumes to the cutting and
filleting operations could be replaced with conveyor
systems. The water from the curing vats is a small
percentage of the total; however, the BOD load is high and
should be handled and treated separately from the other
waste flows.
Clam or Oyster Process In-Plant Control
The largest flows and loads from the shellfish processes
studied are from the mechanized surf clam operation where
considerable washing of the product is performed. The
washwater from operations toward the end of the process
should be reused near the beginning of the process where
367
-------
quality control is not critical. The clam bellies
constitute about seven to ten percent of the weight in the
shell and should be recovered for animal food.
The flows and loads from oyster plants are less than for
clam plants since the viscera is not removed during pro-
cessing. The washdown water at the two steamed oyster
plants investigated appeared to be abnormally high in volume
and waste loads and it is believed that a substantial
reduction can be made in this area.
End-of-Pipe Control Techniques and Processes
Historically, seafood plants have been located near or over
receiving waters which were considered to have adequate
waste assimilative capacities. The nature of the wastes
from seafood processing operations are such that they are
generally readily biodegradable and do not contain
substances at toxic levels. There are even several
instances where the biota seem to thrive on the effluent,
although there is generally a shift in the abundance of
certain species. Consequently, most seafood processors have
little, if any, waste treatment.
Increasing concern about the condition of the environment in
recent years has stimulated activity in the application of
existing waste treatment technologies to the seafood
industry. However, to date there are few systems installed,
operational data are limited and many technologies which
might find application in the future are unproved. The
following section describes the types of end-of-pipe control
techniques which are available, and discusses case histories
where each have been applied to the seafood industry on
either a pilot plant or full-scale level. Several
techniques or systems are closely associated with trade
names. The mention of these trade name systems, however,
does not constitute endorsement; they are cited for
information purposes only.
Remote Alaska Physical Treatment Alternative
Figure 63 illustrates a treatment alternative for discharge
of comminuted processing wastes for the remote, isolated
Alaskan seafood processor.
Waste Solids Separation. Concentration and Disposal
Nearly all fish processors produce large volumes of solids
which should be separated from the process water as quickly
as possible. A study done on freshwater perch and smelt
368
-------
RAW PROCESSING
WASTES HOLDING TANK
DRY CAPTURED
SHELLS & VISCERA
2 GRINDERS OR
COMMINUTORS
8" * HD POLYETHYLENE
DEEP WATER DISCHARGE OF
COMMINUTED PROCESSING WASTES
PUMPED TO 15 FATHOM DEPTH AT
MEAN LOW TIDE.
Figure 63. _ Alaskan physical treatment alternative, remote
plants with adequate flushing available.
369
-------
(Riddle, 1973) shows that a two hour contact time between
offal and the carriage water can increase the COD
concentration as much as 170 percent and increase suspended
solids and BOD about 50 percent (see Figure 6U). Fish and
shellfish solids in the waste streams have commercial value
as by-products only if they can be collected prior to
significant decomposition, economically transported to the
subsequent processing location, and marketed.
Many processors have recognized the importance of immediate
capture of solids in dry form to retard biochemical
degradation. Some end-of-pipe treatment systems generate
further waste solids ranging from dry ash to putrescible
sludges containing 98 to 99.5 percent water. Sludges should
be subjected to concentration prior to transport. The
extent and method of concentration required depends on the
origin of the sludge, the collection method, and the
ultimate disposal operation. The descriptions which follow
are divided into separation, concentration, disposal
(including recycling and application to the land), and
wastewater treatment.
Separation methods
Screening and sedimentation are commonly used separation
techniques employing a combination of physical chemical
forces.
Screening is practiced, in varying degrees, throughout the
U.S. fish and shellfish processing industries for solids
recovery, where such solids have marketable value, and to
prevent waste solids from entering receiving waters or
municipal sewers. Screens may be classified as follows:
a. revolving drums (inclined, horizontal, and vertical
axes);
b. vibrating, shaking or oscillating screens (linear
or circular motion);
c. tangential screens (pressure or gravity fed);
d. inclined troughs;
e. bar screens;
f. drilled plates;
g. gratings;
h. belt screens; and
i. basket screens.
Rectangular holes or slits are correlated to mesh size
either by geometry or performance data. Mesh equivalents
specified by performance can result in different values for
370
-------
the same screen, depending on the nature of the screen feed.
For example, a tangential screen with a 0.076 cm (0.030 in.)
opening between bars may be called equivalent to a 40-mesh
screen. The particles retained may be smaller than 0.076 cm
diameter, however, because of hydrodynamic effects.
Revolving drums consist of a covered cylindrical frame with
open ends. The screening surface is a perforated sheet or
woven mesh. Of the three basic revolving drums, the
simplest is the inclined plane (drum axis slightly
inclined). Wastewater is fed into the raised end of the
rotating drum. The captured solids migrate to the lower end
while the liquid passes through the screening surface.
Horizontal drums usually have the bottom portion immersed in
the wastewater. The retained solids are held by ribs on the
inside of the drum and conveyed upward until deposited by
gravity into a centerline conveyor. Backwash sprays are
generally used to clean the screen. A typical horizontal
drum is shown in Figure 65. F.G. Claggett (1973) tested
this type rotary screen using a size 34-mesh on salmon
canning wastewater and also on bailwater from herring boats.
The results are listed in Table 174.
Inclined and horizontal drum screens have been used success-
fully in several seafood industries, such as the whiting,
herring filleting, and fish reduction plants.
At least one commercial screen available employs a rapidly
rotating (about 200 rpm) drum with a vertical axis. The
wastewater is sprayed through one portion of the cylinder
from the inside. A backwash is provided in another portion
of the cycle to clear the openings. Woven fabric up to 400-
mesh has been used satisfactorily. This unit is called a
"concentrator" since only a portion of the impinging waste-
water passes through. About 70,to 80 percent of the waste-
water is treated effectively, which necessitates further
treatment of the concentrate. The efficacy of this, and
other systems, in treating shellfish and seafood wastes have
been investigated on a pilot scale in the Washington salmon
industry, and the Alaskan crab and shrimp industries
(Peterson, 1973b) with some success. The results of these
studies are shown in Table 175.
Vibratory screens are more commonly used in the seafood
industry as unit operations rather than wastewater
treatment. The screen housing is supported on springs which
are forced to vibrate by an eccentric. Retained solids are
driven in a spiral motion on the flat screen surface for
371
-------
200
100
x SMELT WASTE WATER
O PERCH WASTE WATER
COD
w
50
H
EH
M
W
>
o
w
BOD
M
EH
!2
W
U
«
H
O,
100
50
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
20 40 60 80
TIME - MINUTES
100
120
Figure 64. Increase in waste loads through prolonged
contact with water. (Riddle, 1973i.
372
-------
BACKWASH
WATER SPRAY
CO
—i
co
ROTARY SCREEN
Figure 65. Typical horizontal drum rotarv screen.
-------
Table 174 Northern sewage screen
test results.
Percentage Reduction
In Total Solids
Wastewater (34-mesh screen)
Source (Claggett, 1973)
Salmon canning 57
Herring bailwater 48
Table 175 SWECO concentrator test results.
Percentage Reduction
Wastewater Source Parameter 165-mesh325-mesh
Salmon Settleable solids — 100
( . 1972c)
Suspended solids 53 34
COD 36 36
Shrimp peeler Settleable solids 99
(Peterson, 1973b)
Suspended solids 73
COD 46
Table 176 SWECO vibratory screen performance
on salmon canning wastewaters
Percentage
Reduction
Parameter (40-mesh screen)
Settleable solids 14
Suspended solids 31
COD 30
374
-------
discharge at the periphery. Other vibratory-type screens
impart a linear motion to retained particles by eccentrics.
Blinding is a problem with vibratory screens handling
seafood wastewaters. Salmon waste is difficult to screen
because of its fibrous nature and high scale content. Crab
butchering waste, also quite stringy, is somewhat less
difficult to screen.
Table 176 shows the results of the National Canners Assoc-
iation study on salmon canning wastewaters which included
tests using a vibrating screen. It can be seen that the
removal efficiencies are lower than for the horizontal drum
screen or the SWECO concentrator. The vibratory screen was
also more sensitive to flow variations and the solids
content of the wastewater.
Tangential screens are finding increasing acceptance because
of their inherent simplicity, reliability and effectiveness.
A typical tangential screen is shown in Figure 66. It
consists of a series of parallel triangular or wedgeshaped
bars oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow. The
screen surface is usually curved and inclined about 45 to 60
degrees. Solids move down the face and fall off the bottom
as the liquid passes through the openings ("Coanda effect") .
No moving parts or drive mechanisms are required. The feed
to the screen face is via a weir or a pressurized nozzle
system impinging the wastewater tangentially on the screen
face at the top. The gravity-fed units are limited to about
50 to 60-mesh (equivalent) in treating seafood wastes.
Pressure-fed screens can be operated with mesh equivalents
of up to 200-mesh.
Tangential screens have met with considerable acceptance in
the fish and shellfish industry. They currently represent
the most advanced waste treatment concept voluntarily
adopted by broad segments of the industry. One reason for
this wide acceptance has been the thorough testing history
of the unit. Data are available (although much is
proprietary) on the tangential screening of wastewaters
emanating from plants processing a variety of species. A
summary of some recent work appears in Table 177
Large solids should be separated before fine screening to
improve performance and prevent damage to equipment. One
method is to cover floor drains, with a coarse grate or
drilled plate with holes approximately 0.6 cm (0.25 in.) in
diameter. This coarse grate and a magnet can prevent
oversize or unwanted objects such as polystyrene cups,
beverage cans, rubber gloves, tools, nuts and bolts or
broken machine belts from entering the treatment system.
375
-------
WASTE WATER
SURGE FLAP
OVERSIZE
TANGENTIAL
SCREEN
Flaure 66. Typical tangential screen,
376
-------
Table 177. Tangential screen performance.
Wastewater
Source
Sardines
(Atwell,
et at. ,
1972T
Salmon
(
1972)
Shrimp
(Peterson,
1973b)
Parameter
SS
BOD
Set. solids
SS
COD
Set. solids
SS
COD
30
mesh
26
9
« _
--
•" "~
88
46
21
Percentage Reduction
40 50 100
mesh mesh mesh
_•- _ « — —
— — —
35
15
13
93 83
43 58
18 23
150
mesh
__
—
86
36
25
__
—
—
Salmon
(Peterson,
1973b)
Set. solids 50
SS 56
COD 55
King Crab
(Peterson,
1973b)
Set. solids 83
SS 62
COD 51
Salmon
(Claggett,
1973)
Total
solids
56
Herring
(Claggett,
1973)
Total
solids
48
37?
-------
Such objects can cause serious damage to pumps and may foul
the screening system.
Salmon canneries utilize a perforated inclined trough to
separate large solids from the wastewater. The wastewater
is fed into the lower end and conveyed up the trough by a
screw conveyer. The liquid escapes through the holes while
the solids are discharged to a holding area. Inclined con-
veyors and mesh belts are commonly used throughout the fish
and shellfish industry to transport and separate liquids
from solid wastes.
A typical screening arrangement using a tangential screen is
shown in Figure 67. A sump is useful in maintaining a
constant wastewater feed rate to the screen. It also helps
to decrease fluctuations in the wastewater solids load such
as occur in batch processes. Some form of agitator may be
required to keep the suspended solids in suspension.
Ideally, the sump should contain a one-half hour or more
storage capacity to permit repairs to downstream components.
The pump used is an important consideration. Centrifugal
trash pumps, of the open impeller type, are commonly used,
however, this type of pump tends to pulverize solids as they
pass through. During an experiment on shrimp wastes the
level of settleable solids dramatically increased after
screening (30-mesh screen) when the waste water was passed
through a centrifugal pump (Peterson, 1973). Positive
displacement or progressing cavity non-clog pumps are
recommended. Screens should be installed with the thought
that auxiliary cleaning devices may be required later.
Blinding is a problem that depends, to some extent, on the
type of screen employed, but to a greater extent on the
nature of the waste stream. Salmon waste is particularly
difficult to screen. One cannery has reduced plugging by
installing mechanical brushes over the face of their
tangential screen.
Many of the screen types mentioned above produce solids con-
taining considerable excess water which must be removed
either mechanically or by draining. A convenient place to
locate a screen assembly is above the storage hopper so that
the solids discharge directly to the hopper. However,
hoppers do not permit good drainage of most stored solids.
If mechanical dewatering is necessary, it may be easier to
locate the screen assembly on the ground and convey
dewatered solids to the hopper.
Processing wastewaters from operations in seafood plants are
highly variable with respect to suspended solids
378
-------
WASTEWATER
SOLIDS
INFLUENT
CO
^~J
to
POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
NON-CLOG PUMP
SOLIDS FROM PLANT
SCREENED WASTEWATER
TO NEXT TREATMENT SYSTEM
OR TO RECEIVING WATER
OR TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
OR BY- PRODUCT
RECOVERY
Figura 67. Typical screen system for seafood processing operations,
-------
concentrations and the size of particulates. On-site
testing is required for optimum selection in all cases.
some thought should be given to installing multiple screens
to treat different streams separately within the process
plant. Some types of screens are superior for specific
wastewaters and there may be some economy in using expensive
or sophisticated screens only on the hard-to-treat portions
of the waste flows.
Microscreens to effect solids removal from salmon
wastewaters in Canada have been tried. They were found to
be inferior to tangential screens for that application.
Microscreens and microstrainers have not, however, been
applied in the United States.
Screens of most types are relatively insensitive to
discontinuous operation and flow fluctuations, and require
little maintenance. The presence of salt water necessitates
the use of stainless steel elements. Oil and grease
accumulation can be reduced by spraying the elements with a
fluorocarbon coating.
Screens of proper design are a reliable and highly efficient
means of seafood waste treatment, providing the equivalent
of "primary treatment." The cost of additional solids
treatment, approaching 95 percent solids removal by means of
progressively finer screens in series must, in final design,
be balanced against the cost of treatment by other methods,
including chemical coagulation and sedimentation.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation, or settling of solids, effects solids-liquid
separation by means of gravity. Nomenclature for the basins
and equipment employed for this process includes terms such
as grit chamber, catch basin, and clarifier, depending on
the position and purpose of the particular unit in the
treatment train. The design of each unit, however, is based
on common considerations. These include; the vertical
settling velocity of discrete particles to be removed, and
the horizontal flow velocity of the liquid stream.
Detention times required in the settling basins range from a
few minutes for heavy shell fragments to hours for low-
density suspensions. Grit chambers to remove sand and shell
particles are common in the clam and oyster industries,
however, the current absence of settling basins or
clarifiers in the fish industries indicates the desirability
of simple on-site settling rate studies to determine
380
-------
appropriate design parameters for liquid streams undergoing
such treatment. Section V of this study presents the
results of settleable solids tests, which were determined
using the Imhoff cone method, for each seafood process
monitored.
Removal of settled solids from sedimentation units is accom-
plished by drainoff, scraping, and suetion-assisted
scraping. Frequent removal is necessary to avoid
putrefaction. Seafood processors using brines and sea water
must consider the corrosive effect of salts on mechanism
operation. Maintenance of reliability in such cases may
require parallel units even in small installations.
Sedimentation processes can be upset by such "shock
loadings" as fluctuations in flow volume, concentration and,
occasionally, temperature. Aerated equalization tanks may
provide needed capacity for equalizing and mixing wastewater
flows. However, deposition of solids and waste degradation
in the equalization tank may negate its usefulness.
Sedimentation tests run on a combined effluent from a fresh
water perch and smelt plant produced an average of approx-
imately 20 percent BOD and 9 percent suspended solids
removal after a 60 minute detention time (M.J. Riddle,
1972). The nature of most fish and shellfish wastewater
require that chemical coagulants be added to sedimentation
processes to induce removal of suspended colloids.
A partially successful gravity clarification system was
developed using large quantities of a commercial coagulant
called F-FLOK. F-FLOK is a derivative of lignosulfonic acid
marketed by Georgia Pacific Corporation. In a test on
salmon wastewater, reported by E. Bobbins (1973), the floe
formed slowly but, after formation, sedimentation rates of
four feet per hour were achieved. Table 178 shows the
results of the test.
Properly designed and operated sedimentation units incorpor-
ating chemical coagulants can remove most particulate
matter. Dissolved material, however, will require further
treatment to achieve necessary removals.
It is important to note that the gravity clarifiers
described above, when operated with normal detention times,
may lead to strong odors due to rapid microbial action.
This could also produce floating sludge.
Major disadvantages of sedimentation basins include land
area requirements and structural costs. In addition, the
381
-------
settled solids normally require dewatering prior to ultimate
disposal.
Concentration methods
Although screenings from seafood wastewater usually do not
require dewatering; sludges, floats, and skimmings from sub-
sequent treatment steps must usually be concentrated or
dried to economize storage and transport. The optimum
degree of concentration and the equipment used must be
determined in light of transportation costs and sludge
characteristics, and must be tailored to the individual
plant's location and production.
Sludges, floats, skimmings, and other slurries vary widely
in dewaterability. Waste activated sludges and floated
solids are particularly difficult to dewater. It is
probable that most sludges produced in treating fish
processing wastes will require conditioning before
dewatering. Such conditioning may be accomplished by means
of chemicals or heat treatment. Anaerobic digestion to
stabilize sludges before dewatering is not feasible at
plants employing salt waters or brines. Aerobic digestion
will produce a stabilized sludge, but not one which is easy
to dewater. The quantity and type of chemical treatment
must be determined in light of the ultimate fate of the
solids fraction. For example, lime may be deposited on the
walls of condensers. Alum has been shown to be toxic to
chickens at 0.12 percent concentrations, and should be used
with care in sludges intended for feed byproduct recovery.
A large variety of equipment is available for sludge
dewatering and concentration, each unit having particular
advantages. These units include vacuum filters, filter
presses, gravity-belt dewaterers, spray dryers,
incinerators, centrifuges, cyclone classifiers, dual-cell
gravity concentrators, multi-roll presses, spiral gravity
concentrators, and screw presses. Such equipment can
concentrate sludges from 0.5 percent solids to a semi-dry
cake of 12 percent solids, with final pressing to a dry cake
of over 30 percent solids. Units are generally sized to
treat sludge flows no smaller than 38 1/min (10 gpm).
Because maintenance requirements range from moderate to
high, the provision of dual units is required for continuity
and reliability.
In the seafood industry only fish meal plants currently use
solids dewatering and concentration equipment. Smaller
installations with flows under about 757 cum/day (200,000
382
-------
gpd) probably cannot utilize dewatering equipment
economically.
Disposal methods
A high degree of product recovery is practiced by industries
in locations where solubles and meal plants are available.
The pet food, animal food and bait industries also use a
considerable amount of solids from some industries. Where
such facilities do not exist, alternative methods of solids
disposal such as incineration, sanitary landfill and deep
sea disposal must be considered.
Most fish industries have not yet tried seafood solids waste
incineration. Continuous operation of multiple hearth
furnaces has provided effective incineration of municipal
wastes and sludges. Intermittent start-up and shut-down is
inefficient and shortens the useful life of the quipment.
A molten salt bath incinerator is under development with one
unit in operation. The by-products are CO2, water vapor,
and a char residue skimmed from the combustion chamber.
This device may prove to be viable in reasonably small units
(Lessing, 1973).
Both types of incineration waste beneficial nutrients while
leaving an ash which requires ultimate disposal. Fuel costs
are also high and air pollution control equipment must be
installed to minimize emissions.
Sanitary landfill is most suitable for stabilized (digested)
sludges and ash. In some regions, disposal of seafood waste
solids in a public landfill is unlawful, where allowed and
where land is available, private landfill may be a practical
method of ultimate disposal. Land application of
unstablized, putrescible solids as a nutrient source may be
impractical because of the nuisance conditions which may
result. The application of stabilized sludges as soil
conditioners may have local feasibility.
The practicality of landfill or surface land disposal is
dependent on the absence of a solids reduction facility, and
the presence of a suitable disposal site. The nutritive
value of the solids indicates that such methods are among
the least cost-efficient currently available.
In addition to placement in or on the land and dispersal in
the atmosphere (after incineration), the third (and only
remaining) ultimate disposal alternative is dispersion in
333
-------
the waters. Deep sea disposal of fish wastes can be a means
of recycling nutrients to the ocean. This method of
disposal does not subject the marine environment to the
potential hazards of toxicity and pathogens associated with
the dumping of human sewage sludges, municipal refuse and
many industrial wastes. The disposal of seafood wastes in
deep water or in areas subject to strong tidal flushing can
be a practical and possibly beneficial method of ultimate
disposal. In some locations, the entire waste flow could be
ground and pumped to a dispersal site in deep water without
adverse effects. The U.S. Congress recognized the unique
status of seafood wastes when, in 1972, they specifically
exempted fish and shellfish processing wastes from the
blanket moratorium on ocean dumping contained in the so-
called "Ocean Dumping Act."
Grinding and disposing of wastes in shallow, quiescent bays
has been practiced in the past, but should be discontinued.
Disposal depths of less than 13 m (7 fathoms), particularly
in the absence of vigorous tidal flushing, may be expected
to have a detrimental effect on the marine environment and
the local fishery, whereas discharge into a deep site
generally would not.
The identification of suitable sites for this practice un-
doubtedly demands good judgment and detailed knowledge of
local conditions. Used in the right manner, however, deep
sea disposal is an efficient and cost-effective technique,
second only to direct solids recovery and by-product
manufacture.
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment technology to reduce practically any
effluent to any degree of purity is available. The cost
effectiveness of a specific technology depends in part on
the contaminants to be removed, the level of removal
required, the scale of the operation, and most importantly
on local factors, including site availability and climate.
Because these factors vary widely among individual plants in
the fish processing industries, it is difficult to attempt
to identify a technology which may prove superior to all
others within an industrial subcategory.
The following general description is divided into physical-
chemical and biological methods for the removal of contamin-
ants.
384
-------
Physical-chemical treatment
Physical-chemical treatment is capable of achieving high
degrees of wastewater purification in significantly smaller
areas than biological methods. This space advantage is
often accompanied by the expense of high equipment,
chemical, power, and other operational costs. The selection
of unit operations in a physical-chemical or biological-
chemical treatment system cannot be isolated cost-
effectively from the constraints of each plant site. The
most promising treatment technologies for the industries
under consideration are chemical coagulation and air
flotation. There is yet little practical application for
demineralization technology including reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, electrolytic treatment, and ion exchange,
or for high levels of organic removal by means of carbon
adsorption.
Chemical Oxidation
Chlorine and ozone are the most promising oxidants, although
chlorine dioxide, potassium permanganate, and others are
capable of oxidizing organic matter found in the process
wastewaters. This technology is not in common use because
of economic feasibility restrictions.
Chlorine could be generated electrolytically from salt
waters adjoining most processors of marine species, and
utilized to oxidize the organic material and ammonia present
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1972). Ozone could be generated on-site
and pumped into de-aerated wastewater. De-aeration is
required to reduce the build-up of nitrogen and carbon
dioxide in the recycle gas stream. The higher the COD, the
higher the unit ozone reaction efficiency. Both oxidation
systems offer the advantages of compact size. The
operability of the technology with saline wastewaters, and
the practicability of small units, have not been evaluated
in the seafood processing industry (McNabney and Wynne,
1971).
Air Flotation
Air flotation with appropriate chemical addition is a
physical chemical treatment technology capable of removing
heavy concentrations of solids, greases, oils, and dissolved
organics in the form of a floating sludge. The buoyancy of
released air bubbles rising through the wastewater lifts
materials in suspension to the surface. These materials
385
-------
include substantial dissolved organics and chemical
precipitates, under controlled conditions. Floated,
agglomerated sludges are skimmed from the surface, collected
and dewatered. Adjustment of pH to near the isoelectric
point favors the removal of dissolved protein from fish
processing wastewaters. Because the flotation process
brings partially reduced organic and chemical compounds into
contact with oxygen in the air bubbles, satisfaction of im-
mediate oxygen demand is a benefit of the process in
operation. Present flotation equipment consists of three
types of systems for wastewater treatment: 1) vacuum
flotation; 2) dispersed air flotation; and 3) dissolved air
flotation.
1. Vacuum flotation: In this system, the waste is first
aerated, either directly in an aeration tank or by
permitting air to enter on the suction side of a pump.
Aeration periods are brief, some as short at 30 seconds, and
require only about 185 to 370 cc/1 (0.025 to 0.05 cu ft/gal)
of air (Nemerow, 1971). A partial vacuum of about 0.02 atm
(9 in. of water) is applied, which releases some air as
minute bubbles. The bubbles and attached solids rise to the
surface to form a scum blanket which is removed by a
skimming mechanism. A disadvantage is the expensive air-
tight structure needed to maintain the vacuum. Any leakage
from the atmosphere adversely affects performance.
2. Dispersed air flotation: Air bubbles are generated in
this process by the mechanical shear of propellers, through
diffusers, or by homogenization of gas and liquid streams.
The results of a pilot study on tuna wastewater are shown in
Table 179 and indicate that a dispersed air flotation system
could be successful. The unit was a WEMCO HydroCleaner with
five to 10 minute detention time. The average percent re-
duction of five-day BOD, grease and oil, and suspended
solids was estimated using two types of chemical additives.
Each run consisted of one hour steady state operation with
flow proportioned samples taken every five minutes. It
should be noted that the average of five runs with different
chemical additions are presented rather than the optimum.
3. Dissolved air flotation: The dissolved air can be
introduced by one of the methods: 1) total flow
pressurization; 2) partial flow pressurization; or 3)
recycle pressurization. In this process, the wastewater or
a recycled stream is pressurized to 3.0 to 4.4 atm (30 to 50
psi) in the presence of air and then released into the
flotation tank which is at ambient pressure. In recycle
pressurization the recycle stream is held in the pressure
386
-------
Table 178. Gravity clarification
using F-FLOK coagulant (Robbins, 1973).
Coagulant
Concentration
(mg/1)
5020
4710
2390
Total
Solids Recovery
(%)
68
60
47
Protein
Recovery
(%)
92
80
69
Table 179 Results of dispersed air flotation on tuna
wastewater (Jacobs Engineering Co., 1972).
Chemical Influent Reduction
Additive Parameter (mg/1) %
(Average of five runs)
Treto lite BOD 4400 47
7-16 mg/1 O&G 273 68
SS 882 30
(Average of eight runs)
Drew 410 BOD 211 47
3-14 mg/1 O&G 54 50
SS 245 30
387
-------
unit for about one minute before being mixed with the
unpressurized main stream just before entering the flotation
tank.
The flotation system of choice depends on the
characteristics of the waste and the necessary removal
efficiencies. Mayo (1966) found use of the recycle gave
best results for industrial waste and had lower power
requirements. Recycling flows can be adjusted to insure
uninterrupted flow to the flotation cell. This can be very
useful in avoiding system shutdowns. A typical dissolved
air flotation system is shown in Figure 68, and a typical
dissolved air flotation unit is shown in Figure 69.
Air bubbles usually are negatively charged. Suspended
particles or colloids may have a significant electrical
charge providing either attraction or repulsion with the air
bubbles. Flotation aids can be used to prevent air bubble
repulsion. In treating industrial wastes with large
quantities of emulsified grease or oil, it is usually
beneficial to use alum, or lime, and an anionic
polyelectrolyte to provide consistently good removal (Mayo,
1966).
Emulsified grease or oil normally cannot be removed without
chemical coagulation (Kohler, 1969). The emulsified
chemical coagulant should be provided in sufficient quantity
to absorb completely the oil present whether free or
emulsified. Good flotation properties are characterized by
a tendency for the floe to float with no tendency to settle
downward. Excessive coagulant additions result in a heavy
floe which is only partially removed by air flotation. With
oily wastewaters such as those found in the fish processing
industry, minimum emulsification of oils should result if a
recycle stream only, rather than the entire influent, were
passed through the pressurization tank. This would insure
that only the stream (having been previously treated) with
the lower oil content would be subjected to the turbulence
of the pressurization system. The increased removals
achieved, of course, would be at the expense of a larger
flotation unit than that which would be needed without
recycle.
The water temperature determines the solubility of the air
in the water under pressurization. With lower water
temperature, a lower quantity of recycle is necessary to
dissolve the same quantity of air. The viscosity of the
water increases with a decrease in temperature so that
flotation units must be made larger to compensate for the
slower bubble rise velocity at low temperatures. Mayo
388
-------
WASTEWATER
SOLIDS
CHEMICAL
FEED AIR
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
CO
CO
1C
FROM SCREENED
SOLIDS HOPPER
o
PUMP
CENTRATE (IF USED)
SCREENED WASTEWATER
TO NEXT TREATMENT SYSTEM
OR TO RECEIVING WATER
OR TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
OR BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY
Figure 68. Typical dissolved air flotation system for seafood processing operations
-------
CO
O
O
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
SURGE TANK
FLOTATION CELL
Figure 69.
Dissolved air flotation unit (Carborundum Company)
-------
(1966) recommended that flotation units for industrial
application be sized on a flow basis for suspended solids
concentrations less than 5000 mg/1. Surface loadings should
not exceed 81 1/sq m/min (2 gal./sq ft/min). The air-to-
solids ratio is important, as well. Mayo (1966) recommended
0.02 kg of air per kg of solids to provide a safe margin for
design.
Flotation is in extensive use among food processors for
wastewater treatment. Mayo (1966) presented data showing
high influent BOD and solids concentrations, each in the
range of 2000 mg/1. Reductions reached 95 percent BOD
removal and 99.7 percent solids removals, although most
removals were five percent to 20 percent lower. The higher
removals were attainable using appropriate chemical
additions and, presumably, skilled operation. A full scale
dissolved air flotation unit was recently installed at a
tuna plant on Terminal Island, California. Table 180 shows
the results of the pilot plant study that preceeded the full
scale unit and Table 181 gives the percent reductions
calculated from the samples collected in 1973. Operational
difficulties are thought to have reduced the effectiveness
of the unit. The pilot plant treated a flow of 0.5 to 1.0
I/sec (7.5 to 15 gpm) with a constant recycle of 0.5 I/sec
(7.5 gpm). The full scale plant treated a flow of 28 I/sec
(450 gpm) with no recycle.
Two more full scale dissolved air flotation units for tuna
plants have been ordered and are due to start in 1974
according to Robbins of Envirotech Corporation.
At least two significant pilot plant studies have been per-
formed on shrimp wastewater, one in Louisiana and the other
in Alaska. Table 182 and Table 183 list the results of the
respective studies.
The Louisiana shrimp study was conducted by Region VI E.P.A.
and Dominique, Szabo, and Associates, Inc. using a
Carborundum Company dissolved air flotation pilot unit which
treated a 3.1 I/sec (50 gpm) flow using 1:1 recycle, and 170
1/hr (6 cu ft/hr) air at a pressure of 2.7 atm (40 psig).
The Alaska shrimp study was conducted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service Technology center, using a Carborundum
Company dissolved air flotation pilot unit, which treated a
3.1 I/sec (50 gpm) flow using 10 percent recycle.
Preliminary indicators from the Louisiana shrimp show that
alum at 75 ppm and a polyelectrolyte at 0.5 - 5.0 ppm
produce the best removal efficiencies (see Figure 70).
391
-------
Various chemical additives and concentrators were tested in
Alaska with inconclusive results. All flocculants worked
better than no additives but none were significantly better
than alum alone at around 200 mg/1. Sea water apppeared to
reduce the effectiveness of the polyelectrolyte used during
the test.
During the summer of 1972 a study was conducted by the
National Marine Fisheries Service to investigate means of
reducing waste discharge problems as a result of fish meal
and oil production. Bailwater used to unload menhaden was
treated using a pilot scale dissolved air flotation unit.
This treatment allowed increased recirculation of bailwater,
decreasing the soluble plant load. The removal efficiencies
are listed in Table 184. The plant treated 4.1 I/sec (65
gpm) with 50 percent recycle and 50 psig. The results
showed that dissolved air flotation units can extend
bailwater re-use, but that sludge disposal must be resolved.
A full scale dissolved air flotation unit has also been in-
stalled in the sardine industry, however, mechanical
problems have hindered operation thus far. Results are
shown in Table 185.
The Canadians have constructed a demonstration wastewater
treatment plant capable of handling the estimated flow of 47
I/sec (750 gpm) from a salmon and ground fish filleting
plant. It was later modified to treat herring bailwater and
roe recovery operations as well. Results of the study by
The Fisheries Research Board of Canada on this operation are
shown in Table 186.
The previous air flotation case studies have shown various
removal efficiencies depending on species, chemical
additives and effluent concentrations. One reason for the
various removal efficiencies reported appears to be due to
the efficiency being a function of influent concentration.
Figure 71 plots the percent removal versus COD concentration
using the results of the sardine, menhaden. Gulf shrimp and
tuna air flotation studies. The removals are probably a
function of the species being processed; however, there
appears to be a strong tendency for the efficiency to
increase as the concentration increases. The tuna and
shrimp concentrations and removal efficiencies were lower
than the sardine and menhaden concentrations and removal
efficiencies. This relation also holds for the sardine
wastewater where the efficiency appears to increase about 25
percent as the COD concentration increases by a factor of
four, from 5000 to 20,000 mg/1.
392
-------
CO
2
m
o
z
o
o
m
oo
01
Ol
ro • •
CD--
% REMOVAL BOD5
Ol
-t—
Ol
O
o a • ©o
Ol
oo
ro
01
o
01
o
o
O
-------
1?6£
PERCENT COD REMOVAL
~n
in
-s
ro
O 111
c •
0
rt
»—
rt
h! >
£j (-*•
rt ^
H-
O hti
t^ t — *
o
r-h rt
O PJ
h' r-r
< 0
fi) 3
(-•• O
0 Hi
C i-h
CD H-
n
en H-
o O
rh C
O '-N
o
£L <
fD
? n
en C
rt co
ft)
C H-
ft hr,
(D H
h C
n ro
' ^
n
0
u
o
o
o
z
-n
c
m
z
H
O
O
Z
o
m
H
30
^
O
x—*
3
id
—
-1
6
o
0
.
C7I
o-
o
0.
.
p;
o
o
o
.
-
Ol
o-
8-
0
8:
8
0
.
8'
o-
'0
o
o
± W -~4 QD (D
3 O O O O O
o
o a
X
C>
O
0 0
00
X
X
-
O • X 0
H 0 S 2
i r z 5
C/> o
x m co
30 Z >
E ^
F m
m
•x
-------
Table 180 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator pilot plant on tuna
wastewater (Jacobs Engineering Co., 1972) .
Chemical
Additive
Lime (pH 10.0 -
Polymers:
Cationic, 0.05
Anionic, 0.10
Lime, 400 mg/1
Ferric chloride,
Influent Reduction
10.5)
mg/1
mg/1
45 mg/1
Parameter
(Based
BOD-5
O&G
SS
BOD-5
O&G
SS
(mg/1)
on one run)
3533
558
1086
%
65
66
66
22
81
77
Table 181 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator full scale plant
on tuna wastewater (Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973).
Chemical
Additive
Parameter
Influent
(mg/1)
Reduction
Sodium Aluminate 120 mg/1 COD
Polymer SS
Alum COD
Polymer SS
(Based on two runs)
2850 37
1170 56
(Based on one run)
5100 58
667 65
395
-------
Table 182 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant
on Gulf shrimp wastewater (Mauldin, 1973).
Chemical
Additive
Parameter
Influent
(mg/1)
Reduction
Acid (to pH 5)
Alum 75 mg/1
Polymer
(Average of five runs, one each with
5, 4, 2, 1, and 0.5 mg/1 polymer)
BOD-5
COD
SS
1428
3400
559
70
64
83
(Average of two runs, one each at 75
gpm and 25 gpm with 2 mg/1 polymer)
Acid (to pH 5)
Alum 75 mg/1
Polymer
COD
SS
O&G
3400
440
852
51
68
85
Table 183 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant
on Alaska shrimp wastewater
Chemical
Additive
Reduction
Parameter
(Average of twenty-two runs)
Alum 200 mg/1
Polymer
COD
SS
73
77
396
-------
Table 184 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant
on menhaden bailwater (Baker and Carlson, 1972).
Chemical Influent Reduction
Additive Parameter (mg/1) %
(Average of five runs)
Alum or COD 94,200 80
Acid pH 5-5.3 SS — 87
Polymer O&G — near 100
Note: SS and O&G determined by volume change.
Table 185 Efficiency of full scale dissolved air
flotation on sardine wastewater (Atwell, 1973).
Chemical
Additive
Alum
Polymer
Parameter
(Average of seven runs)
COD
O&G
SS
Reduction
0
74
92
87
397
-------
Table 186 Efficiency of full scale dissolved air
flotation on Canadian seafood wastewater (Claggett, 1972) .
Chemical Removal Percentage
Additive Species BOD Oil SS
Salmon 84 90 92
Alum Herring 72 85 74
Polymer Groundfish 77 — 86
Stickwater -- 95 95
Comments: Sludge represents about three percent of flow.
398
-------
The case studies documented in this report indicate that air
flotation systems can provide good removal of pollution
loads from seafood processing wastewater, however, the
results are highly dependent on operating procedure. In
most cases, optimum removal efficiencies are yet to be
established, but it is expected that the technology should
become standardized over the next few years as an increasing
number of units are tested. It also appears that the COD
removal efficiency is a function of concentration,
increasing as the influent concentrations increase.
The air flotation technology can also be operated at lower
efficiencies to serve as "primary" treatment in advance of a
physical-chemical or biological polishing step, if that mode
proves advantageous from the standpoint of cost-effec-
tiveness.
Appendices A and B contain selected bibliographies of air
flotation use within the seafood industry and meat and
poultry industry, respectively.
Biological treatment
Biological treatment is not practiced in U.S. seafood
industries except for a small pilot project in Maryland at a
blue crab processing plant and full-scale systems at two
shrimp plants in Florida. Sufficient nutrients are
available in most seafood wastewaters, however, to indicate
that such wastewaters are amenable to aerobic biological
treatment.
Primary stage removal of solids and oil and greases should
precede biological treatment. Without this pretreatment,
several problems can develop: 1) oil and grease can inter-
fere with oxygen transfer in an activated sludge system; and
2) solids can clog trickling filters.
The salt found in nearly all wastewaters discourages the
consideration of anaerobic processes. Salt is toxic to
anaerobic bacteria, and although a certain tolerance to
higher salt levels can be developed in carefully controlled
(constant input) systems, fluctuating loads continue to be
inhibitory or toxic to these relatively unstable systems.
Aerobic biological systems, although inhibited by "shock
loadings" of salt, have been demonstrated at full scale for
the treatment of saline wastes of reasonably constant
chloride levels. The effectiveness of any form of
biological oxidation, however, remains to be demonstrated
399
-------
under the extreme variations common in the fish processing
industry.
Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process consists of suspending a
concentrated microbial mass in the wastewater in the
presence of oxygen. Carbonaceous matter is oxidized mainly
to carbon dioxide and water. Nitrogenous matter is
concurrently oxidized to nitrate. The conventional
activated sludge process is capable of high levels of
treatment when properly designed and skillfully operated.
Flow equilization by means of an aerated tank can minimize
shock loadings and flow variations, which are highly
detrimental to treatment efficiency. The process produces a
sludge which is composed largely of microbial cells, as
described above. Oily materials can have an adverse effect.
A recent study concluded the influent (petroleum-based) oil
levels should be limited to 0.10 kg/day/kg MLSS (0.10
Ib/day/lb MLSS).
The nature of the waste stream, the complexity of the system
and the difficulties associated with dewatering waste
activated sludge indicate that for most applications the
activated sludge system of choice would be the extended
aeration modification.
A typical extended aeration system which could be used for a
seafood processing operation is shown in Figure 72 and is
similar to conventional activated sludge, except that the
mixture of activated sludge and raw materials is maintained
in the aeration chamber for longer periods of time. The
common detention time in extended aeration is one to three
days, in contrast to the conventional six hours. This
prolonged contact between the sludge and raw waste provides
ample time for the organic matter to be assimilated by the
sludge and also for the organisms to metabolize the
organics. This allows for substantial removals of organic
matter. In addition, the organisms undergo considerable
endogenous respiration, which oxidizes much of the cellular
biomass. As a result, less sludge is produced and little is
discharged from the system as waste activated sludge.
In extended aeration, as in the conventional activated
sludge process, it is necessary to have a final
sedimentation tank.
The solids resulting from extended aeration are finely dis-
persed and settle slowly, requiring a long period of
400
-------
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
V
EQUALIZATION
TANK
• BOILER -
OPTIONAL
HEAT EXCHANSER
HI-SPEED FLOATING
AERATORS
WASTE SLUD6E TO
•»
FLOATATION UNIT
HOLDING TANK
OR DISPOSAL
p
AERATION
TANK
RETURN SLUDGE
\
rT^m
TREATED WASTEWATER
TO RECEIVING WATER
10' BELOW MEAN TIDE
PUMP
Figure 72. Typical extended aeration system for seafood processing operations
-------
settling. The system is relatively resistant to shock
loadings, provided the clarifier has sufficient surface area
to prevent the loss of biomass during flow surges. Extended
aeration, like other activated sludge systems, requires a
continuous flow of wastewater to nurture the microbial mass.
The re-establishment of an active biomass in the aeration
tank requires several days to a few weeks if the unit is
shut down or the processing plant ceases to operate for
significant periods of time.
Riddle (1972) studied the efficiency of biological systems
on smelt and perch wastewater. He found a 90 percent
removal of unfiltered BOD-5 after 10 days aeration, and 90
percent removal of filtered BOD-5 after two days aeration in
a batch reactor (see Figures 73 and 74). Tests in a
continuous reactor showed that maximum BOD-5 removal (80
percent soluble and 45 percent unfiltered) could be achieved
with a 7.5 hour detention time, sludge recycle and a three
day sludge age or a five day detention time with no sludge
recycle.
Robbins (1973) reports that an activated sludge plant in
Japan has been especially designed for fish wastes. The
wastewater flow is approximately 0.27 mgd and the 5 day BOD
concentration ranges from 1000 to 1900 mg/1. The results of
pilot plant studies conducted using a 1C hour separation
time and the organic and hydraulic loadings listed are shown
in Table 187. Bulking occurred when the organic loading
rate exceeded 0.31 Ib/cu ft/day.
Although treatment units are available in all size ranges,
it is unlikely activated sludge will prove to be the most
cost-effective treatment where processing is intermittent,
or plant flows are so large that alternative systems of
suitable scale are available. The wide variation in quality
of the small package extended aeration systems now available
dictates careful selection of the equipment, if the process
is to approach the removals now achieved by well-operated
municipal installations.
Table 188 shows the effectiveness of a package unit on
wastewater from a plant processing Atlantic oysters and blue
crab. The flow from this plant was quite low, averaging
only 0.09 I/sec (2000 gpd).
Rotating Biological Contactor
The Rotating Biological contactor (RBC), or Biodisc unit,
consists of light-weight discs approximately 1.3 cm (0.5
402
-------
o
o
GO
UJ
b
u.
o
z
z
Z
UJ
CC
Z
UJ
o
CC
UJ
CL
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
COMBINED WASTEWATER a
SMELT WA'STE WATER *
PERCH WASTEWATER 0
SMELT
COMBINED
PERCH
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
TIME- DAYS
Figure 73. Removal rate of filtered BOD in a batch aeration
reactor.
403
-------
1C
Q
O
00
IT
UJ
U-
z
1}
S
UJ
(C
UJ
O
£E
UJ
a.
100
90
80
70 -
60
50
40 -
30
20 _
10
COMBINED WASTEWATER A
SMELT WASTEWATER X
PERCH WASTEWATER o
i i i i i i l
PERCH
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
TIME - DAYS
Figure 74. Removal rate of unfiltered BOD in a batch aeration
reactor .
404
-------
Table 187 Activated sludge
pilot plant results (Robbins, 1973).
Parameter
BOD-5 (mg/1)
% Removal
Raw
Waste
1000
BOD
0.075
5
99.5
Loading
0.14
10
99.0
(Ib/cu
0.2
13
98.7
ft /day)
1 0
27
97
.26
.3
Table 188 Efficiency of Chromaglas package plant
on blue crab and oyster wastewater
Parameter
Influent
Percentage Reduction
BOD 400-1200 mg/1 80 - 90%
Suspended Solids — Effluent level = 160 mg/1
405
-------
in.) thick and spaced at 2.5 to 3.8 cm (1 to 1.5 in.) on
centers. The cylindrical discs, which are up to 3.4 m (11
ft) in diameter, are mounted on a horizontal shaft and
placed on a semicircular tank through which the wastewater
flows. Clearance between the discs and the tank wall is 1.3
to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.). The discs rotate slowly, in
the range of five to 10 rpm, passing the disc surface
through the incoming wastewater. Liquid depth in the tank
is kept below the center shaft of the discs. Reaeration is
limited by the solubility of air in the wastewater and rate
of shaft rotation.
Shortly after start-up, organisms begin to grow in attached
colonies on the disc surfaces, and a typical growth layer is
usually established within a week. Oxygen is supplied to
the organisms during the period when the disc is rotating
through the atmosphere above the flowing waste stream.
Dense biological growth on the discs provides a high level
of active organisms resistant to shock loads. Periodic
sloughing produces a floe which settles rapidly; and the
shear-forces developed by rotation prevents disc media
clogging and keeps solids in suspension until they are
transferred out of the disc tank and into the final
clarifier. Normally, sludge recycling shows no significant
effect on treatment efficiency because the suspended solids
in the mixed liquor represent a small fraction of the total
culture when compared to the attached growth on the disc.
Removal efficiency can be increased by providing several
stages of discs in series. European experience on multi-
stage disc systems indicates that a four stage disc plant
can be loaded at a 30 percent higher rate than a two stage
plant for the same degree of treatment. Because the BOD
removal kinetics approach a first order reaction, the first
stage should not be loaded higher than 120 g BOD/day/sq m
disc surface. If removal efficiencies greater than 90
percent are required, three or four stages should be
installed. Mixtures of domestic and food processing wastes
in high BOD concentrations can be treated efficiently by the
RBC-type system.
Because 95 percent of the solids are attached to the discs,
the RBC unit is less sensitive to shock loads than activated
sludge units, and is not upset by variations in hydraulic
loading. During low flow periods the RBC unit yields ef-
fluents of higher quality than at design flow. During
periods of no flow, effluents can be recycled for a limited
time to maintain biological activity.
406
-------
Both the Rotating Biological Contactor and the trickling
filter systems utilize an attached culture. However, with
the rotating disc the biomass is passed through the
wastewater rather than wastewater over the biomass, re-
sulting in less clogging for the RBC unit. Continuous
wetting of the entire biomass surface also prevents fly
growth, often associated with conventional trickling filter
operations.
The RBC system requires housing to protect the biomass from
exposure during freezing weather and from damage due to
heavy winds and precipitation,
A pilot RBC system has been studied in Canada on salmon can-
ning wastewater, which had previously been treated by an air
flotation system (Claggett, 1973). The pilot plant was ob-
tained from Autotrol Corporation and was rated at about 0.44
I/sec (7 gpm). The pilot system consists of a wet well, a
three stage treatment system and a secondary clarifier with
a rotating sludge scoop. In general, the unit performed
quite well, with reductions of over 50 percent in COD being
obtained two days after start-up. The discs reached a
steady state condition in one week. The unit operated
satisfactorily at loadings up to 20 Ibs COD/1000 sq ft/day,
showing good stability in the face of fluctuating loads.
Under light solids loading algal growth developed in the
clarifier and the last disc section. Consequently, all
effluent samples were filtered prior to COD analysis. Under
moderate flow conditions the clarifier functioned well, but
occasionally the suspended solids level rose about 50 mg/1,
indicating some problems in this area. This carry-over
became very pronounced under heavy solids loading. About 80
percent removal of applied COD was obtained for loadings of
up to 20 Ibs COD/1000 sq ft/day. Removal of COD at each
stage is highly variable, and does not appear to be a
function of the applied load. In general, up to one-half of
the COD removal was achieved in the first section, up to 20
percent was removed in the second stage, and up to 15
percent removed in the third stage.
High-Rate Trickling Filter (HRTF)
A trickling filter consists on a vented structure of rock,
fiberglas, plastic, or redwood media on which a microbial
flora develops. As wastewater flows downward over the
structure, the microbial flora assimilates and metabolizes
the organic matter. The biomass continuously sloughs and is
readily separated from the liquid stream by sedimentation.
407
-------
The resulting sludge requires further treatment and disposal
as described previously.
The use of artificial media promotes air circulation and
reduces clogging, in contrast to rock media. As a result,
artificial media beds can be over twice as deep as rock
media beds, with correspondingly longer contact times.
Longer contact times and recirculation of the liquid flow
enhance treatment efficiency. The recirculation of settled
sludge with the liquid stream is also claimed to improve
treatment.
The system is simple in operation, the only operational
variable being recycle rate. The treatment efficiency of a
well-designed deep-bed trickling filter tower of 14 ft or
more with high recycle can be superior to that of a
carelessly operated activated sludge system. The system is
not particularly sensitive to shock loadings but is severely
impaired by wastewater temperatures below 73°C (45°F).
Below 2°C (35°F), treatment efficiency is minimal. The
effect of grease and oil in trickling filter influent has
not been evaluated. They would likely be detrimental.
Ponds and Lagoons
The land requirements for ponds and lagoons limit the lo-
cations at which these facilities are practicable. Where
conditions permit, they can provide reasonable treatment
alternatives.
Lagoons are ponds in which wastewater is treated
biologically. Naturally aerated lagoons are termed
oxidation ponds. Such ponds are 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft)
deep, with oxidation taking place chiefly in the upper 0.45
m (18 in.). Mechanically aerated lagoons are mixed ponds
over 1.8 m (6 ft) and up to 6.1 m (20 ft) deep, with oxygen
supplied by a floating aerator or compressed air diffuser
system. The design of lagoons requires particular attention
to local insulation, temperatures, wind velocities, etc. for
critical periods. These variables affect the selection of
design parameters. Loading rates vary from 22 to 112 kg
BOD/day/ha (20 Ib to 100 Ib/day/acre), and detention times
from three to 50 days. A typical aerated lagoon system
which could be used for a seafood processing operation is
shown in Figure 75.
Although not frequently used in the fish processing
industry, lagoons are in common use in other food processing
industries. Serious upsets can occur. The oxidation pond
408
-------
o
HI - SPEED
FLOATING AERATORS
WOODEN BAFFLE
4.
PLAN VIEW AT WATERLINE
INFLUENT
WASTEWATEF
PUMP
SLOTTED
f BAFFLE
TO R.W.
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
Figure 75. Typical aerated lagoon system.
-------
may produce too much algae, the aerated lagoon may turn
septic in zones of minimal mixing, etc.; and recovery from
such upsets may take weeks. The major disadvantage of
lagoons is the large land requirement. In regions where
land is available and soil conditions make excavation
feasible, the aerobic lagoon should find application in
treating fish wastes. Where the plant discharges no salt
water, anaerobic and anaerobic-aerobic types of ponds may
also be utilized. Aerated lagoons are reported to produce
an effluent suspended solids concentration of 260 to 300
mg/1, mostly algae, while anaerobic ponds produce an
effluent with 80 to 160 mg/1 suspended solids (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1972, p. 557). A combined activated sludge lagoon
system in Florida is reported to remove 97 percent of the
BOD and 9U percent of the suspended solids from shrimp
processing wastewater.
Land disposal
"Zero-discharge" technology is practicable where land is
available upon which the processing wastewaters may be ap-
plied without jeopardizing groundwater quality. The site,
surrounded by a retaining dike, should sustain a cover crop
of grass or other vegetation. Where ,such sites exist,
serious consideration can be given to land application,
particularly spray irrigation, of treated wastewaters.
Wastes are discharged in spray or flood irrigation systems
by: 1) distribution through piping and spray nozzles over
relatively flat terrain or terraced hillsides of moderate
slope; or 2) pumping and disposal through ridge-and-furrow
irrigation systems, which allow a certain level of flooding
on a given plot of land. Pretreatment for removal of solids
is advisable to prevent plugging of the spray nozzles, or
deposition in the furrows of a ridge-and-furrow system,
which may cause odor problems or clog the soil.
In a flood irrigation system the waste loading in the
effluent would be limited by the waste loading tolerance of
the particular crop being grown on the land. It may also be
limited by the soil conditions or potential for vector or
odor problems. Wastewater distributed in either manner
percolates through the soil and the organic matter in the
waste undergoes biological degradation. The liquid in the
waste stream is either stored in the soil or discharged into
the groundwater. A variable percentage of the waste flow
can be lost by evapotranspiration, the loss due to
evaporation to the atmosphere through the leaves of plants.
The following factors affect the ability of a particular
410
-------
land area to absorb wastewater: 1) character of the soil; 2)
stratification of the soil profile; 3) depth to groundwater;
4) initial moisture content; 5) terrain and groundcover; 6)
precipitation; 7) temperature; and 8) wastewater
characteristics.
The greatest concern in the use of irrigation as a disposal
system is the total dissolved solids content and especially
the sodium content of the wastewater. Salt water waste
flows would be incompatible with land application technology
at most sites. Limiting values which may be exceeded for
short periods but not over an entire growing season were
estimated, conservatively (Talsma and Phillip, 1971), to be
450 to 1000 mg/1. Where land application is feasible it
must be recognized that soils vary widely in their
percolation properties. Experimental irrigation of a test
plot is recommended in untried areas. Cold climate systems
may be subjected to additional constraints, including
storage needs.
The long-term reliability of spray or flood irrigation
systems depends on the sustained ability of the soil to
accept the wastewater. Problems in maintenance include: 1)
controlling salinity levels in the wastewater; 2)
compensating for climatic limitations; and 3) sustaining
pumping without failure. Many soils are improved by spray
irrigation.
Multi-Process Treatment Design Consideration
Waste characterization studies reveal the general ranges and
concentrations of each specific processing subcategory; how-
ever, for design purposes it may often be necessary to know
the nature of the combined waste stream from several commod-
ities being processed simultaneously. Short term on-site
waste and wastewater investigations are suggested so that
any synergistic and/or antagonistic interactors can be
determined. A combined waste stream could conceivably be
more amenable to treatment than a single source because of
possible smoothing of peak hydraulic and/or organic loading,
neutralization of pH or dilution of saline conditions.
Each stream may individually dictate the design
considerations. For instance, the fibrous nature of salmon
canning waste will likely dictate the screening method used
or a waste stream with high flow will likely dictate
hydraulic loading of the system.
411
-------
Another design problem is caused by sequential seasonal pro-
cessing of different commodities. This condition is also
prevalent in the seafood industry. Optimum waste treatment
design conditions for one effluent will normally not be
identical to those for the next. As an example, the
sequential processing of shrimp and oysters would cause
problems. Even though their effluent concentrations are
similar, the wastewater flow volume is approximately eight
times higher in the typical shrimp processing plant.
Problems such as this will necessitate adaptations to normal
design procedures or perhaps even demand the use of more
than one treatment train.
During on-site waste management studies consideration should
also be given to segregation of certain unit process
streams. Significant benefits may be realized by using this
technique. For example, treatment of a high concentrated
waste flow can be more efficient and economical. In
addition, by-product development normally centers on the
segregation and concentration of waste producing processes.
Uncontaminated cooling water should remain isolated from the
main wastewater effluent. This water could either be reused
or discharged directly.
Treatment Design Assumptions
Tables 189 and 190 summarize the treatment efficiencies
assumed for the recommended technologies. The screen
removal efficiencies and dry-weight to wet-weight
percentages listed in Table 189 were calculated from the
screened solids samples collected during this study. These
samples were collected using a 20-mesh Tyler screen and
analyzed as discussed in Sections V and VI. Table 190 lists
the removal efficiencies assumed for the air flotation,
aerated lagoon and extended aeration technologies. It is
noticed that the air flotation removal efficiency is assumed
to vary with the grease and oil content of the wastewater.
Also, there are lower concentration limits which cannot be
exceeded either due to the inherent operation of the system
(aerated lagoon or extended aeration), or because of minimum
detection thresholds (gre*ase and oil cannot be adequately
recovered below 5 mg/1), Table 191 lists the estimated in-
plant waste water flow reductions and the associated
pollutional loadings reductions for the proposed 1983
effluent limitations and new source performance standards.
Establishing Effluent Limitations
Because there are few existing waste water treatment
facilities at the plant level, the 30-day and the daily
412
-------
Table 189 Removal efficiencies of screens
for various seafood wastewater effluents.
Typical
% Removal
Total % Solids
Subcategory Suspended Solids dry wt./wet wt.
Finfish
Alaska salmon canning 56 15
Northwest salmon canning 56 15
Alaska fresh/frozen salmon 45 15
West Coast fresh/frozen salmon 45 15
Alaska bottom fish (halibut) 75 14
Non-Alaska conventional bottom fish 68 18
Non-Alaska mechanized bottom fish 50 21
Sardine canning 4 22
Herring filleting 25 18
Shellfish
Mechanized clams 44 40
Conventional clams 24 37
Steamed or canned oysters 56 19
Conventional Oysters (Pacific 32
Conventional Oysters (Atlantic) 44
Alaska scallops 88 15
Aba!one 25 13
413
-------
Table 190 Removal efficiencies of treatment alternatives.
Treatment
Air flotation
a) Oily species without
chemical optimization
b) Oily species with
chemical optimization
c) Non-oily species without
chemical opitnization
d) Non-oily species with
chemical optimization
Aerated lagoon
Extended aeration
Grease trap
% Removal
BOD
40
75
30
50
80 or
80 mg/1
85 or
60 mg/1
or mg/1 remai
TSS
70
90
70
90
70 or
200 mg/1
75 or
60 mg/1
ning
0 & G
85 or
5 mg/1
90 or
5 mg/1
85 or
5 mg/1
90 or
5 mg/1
90 or
5 mg/1
90 or
5 mg/1
75 of
free oil
NOTE: Oily species -- menhaden, anchovy, sardine, mackerel, salmon
(canned), bottom fish (mechanized), herring, oysters (canned
or steamed).
Non-oily species -- bottom fish (conventional), salmon (fresh/
frozen), clams, oysters (hand shucked), abalone, urchin,
scallops, lobster.
414
-------
Table 191
Estimated practicable in-plant wastewater flow
reductions and associated pollutional loadings
reductions
Wastewater Flow
Reduction, % of
Total
housekeeping*
22
10
43
30
20
40
35
7
12
housekeeping*
14
housekeeping*
housekeeping*
BOD
Reduction
% of Total
5
95
4
10
40
23
20
20
27
7
5
5
30
5
5
Segment
Fish meal w/solubles
Fish meal w/o solubles
Mechanized Salmon
Hand-butchered Salmon
Alaskan bottom fish
Conventional bottom fish
Mechanized bottom fish
Sardine
Herring Filleting
Conventional Clams
Mechanized Clams
Hand-shucked oysters
Mechanized oysters
Scallops
Abalone
* Estimated 5 to 15 percent flow reduction due to good housekeeping
practices.
415
-------
maximum limitations are based on engineering judgment and
the consideration of the operating characteristics of
similar treatment systems within the meat processing
industry, municipal waste treatment systems, or other
segments of the seafood as well as the food processing
industry.
In general, the daily maximum and the maximum 30-day average
limitations are based on the formulas presented in Figure
76. In the cases where the subcategory parameter averages
were determined arithmetically, the formulas presented in
Figure 77 were utilized to calculate the effluent
limitations.
In the case where the engineering design effluent
concentration exceeds the thirty day average based on the
above calculations, the design concentration is utilized as
the basis for the effluent limitation. The corresponding
daily maximum limitation is determined by the treatment
technology operating characteristic: For aerated lagoon
systems the daily maximum is 2 times the thirty day
limitation; and for extended aeration systems, 3 times the
thirty day limitations.
416
-------
Jln
/u
Daily Max = e
Max 30-day Ave =
Where Jtq AIS and -^^ are the log-normal subcategory mean and standard deviation,
respectively; R is the percent of the pollutant parameter remaining after treatment; Z is a constant
set equal to 2.33 corresponding to the upper 99 percent confidence interval; and »? is an
assumed sampling frequency of 9 samples per month.
Figure 76.Daily maximum and maximum 30-day average formulas based on log-normal
summary data.
417
-------
Daily Max = R (/us + Z
Max 30-day A ve = R fas + Vn Z
Where/us and "ir are the subcategory arithmetic mean and standard deviation, respectively; R is the
percent of the pollutant parameter remaining after treatment; Z is a constant set equal to 2.33
corresponding to the upper 99 percent confidence interval and*) is an assumed sampling frequency
of nine samples per month.
Fi gure 77 . rjaj|y maximum and maximum 30-day average formulas based on arithmetic - normal
summary data
418
-------
SECTION VIII
£QSTJL_ENERGYJt_AND_NONrWATjER QUALITY ASPECTS SUMMARY
The wastewaters from seafood processing plants are, in
general, considered to be amenable to treatment using
standard physicalchemical and biological systems.
Wastewater management in the form of increasing by-product
recovery, in-plant control and recycling is not practiced
uniformly throughout the industry. Of all the types of
seafood processing monitored during this study, the most
exemplary from this viewpoint was the menhaden reduction
industry. Even in this case there is considered to be
improvements which can be made in in-plant control. The
concepts of water conservation and by-product recovery are
at early stages in most parts of the industry. Therefore,
in addition to applying treatment to the total effluent,
there is much room for the improvement of water and waste
management practices. These will reduce the size of the
required treatment systems or improve effluent quality, and
in many cases, conserve or yield a product that will help
offset or even exceed the costs of the changes.
In-plant Control Costs
Two types of in-plant control were recognized in the estab-
lishment of effluent limitations. One type was designated
good housekeeping and consisted of educating the plant per-
sonnel to use good water conservation and solids handling
practices, and was not considered to add to the cost of
operation. The other type was designated in-plant changes
and consisted of actual changes in the plant operation
through the incorporation of new or modified equipment.
Improved clean-up and conveying of fish are the areas where
improvements can be made in most seafood processing plants.
Spring loaded nozzles for washdown hoses are inexpensive but
effective in reducing water flow during washdown. There are
more sophisticated high-pressure washdown systems currently
being manufactured that dramatically reduce water usage.
One system provides hot water and cleaning additives at 800
psig with a nozzle flow of about four gpm which enables the
operator an effective cleaning capability with minimal water
usage. A small plant system with an operating capacity of
20 gpm costs about $5000 for equipment and installation. A
medium size plant system providing 35 gpm costs near
$10,000, while a large system providing 50 gpm runs near
$15,000.
419
-------
Fluming systems can be replaced by various dry-conveyance
systems. Belt conveyor systems are estimated to range
between $30 to $60 per linear foot. The pneumatic system
shown in Figure 61 of Section VII is estimated to vary in
cost from $5000 for a shrimp waste conveyor, which
transports 5000 pounds of waste over a distance of 100 feet,
to $35,000 to pick up assorted salmon, herring or other
solid waste at a rate of 25 tons per hour and convey it 1000
feet. Pneumatic loading systems shown in Figure 62 of
Section VII can handle a wide range of raw products and
unloading rates. Systems are available that vary in size
from five in. to over 12 in. diameter conveying line. A
five to six in. system that unloads 15,000 to 18,000 Ibs per
hour costs around $10,500. Larger systems often are custom
built and therefore costs may vary considerably; however,
the price will probably range from around $20,000 for an
eight in. system to near $38,000 for a 12 in. system.
Table 192 shows the flow and BOD reductions that are estim-
ated to be achievable through "housekeeping" and in-plant
control techniques. The annual costs of these modifications
are compared with the annual treatment cost savings due to
reduced hydraulic load requirements. In most subcategories
the in-plant modification costs are more than offset by
savings in treatment costs and in some cases a substantial
savings can be realized.
End-of-Pipe Treatment^Costs and Des jgn Assumptions
The end-of-pipe treatment costs for each type of system were
plotted against flow which was considered to be the most
significant variable. Cost versus flow functions (Table
191) were then developed by fitting the points with a piece-
wise linear curve, with a break point at 3.16 I/sec (50
gal./min). Second order terms such as in-plant solids
handling were then added. Figures 78 and 79 summarize the
costs as a function of hydraulic load and removal
efficiencies which can be expected for different treatment
configurations for a typical plant operating 8 hours per
day.
Figures 80 through 84 show the individual capital and oper-
ating and maintenance costs developed for screen, air flota-
tion, aerated lagoon and extended aeration treatment systems
which were used to estimate the treatment costs for the
wastewater from each seafood industry in the contiguous
states included in this study. The capital costs of each of
these designs are based on 1971 Seattle construction costs.
Costs for Alaska based plants are obtained by adding
420
-------
200 -
25
0
3
50
6 9
0,L PER SEC
100 150
0, 6PM
12
. 1
200
rigure 78.
40 -
30 -
20 -
Costs and removal efficiencies for alternative treatment
systems versus hydraulic loading.
200
0,3PM
Figure 79. Operation and maintenance costs for alternate
treatment systems versus hydraulic loading.
421
-------
JOOOO ••
25000
20000
I50OO
10000
IFQS3I6, 8 -5000 ^31700
IF Q >3.16, J -12,330, 8460
5000
3.0
90
Q,L PER SEC
120
150
50
100 150
Q, GAL PER MIN
200
250
1000 -
500 --
.(6+ 02I01T/I6
T = PROCESSING HRS PER DAY!
50
150
O.GAL PER MIN
200
Figure 80. Capital cost and daily operation and maintenance
cost curves for a wastewater screening system
422
-------
ezt?
CAPITAL COSTS, f X IOOO
-?
00
_J
o
H-
ft
0)
o
o
w
rt
o
(D
CO
i-h
0
0)
W
rt
0)
S
01
rt
(D
JU
H-
O
rt
Oi
rt
H-
O
w
*<
w
rt
(D
3
o-r
01.
o
o
o
TO
m
o>
-------
in
o
I-
z
ID
Z
o
( T • PROCESSING HRS PER DAY )
20
10
12.0 18.0
Q,L PER SEC
24.0
300
100
200 SCO
0, GAL PER MIN
400
500
(with chemicals)
Figure 82. Operation and maintenance costs
of an air flotation system.
424
-------
60000 -
45000 -•
o
o 30000
IF 0 < 3 16, $ - ( 5000 * 14263 Q ) T/16
IFQ> 316, * « (46600* 1058 Q) T/16
IT-PROCESSING HRS PER DAY)
-4-
12
15
50
Q,L PER SEC
IOO ISO 200
Q , GAL PER MIN
250
z
<
z
10.00 --
500 ••
« (7 + O 51 QJT/16
( T • PROCESSING HRS PER DAY )
-H
50
0,L PER SEC
1
100
150
Q, GAL PER MIN
200
250
300
Figure 83. Capital costs and daily operation and maintenance
cost curves for an aerated lagoon
425
-------
200,000 - -
160,000 - -
120,000 • -
80,000- -
40,000..
IF Q < 3 16 , $ = (22000 -+• 32964 0) T/16
IF Q>3.I6,$ '(111000 + 5070 Q) T/16
(T-PROCESSING MRS PER DAY)
1 1 1
12
Q , L PER SEC
15
50
100
ISO
Q , GAL PER MIN
200
fc 20 -
15 -
9
Q,L PER SEC
15
18
50
100
ISO
Q, GAL PER MIN
200
250
300
Figure 84. Capital costs and daily operation and maintenance
cost curves for an extended aeration system
426
-------
Table 192 Estimated waste water flow and BOD reductions and
costs resulting from in-plant control methods
Segment
Fish meal
w/o solubles unit
Mechanized Salmon
Hand-butchered
salmon
Alaska
bottom fish
Conventional
bottom fish
Mechanized
bottom fish
Sardine canning
Method Reduction
Flow BOD
add solubles unit
Eliminate in-plant
flume
modify washdown
system
modify washdown
system
modify head cut
modify wash
reduce fillet
table flow
modify pre-rinse
Eliminate flume
Eliminate in-plant
flume
-
7
15
10
3
40
20
10
20
40
95
2
2
10
5
35
15
8
20
20
Capital
Cost*
K$
265
12
15
16
0
2
3
1
5
3
Daily
O&M
Cost*
$
200
6
20
7
0
128
1
1
1
2
Design
Size
ton/day
180
40
40
35
-
53
43
43
49
66
-------
Table 192 (Cont'd) Estimated waste water flow and BOD reductions and
costs resulting from in-plant control methods
00
Segment
Herring
filleting
Conventional
clams
Mechanized
clams
Steamed/canned
oysters
Method Reduction Capital
Flow BOD Cost*
01 Of [/ £
Id to IX-P
Eliminate flume 35 27 25
Optimize equipment 77
flows
High pressure
washdown 12 5 15
High pressure
washdown and
sweeping 14 30 15
Daily Design
O&M Size
Cost* ton/day
$
28 120
-
13 265
14 8
(final product)
*Alaska in-plant control costs are 2.5 times the listed costs.
-------
TABLE 193 TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Screening
<50 gpm, $ =
>50 gpm, $ =
0 & M, $ =
Flotation
<50 gpm, $ =
>50 gpm, $ =
5000 + 200Q
12,330 + 53.4Q
(6 + .021Q) HR/16
15,000 -I- 600Q + 17.5 SS
35,000 + 200Q + 17.5 SS
0 & M, $ = (20 + 0.145Q) HR/16 with chemicals
Extended Aeration
<50 gpm, $ = (22,000 + 2080Q) HR/16
>50 gpm, $ = (110,000 + 320Q) HR/16
0 & M, $ = (10 + .07Q) HR/16
Aerated Lagoon
<50 gpm, $ = (5000 + 900Q) HR/16
>50 gpm, $ = (46,600 + 66.72Q) HR/16
0 & M, $ = (7 + 0.032Q) HR/16
Q = flow rate in gpm
SS = pounds dry solids removed per day
HR = hours of opexation per day
0 & M = daily costs
429
-------
transportation charges to Seattle based equipment costs and
by multiplying Seattle based construction costs by a factor
of 2.5. Operation and maintenance costs given for each
system include labor, power, chemical, and fuel prices.
Energy costs are included in the O and M costs and are not
considered to be a significant factor except in remote areas
of Alaska where biological systems may require heat inputs
at certain times of the year. The cost of electrical energy
in Kodiak is about 10 times the cost in the "lower 48" and
in remote areas of Alaska it is 20 times as much.
Plant size, treatment efficiency and cost
The plant size assumptions used to determine treatment costs
for each subcategory are listed at the top of each water
effluent treatment cost table (Tables 194 to 235). Equip-
ment was sized for peak operating capacity during a typical
processing season. The subcategories were subdivided by
size for costing purposes when there was a large plant size
variation within the industry as discussed in Section IV.
Tables 194 through 235 itemizes the total annual costs for
each treatment alternative considered for each subcategory.
Annual costs were computed by adding the annual capital
financial costs to the annual depreciation costs, to the
annual operating and maintenance costs, using the following
formula:
Total annual costs = capital cost x 8% + capital cost x 10%
+ daily O & M and power x season length (days).
Annual financial costs were computed at 8% simple interest
on the capital costs. Annual depreciation costs assumed a
10 year useful life. Annual operation and maintenance and
power costs were determined by multiplying the daily costs
by the average number of operating days in a season.
Energy consumption of the proposed treatment systems is
minimal for screen systems, and higher for air flotation,
lagoon and extended aeration systems. Typical energy
consumption in kilowatt hours per day for small, medium, and
large treatment systems is listed ( in Table 236. It is
assumed that energy is consumed over an average operating
period of eight hours for screen systems, and over 24 hours
for air flotation, lagoons and extended aeration systems.
430
-------
TABLE 194 WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY '• FISH MEAL WITH SOLUBLES PLANT
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
22.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
38.6 TON/HR
35.0 KKG/HR
1500.0 GPM
94.7 L/SEC
2333.8 GAL/TON
9.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 2
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000) 892. 202.
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8% 71. 16.
DEPRECIATION 5) 10% 89. 20.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M 158. 76.
POWER 1. 1.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000) 192. 52.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
1 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
2 AERATED LAGOON
431
-------
Table 195 Water effluent treatment costs
canned and preserved fish and seafood
Subcategory: Fish meal without solubles plant
Operating day
Season
Production
Process flow
Hydraulic load
Treatment system
Initial investment ($1000)
Annual costs ($1000)
Capital costs @ 8%
Depreciation @ 10%
Daily costs ($)
0 & M
Power
Total annual costs ($1000)
22.0 hours
200.0 days
8.2 ton/hr
7.4 kkg/hr
100.0 gpm
6.3 I/sec
30.3 gal/ton
0.1 cu m/kkg
564. 105.
45. 10
56. 12
48. 145.
1. 5,
111. 51.
Treatment systems (cumulative)
1. Flotation
2. Evaporator only
NOTE: Treatment 1 for bailwater only; treatment 2 for bailwater
and stickwater.
432
-------
TABLE 196 WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NORTHWEST SALMON CANNING-LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
85.0 DAYS
5.0 TON/HR
4.5 KKG/HR
370.0 GPM
23.3 L/SEC
4477.4 GAL/TON
18.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
35.
3.
4.
7.
1.
2
157.
13.
16.
44.
2.
3
271.
22.
27.
62.
3.
4
192
15
19
53
3
32.
39.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION -WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
433
-------
TABLE 197 WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY •' NORTHWEST SALMON CANNING - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
85.0 DAYS
1.9 TON/HR
1.7 KKG/HR
140.0 GPM
8.8 L/SEC
5 GAL/TON
18.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
22.
2.
2.
4.
1.
2
90.
7.
9.
25.
2.
3
167.
13.
17.
35.
3.
4
117
9
12
30
3
18,
33,
24,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
434
-------
TABLE 198 WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY J WEST COAST FRESH FROZEN SALMON -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
^
K
2
62.
5.
6.
21.
2.
3
H1.
11.
14.
30.
3.
*
93
7
9
27
3
29.
20.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
435
-------
TABLE 199. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY • WEST COAST FRESH FROZEN SALMON - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1.8 TON/HR
1.6 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 6) 8%
DEPRECIATION 8) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POKER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
1
11.
0.
1.
2.
1.
2
41.
3.
4.
11.
2.
3
69.
6.
7.
16.
3.
*
51
4
5
14
3
15,
11.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
436
-------
TABLE 200.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT(SIOOO)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION 3> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
16.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
48,
4,
5,
10.
2,
10.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
437
-------
TABLE 201.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1 3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS 2i 8%
DEPRECIATION 2) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
16,
1,
2,
4,
1.
2
95.
8.
10.
13.
2.
19.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
438
-------
TABLE 202. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1.8 TON/HR
1.6 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&Ji
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
0.
2.
1.
2.
2
21.
2,
2.
5.
2.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
439
-------
TABLE 203. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PS^OCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1.8 TON/HR
1.6 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION 6) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
0.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2
39.
7.
2.
8.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
440
-------
TABLE 204. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
4.3 TON/HR
3.9 KKG/HR
100.0 GPM
6.3 L/SEC
1396.3 GAL/TON
5.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($100C)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CQSTS($1000)
1
19.
2.
2.
5.
1.
2
77.
6.
8.
27.
2.
3
166.
13.
17.
37.
3.
4
1 10
9
1 1
33
3
5.
20.
38.
27,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
441
-------
TABLE 205-WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH
- LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
4.3 TON/HR
3.9 KKG/HR
100.0 GPM
6.3 L/SEC
1396.3 GAL/TON
5.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION o) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
19,
2,
2.
S.
1,
2
53,
11,
2,
12,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
442
-------
TABLE 206. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CAMEL AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SULCATEGORY : NONALASKAN CUNV. BOTTOM FISH -MEDIUM
OPERATING LAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
9.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
2.5 TON/HR
2.3 KKG/HR
60.0 GPM
3.8 L/SEC
H20.6 GAL/TON
5.5 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IMTIAL INVESTHENT($1CCO)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECiATICti 2 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&f-i
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($1000)
1
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2
65.
5.
7,
20.
2.
3
138.
1 1.
14.
28.
3.
4
9*»
8
9
25
3
16.
31
23.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
443
-------
TABLE 207, WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY: NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
9.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
2.5 TON/HR
2.3 KKG/HR
60.0 GPM
3.8 L/SEC
1420.6 GAL/TON
5.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION Si 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
1
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2
46
4
5
9
2
10.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
444
-------
TABLE 208. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGQRY : NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
1.3 TON/HR
1.2 KKG/HR
30.0 GPM
1.9 L/SEC
1361.4 GAL/TON
5.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION $ 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
12.
0.
1.
3.
1.
2
46.
k.
5.
15.
2.
3
88.
7.
9.
22.
3.
4
62
5
6
19
3
3.
12.
21
16,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
445
-------
TABLE 209. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY: NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
1.3 TON/HR
1.2 KKG/HR
30.0 GPM
1,9 L/SEC
1361.4 GAL/TON
5.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
12.
0.
1.
3.
1.
3.
2
28.
2.
3.
7
2
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
446
-------
TABLE 210.MTtR EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH ANU SEAFOOD
SUoCATEGORY : NflNALASKAN MECH. BOTTOM FISH -
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
180.0 DAYS
6.1 TUN/HR
5.5 KKG/HR
180.0 GPM
11.4 L/SEC
1782.2 GAL/TON
7.4 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IM T IAL INVESTMENT ( $ 1 000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS c 8%
DEPRECIATION o) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&h
POKER
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1030)
1
2k.
2.
2.
5.
1.
2
104.
8.
10.
28.
2.
3
188.
15.
15.
35.
3.
^
134
1 1
13
34
3
5.
41,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION ~ WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
447
-------
TABLE 211. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUfaCATEGORY : NONALASKAN MECH. BOTTOM FISH -SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
180.0 DAYS
1.0 TON/HR
0.9 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.1 L/SEC
3025.3 GAL/TON
12.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS Si 8%
DEPRECIATION o> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2
63.
5.
6.
17.
2.
3
126.
10.
13.
24.
3.
4
88
7
9
21
3
15,
28.
20,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
448
-------
TABLE 212.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
5.7 TON/HR
5.2 KKG/HR
120.0 GPM
7.6 L/SEC
1256.7 GAL/TON
5.2 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000) 21.
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS £ 8% 2.
DEPRECIATION 5) 10% 2.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M 4.
POWER 1.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000) 5.
2
98.
8.
10.
23.
2.
3
126.
10.
13.
28.
3.
*
96
4
5
9
2.
23.
29.
11.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 AERATED LAGOON
4 SCREENING + EXTENDED AERATION
449
-------
TABLE 213. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS _ SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TON/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS oj 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS{$)
O&M
PHWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
1
18.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2
78.
6.
8.
19.
2,
3
144.
12.
14.
26.
3.
4
104
8
10
23
3
18.
32,
24.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
450
-------
TABLE 214.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
C ANNE Li ANU PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGGRY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TON/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS & 8%
DEPRECIATION S 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POi\ER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
18.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
43.
3,
4,
8.
2.
10.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
SCREENING
! AERATED LAGOON
451
-------
TABLE 215- WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TOM/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POl.'ER
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
1
18,
1,
2.
4,
1,
2
84.
7,
8.
11.
2.
18.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
452
-------
TABLE 216. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY - MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633.6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS 01 8%
DEPRECIATION c) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
66.
5.
7.
12.
1.
15.
2
331.
27.
33.
88.
2,
78.
3
530.
k2.
53.
\2k.
3\
121.
4
385
31
38
106
3
91
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
453
-------
TABLE z]7> WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY • MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633.6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a> 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&H
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
66.
5,
7.
12,
1,
15.
2
120,
10,
12,
30.
3.
28,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
454
-------
TABLE 218, WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY • MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633.6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 2> 8%
DEPRECIATION o) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
66.
5.
7.
12.
1.
15,
2
265.
21,
27,
49,
3,
58,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
455
-------
TABLE 219,WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : MECHANIZED CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
9.8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION ai 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POUER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
29.
2.
3.
6.
1.
2
133.
11.
13.
35.
2.
3
231.
19.
23.
50.
3.
<*
166
13
17
^3
3,
7.
31
52.
39.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
456
-------
TABLE 220- WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : MECHANIZED CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
9.8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL IKVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS oi 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&i-l
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
29,
2.
3.
6.
1,
2
62.
5.
6,
14.
2.
14.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
457
-------
TABLE 221. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY - MECHANIZED CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
9,8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS Si 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
29.
2.
3.
6.
1.
7,
2
128.
10.
13.
20.
2.
27.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
SCREENING
EXTENDED AERATION
458
-------
TABLE 222. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.4 TON/HR
0.4 KKG/HR
115.0 GPM
7.3 L/SEC
15655.6 GAL/TON
65.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
20.
2.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
94,
7,
9,
13,
2,
19,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
459
-------
TABLE Z23. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER - MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.2 TON/HR
0.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
13613.7 GAL/TON
56.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS o> 8%
DEPRECIATION S> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
it
« •
i.
3.
2
79.
6.
8.
10.
2.
16.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
460
-------
TABLE 224, WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
90.0 DAYS
0.0 TON/HR
0.0 KKG/HR
13.0 GPM
0.8 L/SEC
17697.8 GAL/TON
73.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS d 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
8,
0,
0,
3,
1.
2
33,
3,
3.
9,
2.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
46]
-------
TABLE 225,WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY EASTERN HAND SHUCKED OYSTERS
- MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
0.2 TON/HR
0.2 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
8508.6 GAL/TON
35.5 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS L. 8%
DEPRECIATION £/ 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&H
POl.'ER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000 )
11
2
41,
3.
13,
2,
11.
6.
C,
19.
3.
19,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
462
-------
TABLE 226, WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : STEAMED OR CANNED OYSTERS
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.9 TON/HR
0.8 KKG/HR
220.0 GPM
13.9 L/SEC
14975.1 GAL/TON
62.5 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL IKVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS c) 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
26.
2.
3.
5.
1.
2
123.
10.
12.
31.
2.
3
213.
17.
21.
44.
3.
4
153
12
15
38
3
26,
44.
32.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
463
-------
TABLE 227. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SARDINE CANNING - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
60,0 DAYS
8.3 TON/HR
7.5 KKG/HR
240.0 GPM
15.1 L/SEC
1742.6 GAL/TON
7.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 6) 8%
DEPRECIATION 3) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
28.
2.
3.
6.
1.
2
125.
10.
12.
33.
2.
3
218.
17.
22.
46.
3.
4
156
12
16
40
3
25.
42.
31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
464
-------
TABLE 228.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SARDINE CANNING - MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
5.5 TON/HR
5.0 KKG/HR
160.0 GPM
10.1 L/SEC
1742.6 GAL/TON
7.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
23.
2.
2.
5.
1.
2
99.
8.
10.
26.
2.
3
180.
H.
18.
37.
3.
*
128
10
13
32
3
20,
35,
25.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION ~ WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
465
-------
TABLE 229. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SARDINE CANNING - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
2.1 TON/HR
1.9 KKG/HR
60.0 GPM
3.8 L/SEC
1719.6 GAL/TON
7.2 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2
68.
5.
7.
18.
2.
3
132.
11.
13.
25.
3.
4
93
7
9
22
3
3.
13.
25.
18,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
466
-------
TABLE 230. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY •' Non-Alaskan Scallops
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
1.7 TON/HR
1.5 KKG/HR
55.0 GPM
3.5 L/SEC
1996.7 GAL/TON
8.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS u 8%
DEPRECIATION cS 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
0£M
POUER
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($1COO)
1
17
!
9
5.
1.
4
2
63
5
fi
?fi
2.
12
3
113
9
1?
31.
3.
23
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION
3 SCREENING AND EXTENDED AERATION
467
-------
TABLE 231. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN HERRING FILLETING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12.0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
U.9 TON/HR
13.5 KKG/HR
520.0 GPM
32.8 L/SEC
2097.5 GAL/TON
8.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT*$1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION 6) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
44.
ft
ft
13.
1.
2
313.
25.
31.
84.
2.
3
520.
42.
52.
119.
3.
10,
65.
106,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
468
-------
TABLE 232. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY ' ABALONE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
O.S TON/HR
0.8 KKG/HR
10.0 GPM
0.6 L/SEC
680.7 GAL/TON
2.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVE STMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION 5; 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&f 1
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOCO)
26.
2.
3.
10,
1,
15.
2.
12,
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
2 EXTENDED AERATION
469
-------
Table 233
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Salmon Canning
Operating Day
Season
Production
Process Flow
Hydraulic Load
18 hrs
42 days
8.3 ton/hr
7.5 kkg/hr
600 gpm
37.9 L/sec
4356 gal/ton
18.2 cu m/kkg
18 hrs
42 days
5 ton/hr
4.5 kkg/hr
370 gpm
23.4 L/sec
4477 gal/ton
18.7 cu m/kkg
Treatment System
Grinding
Capital $ 54,000
0 & M $/day 100
Screening
Capital $ 64,000
0 & M $/day 120
Bargi ng
Capital $ 82,000
0 & M $/day 320
Flotation - with chemicals*
Capital $716,000
0 & M $/day 130
45,000
90
51,000
100
69,000
270
470,000
90
*Based on estimated Seattle costs multiplied by 2.5
470
-------
Table 233 (cont.)
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon
Operating Day
Season
Production
Process Flow
Hydraulic Load
12 hrs
90 days
4.4 ton/hr
4.0 kkg/hr
90 gpm
5.7 L/sec
1225 gal/ton
5.1 cu m/kkg
12 hrs
90 days
1.1 ton/hr
1.04 kkg/hr
25 gpm
1.7 L/sec
1361 gal/ton
5.7 cu m/kkg
Treatment System
Grinding
Capital $ 31,000
0 & M $/day 50
Screening
Capital $ • 32,000
0 & M $/day 45
Barging
Capital $ 47,000
0 & M $/day 150
Flotation - with chemicals*
Capital $136,000
0 & M $/day 35
24,000
45
24,000
35
32,000
130
76,000
25
*Based on estimated Seattle costs multiplied by 2.5
471
-------
Table 234
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Bottom Fish
Operating Day
Season
Production
Process Flow
Hydraulic Load
8 hrs
100 days
13.2 ton/hr
12.0 kkg/hr
200 gpm
12.6 I/sec
908 gal/ton
3.8 cu m/kkg
8 hrs
100 days
1.7 ton/hr
1.5 kkg/hr
16 gpm
1.0 I/sec
581 gal/ton
2.4 cu m/kkg
Treatment System
Grinding
Capital $ 38,000
0 & M $/day 60
Screening
Capital $ 41,000
0 & M $/day 50
Barging
Capital $ 57,000
0 & M $/day 140
Flotation - with chemicals*
Capital $196,000
0 & M $/day 25
20,000
50
21,000
30
34,000
120
63,000
11
*Based on estimated Seattle costs multiplied by 2.5
472
-------
Table 235
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Herring Filleting
Operating Day
Season
Production
Process Flow
Hydraulic Load
12 hours
100 days
14.9 ton/hr
13.5 kkg/hr
520 gpm
32.8 I/sec
2098 gal/ton
8.8 cu m/kkg
Treatment System
Grinding
Capital $
O&M $/day
Screening
Capital $
O&M $/day
Barging
Capital $
O&M $/day
Flotation-with chemicals*
Capital $
O&M $/day
57,000
70
60,000
75
119,000
290
670,000
75
*Based on estimated Seattle costs multiplied by 2.5
473
-------
Table 236. Energy consumption of alternative
treatment systems.
Treatment
System
Screen
Air flotation
Aerated lagoon
Extended aeration
Energy
Small
16
180
200
240
consumption
Medium
64
450
700
900
KWH/day
Large
160
1200
1700
2000
474
-------
Solids
Solids handling costs within the plant were included in the
costs for each treatment system. Solids disposal costs,
however, were not included in the treatment costs, using the
assumption that they can be utilized in a by-products
operation at no worse than break-even costs.
Costs for landfill and barging to sea of solids were
developed for information purposes and presented graphically
by Figure 85. Landfill costs were based on a 20 mile round
trip and barging costs were estimated for a 50 mile round
trip. It is evident that this type of disposal can be very
costly and increased by-product recovery should be
emphasized.
The nutritive value of seafood solids and their importance
in the world food balance have been discussed in Section
VII.
Although the increased utilization of solids for by-products
should reduce wastewater pollution loads, it is unknown at
this time as to what percent reduction could be applied to
an industry in general. The costs for constructing and
operating fish deboning and fish meal facilities were
developed and presented for information purposes.
Table 237 lists the costs and potential income from con-
structing a plant for deboning meat from fish waste, scrap
and non-utilized fish with the final product marketed for
human consumption. Table 238 lists the costs associated
with construction and operation of a fish meal plant. All
costs are based on 1973 estimates.
Air_Quality
The maintenance of air quality, in terms of particulates, is
unaffected by wastewater treatment facilities except when
incineration is practiced. This alternative for solids
disposal is not consistent with the conservation of valuable
nutrients and is also not cost-effective on a small scale
with suitable effluent control.
Odor from landfills can be a problem, and from lagoons and
oxidation ponds when not operated or maintained properly.
Covers or enclosures can be used in some cases to localize a
problem installation.
475
-------
SOLIDS DISPOSAL COST, $ PER DAY
m
o
o
o
01
o
ro
o
o
to
cr
O>
CXI
en
H-
H-
J\
~j
O
tn
ro-
O)
o
(A
CM
-o
m
o
>
o>
oo
-------
Table 237. Cost of construction and
operation of a fish deboning plant.
Capital Investment Costs:
1. Processing equipment $213,800
2. Construction and installation 26,000
3. Miscellaneous 21,29p_
$261,090
Operating cost and income - no charge for waste & trimmings
Production Rates
Item
Raw material cost
Processing cost
Freezing @ .05/lb
Packaging @ .01/lb
Daily operating cost
Operating cost per Ib
Selling price (FOB plant)
Total daily sales
Daily operating cost
Daily operating income $115.00
2000
Ibs/day
$190.00
370.00
100.00
20.00
4000
Ibs/day
$380.00
370.00
200.00
40.00
8000
Ibs/day
$760.00
370.00
400.00
80.00
$680.00
$990.00
$1610.00
34. Ot
40. Oi
$800.00
685.00
24.8*
40. OC
$1600.00
990.00
20. 1$
40. OC
$3200.00
1610.00
$ 610.00
$1590.00
477
-------
Table 238. Capital and operating costs
for batch and continuous fish meal facilities.
Type of
plant
Batch
Batch
Semi -continuous
Continuous
Continuous reduction
Capacity
(input)
1/2
3/4
1/2
3
4-5
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour
Equipment costs
K$
20
25
40
55
140
- 25
- 30
- 50
- 60
- 165
Batch plant operating costs: $53/ton - $106/ton, depending
on equipment size and raw material.
Continuous plant operating costs: $20/ton with output of
1 ton/hour.
478
-------
Noise
Principal noise sources at treatment facilities are
mechanical aerators, air compressors, and pumps. By running
air compressors for the diffused air system in activated
sludge treatment below their rated critical speed and by
providing inlet and exhaust silencers, noise effects can be
combated effectively. In no proposed installation would
noise levels exceed the guidelines established in the
occupational safety and health standards of 1972.
479
-------
-------
SECTION_IX
BEST_PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
For each subcategory within the canned and preserved fish
and seafood processing industry, the "best practicable
control technology currently available" (BPCTCA) must be
achieved by all plants not later than July 1, 1977. BPCTCA,
except for the fish meal production industry, is not based
on "the average of the best existing performance by plants
of various sizes, ages and unit processes within each . .
subcategory," but, rather, represents the highest level of
control that can be practicably applied by July 1, 1977
because present control and treatment practices are
generally inadequate within the finfish and shellfish
segments of the canned and preserved fish and seafood
processing industry. BPCTCA for the fish meal process with
solubles plant was determined using an average of the
exemplary plants. Consideration of the following factors
has been included in the establishment of BPCTCA:
1) the total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction
benefits to be achieved from this application;
2) the age of the equipment and facilities involved;
3) the processes employed;
4) the engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques;
5) process changes; and
6) non-water quality environmental impact.
Furthermore, the designation of BPCTCA technology emphasized
end-of-pipe treatment technology, but included in-process
technology when considered normal practice within the
subcategory.
An important consideration in the designation process was
the degree of economic and engineering reliability required
to determine the technology to be "currently available." In
this industry, the reliability of the recommended
technologies was established based on pilot plants,
demonstration projects, and transfer technology, the latter
481
-------
mainly from the meat packing and municipal waste treatment
fields.
Since few seafood processing wastewater treatment systems
have been installed, there is no data base available to de-
velop maximum 30-day averages and daily maxima for
wastewater effluent levels after treatment. Therefore,
engineering judgment was used to develop statistical models
of the effluent and treatment systems. These models were
then used to estimate the resulting effluent levels.
Sections V and VII discuss the models which were used and
presents the levels to which treatment removal factors were
applied to determine the effuent levels which can be
achieved using BPCTCA.
A subcategory listing of the proposed effluent limitations
guidelines along with the associated treatment technologies
is presented in Table 239, Tables 189 and 190 (Section VII)
present the expected removal efficiencies of the various
technologies considered.
In-Pl§nt Housekeeping
No additional treatment is considered necessary for fish
meal processes with solubles plants since the waste load
concentrations are quite low and it would be very difficult
and expensive to treat the effluent any further. However,
waste load reductions can be obtained through "good
housekeeping" practices which are considered normal practice
within the seafood processing industry such as turning off
faucets and hoses when not in use or using spring-loaded
hose nozzles.
Barge to Sea or By-Product RecoverY
Since there is no cost effective end-of-pipe treatment
available for stickwater, it is recommended that fish meal
processes with no existing solubles plant barge stickwater,
recycled bailwater and washdown water to sea or, preferably
to another fish meal operation with solubles plant for by-
product recovery. The only remaining water would be from an
air scrubber or leaks from the unit operations.
Sii^C-t Discharge of Comminuted Solids
There is substantial evidence that processors in isolated
and remote areas of Alaska are at a comparative economic
disadvantage to the processors located in population or
processing centers regarding attemtps to meet the proposed
482
-------
effluent limitations guidelines. The isolated location of
some Alaskan seafood processing plants eliminates almost all
waste water treatment alternatives because of undependable
access to ocean, land, or commercial transportation disposal
methods during extended severe sea or weather conditions,
and the high costs of eliminating the engineering obstacles
due to adverse climatic and geologic conditions. However,
those plants located in population or processing centers
have access to more reliable, cost-effective alternatives
such as solids recovery techniques or other forms of solids
disposal such as landfill or barging.
It is recommended that BPCTCA for isolated Alaskan seafood
processors constitute direct discharge of comminuted solids.
In-Plant Housekeeping and Screen
It is recommended that in-plant housekeeping and screening
be considered BPCTCA technology for the non-oily species and
for the Alaska commodities processed in population or
processing centers. Air flotation is estimated to remove
only 30 percent of the BOD without chemical optimization and
50 percent with chemical optimization for non-oily
commodities and is not considered to be cost effective. Air
flotation is technically practicable for salmon canning;
however, the high shipping and construction costs in Alaska
make this technology economically impractical in this region
for BPCTCA.
In-plant housekeeping, screen and air flotation
In addition to good housekeeping practices, it is
recommended that screens and air flotation be considered
BPCTCA for the oily species outside of Alaska. These
include Northwest salmon canning where mechanical butchering
is used mechanized bottom fish, herring filleting, and
sardine canning. However, because of the economic impact of
the cost of such treatment the effluent limitations for
mechanized bottom fish and herring filleting are based on
good hosuekeeping practices and screening. The effluent
limitations for the sardine processors are based on
treatment by screening and simple grease traps for the
precook water (about 10 percent of plant flow) and treatment
by screening only for the remainder of the flow.
The recommended effluent limitations for each subcategory
are presented in Table 239. These values, except for fish
meal, were obtained by the formulas presented in Figures 76
and 77. The percent removal factors are listed in Tables
483
-------
Table 239
00
Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Fish Meal
1 . with solubles unit
2. w/o solubles unit
Ak hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2 . remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
1 . greater than 2 ton/day
2. less than 2 ton/day
Ak bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Technology BOD5 TSS Grease & Oil
(BPCTCA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
H 4.7 3.5
B 3.5 2.8
H,S,B
Grind * *
H.S.B
Grind * *
H,S
H,S, DAF 41 34
H,S
H,S,B
Grind * *
2.3
2.6
1.7
*
27
*
1.7
8.2
27
1.9
*
1.3
1.7
1.4
*
22
*
1.4
6.7
22
1.7
*
0.80
3.2
0.20
*
27
*
0.20
4.0
27
0.11
*
0.63
1.4
0.17
*
10
*
0.17
1.6
10
0.09
*
U. Non-Ak conventional bottom fish H,S
2.1 1.6
0.55
0.40
-------
CO
en
Table 239 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
Steamed/Canned oysters**
Sardines
Ak scallops**
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak scallops**
Ak herring fillet
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Technology BOD5 TSS
(BPCTCA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S
H,S,GT***
H,S
Grind * *
H,S
H.S.B
Grind * *
14
29
7.7
37
19
54
4.2
0.82
*
0.82
25
*
10
18
6.1
35
15
36
3.3
0.62
*
0.62
24
*
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
5.7
0.28
0.55
1.7
0.77
1.6
2.9
0.63
*
0.63
8.4
*
3.3
0.18
0.48
1.6
0.70
1.3
1.6
0.32
*
0.32
6.6
*
-------
00
CTi
Subcategory
Table 239 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Technoloc
echnology
(BPCTCAT
BOD5_ TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day, avg. Max. Day avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
AF. Non-Ak herring fillet
AG. Abalone
H,S
H,S
25
11
24
9.2
8.4
1.2
6.9
0.98
H = housekeeping; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical optimization;
B = barge solids; GT = grease trap
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension
**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations are based on treatment of the pre-cook water by screening
and skimming, and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
189 and 190. Fish meal with solubles plant limitations are
based on current practice which required no further end-of-
pipe treatment. Fish meal without solubles plant
limitations were based on air scrubber water and wash water
which remains after the stickwater and bailwater has been
barged to sea.
487
-------
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
For each subcategory within the canned and preserved fish
and seafood processing industry, the "best available
technology economically achievable" (BATEA) must be realized
by all plants not later than July 1, 1983. BATEA isf for
this industry, not "... the very best control and treat-
ment technology employed by a specific point source within
the industrial category or subcategory . . .", but
represents "transfer technology" especially from the meat
packing industry and from municipal waste treatment
experience. This was necessary because present control and
treatment practices except for the fish meal portion of the
industry were generally inadequate.
Consideration of the following factors has been included in
the establishment of the best available technology
economically achievable:
1) equipment and facilities age;
2) processes employed;
3) engineering aspects of various control
technique applications;
4) process changes;
5) costs of achieving the effluent reduction
resulting from the application of BATEA
technology; and
6) non-water quality environmental impact.
Furthermore, in-piant controls were emphasized in the
designation of BATEA technology. Those in-process and end-
of-pipe controls recommended for BATEA were subjected to the
criterion that they be demonstrated at the pilot plant,
semi-works, or other level to be technologically and
economically justifiable. This is not to say that a
complete economic analysis of each proposed system and its
relationship to one or more subcategories has been
undertaken. Rather, sound engineering judgment has been
applied in the consideration of all alternatives and those
with a reasonable chance of "viability" in application to a
489
-------
significant number of actual processing plants within a
subcategory have been considered in detail.
It should be noted that the wastewater treatment
technologies and in-plant changes which serve as the basis
for the effluent limitations represent only one alternative
open to the processor.
The BATEA effluent limitations, in terms of maximum 30-day
averages and daily maxima were developed using the same
statistical models as were used for BPCTCA and incorporating
generally improved treatment and control efficiencies.
Table 191 (Section VII) lists the estimated practicable in-
plant waste water flow reductions and associated pollutional
loadings reductions.
Inr Plan t Changes
Modifying the fish meal plants to contain leaks from the
unit operations, treating bailwater to reduce the load on
the solubles plant, and modifying the evaporators such that
they operate in a more continuous manner, should reduce the
average BOD load by about 5 percent. Fish meal processes
without a solubles plant should install an evaporator for
BATEA or barge the effluent to another plant for byproduct
recovery. The effluent limitations for all fish meal
processes will therefore be the same for the 1983
guidelines.
Changes and Screen
The processes in several subcategories are typically small
in size, utilize non-oily species, and operate in an
intermittent manner. Therefore, lagoons, air flotation and
extended aeration were not considered economically or
technically feasible in these cases. It was considered
possible to reduce the water flow and waste loads through
in-plant changes; a small amount for the shellfish processes
and a greater amount for the salmon and bottom fish.
In- Plant Changes, Screen and Air Flotation
Air flotation together with in-plan't changes was considered
equivalent to biological treatment for the salmon canning
and herring processing industries for BATEA.
490
-------
Table 240 Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
w.
X.
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
Non-Ak conventional bottom fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
Technology BODS TSS
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
IP 4.0 2.9
IP,S,B
IP,S,DAF,B 16 13
IP.S.B
IP, S, OAF 1.2 1.0
IP,S,DAF 16 13
IP,S,B
IP.S.AL 0.73 0.58
IP,S,DAF 6.5 5.3
IP.S
IP.S.AL 2.9 2.7
2.3
1.5
2.6
26
0.15
2.6
1.1
1.5
1.1
29
7.4
1.3
1.2
2.2
21
0.12'
2.2
1.0
0.73
0.82
18
3.7
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.80
0.18
2.6
26
0.02
2.6
0.07
0.04
0.46
0.28
0.18
0.63
0.15
1.0
10
0.02
1.0
0.06
0.03
0.26
0.18
0.09
-------
Table 240 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or "lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
East Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
Steamed/Canned oysters*
Sardines
Ak scallops*
Non-Ak scallops*
Ak herring fillets
1. non-remote
2. remote
Technology BOD5 TSS
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,s
,EA 3.6 3.5
,EA 2.5 2.3
,AL 7.4 5.2
,DAF** 5.3 4.6
,B
-
,DAF,B 8.6 6.7
,B
8.7
4.5
22
2.2
0.80
0.80
1.9
19
8.
3.
11
1.
0.
0.
1.
17
3
6
8
60
60
7
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
3.
6.
78
45
56
7
62
62
1
7
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
5.
26
15
28
87
31
31
2
2
-------
Table 240 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
AF.
AG.
Non-Ak herring fillets
Abalone
Technology BODS TSS Grease & Oil
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
IP
IP
,S,DAF 8.6 6.7
,s
1.9
10
1
8
.7
.7
3.
1.
1
1
1.
0.
2
93
GO
IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation with chemical optimization;
AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*Effluent Limitations in terms of finished product
**Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
In-plant changes for the non-Alaska herring and salmon pro-
cesses increased the overall BOD removals from 2 percent to
15 percent. The larger removals shown for the sardine
process assumed that the precook water from the sardine
plants would be handled separately. Air flotation is also
recommended for the mechanized bottom fish process which was
observed to be higher in grease and oil content than the
conventional processes.
In-Plant Changesj Screen and Aerated Lagoon
An aerated lagoon was considered to be the only advanced
treatment available which could be applied to subcategories
processing non-oily species, have relatively low BOD
concentrations, and relatively large flows. This included
the hand butchered salmon processes, the non-Alaska conven-
tional bottom fish processes, the mechanized clam processes,
and the steamed or canned oyster processes. In-plant
changes increased the BOD removal up to an additional 5
percent.
In-Plant Changes, Screen and Extended Aeration
Extended aeration was considered achievable for the hand-
shucked oyster processes. A pilot plant has been tested at
a plant in Maryland with good results (see Section VII).
Recommended Ef f_luent Limitations Guidelines
The recommended July 1, 1983, effluent limitations for each
subcategory are presented in Table 240. These values were
obtained by applying the removal factors (Tables 189, 190,
and 191) of the control and treatment technologies to the
raw effluent daily maxima and maximum 30 day averages
presented in Section V. Except for fish meal, these valves
were obtained by the formulas presented in Figures 76 and
77. The fish meal limitations are based on the operation of
a by-product recovery solubles unit operation.
494
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
The effluent limitations that must be achieved by new
sources are termed "Performance Standards." The New Source
Performance Standards apply to any source for which
construction starts after the promulgation of the proposed
regulations for the standards. The standards were
determined by adding to the consideration underlying the
identification of the "Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available" a determination of what higher levels
of pollution control are available through the use of
improved production processes and/or treatment techniques.
Thus, in addition to considering the best in-plant and end-
of-process control technology, New Source Performance
Standards are based on an analysis of how the level of
effluent may be reduced by changing the production process
itself. Alternative processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives were considered. A further determination made
was whether a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants
is practicable.
Consideration was also given to:
1) operating methods;
2) batch as opposed to continuous operations;
3) use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw
materials;
U) use of dry rather than wet processes (including a
substitution of recoverable solvents for water); and
5) recovery of pollutants as by-products.
The effluent limitations for new sources are based on
currently available technology with appropriate effluent
level reductions due to in-plant modifications as discussed
in Sections VII and X.
Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines for New source
Performance Standards ~
The recommended effluent limitations and associated
technology for each subcategory are presented in Table 241.
These values were obtained in the same manner as described
for BPCTCA and BATEA in Sections IX and X.
495
-------
Table 241 Proposed New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak conventional bottom fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
Technology BOD5 TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day. avg. Max. Day avg.
IP 4.0 2.6
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP,S,DAF 1.7 1.4
IP,S,DAF 39 32
IP.S.B
grind * *
IP.S.AL 0.73 0.58
IP,S,DAF 9.1 7.4
IP,S
IP.S.AL 2.9 2.7
2.3
1.5
*
26
*
0.46
7.9
1.1
*
1.5
3.3
29
7.4
1.3
1.2
*
21
*
0.37
6.5
1.0
*
0.73
2.5
18
3.7
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.80
0.18
*
26
*
0.03
3.8
0.07
*
0.04
0.68
0.28
0.18
0.63
0.15
*
10
*
0.02
1.5
0.06
*
0.03
0.39
0.18
0.09
-------
Subcategory
Table 241 (Cont'd) Proposed New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or "lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Technology BOD5_ TSS Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day, avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
Steamed/Canned oysters*
Sardines
Ak scallops**
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak scallops
Ak herring fillets
1 . non-remote
2. remote
IP.S.EA 3.6 3.5
IP.S.EA 2.5 2.3
IP.S.AL 7.4 5.2
IP,S,DAF*** 7.1 6.2
IP,S,B
grind * *
IP.S
IP.S.B
grind * *
8.7
4.5
22
2.9
0.80
*
0.80
19
*
8.3
3.6
11
2.1
0.60
*
0.60
17
*
0.78
0.45
0.56
1.8
0.62
*
0.62
6.7
*
0.26
0.15
0.28
0.67
0.31
*
0.31
5.2
*
-------
Table 241 (Cont'd) Proposed New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
ubcategory Technology
F. Non-Ak herring fillets
G. Abalone
IP
IP
,S,DAF
,s
BODS
Daily
Max.
21
_
Max.
Day.
16
_
30-
avg.
TSS
Daily
Max.
5.6
10
Max
Day
5.2
8.7
. 30-
avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily
Max.
3.3
1.1
Max.
Day
1.4
0.93
30-
avg.
CO
IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical
optimization; AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension
**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
Pretreatment Requirements
No constituents of the effluents discharged from plants
within the segments of the seafood industry included in this
study have been found which would (in concentrations found
in the effluent) interfere with, pass through (to the
detriment of the environment) or otherwise be incompatible
with a well-designed and operated publicly owned activated
sludge or trickling filter wastewater treatment plant. The
effluent, however, should have passed through (primary
treatment) in the plant to remove settleable solids and a
large portion of the greases and oils. Furthermore, in a
few cases, it should have been mixed with sufficient waste-
water flows from other sources to dilute out the inhibitory
effect of any sodium chloride concentrations which may have
been released from the seafood processing plant. The
concentration of pollutants acceptible to the treatment
plant is dependent on the relative sizes of the treatment
facility and the processing plant and must be established bv
the treatment facility.
499
-------
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge
the contributions to this project by Environmental
Associates, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon. The work at
Environmental Associates was directed by Michael Soderquist,
P.E., Project Manager, assisted by Michael Swayne, Lead
Project Engineer. Environmental Associates, Inc. staff
members who contributed to the project were engineers Edward
Casne and William J. Stewart, biologists William Parks,
Bruce Montgomery, David Nelson, and Steven Running, chemist
William Hess, food technologist James Reiman, research
assistant Margaret Lindsay, computer programmer Charles
Phillips, draftsperson Janet Peters, administrative
assistant Joan Randolph, secretary Leith Robertson, and
typist Susan Purtzer. In addition, the following engineers
from the consulting firm of Cornell, Rowland, Hayes,
Merryfield and Hill, Inc. were involved in the project:
David Peterson, Joseph Miller, and Robert Pailthorp.
The primary consultants on the project were Dale Carlson and
George Pigott.
In addition, the advice of many experts in industry,
government, and academia was solicited. Contributers from
the National Marine Fisheries Service included Jeffrey
Collins and Richard Tenney of the Kodiak Fishery Products
Technology Laboratory; Bobby J. Wood and Melvin Waters of
the Pascagoula Laboratory; David Dressel of the Washington
office; Maynard Steinberg, John Dassow, Harold Barnett and
Richard Nelson of the Pacific Fishery Technology Laboratory;
Russel Norris, Director of the Northeast Regional Office;
Jack Gehringer, Director of the Southeast Regional Office;
Floyd Anders, James Bybee, and Ross Batten of the Southwest
Regional Office; Howard Bittman of the Ann Arbor Office;
Susumu Kato of the Tiburon Laboratory; and Gary Putnam and
Jack Dougherty, United States Department of Commerce
inspectors in the Southeast Region.
Personnel from several state and local agencies were very
helpful including Ron Evans and Jerry Spratt of the
California Department of Fish and Game; James Douglas of the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission; David Foley of the
Virginia State Water Control Board; Thomas McCann of the
Washington Department of Ecology; and Larry Peterson of the
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO).
501
-------
Representatives of regional offices of the Environmental
Protection Agency who cooperated on the study included Alan
Abramson of San Francisco, California; Robert Killer of
Dallas, Texas; Brad Nicolajsen of Atlanta, Georgia; and
Danforth Bodien of Seattle, Washington.
Special appreciation is extended to Kenneth Dostal of the
E.P.A. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory.
The contributions of Pearl Smith, Jane Mitchell, Barbara
Wortman, and others on the Effluent Guidelines Division
secretarial staff was vital to the completion of the
project.
University personnel who were consulted on the project
included Arthur Novak of Louisiana State University; Ole
Jacob Johansen of the University of Washington; and Kenneth
Hilderbrand and William Davidson of Oregon State University.
Industry representatives who made significant contributions
to this study included A.J. Szabo and Frank Mauldin of
Dominque Szabo and Associates, Inc, and James Atwell of E.G.
Jordon company.
Of particular assistance in the study were Roger DeCamp,
Walter Yonker, and Walter Mercer of the National Canners
Association; Charles Perkins of the Pacific Fisheries
Technologists; Charles Jensen of the Kodiak Seafood
Processors Association; Richard Reed of the Maine Sardine
Council; Hugh O'Rourke of the Massachusetts Seafood Council;
and Jack Wright of the Virginia Seafood Council. Other
industrial representatives whose inputs to the project were
strongly felt included Roy Martin of the National Fisheries
Institute; Everett Tolley of the Shellfish Institute of
North America; Robert Prier of the Chesapeake Bay Seafood
Industries Association; and Steele Culbertson of the
National Fish Meal and Oil Association.
Of particular value was the advice provided the contractor
by Ed Pohl, Research Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District; and Leroy Reid, Senior Sanitary Engineer,
Arctic Health Research Laboratory.
Several Canadian experts were also consulted on the study
and their cooperation is greatfully acknowledged. These
included Fred Claggett, Martin Riddle, and Kim Shikazi of
the Canadian Environmental Protection Service.
It goes without saying that the most valued contributions of
all in this endeavor came from the cooperating industrial
concerns themselves. Although listing all of their names
502
-------
would be prohibitive, their assistance is greatfully
acknowledged.
503
-------
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
. 1969a. Synopsis of Biological Data on the
Atlantic Menhaden. Circular 32D. U. S. Department of
Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FAO Fisheries
Synopsis No. 42.
. 1969b. Industrial and Domestic Waste Testing
Program for the City of Bellingham. Appendix C.
Bellingham, Washington.
1970. Turning Waste Into Feed. Chemical
Week, 107:24.
1971a. CH2M Seafood Cannery Waste Study.
National Canners Association.
. 1971b. Water Pollution Control Program. Main
Sardine Council. C. Jordan Co., Inc. Portland, Maine.
. 1971c. Fisheries of the United States, 1970.
C.F.S. No. 5600. U. S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D. C. 79 pp.
. 1971d. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Waste Water, 13th Edition. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D. C. 874 pp.
. 1971e. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes. No. 16020 - 07/71 E.P.A. Water Quality Office,
Analytical Quality Control Lab., Cincinnati, Ohio.
. 1971f. Relative Prices Around the World.
ii Engineering, Oct. 1971,,pp. 91, 92.
. 1971g. Industrial Waste Discharge Permit for
New England Fish Company. State of Washington Department of
Ecology, Water Pollution Control Branch. La Conner,
Washington.
. 1972a. Alaska Commercial Fishing Regulations.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
. 1972b. Fisheries of the United States, 1971.
C.F.S. No. 5900. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D. C. 101 pp.
505
-------
. 1972c. Investigation of Screening Equipment
for Salmon Cannery Wastewater. National Canners Association
Northwest Research Laboratory. Seattle, Washington. 26 pp.
. 1973a. Fisheries of the United States, 1972.
C.F.S. No. 6100. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 101 pp.
. 1973b. Annual Report (1972) International
Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington.
. 1973c. Marine Fisheries Review. U.S.
Department of Commerce. 35:7. p. 30.
. 1973d. Clifford and Assoc. Field and Lab
Data.
. 1973e. Unpublished Data. National Marine
Fisheries Service. Pacific Technology Laboratory.
. 1973f. Water Resources Administration Test
Waste Treatment System for Seafood Packing Industry.
Cromaglass Corporation. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Atwell, J.S. 1973. Unpublished Data. Air Flotatin,
Stinson Canning Co. Prospect Harbor, Maine.
Atwell, J.S., R.E. Reed and B.A. Patrie. 1972. Water
Pollution Control Problems and Programs of the Marine
Sardine Council. Proceedings of the 27th Industrial Waste
Conference. Purdue University, p. 86.
Baker, D.W. and C.J. Carlson. 1972. Dissolved Air Flo-
tation Treatment of Menhaden Bail Water. Proc. of the 17th
Annual Atlantic Fisheries Technology Conference (AFTC).
Annapolis, Maryland.
Bell, F.H. and G. St Pierre. 1970. The Pacific Halibut
Technical Report No. 6. International Pacific Halibut
Commission, Seattle, Washington. 24 pp.
Brodersen, K.T. May 1972. A Study of the Waste Charac-
teristics of Fish Processing Plants Located in the Maritime
Region. Univ. of Ottawa, Dept. of Civil Engineering. For
the Water Pollution Control Directorate Environmental
Protection Service. Reprot No. EPA U SP 721.
Burgess, G.H.O., C.L. Cutting, J.A. Louben, and J.J.
Waterman. 1967. Fish Handling and Processing. Chem. Pub.
506
-------
Co., Inc. New York, N.Y. 390 pp. Burns, E.R. and C.
Marshall. 1965. Journal WPCF Vol. 3, pp. 1716-21.
Claggett, F.G. 1972. The Use of Chemical Treatment and Air
Flotation for the Clarification of Fish Processing Plant
Waste Water. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver
Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C. 13 pp.
Claggett, F.G. 1973. Secondary Treatment of Salmon Canning
Wastewater by Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC). Tech.
Report No. 366. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 15 pp.
Dees, L.T. 1961. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fishery Leaflet No. 523, September. 7 pp.
Environmental Associates, Inc. 1973a. Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
of Performance - Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafoods
Processing Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 425 pp.
Environmental Associates, Inc. 1973b. Technical Proposal.
Effluent Guidelines - Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood
Processing Industry. Corvallis, Oregon. 74 pp.
Frey, H.W. 1971. California's Living Marine Resources and
Their Utilization. State of California. The Resources
Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 148 pp.
Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster Cassostrea
yirqinica Gmelin. Fishery Bulletin 64. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington, D.C. 480 pp.
Jacobs Engineering Co. 1971. Pollution Abatement Study for
the Tuna Reserach Foundation, Inc. 120 pp.
Johnson, L.E. 1974. Personal communication.
Kato, S. 1972. Sea Urchins: A New Fishery Develops in
California. Marine Fisheries Review. Reprint No. 944.
Kohler, R. 1969. Das Flotationsverfahren und seine
Anwendung in der Abwassertechnik. Wasser^luft. und Betrieb.
Vol. No. 9. September.
Lessing, L. 1973. A Salt of the Earth Joins the War on
Pollution. Fortune. July. p. 183.
507
-------
Loosanoff, V.L. 1965. The American or Eastern Oyster.
Circular 205. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
Mauldin, F. 1973. Personal Communication. Unpublished
data. Canned Shrimp Industry. Waste Treatment Model in
Louisiana Sampling Plant.
Mayo, W.E. 1966. Recent Developments in Flotation for
Industrial Waste Treatment. Procr,t 13th Ontario Industrial
Waste Conference. June. pp. 169-181. ~~ ~"
McNabney, R. and J. Wynne. 1971. Ozone: The Coming
Treatment? Water and Waste Engineering. August, p. 46.
Messersmith, J.S. 1969. A Review of the California Anchovy
Fishery and Results of the 1965-66 and 1966-67 Reduction
Seasons. Marine Resources Region, California Department of
Fish and Game. pp. 5-10.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater Engineering.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 782 pp.
Nemerow, N.L. 1971. Liquid Waste of the Industry.
Theories, Practices and Treatment. Addison - Wesley
Publishing Company, p. 87.
Parks, W.L. et al. 1971. Unpublished Data, Seafoods
Processing Wastewater Characterization. E.P.A, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Peterson, L. 1970. Unpublished Data on the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle.
Peterson, P.L. 1973a. Treatment of Shellfish Processing
Wastewater by Dissolved Air Flotation. Unpublished report.
N.M.F.S. Seattle, Washington. 15 pp.
Peterson, P.L. 1973b. The Removal of Suspended Solids From
Seafood Processing Plant Waste by Screens. Unpublished
report. N.M.F.S. Seattle, Washington. 37 pp.
Phillips, R.H. 1973. Halibut Fishery in Trouble. National
Fisherman. Nov.
Phillips, R.H. 1974. Salmon Too Valuable to Can. National
Fisherman.
Phillips, E.G. 1974. Personal Communication.
508
-------
Pigott, G.M. 1967. Production of Fish Oil. Circular 277.
U. S, Department of Interior. Prier, W. 1973. Personal
Communication.
Quiqley, J. et al. 1972. Waste Water Treatment in
Commercial Fish Processing: Reducing Stick Water Loadings.
Sea Grant Advisory Report No. 1. WIS-SG72-401. November.
Rawlins. 1973. Personal Communication.
Reed, R.E. 1973. Personal Communication.
Riddle, M.J. et al. 1972. An Effluent Study of a Fresh
Water Fish Processing Plant. Reprint EPT G-WP-721. Water
Pollution Control Directorate. Canada.
Riddle, M.J. and K. Shikazi. 1973. Characterization and
Treatment of Fish Processing Plant Effluents in Canada.
Presented at 1973 National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes. Syracuse, New York. 30 pp.
Robbins, E. 1973. Personal Communication.
Robson, D.S. and W.S. Overton. 1972. Lectures on Sampling
Biological Populations. Advanced Institute on Statistical
Ecology Around the World. Penn. State Univ.
Ropes, J.W., J.L. Chamberlin and A.S. Merrill. 1969. Surf
Clam Fishery. In: The Encyclopedia of Marine Resources
(ed. F.E. Firth). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 119-125
pp.
Shaw, w.N. 1970. Oyster Farming in North America.
££2£:§§
-------
soderguist, M.R. et al. 1972b. Progress Report: Seafood
Processing Wastewater Characterization. Proceedings^ Third
National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes^ E.P.A.
Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 437-480.
Stansby, M.E. and J.A. Dassow (eds.). 1963. Industrial
Fishery Technology. Reinhold Publishing Co., New York. pp.
146-153.
Steinberg, M.A. 1973. Some Commercial Potential of
Freshwater Fish. Third Annual Inland Commercial Fisheries
Workshop at Colorado State University. Proceedings to be
published.
Swayne, M.D. 1973. Environmental Monitoring From a
Communication Engineering Point of View. M.S. Thesis.
Seattle, University of Washington. 86 pp.
Talsma, T. and J.R. Phillip (eds.). 1971. Salinity and
Water Use. Wylie-Interscience. New York, N.Y.
Tenney, R.D. 1973a. Personal Communication.
Tenney, R.D. 1973b. Shrimp Waste Stream and COD.
Unpublished Technical Report No. Iv4. Fishing Products
Technology Laboratory. N.M.F.S., Kodiak, Alaska.
Wallace, D.E. R.W. Hanks, N.T. Pfitzenmeyer and W.R. Welch.
1965. The Soft-Shell Clam - A Resource with Great
Potential. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Leaflet No. 3. 4 pp.
"Water Quality Criteria 1972," National Academy of Sciences and National
Academy of Engineering for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1972 (U.S. Govt. Printing Office Stock No. 5501-00520)
510
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge Process ; Removes organic matter from
wastewater by saturating it with air and biologically active
sludge.
Aeration _ Tank: A chamber for injecting air or oxygen into
water.
Aerobic Organism; An organism that thrives in the presence
of oxygen.
Algae (Alga) : Simple plants, many microscopic, containing
chlorophyll. Most algae are aquatic and may produce a
nuisance when conditions are suitable for prolific growth.
: AnY mechanical or repetitive computational pro-
cedure .
Ammonia Stripping: Ammonia removal from a liquid, usually
by intimate contact with an ammonia-free gas, such as air.
Anadromous : Type of fish that ascend rivers from the sea to
spawn.
Anaerobi c : Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
Aguaculture ; The cultivation and harvesting of aquatic
plants and animals.
Bacteria; The smallest living organisms which comprise,
along with fungi, the decomposer category of the food chain.
Bailwater: Water used to facilitate unloading of fish from
fishing vessel holds.
Barometric Leg: Use of moving streams of water to draw a
vacuum; aspirator.
Batch __ Cooker : Product remains stationary in cooker (water
is periodically changed) .
Benthic Region : The bottom of a body of water. This region
supports the benthos, a type of life that not only lives
upon but contributes to the character of the bottom.
§£D£hos: Aquatic bottom- dwelling organisms. These include:
(1) Sessile Animals, such as the sponges, barnacles,
511
-------
mussels, oysters, some of the worms, and many attached
algae; (2) creeping forms, such as insects, snails and
certain clams; and (3) burrowing forms, which include most
clams and worms.
An indentation or recess in the shore of a sea; a
bay.
Biological Oxidation: The process whereby, through the
activity of living organisms in an aerobic environment,
organic matter is converted to more biologically stable
matter.
Biological Stabilization: Reduction in the net energy level
or organic matter as a result of the metabolic activity of
organisms, so that further biodegradation is very slow.
Biological Treatment; Organic waste treatment in which
bacteria and/or biochemical action are intensified under
controlled conditions.
Blow_Tank: water-filled tank used to wash oyster or clam
meats by agitating with air injected at the bottom.
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) ; Amount of oxygen necessary
in the water for bacteria to consume the organic sewage. It
is used as a measure in telling how well a sewage treatment
plant is working.
§: A measure of the oxygen consumption by aerobic
organisms over a 5-day test period at 20 °C. It is an
indirect measure of the concentration of biologically
degradable material present in organic wastes contained in a
waste stream.
Botulinug^Organisms : Those that cause acute food poisoning.
Breading: A finely ground mixture containing cereal
products, flavorings and other ingredients, that is applied
to a product that has been moistened, usually with batter.
Concentrated salt solution which is used to cool or
freeze fish.
BTU: British thermal unit, the quantity of heat required to
raise one pound of water 1°F.
Building __ Drain: Lowest horizontal part of a building
drainage system. Building prainage System: Piping provided
512
-------
for carrying wastewater or other drainage from a building to
the street sewer.
Bulking sludge: Activated sludge that settles poorly
because of low-density floe.
Canned Fighery^Product: Fish, shellfish, or other aquatic
animals packed singly or in combination with other items in
hermetically sealed, heat sterilized cans, jars, or other
suitable containers. Most, but not all, canned fishery
products can be stored at room temperature for an indefinite
period of time without spoiling.
Carbon Adsorption: The separation of small waste particles
and molecular species, including color and odor
contaminants, by attachment to the surface and open pore
structure of carbon granules or powder. The carbon is
"activated," or made more adsorbent by treatment and
processing.
Case: "Standard" packaging in corrugated fiberboard
containers.
Centri fugal^Decanter: A device which subjects material in a
steady stream to a centrifugal force and continuously dis-
charges the separated components.
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand): A measure of the amount of
oxygen required to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic
compounds in water.
ChemjLcal Precipitation: A waste treatment process whereby
substances dissolved in the wastewater stream are rendered
insoluble and form a solid phase that settles out or can be
removed by flotation techniques.
Clarification: Process of removing undissolved materials
from a liquid. Specifically, removal of solids either by
settling or filtration.
Clarifier: A settling basin for separating settleable
solids from wastewater.
Coagulant; A material, which, when added to liquid wastes
or water, creates a reaction which forms insoluble floe
particles that adsorb and precipitate colloidal and
suspended solids. The floe particles can be removed by
sedimentation. Among the most common chemical coagulants
used in sewage treatment are ferric chloride, alum and lime.
513
-------
Coagulation: The clumping together of solids to make them
settle out of the sewage faster. Coagulation of solids is
brought about with the use of certain chemicals such as
lime, alum, or polyelectrolytes.
Coefficient of Variation; A measure used in describing the
amount of variation in a population. An estimate of this
value is S/X where "S" equals the standard deviation and X
equals the sample mean.
£°.£l22!: The body cavity of a specific group of animals in
which the viscera is located.
Coliform: Relating to, resembling, or being the colon
bacillus.
Comminutor: A device for the catching and shredding of
heavy solid matter in the primary stage of waste treatment.
Concentration: The total mass (usually in micrograms) of
the suspended particles contained in a unit volume (usually
one cubic meter) at a given temperature and pressure;
sometimes, the concentration may be expressed in terms o?
total number of particles in a unit volume (e.g., parts per
million); concentration may also be called the "loading" or
the "level" of a substance; concentration may also pertain
to the strength of a solution.
Compensate: Liquid residue resulting from the cooling of a
gaseous vapor.
Contamination; A general term signifying the introduction
into water of microorganisms, chemical, organic, or
inorganic wastes, or sewage, which renders the water unfit
for its intended use.
Correlation Coefficient: A measure of the degree of
closeness of the linear relationship between two variables.
It is a pure number without units or dimensions, and always
lies between -1 and +1.
Crustacea: Mostly aquatic animals with rigid outer
coverings, jointed appendages, and gills. Examples are
crayfish, crabs, barnacles, water fleas, and sow bugs.
Cultural Eutrophication; Acceleration by man of the natural
aging process of bodies of water.
Cyclone: A device used to separate dust or mist from gas
stream by centrifugal force.
514
-------
Decomposition; Reduction of the net energy level and change
in chemical composition of organic matter because of actions
of aerobic or anaerobic microorganisms.
Denitrification: The process involving the facultative con-
version by anaerobic bacteria of nitrates into nitrogen and
nitrogen oxides.
Deviation^ ^Standard __ Normal: A measure of dispersion of
values about a mean value; the square root of the average of
the squares of the individual deviations from the mean.
Digestion; Though "aerobic" digestion is used, the term
digestion commonly refers to the anaerobic breakdown of
organic matter in water solution or suspension into simpler
or more biologically stable compounds or both. Organic mat-
ter may be decomposed to soluble organic acids or alcohols,
and subsequently converted to such gases as methane and
carbon dioxide. Complete destruction of organic solid
materials by bacterial action alone is never accomplished.
Dissolved Air ___ Flotation: A process involving the
compression of air and liquid, mixing to super-saturation,
and releasing the pressure to generate large numbers of
minute air bubbles. As the bubbles rise to the surface of
the water, they carry with them small particles that they
contact.
Dissol ved^xYaen^DiOil : Due to the diurnal fluctuations of
dissolved oxygen in streams, the minimum dissolved oxygen
value shall apply at or near the time of the average concen-
tration in the stream, taking into account the diurnal
fluctuations.
Echinodermata ; The phylum of marine animals characterized
by an unsegmented body and secondary radial symmetry, e.g.,
sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea lilies.
!£2lo2Y.: The science of the interrelationship between
living organisms and their environment.
Something that flows out, such as a liquid dis-
charged as a waste; for example, the liquid that comes out
of a treatment plant after completion of the treatment
process.
El ectrodia IY§JS ; A process by which electricity attracts or
draws the mineral salts from sewage.
515
-------
Enrichment: The addition of nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon
compounds and other nutrients into a waterway that increases
the growth potential for algae and other aquatic plants.
Most frequently, enrichment results from the inflow sewage
effluent or from agricultural runoff.
Environment: The physical environment of the world
consisting of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the
lithosphere. The biosphere is that part of the environment
supporting life and which is important to man.
Estuary; Commonly an arm of the sea at the lower end of a
river. Estuaries are often enclosed by land except at
channel entrance points.
Eutrophication: The normally slow aging process of a body
of water as it evolves eventually into a terrestrial state
as effected by the enrichment of the water.
EutrQphic Waters: Waters with a good supply of nutrients.
These waters may support rich organic productions, such as
algal blooms.
Extrapolate; To project data into an area not known or ex-
perienced, and arrive at knowledge based on inferences of
continuity of the data.
Facultative Aergbe; An organism that although fundamentally
an anaerobe can grow in the presence of free oxygen.
Facultative Anaerobe: An organism that although
fundamentally an aerobe can grow in the absence of free
oxygen.
Facultative Decomposition: Decomposition of organic matter
by facultative microorganisms.
Fish nFillet.s; The sides of fish that are either skinned or
have the skin on, cut lengthwise from the backbone. Most
types of fillets are boneless or virtually boneless; some
may be specified as "boneless fillets."
Fish_Meal: A ground, dried product made from fish or shell-
fish or parts thereof, generally produced by cooking raw
fish or shellfish with steam and pressing the material to
obtain the solids which are then dried.
Fish Oil: An oil processed from the body (body oil) or
liver (liver oil) of fish. Most fish oils are a by-product
of the production of fish meal.
516
-------
Fish _ Solubles: A product extracted from the residual press
liquor (called "stickwater") after the solids are removed
for drying (fish meal) and the oil extracted by
centrifuging. This residue is generally condensed to 50
percent solids and marketed as "condensed fish solubles."
Filtration; The process of passing a liquid through a
porous medium for the removal of suspended material by a
physical straining action.
Floe: Something occurring in indefinite masses or
aggregates. A clump of solids formed in sewage when certain
chemicals are added.
FlQcculation : The process by which certain chemicals form
clumps of solids in sewage.
Floc^ Skimmings : The flocculent mass formed on a quiescent
liquid surface and removed for use, treatment, or disposal.
An artificial channel for conveyance of a stream of
water.
Grab __ Sample : A sample taken at a random place in space and
time.
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the earth's
surf ace~Tn~an aquifier or soil that forms the natural reser-
voir for man's use.
Heterotrophic Organism; Organisms that are dependent on or-
ganic matter for food.
Identify; To determine the exact chemical nature of a
hazardous polluting substance.
(1) An impact is a single collision of one mass in
motion with a second mass which may be either in motion or
at rest. (2) Impact is a word used to express the extent
or severity of an environmental problem; e.g., the number of
persons exposed to a given noise environment. Incineration:
Burning the sludge to remove the water and reduce the
remaining residues to a safe, non-burnable ash. The ash can
then be disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or into
caves or other underground locations.
Inf luen t : A liquid which flows into a containing space or
process unit.
517
-------
Ion_ Exchange; A reversible chemical reaction between a
solid and a liquid by means of which ions may be
interchanged between the two. It is in common use in water
softening and water deionizing.
Iron __ Chink: A machine used in the salmon processing
industry to butcher salmon.
Kg: Kilogram or 1000 grams, metric unit of weight.
Kjeldahl Nitrogen; A measure of the total amount of
nitrogen in the ammonia and organic forms.
KWH: Kilowatt- hours, a measure of total electrical energy
consumption.
§: Scientifically constructed ponds in which
sunlight, algae, and oxygen interact to restore water to a
quality equal to effluent from a secondary treatment plant.
Landings ^ Commercial : Quantities of fish, shellfish and
other aquatic plants and animals brought ashore and sold.
Landings of fish may be in terms of round (live) weight or
dressed weight. Landings of crustaceans are generally on a
live weight basis except for shrimp which may be on a heads-
on or heads-off basis. Mollusks are generally landed with
the shell on but in some cases only the meats are landed
(such as scallops) .
Live _ Tank: Metal, wood, or plastic tank with circulating
seawater for the purpose of keeping a fish or shellfish
alive until processed.
M: Meter, metric unit of length.
Mm; Millimeter = 0.001 meter.
Mg/1: Milligrams per liter; approximately equal parts per
million; a term used to indicate concentration of materials
in water.
MGD: Million gallons per day.
Mesenterieg; The tissue lining the body cavities and from
which the organs are suspended.
Micros trainer /mi croscreen ; A mechanical filter consisting
of a cylindrical surface of metal filter fabric with open-
ings of 20-60 micrometers in size.
518
-------
Milt: Reproductive organ (testes) of male fish.
Mixed Liquor; The name given the effluent that comes from
the aeration tank after the sewage has been mixed with acti-
vated sludge and air.
Municipal Treatment: A city or community-owned waste treat-
ment "plant for municipal and, possibly, industrial waste
treatment,
Nitrate, Nitrite: Chemical compounds that include the NO3-
(nitrate) and NO2- (nitrite) ions. They are composed of
nitrogen and oxygen, are nutrients for growth of algae and
other plant life, and contribute to eutrophication.
Etitrif ication: The process of oxidizing ammonia by bacteria
into nitrites and nitrates.
Organic Content: Synonymous with volatile solids except for
small traces of some inorganic materials such as calcium
carbonate which will lose weight at temperatures used in de-
termining volatile solids,
Organic Detritus: The particulate remains of disintegrated
plants and animals.
Organic Matter: The waste from homes or industry of plant
or animal origin.
Oxidation_Pond: A man-made lake or body of water in which
wastes are consumed by bacteria. It is used most frequently
with other waste treatment processes. An oxidation pond is
basically the same as a sewage lagoon.
Pelagic^Region: The open water environment of the ocean
consisting of waters both over and beyond the continental
shelf and which is inhabited by the free swimming fishes.
Per Capita Consumption: Consumption of edible fishery
products in~"the United States, divided by the total civilian
population.
p.H: The pH value indicates the relative intensity of
acidity or alkalinity of water, with the neutral point at
7.0. Values lower than 7.0 indicate the presence of acids;
above 7.0 the presence of alkalies.
Phylum: A main category of taxonomic classification into
which~the plant and animal kingdoms are divided.
519
-------
Plankton __ f Plankter) : Organisms of relatively small size,
mostly microscopic, that have either relatively small powers
of locomotion or that drift in that water with waves,
currents, and other water motion.
Polishing: Final treatment stage before discharge of
effluent to a water course, carried out in a shallow,
aerobic lagoon or pond, mainly to remove fine suspended
solids that settle very slowly. Some aerobic
microbiological activity also occurs.
Pondirig: A waste treatment technique involving the actual
holdup of all wastewaters in a confined space with
evaporation and percolation the primary mechanisms operating
to dispose of the water.
A net laid perpendicularly out from the
shoreline with a circular impoundment at the seaward end.
P2m: Parts per million, also referred to as milligrams per
liter (mg/1) . This is a unit for expressing the
concentration of any substance by weight, usually as grams
of substance per million grams of solution. Since a liter
of water weighs one kilogram at a specific gravity of 1.0,
one part per million is equivalent to one milligram per
liter.
Pl§ss_SJlJS§: In the wet reduction process for industrial
fishes, the solid fraction which results when cooked fish
(and fish wastes) are passed through the screw presses,
Press __ Liquor: Stickwater resulting from the pressing of
fish solids.
P£ilDary_Tr§atment: Removes the material that floats or will
settle in sewage. It is accomplished by using screens to
catch the floating objects and tanks for the heavy matter to
settle in.
Process Water: All water that comes into direct contact
with the raw materials, intermediate products, final
products, by-products, or contaminated waters and air.
plants and animals, and products thereof, preserved by
canning, freezing, cooking, dehydrating, drying, fermenting,
pasteurizing, adding salt or other chemical substances, and
other commercial processes. Also, changing the form of
fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals from
their original state into a form in which they are not
readily identifiable, such as fillets, steaks, or shrimp
logs.
520
-------
Purse Seiner: Fishing vessel utilizing a seine (net) that
is drawn together at the bottom, forming a trap or purse.
Receiving waters; Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water
courses that receive treated or untreated wastewaters.
The return of a quantity of effluent from a
specific unit or process to the feed stream of that same
unit. This would also apply to return of treated plant
wastewater for several plant uses.
Regression; A trend or shift toward a mean. A regression
curve or line is thus one that best fits a particular set of
data according to some principle.
Retort: Sterilization of a food product at greater than
248°F with steam under pressure.
Re-use: Water re-use, the subsequent use of water following
an earlier use without restoring it to the original quality.
Reverse Ogmpsig; The physical separation of substances from
a water stream by reversal of the normal osmotic process,
i.e., high pressure, forcing water through a semi-permeable
membrane to the pure water side leaving behind more
concentrated waste streams. Rotating Biological Contactor:
A waste treatment device involving closely spaced light-
weight disks which are rotated through the wastewater
allowing aerobic microflora to accumulate on each disk and
thereby achieving a reduction in the waste content.
Rotary Screen; A revolving cylindrical screen for the sepa-
ration of solids from a wastestream.
Round (Livel. Weight; The weight of fish, shellfish or other
aquatic plants and animals as taken from the water; the com-
plete or full weight as cau,ght.
Sample, Composite: A sample taken at a fixed location by
adding together small samples taken frequently during a
given period of time.
Sand Filter: Removes the organic wastes from sewage. The
wastewater is trickled over a bed of sand. Air and bacteria
decompose the wastes filtering through the sand. The clean
water flows out through drains in the bottom of the bed.
The sludge accumulating at the surface must be removed from
the bed periodically.
521
-------
Trap: Basin in sewage line for collection of high
—
density solids, specifically sand.
Sanitary Sewers: In a separate system, are pipes in a city
that carry only domestic wastewater. The storm water runoff
is taken care of by a separate system of pipes.
Sanitary Landfill; A site for solid waste disposal using
techniques which prevent vector breeching, and controls air
pollution nuisances, fire hazards and surface or groundwater
pollution.
Scatter Diagram: A two dimensional plot used to visually
demonstrate the relationship between two sets of data.
Se conda ry Tr e atment : The second step in most waste
treatment systems in which bacteria consume the organic
parts of the wastes. It is accomplished by bringing the
sewage and bacteria together in trickling filters or in the
activated sludge process.
Sedimentation Tanks: Help remove solids from sewage. The
wastewater is pumped to the tanks where the solids settle to
the bottom or float on top as scum. The scum is skimmed off
the top, and solids on the bottom are pumped out to sludge
digestion tanks.
Sei.ne: Any of a number of various nets used to capture
fish.
Se.E§ra;tor: Separates the loosened shell from the shrimp
meat.
gettleablejMatter (Solids) : Determined in the imhoff cone
test and will show the quantitative settling characteristics
of the waste sample.
Settling Tank; Synonymous with "Sedimentation Tank."
Sewers: A system of pipes that collect and deliver
wastewater to treatment plants or receiving streams.
Shaker Blower; Dries and sucks the shell off with a vacuum,
leaving the shrimp meat.
Skimmer_Table: A perforated stainless steel table used to
dewater clams and oysters after washing.
522
-------
Shpcjc^Load; A quantity of wastewater or pollutant that
greatly exceeds the normal discharged into a treatment
system, usually occurring over a limited period of time.
Sludge: The solid matter that settles to the bottom of
sedimentation tanks and must be disposed of by digestion or
other methods to complete waste treatment.
Slurry.: A solids-water mixture, with sufficient water
content to impart fluid handling characteristics to the
mixture.
Sliming Table: Fish processing vernacular referring to the
area in which fish are butchered and/or checked for
completeness of butcher.
Sgatial _ Average: The mean value of a set of observations
distributed as a function of position.
Species (Both Singular and Pluralj; A natural population or
group of populations that transmit specific characteristics
from parent to offspring. They are reproductively isolated
from other populations with which they might breed. Popula-
tions usually exhibit a loss of fertility when hybridizing.
Standard Deviation: A statistical measure of the spread or
variation of individual measurements.
Box: A form of cooker which precooks the product with
the use of steam in order to remove oils and water from
fish.
Stickwater: Water and entrained organics that originate
from the draining or pressing of steam cooked fish products.
Stpichiometric Amount ; The amount of a substance involved
in a specific chemical reaction, either as a reactant or as
a reaction product .
Stop Seing: A net placed across a stream or bay to catch or
retain fish.
Stratification ; A partition of the universe which is useful
when the properties of sub-populations are of interest and
used for increasing the precision of the total population
estimation when stratum means are sufficiently different and
the within stratum variances are appreciably smaller than
the total population variance.
523
-------
Suing: A depression or tank that serves as a drain or
receptacle for liquids for salvage or disposal.
Suspended T Solids: The wastes that will not sink or settle
in sewage.
Surface Water: The waters of the United States including
the territorial seas.
Synergism: A situation in which the combined action of two
or more agents acting together is greater than the sum of
the action of these agents separately.
Temporal Average: The mean value of a set of observations
distributed as a function of time.
Tertiary Wastei Treatment: Waste treatment systems used to
treat secondary treatment effluent and typically using
physicalchemical technologies to effect waste reduction.
Synonymous with "Advanced Waste Treatment.11
Tro11 Dressed: Refers to salmon which have been eviscerated
at sea.
Total Dissolved Solids /TDS\: The solids content of
wastewater that is soluble and is measured as total solids
content minus the suspended solids. Trickling Filter: A
bed of rocks or stones. The sewage is trickled over the bed
so the bacteria can break down the organic wastes. The
bacteria collect on the stones through repeated use of the
filter.
Viscera: The internal organs of the body, especially those
of the abdominal and thoracic cavities.
Viscus {Eii__Vi§ceraj_: Any internal organ within a body
cavity.
Water Quality Criteria; The levels of pollutants that
affect the suitability~of water for a given use. Generally,
water use classification includes: public water supply;
recreation; propagation of fish and other aquatic life;
agricultural use and industrial use.
Weir: A fence, net, or waffle placed across a stream or bay
to catch or retain fish. In engineering use it is a dam
over which, or through a notch in which, the liquid carried
by a horizontal open channel is constrained to flow.
524
-------
Appendix A
Selected Biblography
Air Flotation Use Within the Seafood Industry
1. Atwell, J.S.r R.E. Reed and B. A. Patrie. 1972 "Water
Pollution Control Problems and Programs of the Maine Sardine
Council." Proceedings of the 27th Industrial Waste
Conference. Lafayette: Purdue University, 1972
2. Baker, D.W. and C. J. Carlson. 1972. "Dissolved Air
Flotation Treatment of Menhaden Bail Water." Proceedings of
£h£ -12£]2 Annual Atlantic Fisheries Technology Conference
JAFTC}.. Annapolis, Maryland.
3. Claggett, F.G., and Wong, J., Salmon Canning Wastewater
Clarificatign^ Part I. Vancouver: Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, Laboratory, 1968
4. Claggett, F. G., and Wong, J., Salmon Canning Wastewater
Clarificationx Part II. Vancouver: Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, Laboratory, February 1969.
5. Claggett, F. G., A Proposed Demonstration Waste Water
2£eatment Unit^. Technical Report NoA 1970. Vancouver:
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver Laboratory,
1970
6. Claggett, F. G., Demonstration Waste Water Treatment
Usiix Interim Report 1971 Salmon Season. Technical Report
I?2i 286 Vancouver: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 1972
7. Claggett, F. G., The Use of Chemical Treatment and Air
Flotation for the Clarification of Fish Processing Plant
Waste Water. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver
Laboratory, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1972.
8. Claggett, F. G. , Treatment Technology in Canada,
Seattle, Environmental Protection Agency, Technology
Transfer Program, Upgrading Seafood Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution, 1974
9. Jacobs Engineering Co. Pollution Abatement Study for
the Tuna Research Foundation, Inc. 120 pp. May 1971.
10, Jacobs Engineering Co. Plant Flotation Tests for Waste
Treatment Program for the Van Camp Seafood Co. 27 pp. June
1972.
527
-------
11. Mauldin, A. Frank. Tr®§iIDSIJi 2£ SBif Shrimp Processiiig
and Canning Waste, Seattle, Environmental Protection
Agency, Technology Transfer Program, Upgrading Seafood
Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution, 1974
12. Mauldin, Frank A., Szabo, A. J. Unpublished Draft
Sg.E9.rt~Shrimp Canning Waste Treatment Study, EPA Project No.
S 800 90 4, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, February 1974.
13. Peterson, P.L. Treatment of Shellfish Processing
Wastewater b_y. Dissolved Air Flotation. Unpublished report.
Seattle: National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.D.C. 1973
14. Snider, Trvin F. "Application of Dissolved Air Flotation
in the Seafood Industry." Proceedings of the 17th Annual
££!§.££!£ Fisheries Technology Conference JAFTCJ_. Annapolis,
Maryland, 1972.
15. Kato, K., Ishikawa, S. "Fish Oil and Protein Recovered
From Fish Processing Effluent" SA Wat^. Sewage Wks. 1969.
"At a fish processing plant in Shimonoseki City, Japan,
two flow lines (for horse mackerel, scabbard fish, and
yellow croaker) produce waste waters amounting to 1800 tons
daily from which purified oil and protein are recovered.
Oil, first separated by gravitational flotation, passes
through a heater and is then purified by two centrifugal
operations. Underflow from the oil separator is coagulated
and transferred to pressure flotation tanks to separate
proteins which are finally dewatered by vacuum filtration.
Data on the characteristics of the effluent, results of
tests, and design specifications are described fully. The
process removes about 86 percent of the suspended solids and
about 77 percent of the BOD." ("Water Pollution Abstracts"
1970, (43), Abstract No. 787, London: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office).
16. Vuuren, L.R.J., stander, G.J., Henzen, M.R., Blerk,
S.H.V., Hamman, P.F. "Dispersed Air Flocculation/Flotation
for Stripping of Organic Pollutants from Effluent" Wat., Res^
1968.
"The principles of the dispersed air flotation system
which is widely used in industry are discussed. A
laboratory scale unit was developed to provide a compact
portable system for use in field investigations, and
tabulated results are given of its use in the treatment of
sewage-works effluents and waste waters from fish factories,
pulp and paper mills, and abattoirs showing that their
polluting load was greatly reduced." ("Water Pollution
Abstracts, 1968 (41)).
528
-------
17. E.S. Hopkins, Einarsson, J. "Water Supply and Waste
Disposal At a Food Processing Plant^ J. Industrial Water and
Wastes... J96J[
"The water supply system and waste treatment facilities
serving the Coldwater Seafood Corporation plant at
Nanticoke, Md., are described. Waste waters from washing
equipment and floors, containing fish oil, grease and dough
pass to a grease flotation tank, equipped with an "Aer-o-
Mix" aeration unit. The advantages of the facilities are
discussed." ("Water Pollution Abstracts," 1961 (34), London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
18. Shifrin, S.M. et al., "Mechanical Cleaning of Waste
Waters From Fish Canneries" ChemicaJ. Abstracts 76 1972
"Shifrin et al presented the results of studies on fish
cannery waste treatment in the U.S.S.R. using impeller-type
flotators. With a waste containing 603 mg/1 of fats, 603
mg/1 of ss, and 2,560 mg/1 of COD, mechanical flotation
reduced these values by 99.8, 86.5 and 59.8 percent,
respectively. The flotators were claimed to be more
effective than settlers operating with or without aeration.
("Journal Water Pollution Control Federation," 1973, (45),
No. 6, p. 1117.)
529
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Selected Bibliography
Air Flotation Use Within the Meat and Poultry Industry
1. Wilkinson, B.H..P. "Acid coagulation and dissolved air
flotation." Proc. 13th Meat Ind. Res. Conf.r Hamilton, N.Z.,
1971, M.I.R.I.N.Z. No. 225,
"A process developed by the Meat Industry Research
Institute of New Zealand for removal of colloidal proteins
from meat trade waste waters comprises cogulation with acid
followed by air flotation. Pilot-plant trials have achieved
removals of 85-95 percent suspended solids, 70-80 percent
BOD and COD, and 99 percent coliform organisms." ("Water
Pollution Abstracts" 1972, (45), Abstract No. 478, London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
2. Woodard, F.E., Sproul, O.J., Hall, M.W., and Glosh, M.M.
"Abatement of pollution from a £oultry_ processing filant^ J^
Wat. Pollut^ Control Fedj.7 1972, (41), 1909-1915.
"Details are given of the development of waste treatment
scheme for a poultry processing plant, including studies on
the characteristics of the waste waters, in-plant changes to
reduce the volume and strength of the wastes, and evaluation
of alternative treatment methods. Dissolved air flotation
was selected as the best method, after coagulation with soda
ash and alum, and the treated effluent is chlorinated before
discharge; some results of operation of the plant are
tabulated and discussed." Typical operating data from a
full-scale plant show removals of 74-98 percent BOD, 87-99
percent suspended solids, and 97-99 percent grease. ("Water
Pollution Abstracts" 1972, (45), Abstract No. 1788, London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
3. Steffen, A.J. "The new and old in slaughter house waste
treatment processes." Wasteg Engng., 1957, (28).
"Methods of treating slaughterhosue waste waters by
screening, sedimentation, the use of septic tanks,
intermittent sand filtration, biological filtration and
chemical treatment are discussed. Brief descriptions of the
newer methods of treatment including the removal of solids
and grease by flotation, anaerobic digestion, and irrigation
are given." ("Water Pollution Abstracts," 1957, (30),
Abstract No. 2414, London: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office).
4. Meyers, G.A. "Meat packer tucks wastes unit in abandoned
wine cellar." Wastes Engng., 1955, (26)
"At a plant of the H.H. Meyer Packing Co. at
Cincinnati, Ohio, processing pork products treatment of the
531
-------
waste waters by dissolved air flotation reduces the amount
of grease in the waste waters by about 80 percent and the
concentration of suspended solids by 90 percent." ("Water
Pollution Abstracts," 1955, (28), Abstract No. 1123, London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
5. Parrel1, L.S. "The why and how of treating rendering
plant wastes." Wat... & Sewage Wksir 2953, (100).
"In a paper on the treatment of waste waters from plants
rendering meat wastes, preliminary treatment by fine
screening, sedimentation, and pressure flotation is
considered. Screening is economical if recovery of fats is
not required. Pressure flotation, which is described fully,
is the most efficient method of treatment as judged by the
recovery of by-products and conservation of water. Air and
coagulants are added to the waste waters in a tank
maintained under pressure for solution of air and the waste
waters then pass to the flotation unit at atmospheric
pressure where dissolved air is liberated carrying solids to
the surface. In a typical plant, a removal of 93 percent of
the BOD and 93-99 percent of the total fat is achieved. If
sedimentation is combined with flotation 93 percent of
suspended solids is removed." ("Water Pollution Abstracts"
1953, (26), London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
6. Hopkins, E.S., Dutterer, G.M. "Liquid Waste Disposal
from a Slaughterhouse." Water and Sew^ Worksx 117, 7, (July
1970).
"Hopkins and Dutterer reported the results of treating
liquid slaughterhouse wastes in a system consisting of
screening, grease separation by air flotation and skimming,
fat emulsion breaking with aluminum sulfate (26 mg/1) and
agitation, oxidation in a mechanical surface oxidation unit
provided with extended aeration (24-hr detention time),
overflow and recycle of activated sludge, and a final
discharge to a chlorination pond (30-min contact). For an
average discharge of 23,499 gpd (88.9 cu m/day), the BOD of
the waste was reduced from 1,700 to 10.1 mg/1, and most
probable number (MPN) coiform counts averaged 220/100 ml."
("Journal Water Pollution Control Federation," 1971, (43),
No. 6, p. 949).
7. Dirasian, H.A. "A Study of Meat Packing and Rendering
Wastes." Water & Wastes Eng, 7, 5, (May 1970). sides and
quarters delivered from slaughterhosues, Dirasiar found that
pressure flotation assisted by aluminum sulfate as a
flocculation aid removed grease effectively.
"In a study of a plant that processes finished beef and
pork from A recirculation ratio of 4:1 and a flotation
period of 20 min were used in these studies. The final
532
-------
effluent showed a 98.5 percent removal of suspended solids
(SS) (including grease) with the exception of influent
samples containing less than 140 mg/1 of SS. In all cases
the SS in the effluent was less than 35 mg/1. ("Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation," 1971, (43), No.6, p.
949.)
533
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
List of Equipment Manufacturers
Automatic Analyzers
Hach Chemical Company, P. O. Box 907, Ames, Iowa 50010.
Combustion Equipment Association, Inc., 555 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022.
Martek Instruments, Inc., 879 West 16th Street, Newport
Beach, California 92660
Eberbach Corporation, 505 South Maple Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48106
Tritech, Inc., Box 124, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue, S. W. , Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Wilks Scientific Corporation, South Norwalk, Connecticut
06856
Technicon Instruments Corporation, Tarrytown, New York 10591
Bauer - Bauer Brothers Company, Subsidiary Combustion
Engineering, Inc., P. O. Box 968, Springfield,
Ohio 45501
Centrifuges
Beloit-Passavant Corporation, P. O. Box 997, Jonesville,
Wisconsin 53545
Bird Machine Company, south Walpole, Massachusetts 02071
DeLaval Separator Company, Poughkeepsie, New York 12600
Flow Metering Equipment
Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division,
100 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 95005
igrognt^and ^Supplies
Hach Chemical Company, P. O. Box 907, Ames, Iowa 50010
535
-------
Eberbach Corporation, 505 South Maple Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48106
National Scientific Company, 25200 Miles Avenue, Cleveland,
Ohio 44146
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue S.W., Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Precision Scientific Company, 3737 Cortlant Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60647
Horizon Ecology Company, 7435 North Oak Park Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60648
Markson Science, Inc., Box NPR, Del Mar, California 92014
Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, 7425 North Oak Park Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60648
VWR Scientific, P. O. Box 3200, San Francisco, California
94119
Sampling Egujpment
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue S.W., Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Horizon Ecology Company, 7435 North Oak Park Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60648
Sigmamotor, Inc., 14 Elizabeth Street, Middleport, New
York 14105
Protech, Inc., Roberts Lane, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
Quality Control Equipment, Inc., 2505 McKinley Avenue,
Des Moines, Iowa 50315
Instrumentation Specialties Company, P. O. Box 5347,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68505
N-con Systems Company, Inc., 410 Boston Post Road,
Larchmont, New York 10538
Screen!nq Equi pment
SWECO, Inc., 6033 E. Bandine Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California 90054
536
-------
Bauer-Bauer Brothers company. Subsidiary Combustion
Engineering, Inc., P. O. Box 968, Springfield, Ohio
45501
Hydrocyclonics Corporation, 968 North Shore Drive, Lake
Bluff, Illinois 60044
Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, 961 North 4th Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Dorr-Oliver, Inc., Havemeyer Lane, Stamford, Connecticut
06904
Hendricks Manufacturing Company, Carbondale, Pennsylvania
18407
Peobody Welles, Roscoe, Illinois 61073
Clawson, F. J. and Associates, 6956 Highway 100, Nashville,
Tennessee 37205
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 1126 South 70th
Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214
DeLaval Separator Company, Poughkeepsie, New York 12600
Envirex, Inc., 1901 South Prairie, Waukesha, Wisocnsin 53186
Liak Belt Enviornmental Equipment, FMC Corporation,
Prudential Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60612
Productive Equipment Corporation, 2924 West Lake Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Simplicity Engineering company, Durand, Michigan 48429
Waste Water Treatment Systems
Cromaglass Corporation, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
ONPS, 4576 SW 103rd Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon 97225
Tempco, Inc., P. O. Box 1087, Bellevue, Washington 98009
Zurn Industries, inc., 1422 East Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania
16503
General Environmental Equipment, Inc., 5020 Stepp Avenue,
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
537
-------
Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division,
100 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 95005
Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, 961 North 4th Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Carborundum Corporation, P. o. Box 87, Knoxville, Tennessee
37901
Graver, Division of Ecodyne Corporation, U. S. Highway 22,
Union, New Jersey 07083
Beloit-Passavant Corporation, P. O. Box 997, Janesville,
Wisconsin 53545
Black-Clawson Company, Middletown, Ohio 54042
Envirex, Inc., 1901 S. Prairie, Waukesha, Wisocnsin 53186
Environmental Systems, Division of Litton Industries, Inc.,
354 Dawson Drive, Camarillo, California 93010
Infilco Division, Westinghouse Electric Company, 901 South
Campbell street, tuscon, Arizona 85719
Keene Corporation, Fluid Handling Division, Cookeville,
Tennessee 38501
Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, Peapack, New
Jersey 07977
Permutit Company, Division of Sybron Corporation, E. 49
Midland Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652
538
-------
Table 243
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
English Unit
acre
acre - feet
British Thermal Unit
British Thermal Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
gallon/minute
horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
mile
pound/square inch (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons (short)
yard
Abbreviation
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
OF
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
t
y
Conversion Table
by
Conversion
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32) *
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3785
1.609
(0.06805 psig+1) *
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
Abbreviation
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
Metric Unit
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons (1000 kilograms)
meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
-------
------- |