DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR THE
CATFISH, CRAB, SHRIMP, AND TUNA SEGMENTS OF
THE CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
P'OINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell E. Train
Admin istrator
Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator for Air and Water Programs
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Elwood H. Forsht
Project Officer
January 1974
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Air and Water Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the findings of a study of the farm-raised catfish,
crab, shrimp, and tuna processing segments of the canned and preserved
seafood processing industry for the purpose of developing effluent
limitations guidelines and Federal standards of perrcrmance for new
sources in order to implement Sections 304, 306, and 307 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
The seafood processing plants included in Phase I of this study were
those processing farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna. Other
aquatic and marine species are involved in a subsequent study, wliich is
now underway.
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 acnievea by existing
point sources by July 1, 1977 and July 1, 1983, respectively. The
"Standards of Performance for New Sources" set fortn 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 biological or pnysical-
chemical treatment technology currently available for discharge into
navigable water bodies by July 1, 1977 and for New Source Performance
Standards. This technology is represented by aerated lagoons, activated
sludge, or dissolved air flotation. The recommendations for July 1,
1983 are for the best physical-chemical and biological treatment and in-
plant control as represented by reduced water use and ennanced treatment
efficiencies in pre-existing systems as well as new systems.
Supportative data and rationale for development of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance are contained in
this report.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I. CONCLUSIONS 1
II. RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III. INTRODUCTION 7
IV. INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 17
V. WASTE CATEGORIZATION 101
VI. SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 211
VII. CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 221
VIII. COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY
ASPECTS SUMMARY 287
IX. BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 309
X. BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 335
XI. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 355
XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 369
XIII. REFERENCES 371
XIV. GLOSSARY 403
ill
-------
TABLES
Table
Number
1 Recommended Level I (July 1, 1977) Guidelines 4
2 Recommended Level II (July 1, 1983) Guidelines 5
3 Recommended Level III (New source) Guidelines 6
U Total supplies of catfish in the U.S. 19
5 Proximate analysis of raw catfish offal
( , 1970) 24
6 Offal from tank-raised channel catfish
(Heaton, et al., 1970) 25
7 Catfish offal from cage-cultured channel
catfish (Heaton, et al., 1972) 25
8 Catfish processing waste water characteristics
(Mulkey and Sargent, 1972) 26
9 Recent Alaska crab catches (NOAA-NMFS) 54
10 Typical crab waste composition ( , 1968) 55
11 Alaskan shrimp wastes, 1967 (Yonkers, 1969) 65
12 Composition of shrimp waste ( , 1968) 70
13 Recent shrimp catches (Lyles, 1969; ,
1971; and , 1972) 80
14 Shrimp products, 1970 ( , 1971; ,
1973) ~ ~ ~ ~ 81
15 New England shrimp landings, 1965-1969 (Gibbs
and Hill, 1972) 82
16 Catfish process material balance 108
17 Catfish process summary (5 plants) 111
18 Catfish process (plant 1) 112
19 Catfish process (plant 2) 113
20 Catfish process (plant 3) 114
21 Catfish process (plant 4) 115
22 Catfish process (plant 5) 116
23 Conventional blue crab process material balance 117
24 conventional blue crab process summary (2
plants) 119
25 Conventional blue crab process (plant 1) 120
26 Conventional blue crab process (plant 2) 121
27 Mechanized blue crab process material balance 122
28 Mechanized blue crab process summary (2 plants) 125
29 Mechanized blue crab process (plant 3) .126
30 Mechanized blue crab process (plant 4) 127
31 Alaska tanner and king crab sections process
and Alaska dungeness crab whole cooks (without
waste grinding) 129
32 Alaska tanner crab frozen and canned meat
process 130
33 Alaska tanner and king crab sections process
(with waste grinding) 132
34 Alaska tanner crab frozen and canned meat
process (with waste grinding) 133
iv
-------
35 Alaska crab whole cook and section process
summary—without grinding (3 plants) 136
36 Alaskan crab whole cook and section process summary
(including clean-up water) - without grinding
(4 plants) 137
37 Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process summary
--without grinding 138
38 Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process summary
(Including clean-up water) - without grinding
(2 plants) 139
39 Alaska Dungeness crab whole cook process without
grinding (plant K8) 1.40
40 Alaska dungeness crab whole cook process without
grinding (plant K1) 141
41 Alaska king crab sections process without grinding
(plant K11) 142
42 Alaska tanner crab sections process without
grinding (plant K6) 143
43 Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process with
grinding (plant K6) 144
44 Alaska tanner crab canned meat process without
grinding (Plant K8) 145
45 Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process without
grinding (plant S2) 146
46 Alaska crab section process summary with
grinding (4 plants) 147
47 Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process
summary with grinding (4 plants) 418
48 Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K1) 149
49 Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K3) 150
50 Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K6) 151
51 Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K11) 152
52 Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process with
grinding (plant K1) 153
53 Alaska tanner crab frozen meat processs with
grinding (plant K6) 154
54 Alaska tanner crab canned meat process with
grinding (plant K8) 155
55 Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process with
grinding (plant K10) 156
56 Oregon dungeness crab whole and fresh-frozen
meat process (without fluming wastes) 161
57 West Coast dungeness crab process summary
without shell fluming (3 plants) 162
58 West Coast dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process (plant 1) 163
59 West Coast dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process without shell fluming
(plant 2) 164
-------
60 West Coast dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process without shell fluming
(plant 3) 165
61 West Coast dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process with shell fluming
(plant 2) 166
62 West Coast dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process with shell fluming
(plant 3) 167
63 Alaska shrimp frozen and canned process 168
64 Alaska frozen and canned shrimp process summary 169
65 Alaska shrimp frozen process Model PCA peelers 170
66 Alaska frozen shrimp process, Model PCA peelers
with clean-up water (plant S1) 171
67 Alaska shrimp canned process Model A peelers 172
68 Alaska canned shrimp process, Model A peelers
with clean-up water (plant K2) 175
69 West Coast shrimp canning 176
70 West Coast canned shrimp process summary
(2 plants) 177
71 West Coast canned shrimp (plant 1) 181
72 West Coast canned shrimp (plant 2) 182
73 Gulf shrimp canning 183
74 Gulf shrimp canning process summary (3 plants) 184
75 Gulf shrimp canning process (plant 1A) 185
76 Gulf shrimp canning process (plant 1B) 186
77 Gulf shrimp canning process (plant 2) 187
78 Gulf shrimp process screened (plant 3) 188
79 Gulf shrimp breaded 189
80 Breaded shrimp process summary (2 plants) 191
81 Breaded shrimp process (plant 1) 192
82 Breaded shrimp process (plant 2) 193
83 Tuna process material balance 195
84 Tuna process summary (9 plants) 196
85 Tuna process (plant 1) 199
86 Tuna process (plant 2) 200
87 Tuna process (plant 3) 201
88 Tuna process (plant 4) 202
89 Tuna process (plant 5) 203
90 Tuna process (plant 6) 204
91 Tuna process (plant 7) 205
92 Tuna process (plant 8) 206
93 Tuna process (plant 9) • 207
94 Percent of total plant waste by unit process for
5-day BOD and suspended solids 208
95 Proximate composition of whole fish, edible
fish and trimmings of dover sole 225
96 Equipment efficiency and design assumptions 261
97 Estimated practicable in-plant waste water
reductions, costs, and associated pollutional
loadings reductions (Level II and III) 288
98 Treatment efficiencies and costs 289
99 1971 Seattle constructions costs 291
vi
-------
100 U. S. Army Geographical index 292
101 Operation and Maintenance costs 293
102 End-of-pipe treatment costs, cumulative levels 294
103 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for large
catfish processing plants Level I 312
104 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
small farm-raised catfish processing facilities,
Level I 314
105 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
conventional blue crab processing plants
Level I 315
106 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
mechanized blue crab processing plants Level I 316
107 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaskan crab meat processing plants Level I 318
108 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaskan whole crab and crab section processing
Level I 320
109 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
dungeness and tanner crab processing plants
outside of Alaska Level I 321
110 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaska shrimp processing plants Level I 324
111 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for large
northern shrimp processing plants in the contiguous
states, Level I 325
112 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for small
northern shrimp processing facilities in the
contiguous states, Level I 328
113 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for large
southern non-breaded shrimp processing plants in
the contiguous states, Level I 329
114 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
small southern non-breaded shrimp processing
plants in the contiguous states, Level I 330
115 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for large
breaded shrimp processing plants in the contiguous
states, Level I 33]
116 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for small
breaded shrimp processing facilities. Level I 332
117 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
tuna processing plants. Level I 333
118 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
farm-raised catfish processing plants. Level II 333
119 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
conventional blue crab processing plants,
Level II 339
120 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
mechanized blue crab processing plants,
Level II 341
121 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaska crab meat processing plants. Level II 342
122 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines
vii
-------
for Alaskan whole crab and crab section
processing, Level II 344
123 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines
for dungeness and tanner crab processing
plants outside of Alaska, Level II 345
12U Recommended effluent limitations guidelines
for Alaska shrimp processing plants, Level II 348
125 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
northern shrimp processing in the contiguous
states, Level II 349
126 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
southern non-breaded shrimp processing in the
contiguous states, Level II 352
127 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
breaded shrimp processing in the contiguous
states, Level II 353
128 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
tuna processing plants. Level II 354
129 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
catfish processing plants, Level III 357
130 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
conventional blue crab processing plants.
Level III 358
131 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
mechanized blue crab processing plants,
Level III 359
132 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaskan crab meat processing plants, Level III 360
133 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaskan whole crab and crab section processing.
Level III . 361
134 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
dungeness and tanner crab processing plants
outside of Alaska Level III 362
135 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
Alaska shrimp processing plants Level III 363
136 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
northern shrimp processing in the contiguous
states, Level III 364
137 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
southern non-breaded shrimp processing in tne
contiguous states. Level III 365
138 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
breaded shrimp processing in the contiguous
states, Level III 366
139 Recommended effluent limitations guidelines for
tuna processing plants Level III 367
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Source and disposition of edible fishery
products 9
2 Typical seafood process diagram 10
3 General location of fish and shellfish plants
sampled 12
4 General location of fish and shellfish plants
sampled 13
5 Catfish process 22
6 Catfish production rates and flow ratios 28
7 Catfish production rates and BOD5 ratios 29
8 Catfish production rates and suspended
solids ratios 30
9 Crab production rates and flow ratios 33
10 Crab production rates and BOD5 ratios 34
11 Crab production rates and suspended solids
ratios 35
12 Conventional blue crab process 38
13 Mechanized blue crab process 44
14 King and tanner crab frozen meat process 48
15 King and tanner crab canning process 49
16 King and tanner crab section process 60
17 Alaska and west coast shrimp freezing process 67
18 Alaska and west coast shrimp canning process 68
19 Shrimp production rates and flow ratios 75
20 Shrimp production rates and BOD5 ratios 76
21 Shrimp production rates and suspended solids
ratios 77
22 Southern non-breaded shrimp canning process 85
23 Breaded shrimp process 88
24 Supply of canned tuna 90
25 Tuna process 92
26 Tuna production rates and flow ratios 97
27 Tuna production rates and BOD5 ratios 98
28 Tuna production rates and suspended solids
ratios 99
29 Conventional meal plant capital costs 229
30 Continuous fish reduction plant with soluble
recovery and odor control 230
31 Low cost batch reduction facility 232
32 Brine-acid extraction process 235
33 Brine-acid extraction primary facility costs
(excluding dryer) 238
34 Enzymatic hydrolysis of solid waste 240
35 Chitin-chitosan process for shellfish waste
utilization 241
36 Approximate investment for extracting basic
chemicals from shellfish waste (Peniston, 1973) 242
37 Catfish processing initial treatment 262
-------
38 Catfish processing oxidation pond alternative 263
39 Catfish processing, extended aeration alternative 264
40 Catfish processing spray irrigation alternative 265
41 Conventional blue crab processing treatment
alternatives 266
42 Mechanized blue crab processing, treatment
alternatives 268
43 Alaska crab processing, initial treatment 271
44 Alaska crab processing, treatment 272
45 Alaska crab processing, first biological
alternative 273
46 Alaska crab processing, second biological
alternative 274
47 Dungeness and tanner crab processing, outside
of Alaska 276
48 Dungeness and tanner crab processing, outside
of Alaska 277
49 Alaska shrimp processing, treatment 279
50 Shrimp processing treatment 280
51 Shrimp processing treatment alternatives 281
52 Tuna processing treatment 286
53 Catfish treatment efficiencies and costs 297
54 Conventional blue crab treatment efficiencies
and costs 298
55 Mechanized blue crab treatment efficiencies
and costs 299
56 Alaska crab meat treatment efficiencies
and costs 300
57 Alaska crab whole and sections treatment
efficiencies and costs 301
58 Dungeness and tanner crab other than Alaska
treatment efficiencies and costs 302
59 Alaska shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs 303
60 Northern shrimp treatment efficiencies
and costs 304
61 Southern non-breaded shrimp treatment efficiencies
and costs 305
62 Breaded shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs 306
63 Tuna treatment efficiencies and costs 307
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines for
existing sources and standards of performance for new sources, the
farm-braised catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna segments of tne canned and
preserved seafood processing industry are divided into fifteen
subcategories:
a) Farm-Raised Catfish Processing Of More Than 1870 kg
(2000 Ibs) of Raw Material Per Day;
b) Farm-Raised Catfish Processing Of 1870 kg (2000 Ibs)
or Less Of Raw Material Per Day;
c) Conventional Blue Crab Processing;
d) Mechanized Blue Crab Processing
e) Alaskan Crab Meat Processing;
f) Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing;
g) Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in the Contiguous
States;
h) Alaskan Shrimp Processing;
i) Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of
More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material Per Day;
j) Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of
3640 kg (4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day;
k) Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous
States of More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material
Per Day;
1) Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
of 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day;
m) Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of More
Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material Per Day;
n) Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of 3640 kg
(4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day;and
o) Tuna Processing.
The major criteria for the establishment of the subcategories were:
1) variability of raw product supply;
2) variety of the species being processed;
3) degree of preprocessing;
4) manufacturing processes and subprocesses;
5) form and quality of finished product;
6) location of plant;
7) nature of operation (intermittent versus continuous);
and
8) amenability of the waste to treatment.
-------
However, economic impact studies indicate that the facilities size
requires additional considerations. Different criteria were
established for small plants due to unequal economic impacts created by
diseconomies of scale.
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 farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna segments of
the industry was uniformly inadequate. Technology exists at the present
time, however, for the successful reduction of respective waste water
constituents within the industry to the point where the 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 in the next four to six
years. The limits recommended for the new sources are generally based
on the Level I (1977) technology with appropriate effluent reductions
for in-plant modifications.
-------
SECTION II
R ECOMMENDATIONS
Guidelines recommendations for discharge to navigable waters are based
in general on the characteristics of a well-operating dissolved air
flotation unit and a well-operating biological treatment system.
Parameters designated to be of significant importance to warrant their
routine monitoring in this industry, are 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) , total suspended solids (TSS) , and oil and grease (06G) .
Level I recommended guidelines limitations are presented in Table 1;
Level II guidelines limitations, in Table 2; and Recommended New Source
Performance Standards, in Table 3.
-------
Table 1 Recommended Level I (July 1, 1977) Guidelines Limitations
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The following limitations constitute the quantity of pollutants which may be discharged with the
application of BPCTA:
Parameter (kg/kkg liveweight processed)
Subcategory
Farm-Raised Catfish(l)
Farm-Raised Catfish(2)
Conventional Blue Crab
Mechanized Blue Crab
Alaskan Crab Meat
Alaskan Whole Crab &
Section
Dungeness & Tanner Crab
in States
Alaskan Shrimp
Northern Shrimp(4)
Northern Shrimp (5)
Southern Non-Breaded
Shrimp(4)
Southern Non-Breaded
Shrimp(5)
Breaded Shrimp(4)
Breaded Shrimp(5)
Tuna
BPCTCA
Aerated Lagoons
Holding Ponds
Aerated Lagoons
Aerated Lagoons
Screen
Screen
Air Flotation(3)
Screen
Air Flotation(3)
Screen
Air Flotation(3)
Screen
Air Flotation (3)
Screen
Air Flotation(3)
BOD5
Max. 30-day_ Daily
Average Max.
2.3
2.3
0.15
3.0
9.6
6.0
4.8
120
70
120
28
46
50
84
7.8
4.6
4.6
0.30
6.0
29
18
12
360
180
360
70
140
125
250
20
TSS
Max. 30-day Daily
Average Max.
5.7
5.7
0.45
7.4
6.2
3.9
0.81
210
16
54
11
38
28
93
3.0
11.4
11.4
0.90
15
19
12
2.0
320
40
160
28
110
70
280
7.5
O&G
Max. 30 -day Daily
Average Max.
0.45
0.45
0.065
1.4
0.61
0.42
0.12
13
6.3
32
1.8
9
1.8
9
0.87
0.90
0.90
0.13
2.8
1.8
1.3
0.30
39
16
96
4.5
27
4.5
27
2.2
(1) Plant capacity greater than one ton per day of raw material
(2) Plant capacity of one ton or less per day of raw material
(3) Air flotation is operated as a physical treatment system for BPCTCA.
(4) Plant capacity greater than two tons per day of raw material
(5) Plant capacity of two tons or less per day of raw material
-------
Table 2 Recommended Level II (July 1, 1983) Guidelines Limitations
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The following limitations constitute the quantity of pollutants which may be discharged with the
application of BATEA.
Subcategory
BAETA
Parameter (kg/k,kg liveweight processed)
BOD5 TSS O&G
Max. 30 -day Daily
Average Max.
Farm-Raised Catfish(l) Extended Aeration 1.4 4.2
Farm-Raised Catfish(2) Extended Aeration 1.4 4.2
Conventional Blue Crab Extended Aeration 0.12 0.36
Mechanized Blue Crab Extended Aeration 1.9 5.7
Alaskan Crab Meat Air Flotation(3) 4.9 12
Alaskan Whole Crab & Air Flotation(3)
Section 3.1 7.8
Dungeness & Tanner Crab Aerated Lagoon (4)
in States 0.92 1.8
Alaskan Shrimp Air Flotation(3) 64 160
Northern Shrimp(5) Aerated Lagoon(4) 3.8 7.6
Northern Shrimp(6) Air Flotation(3) 62 155
Southern Non-Breaded Aerated Lagoon (4)
Shrimp(5) 3.0 6.0
Southern Non-Breaded Air Flotation(3)
Shrimp(6) 25 63
Breaded Shrimp(5) Aerated Lagoon(4) 4.6 9.2
Breaded Shrimp(6) Air Flotation(3) 40 100
Tuna Activated Sludge(4) 0.51 1.8
(1) Plant capacity greater than one ton per day of raw material
(2) Plant capacity of one tone or less per day of raw material
(3) Air flotation is operated as a physical treatment system
(4) The biological system is preceeded by air flotation which is
(5) Plant capacity greater than two tons per day of raw material
Max. 30-day
Average
1.4
1.4
0.12
1.9
1.6
0.99
2.3
56
9.6
15
7.6
10
12
22
0.51
operated as a
Daily
Max.
4.2
4.2
0.36
5.7
4.0
2.5
4.6
140
19
38
15
25
24
55
1.8
chemical
Max. 30-day
Average
0.45
0.45
0.026
0.53
0.10
0.072
0.057
2.2
0.24
5.7
0.19
1.6
0.29
1.5
0.064
Daily
Max.
1.4
1.4
0.078
1.6
0.25
0.22
0.11
5.5
0.48
14
0.38
4.0
0.58
3.8
0.22
system for BATEA
(6) Plant capacity of two tons or less per day of raw material
-------
Table 3 Recommended Level III (New Source) Guidelines Limitations
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES
cr>
Subcategory
Farm-Raised Catfish(2)
Farm-Raised Catfish(3)
Conventional Blue Crab
Mechanized Blue Crab
Alaskan Crab Meat
Alaskan Whole Crab &
Section
Dungeness & Tanner Crab
in States
Alaskan Shrimp
Northern ShrimpU)
Northern Shrimp(5)
Southern Non-Breaded
Shrimp(4)
Southern Non-Breaded
Shrimp(5)
Breaded Shrimp(4)
Breaded Shrimp(5)
Tuna
Parameter
BPCTCA BOD5
Max. 30 -day Daily
Average Max.
Land Irrigation(l)
Land Irrigation(l)
Aerated Lagoons
Aerated Lagoons
Screen
Screen
Air Flotation
Screen
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
Air Flotation
0.10
0.10
0.15
2.5
8.2
5.1
4.1
100
62
62
25
25
40
40
7.0
0.20
0.20
0.30
5.0
25
15
10
300
155
155
63
63
100
100
18
(kg/kkg liveweight processed)
TSS O&G
Max. 30-day Daily Max. 30-day Daily
Average Max. Average Max.
0.20
0.20
0.45
6.3
5.3
3.3
0.69
180
15
15
10
10
22
22
2.7
0.40
0.40
0.90
13
16
9.9
1.7
270
38
38
25
25
55
55
6.8
0.10
0.10
0.065
1.3
0.52
0.36
0.057
11
5.7
5.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
0.78
0.20
0.20
0.13
2.6
1.6
1.1
0.14
33
14
14
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
2.0
(1) The Level III technology for catfish is based on spray irrigation of process waste water and
partial recycle of live fish holding tank water with overflow and discharge to fish holding ponds
which occasionally overflow to navigable waters.
(2) Plant capacity greater than one ton per day of raw material
(3) Plant capacity of one ton or less per day of raw material
(4) Plant capacity greater than two tons per day of raw material
(5) Plant capacity of two tons or less per day of raw material
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PyRPOSE_ANp_AUTHORITX
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
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 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 technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, 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 canned and preserved
seafoods source category. 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 performances 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 source
categories. Publication of the list constituted announcement of the
Administrator's intention of establishing, under Section 306, standards
of performance applicable to new sources for the canned and preserved
seafoods source category, which was included in the list published
January 16, 1973.
-------
lDdustry__Backc[round
The seafood industry in the United States is an integral part of the
food processing industry. The processors have been expanding and
improving methods of production from the days of drying and salt curing
to modern canning and freezing. Per capita consumption 01 fish and
shellfish in 1972 was 5.5 kg (12.2 Ibs); totaling 1,134,000 kkg
(1,250,000 tons) in the United States. The source and dispositon of
seafood are shown in Figure 1. The total value of these products in
1972, including animal feed and other by- products, was a record $2.3
billion, 23 percent above the previous year (N.M.F.S., 1973).
Regardless of the method of preservation, i.e., fresh-pack, freezing,
canning, or curing, the four segments of the industry considered in
Phase I of this study (catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna) use variations of
a common seafood processing method. Figure 2 schematically shows the
general steps in this method: harvest, storage, receiving,
evisceration, precooking, picking or cleaning, preservation and
packaging. The following general industry description is expanded in
detail in Section IV for each subcategcry of the industry. This general
description serves to introduce the reader to the basic steps in seafood
processing and to provide a basic grasp of the processes prevalent among
the Phase I subcategories of the industry.
Catfish are raised in the southeastern United States; processing is
concentrated in Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. In
1972 farm-raised catfish production totaled 35,400 kkg (39,000 tons);
and wild catfish totaled 21,000 kkg (23,000 tons). The production of
farm-raised catfish is growing rapidly, and has increased 180 percentj
since 1968.
The blue crab industry is located on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf
Coast. It comprises the largest crab landings in the U. S.; 65,800 kkg
(72,500 tons) were landed in 1972. Alaska king crab followed the blue
crab with 33,600 kkg (37,000 tons) landed. The Pacific Coast snow
(tanner) and Dungeness crab catches were approximately 12,700 kkg
(14,000 tons) in 1972 (N.M.F.S., 1973).
Shrimp are landed and processed on all three U. S. coastlines. In 1972
the largest U. S. commerical landings, 103,400 kkg (114,000 tons) were
in the Gulf; followed by the Pacific fisheries, where landings totaled
48,100 kkg (53,000 tons). New England and the South Atlantic had
landings of approximately 11,340 kkg (12,500 tons) each in 1972.
The tuna industry, like shrimp, is highly mechanized. United States
landings for tuna in 1972 were 237,700 kkg (262,000 tons). Over 171,000
kkg (188,500 tons) of that total was landed in the Atlantic, Gulf and
Pacific Coast states, including Hawaii. Puerto Rico had landings of
66,700 kkg (73,500 tons) in 1972. Significant tonnages of tuna are pur-
chased from Japanese, Peruvian, and other foreign fishermen.
-------
BILLION POUNDS
SOURCE EDIBLE WEIGHT DISPOSITION
— 3.2
— 2-4
— 1.6
.8
BEGINNING
STOCKS
IMPORTS
DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION
—
—
BEGINNING
STOCKS
IMPORTS
DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION
^
—
ENDING
b 1 UOKb
EXPORTS
DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION
—
ENDING
STOCKS
EXPORTS
DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION
1971
1972
1971
1972
Figure
Source and disposition of edible fishery products,
-------
HARVEST
I
RECEIVE
\
PRE-PROCESS
'
EVISCERATE
i
PRE-COOK
PRESERVE,
CAN, FREEZE
PICKS CLEAN
FRESH
I
MARKET
1
BY-PRODUCTS
Figure 2 Typical seafood process diagram.
10
-------
As a part of this study the wastes emanating from processing plants in
each of these commodity areas were monitored.
The plants selected for monitoring were representative o± the industry
from several standpoints: including size, age, level of technology, and
geographical distribution. Figures 3 and 4 locate the plants sampled in
Phase I.
General Process Description
Harvesting utilizes some of the oldest and newest technologies in the
industry. It may be considered a separate industry supplying the basic
raw material for processing and subsequent distribution to the consumer.
Harvest techniques vary according to species, and consist of four
general methods: netting, trapping, dredging, and line fishing. Fishing
vessels utilize the latest technology for locating fish and shellfish
and harvest them in the most expedient and economical manner consistent
with local regulations. Once aboard the vessel, the catch either is
taken directly to the processor, or is iced or frozen for later
delivery.
The receiving operation usually involves three steps: unloading the
vessel, weighing, and transporting by conveyor or suitable container to
the processing area. The catch may be processed immediately or
transferred to cold storage.
Preprocessing refers to the initial steps taken to prepare the various
fish and shellfish for the processes that follow. It may include
washing of dredged crabs, thawing of frozen fish, beheading shrimp at
sea, de-icing shrimp, and other operations to prepare the fish for
butchering.
Wastes from the butchering and evisceration are usually drycaptured, or
screened from the waste stream, and processed as a fishery by-product.
Except for the fresh market fish, some form of cooking or precooking of
the commodity may be practiced in order to prepare the fisn or shellfish
for the picking and cleaning operation. Precooking or blanching
facilitates the removal of skin, bone, shell, gills, and other
materials. The steam condensate, or stick water, from the tuna precook
is often collected and further processed as a by-product.
The fish is prepared in its final form by picking or cleaning to
separate the edible portions from non-edible portions. Wastes generated
during this procedure are usually collected and saved for by-product
processing. Depending on the species, the cleaning operation may be
manual, mechanical, or a combination of both. With fresh fish and fresh
shellfish, the meat product is packed into a suitable container and held
under refrigeration for shipment to a retail outlet.
11
-------
ro
LEGEND
0 SHRIMP
CATF/SH
Figure 3 General location of fish and shellfish plants sampled
-------
LEGEND
©SHRIMP
(D CRAB
(D TUNA
Figure 4 . General location of fish and.shellfish plafits sampled.
13
-------
If the product is to be held for extended periods of time before
consumption, a form of preservation is used to prevent spoilage caused
by bacterial action and autolysis. In the Phase I commodity groups,
four methods of preservation are employed: freezing, canning,
pasteurization and refrigeration.
Bacterial growth is arrested at temperatures below -9°C (16°F) (Burgess,
1967). For this reason, freezing is an excellent method of holding
uncooked fish for an extended period of time. Freezing is also
advantageous because the meat remains essentially unchanged, in contrast
to canning, which alters the product form. However, autolysis still
continues at a reduced rate, necessitating the consumption of the meat
within approximately 6 months. Storage times vary from species to
species. Blanching prior to freezing inactivates many enzymes and
further slows autolysis.
Preservation by canning requires special equipment to fill the can, add
preservatives and seasonings, create a partial vacuum and seal the can.
A partial vacuum is necesary to avoid distortion of the can due to
increased internal pressures during cooking. After sealing, the cans
are washed and retorted (pressure-cooked) at approximately 115°C (240°F)
for 30 to 90 minutes, depending on the can size. Although the enzymes
are inactivated at rather low temperatures, high temperatures must be
reached to insure the destruction of harmful anaerobic bacterial spores.
Clostridium botulinum, the most harmful of these, must be subjected to a
temperature of 116°C (240°F) for at least 8.7 minutes (Burgess, 1967).
A longer cooking time is employed to achieve this temperature throughout
the can and to insure total destruction of the bacteria. After the cook
the can is cooled with water and the canned fish or shellfish is
transported to the labeling room for casing and shipment.
Process_Summary^of^Phase I Species
Catfish
Sixty percent of the catfish harvest is from farm ponds or raceways; the
rest are caught wild. They are transported, alive, iced, or "dry"
(without ice), to the processing plant. At the plant the fish are kept
in live-holding tanks until .ready to be processed. They are usually
stunned by electrocution. The fish are then conveyed into the plant
where the heads and dorsal fins are removed. They are then eviscerated
and skinned. A final cleaning removes adhering skin, fins, and blood.
The fish are weighed and packaged according to size; larger fish are cut
into steaks or filleted; smaller fish are packaged whole. All catfish
are marketed fresh or frozen.
Solid wastes are subjected to rendering wherever facilities are
available. Otherwise, they are deposited in landfills or dumps.
Wastewater treatment is usually not practiced.
14
-------
Blue Crab
Harvesting of blue crab is accomplished by dredging them from the mud,
catching them with baited traps or lines, or scraping them from grassy
shores during the molt. Transported live to the receiving dock, the
crabs are unloaded into trolleys for immediate steam cooking at 121°C
(250°F) for 10 to 20 minutes. After storage overnight in a cooling
locker, the claws are removed (and saved for mechanical processing or
hand picking) and the body of the crab is picked manually. The meat is
packed into cans or plastic bags. In the mechanized plant the claws and
sometimes the bodies, after removal of carapace and "back fin," are run
through a mechanical picker which separates the meat from the shell.
The meat is then frequently canned, retorted, and cased for shipment.
The select "back fin" is hand packed in cans, pasteurized, and
refrigerated.
Other Crab
Dungeness, tanner, and king crab are caught in baited pots and generally
stored onboard the vessel in circulating seawater. In Alaska, where
larger volumes of crab are caught, they are stored in live tanks at the
processing plant. On the lower West Coast, where catches are much
smaller and consist mainly of Dungeness crab, they are usually dry-
stored and butchered early the day after delivery. Most plants utilize
dry butchering; some, however, employ fluming to transport shell and
viscera. The crabs are then cooked, cooled, picked, packaged, and
stored. Meat extraction of "sections" (crab halves) is done either
manually or mechanically. Mechanical picking is practiced mainly in
Alaska, using rollers or high-pressure water. Hand picking is performed
chiefly on Dungeness and imported tanner crabs in the lower West Coast
states. Meat that has been picked from the crab is marketed either
fresh, frozen or canned. Some crabs are cooked and marketed without
butchering.
Waste from crab processing is rendered if facilities are available.
Otherwise, it is hauled to a sanitary landfill or discharged to the bay
or to a municipal sewer, along with plant sanitary wastes.
Shrimp
Shrimp are caught by trawlers, vessels which "drag" the ocean with large
nets. The shrimp are stored in ice until delivery to the processor.
They are then de-iced, separated from debris, and weighed. The shell is
peeled either manually or mechanically. After being cleaned of debris
the shrimp are usually blanched. They are then either frozen or canned.
Variations of the process among Alaskan, West, Gulf, and Atlantic Coast
shrimp are explained in Section IV. The shell and larger waste solids
are sometimes screened from the waste stream and either rendered at
another facility or removed to a sanitary landfill. In other instances,
the solids are discharged to the bay with the untreated waste water.
15
-------
Tuna
Tuna are harvested by line or by net. They are frozen onboard the
vessel and thawed (usually by salt water) at the processing plant. The
tuna are then butchered, precooked, cooled, and cleaned, before being
packed in cans. Depending on the condition of the cleaned tuna, the
meat is graded as solid, chunk, or flake style. Retorting stabilizes
the product and destroys harmful bacteria. The cans are subsequently
labeled, cased, and shipped to the retailer. Viscera, precooker stick
water and solid wastes are further processed into by-products. Some
plants, however, do not practice press-liquor or stick water recovery.
Such plants discharge these liquids to local waters with their untreated
process waste waters, or barge them to sea.
16
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The initial categorization of the seafood processing industry for Phase
I of this study logically fell along commodity lines. That is, four
broad groups of subcategories were involved: catfish, crao, shrimp and
tuna. Beyond this general breakdown, however, further fragmentation was
necessary to develop subcategories of a relatively homogeneous nature,
each of which could be considered as a unit in the process of developing
(and ultimately applying) effluent guidelines and standards. The
following variables, in addition to type of seafood, were considered in
the development of subcategories:
1. variability in raw product supply;
2. condition of raw product on delivery to the
processing plant;
3. variety of the species being processed;
4. harvesting method;
5. degree of preprocessing;
6. manufacturing processes and subprocesses;
7. form and quality of finished product;
8. location of plant (taking into account such factors
as climatic conditions, terrain, soil types, etc.);
9. age of plant;
10. production capacity and normal operating level;
11. nature of operation (intermittent versus continuous);
12. raw water availability;
13. amenability of the waste to treatment.
It remained then to define and recommend subcategories whose uniqueness
dictated the consideration of separate guidelines based on the variables
listed above. During the course of the study, the importance of all but
one of these variables was confirmed. The only variable which was found
to have little relationship to the ultimate development of
subcategories, was number 9, "age of plant." In the course of the field
work, it became obvious that within a given industry, either 1) equally
antiquated processes were being used by all processors (with minor
modifications); 2) older plants had been remodeled periodically during
the life of the industry so that similar processes were being employed
in both old and new plants; or 3) (as was the case with catfish) the
industry was so young that significant differences in plant age did not
exist.
17
-------
On the following pages will be found a description of the final
subcategorization of the four segments of the seafood industry
considered in Phase I of this study. Included in each discussion is a
detailed description of the industry within the suocategory, a
description of the raw materials used, end products produced, methods
and variations of production, and a review of the rationale ror its
designation as a separate unit. Much of the information contained in
the initial description of each subcategory is based on an updating of
the original seafoods "state of the art" report developed for EPA in
1970 (Soderquist, et al., 1970), together with supplemental material
gathered on-site and developed through extensive communication with the
industry.
]?n each case, a generalized flow diagram is presented for each major
component of the subcategory. Variations on each of those general
themes are then discussed in the text.
FARM-RAISED CATFISH PROCESSING
Background
Since 1963, the production of farm catfish has increased steadily (see
Table 4). Four species (channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus; blue
catfish, Ictalurus furcatus; white catfish, Ictalurus catus; and brown
bullhead catfish, Ictalurus nebulosus) have been grown and managed
successfully in ponds. Catfish are considered a delicacy in the
southern and southcentral states and markets have been (and continue toi
be) expanding rapidly. In 1969, the total harvest was 38 million
kilograms (84 million pounds) (Jones, 1969). The National Marine
Fisheries Service estimated that the total farm catfisn production in
1975 will reach 51 million kilograms (112.5 million pounds) (Jones,
1969). -
Continued high demand for the finished product, together with
improvements in production technology, have stimulated rapid growth of
the catfish processing industry over the past few years. In the mid-
1960's, according to Mulkey and Sargent (1972), nearly all farm-raised
catfish were sold to local consumers or were offered (at a price) to
local sport fishermen in commercial "fish-out" lakes. In 1970, sixteen
processing plants were operating in nine states and processing 2.9
million kilograms (6.4 million pounds) of raw product annually (Russell,
1972). Today at least thirty-seven plants are in operation, mostly in
Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
18
-------
Table 4 Total supplies of catfish in the U. S. 1963-68,
with production projections estimates 1969-1975 (Jones, 1969).
Wild
Catfish
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
(kg x 106)
21.9
21.6
20.4
19.3
18.8
18.3
19.3
20.4
20.4
21.0
21.0
21.6
21.6
(Ib x 106)
(48. 3)
(47. 6)
(45.0)
(42. 5)
(41. 3)
(41.3)
(42. 5)
(45.0)
(45.0)
(46.3)
(46.3)
(47. 5)
(47. S)
Catfish
Imports
(kg x 106)
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.8
2.3
3.2
3.6
4.1
4.1
5.0
6.4
(Ib x 106)
( 0.5)
( 0.8)
( 1-0)
( 2.0)
( 3.0)
( 4.0)
( 5.0)
( 7.0)
( 8.0)
( 9.0)
( 9-0)
(11.0)
(14.0)
Farm
Catfish
(kg x 106)
1.1
1.7
3.2
5.0
7.5
12.5
19.1
26.2
32.5
35.4
41.3
44.5
50.1
(Ib x 106)
( 2.4)
( 3.8)
( 7.0)
( 11-0)
( 16.5)
( 27.5)
( 42.0)
( 57. 6)
( 71.5)
( 78.0)
( 91-0)
( 98.0)
(112.5)
-------
Processing
The science of raising catfish involves planting six inch fingerlings
which are fed a commercial ration through maturity. For detailed
descriptions of catfish farming schemes, the reader is directed to
Barksdale (1968), Grizell, et al. (1969), Boussu (1969), and Greenfield
(1969). Harvesting is accomplished by a preliminary seining of the
rearing pond followed by drainage of the pond (during dry weather) and
manual collection of the remaining fish lying in the bottom mud. The
fish are generally shipped alive in aerated tank trucks to the
processing plant where they are stored in holding tanks. Live hauling
eliminates the need for meat preservation before processing but
generates the problem of disposal of the feces-contaminated holding
water. Alternatively, the fish are packed in ice and trucked to the
processing plant. Local small producers frequently deliver tneir fish
dry (and without ice) to the plant. Figure 5 depicts the process used
in the catfish industry. The solid line depicts the product flow, the
single dashed line depicts waste water flow and the double dashed line
depicts primarily waste solids flow. The twin beheading saws (band
saws) are followed by the evisceration table, skinning machines, the
washing-grading area and the automatic weigher-sorter. A typical
catfish plant employs twenty-four workers (for one shift) ana processes
about 5000 kg (11,000 Ibs) of fish per eight-hour day.
The receiving area includes the holding tanks and the stunning tank,
which may or may not be distinct from one another. The storage tanks
require a non-chlorinated water supply to avoid toxicity to the fish.
Sufficient dissolved oxygen must be provided through mecnanical aeration
or high water exchange rates. Prior to stunning, most processors
attempt to "cull out" and discard dead fish.
Iced storage is more popular with processors who must transport their
raw product long distances to the processing plant. When iced storage
is used, the effluent load from the receiving area is reduced.
When processing begins, the live fish are first "stunned," which
involves electrocution in water-filled tanks or dewatered cages. This
method of killing is claimed to have the advantage of concentrating most
of the blood in the head, thereby minimizing blood loss and
discoloration of the flesh during subsequent processing (Billy, 1969).
A possible disadvantage of this method was pointed out by Mulkey and
Sargent (1972). This was the assumed tendency for the fish to defecate
during stunning. The specific effects, however, of shocking on meat
quality and on waste production remain to be determined.
After stunning, the fish are butchered. This process consists of
beheading, eviscerating, and skinning and can be either manual or
mechanical. At this point, under-size and "trash" fish are discarded.
Catfish have traditionally been skinned before marKeting. This is
20
-------
necessary to reduce off-flavor in "wild" catfish, but at least one
writer questions the necessity to skin cultured catfish (Billy, 1969).
In some plants receiving fish on ice rather than alive, the beheading is
preceeded by a pre-wash step that uses a significant amount of water.
After loading onto a conveyor belt, the fish are spray-washed as they
are transported into the plant.
21
-------
' PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
= == = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
( CULL FISH )
(FECES,WATER)
(HEADS, FINS)
(VISCERA)
(SKINS)
(SLIME, WATER)
_ (BLOO£iSj)LIJ>S,WAJER)
(BLOOD, WATER)
TO CITY SEWAGE
>— SYSTEM OR LOCAL
t STREAM.
SHIPPED TO
CUSTOMER
Figure 5 Catfish process,
22
-------
Heads are usually removed with conventional band saws or table saws.
The solid wastes, including the decomposed and under-size fish, are dry-
captured at many plants; water is required only for periodic equipment
cleaning.
Evisceration is accomplished either manually or with a vacuum system.
In the latter case, after the body cavity is opened manually, the
viscera are removed by vacuum "guns" and dry-captured for subsequent
rendering, incorporation into pet food, or burial for final disposal.
The manual method of evisceration is slower than the vacuum system.
Whether evisceration is mechanical or manual, the majority of plants do
employ dry-capture of the viscera for ultimate disposal.
Skinning is done either manually or mechanically; however, even the
mechanical systems require considerable manual input. Manual skinning
involves impaling of the carcass on a hook suspended a few feet above
the work area and stripping of the skin from the carcass using a pliers-
like tool. Mechanical skinning involves running the fish (manually)
over a planer-like machine three times (once for each side and once for
the back) and abrading and pulling the skin from the body of the fish.
Surprisingly, mechanical skinning increases the product yield a small
amount. This is because manual skinning tears off the abdominal flesh
along with the skin, whereas mechanical skinning does not. Skins are
either flumed to the main waste stream or are trapped at the skinner in
a basket-type screen and dry-captured.
A third method of skinning, using sodium hydroxide, is still in the
research stage. Development of the technique, analogous in some ways to
[the "dry caustic" peeling method now being adopted in the fruit and
vegetable processing industries, is under way at Mississippi State
University (Lorio, 1973) . Large-scale acceptance of the method by the
industry in the next few years is not anticipated.
After butchering, pieces of adhering skin and fins are removed and the
fish are manually or automatically washed, where the body cavities are
scrubbed with rotating brushes, and subjected to a final rinse. From
this point, they are graded and inspected. After cleaning, the fish are
sorted by weight and generally those under 0.45 kg (one pound) are
packed in weight groups on ice and refrigerated or frozen to await
shipment. Some plants, however, package individual fish in trays and
seal them in plastic. Fish over 0.45 kg (one pound) are frequently
filleted or cut into steaks.
The bulk of the product leaves the plant as fresh or frozen whole
processed fish. A small market exists for fresh and frozen fillets and
for frozen breaded fish sticks. Recently, liquid nitrogen freezing has
proven successful in producing meat with improved quality ( ,
1969). Pond-reared channel catfish can be kept frozen for as long as
twelve months with only small losses in flavor (Billy, 1969).
23
-------
Many plants have rearing or holding ponds on-site. A few discharge some
or all of their process wastewaters (including holding tank waters) into
these ponds.
Wastes Generated
Jones (1969) estimated 45 percent of the whole catfish to be waste and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (1968), 40 percent. Using the 45
percent value, the total waste quantity projected for 1975 was
calculated to be 23.0 million kilograms (50.6 million pounds).
Four main methods of disposal of catfish offal are currently practiced.
These are: processing for pet food and catfish feed, rendering for fish
meal, and burial (Billy, 1969). Catfish offal has been rendered to a
meal containing over 45 percent protein ( , 1969). The
distribution of essential amino acids in the proteins of the catfish
offal makes it a good source of supplementary protein for animals.
Several proximate analyses of catfish offal are available in the
literature. One is detailed in Table 5.
Table 5. Proximate analysis of
raw catfish offal ( , 1970).
Constituent Level
Moisture 58.6%
Crude fat 25.5%
Ash 3.1%
Crude protein 12.8%
The offal consists mainly of heads, skin, viscera and fat.
Tables 6 and 7 reflect the percentages of each.
24
-------
Table 6. Offal from tank-raised
channel catfish (Heaton, et al., 1970).
Component L^E3§_5'.ish Small^Fish
Finished product 63.9% 62.8%
Head 22.5% 23.3%
Skin 6.5% 6.5%
Viscera 5.6% 6.1%
Fat 1.5% 1.8%
Table 7. Catfish Offal from cage-cultured
channel catfish (Heaton, et al., 1972).
Component i.§v§l
Finished product 59.4%
Head 19.5%
Skin 6.4%
Viscera 7.6%
Fat 6.1%
Average
63.4*
22.9%
6.5%
5.9%
1.7%
Unlike the data available on solid wastes, very little data
have been published on the nature of liquid wastes generated
in catfish processing plants. The sole published source of
information on catfish processing waste water characteristics
prior to the current study was the paper by Mulkey and Sargent
(1972) reporting on a three-day characterization program at a
Georgia catfish processing plant. These investigators found
the total plant effluent to exhibit the characteristics in
Table 8.
25
-------
Table 8. Catfish processing waste water
characteristics (Mulkey and Sargent, 1972).
Level
kg^or 1 lb_O£_2al kgr or_l Ib or gal
Parameter 1000 fish 1000 fish kkg raw mat'l ton raw mat'l
Flow
BOD
COD
TSS
TVSS
7570
3.6
4.9
2.3
2.0
Grease and Oil 0.8
(2000)
(8.0)
(10.8)
(5.1)
(4.5)
(1.7)
16,400
7.9
10.6
5.0
4.4
1.7
(3920)
(15.7)
(21.2)
(10.0)
(8.8)
(3.3)
Their data were expressed in terms of pounds or gallons per fish or per
1000 fish processed. For comparative purposes, these data were
converted to the forms shown in the table, based on the assumption that
the average catfish processed weighed 0.46 kg (1.02 Ibs) (as was
indicated by Mulkey and Sargent) .
Figures 6, 7, and 8 are respective plots of the catfish waste water
flow, BOD5, and suspended solids data gathered in this study. Each data
point represents the summary data of each plant sampled.
SUBCATEGORIZATION_ RATIONALE
Subcategorization for the catfish processing industry was relatively
straightforward, largely due to the fact that the industry is in
relative infancy and is much more homogeneous than most of tne other
seafood processing industries.
As is the case with nearly all seafood processors, the catfish
processors do not enjoy a constant supply of raw product. Availability
is seasonal and a function of such factors as the water temperatures in
the immediate area, rainfall frequency and intensity (affecting harvest-
ing) , development of certain off-flavors (due to algae), and priority in
work scheduling on the farm. In the Tennessee Valley region, for
instance, the growing season lasts for about 150 days. Optimum growth
occurs in the water temperature range of 28° to 31°C (82° to 88°F)
( , 1972). During the winter months, the fish remain virtually
26
-------
dormant and grow very little. The harvesting season begins usually in
the fall and continues through the winter and into the spring (as the
weather permits). Recently, as the processing industry has become more
organized, the producers have been enticed to harvest (although on a
reduced scale) through the summer months, some processors, furthermore,
have entered the production business, thereby assuring tnemselves more
complete control over raw product supply. In the summer of 1972, as a
result, most catfish processing plants operated at about 60 percent of
full production capacity ( , 1973).
27
-------
35,000
30,000
* 25,000
x
x
x
|
£ 20,000
©
©
15,000
10,000
1 I
I I I I I
I 2 3
4567
PRODUCTION kkg/day
8 9 10
Figure 6
Catfish production rates and flow ratios
28
-------
10
9
8
7
6
x 5
cS 4
Q
O
3
£
1
a &
0
0
»
.
-
, , , , i i i i I I
\ Z 34 56 78 9 10
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 7
Catfish production rates and BODS ratios
-------
Cn
X
X
X
Cn
^
w
T)
•H
,_l
0
to
T3
OJ
rr~<
Tj
C
QJ
cx
w
3
W
121
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
©
©
0
©
©
-
-
-
i i I I I I 1 i I i
1 23456 789 10
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 8
Catfish production rates and suspended solids ratios
30
-------
Another consideration in subcategorization was condition of raw product
on delivery to the processing plant. In the catfish industry, the farm-
raised catfish are delivered either alive in aerated tank trucks or
packed on ice or "dry." The waste waters from the live haul are, of
course, much greater in volume than those from iced transportation and
are contaminated mainly with feces, regurgitated material, and pond
benthos. The ice, on the other hand, where used in packing the fish for
transport, is usually bloody and contains significant amounts of slime.
A significant amount of water is necessary for spray-washing before the
fish are transported into the plant. Although the two types of wastes
differ in character and concentration, it was felt tnat these
differences were not sufficient to warrant separate subcategories.
A third consideration in subcategorization was the variety of species
being processed. Although the most common variety currently processed
is the channel catfish, others are handled by the plants in lesser
amounts. The results of the analyses of the samples gathered during the
plant monitoring phase of this study indicated that no significant
difference in the nature of the wastes from the processing of various
species existed.
A fourth consideration in subcategorization was the method of
harvesting. As discussed previously, harvesting methods are relatively
uniform throughout the industry.
Degree of pre-processing, manufacturing processes and subprocesses, and
form and quality of finished product, as have been discussed previously,
are relatively uniform throughout the industry and present no bases for
further subcategorization.
Plant location and age were also considered. The catfish industry is
located in the central and southern states in areas of similar climatic
conditions (conducive to the raising of farm catfish) in flat to
moderate rolling terrain. The soils present no severe construction
problems, in general. High water tables, in certain localities, present
problems. Many of the plants are located in rural areas on sufficient
acreage to permit installation of adequate treatment systems. Those
with inadequate land in their possession currently eitner: 1) have
access to other land (at a price); or 2) are reasonably well suited for
incorporation into a nearby municipal system. As mentioned previously,
age of plant is not a significant factor in this industry.
The relatively unsophisticated level of the industry indicates that the
production capacity, normal operating levels (percent of capacity) and
nature of operation (intermittent versus continuous) do not appreciably
affect the waste loadings generated by the processing plants.
The remaining two factors considered in subcategorization, raw water
availability and waste treatability, do not appear to present
insurmountable obstacles to the imposition of effluent guidelines and
31
-------
the industry's successful compliance with them. Fresh water is
generally available to all processors in the industry and although
virtually nothing is known about treatability of the specific wastes
generated in catfish processing, no known toxicants are present in the
waste streams, and the operations offer sufficient continuity to sustain
some types of biological treatment systems.
On a technical basis alone, the United States catfish processing
industry was placed into a single subcategory for the purpose of
designing and estimating the costs of treatment systems and for
developing recommended effluent standards and guidelines. However, the
size of the processing facility is another significant factor which
requires additional subcategorization. Diseconomies of scale create
economic impacts which require separate criteria for the effluent
limitations developed for small plants. For this reason catfish
processing is divided into two sutcategories: Farm-Raised Catfish
Processing of More Than 908 kkg (2000 Ibs) or Raw Material Per Day
(Subcategory A) ; and Farm-Raised Catfish Processing of 908 kkg (2000
Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day (Subcategory B) .
CRAB
The second segment of the seafood industry which was considered in Phase
I of this study was crab. Figures 9, 10, and 11 are plots of all crab
flow, BOD5, and suspended solids data (respectively) gathered in this
study. The complete crab industry data is presented in Section V. An
analysis of the flow data reveals that water use in the conventional
blue crab process was less than one-tenth that o± the other crab
operations; furthermore the organic loading, in terms of BOD, from the
mechanized blue crab process was more than double those from the
processing of other species. It has been determined that blue crab
should be designated a separate subcategory from the other species
processed in the United States.
Within the blue crab industry, plants employing a claw picking macine
(mechanized processing) generated waste waters significantly greater in
quantity and in BOD loadings than conventional (manual) processors.
Thus separate subcategroies were necessary.
Further review of the data indicates significant differences in water
use between Alaskan and "lower 48" crab processors. Large differences
in settleable solids were also noted. Whereas the average settleable
solids concentration in the Alaskan samples was about 36 1/kkg, those
from the Pacific Northwest averaged about 1600 1/kkg. These factors,
together with others discussed later under "Subcategorization Rationale"
led to the segregation of the two industries and designation of a
separate subcategory for each.
32
-------
CRAB
146,000
50,000
40,000
I 30,000
20,000
10,000
• = Conventional blue crab
O= Mechanized blue crab
D = .Alaska crab,
whole cook & section
B== Alaska crab,
frozen & canned meat
A= West Coast Dungeness,
fre.=h & whole cook
10 15 20
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 9
Crab production rates and flow ratios
25
33
-------
• = Conventional blue crab
O= Mechanized blue crab
O— Alaska crao,
whole cook & section
£O
20
(kg/kkg)
oi
Q
O
* 10
5
•= Alaska crab,
D
O frozen & canned meat
O
A= West Coast Dungeness,
fresh & whole cook
-
A
B
o"
A
A
- • D
D
i i i i i
5 10 15 20
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 10
Crab production rates and BODS^ ratios
25
34
-------
„.
• = Conventional blue crab
Os= Mechanized blue crab
O= Alaska crab,
whole cook & section
Cn
X.
en
•rl
0.
en
0)
C
-------
A. final breakdown within the crab industry was based indirectly on type
of final product. Referring again to the data in Section V, the Alaskan
crab industry produced two distinctly different types of waste water
streams: one from meat operations and one from whole-and-sections
processes, the former producing 70 percent more flow, 62 percent fewer
settleable solids and 90 percent more suspended solids.
In all, five different subcategories were utlimately designated for the
crab industry: Conventional Blue Crab (Subcategory C); Mechanized Blue
Crab (Subcategory D); Alaskan Crab Meat (Subcategory E); Alaskan Whole
Crab and Crab Sections (Subcategory F); and Dungeness and Tanner Crab
Outside of Alaska (Subcategory G).
CONVENTIONAL_BLUE_CRAB_PRgCESSING (Subcategory C)
Background
The blue crab, comprising 55 percent of the United States crab
production, is harvestd along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts; a
principal center of processing is the Chesapeake Bay area ( ,
1972). Of the 18U plants in the United States, 90 are located in
Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. These plants are typically
small, locally owned businesses with highly variable production
schedules.
The blue crab lCai:Linectes sajoidus) is a much smaller (11-13 cm; 4.5-5
in capapace) variety than the West Coast and Alaskan crab. Most crab
processed are caught locally (within a 50 mile radius of the plant),
although during slack periods crab are imported from remote areas (with
high spoilage losses). Transshipment from one production area to
another is often practiced when local supplies are inadequate.
Crabs are harvested from shallow water in baited traps, on baited lines
("trot lines"), "scrapes," or dip nets, or they are dredged from the
bottom mud. Rapid and careful handling is necessary to keep the crabs
alive. Dead crabs must be discarded because of rapid deterioration.
"Cocktail claws" are considered prime products and are often packed
separately. The meat is richer, with fuller texture than the more
fibrous body meat.
Many blue crab hold eggs and are called "sponge" crab. These are
generally accepted by most plants; personnel from some plants, however,
claim that during cooking the eggs impart a permanent "iodine" flavor to
the meat. Also, it is reasoned that the more egg-bearing crabs returned
to the sea, the greater the possibility of sustained blue crab yields.
For these reasons some processors refuse to accept sponge crabs. In ad-
dition, some states periodically prohibit harvesting or sponge crabs.
36
-------
In some areas most of the crabs processed for meat in the blue crab
industry are the females, called "sooks." The males, or "jimmies,11 are
usually larger than the females; the processors frequently segregate
the largest jimmies and market them alive.
The conventional blue crab processing scheme is shown in Figure 12. The
first step is the cooking phase where the crabs are steamed at 121°C
(250°F) for 10 minutes. On the Gulf Coast, the crabs are sometimes
boiled, but boiled crab meat is prohibited in most states because the
temperature available for microbial kill is lower in the boiling
process. The vast majority (more than 80 percent) of blue crab
processors today employ steam cooking. Cooking takes place in
horizontal or vertical cookers. An average-size horizontal cooker can
hold from 820 to 1230 kgs (1800 to 2700 Ibs) per change. Vertical
cookers average 410 kgs (900 Ibs) capacity.
About 35 percent of the live weight of the crab is lost in the steam
cooking process; condensates from the crab cookers have been shown to
exhibit BOD's of 12,000 to 14,000 mg/1 (Carawan, 1973).
After cooking, the crabs are normally butchered manually and the meat
picked from the shell. An industry average for manual meat picking is
14 kg (30 Ibs) of meat per picker per day (Paparella, 1973) .
Yields in conventional blue crab processing plants vary from 9 to 15
percent (Thomas, 1973). In the conventional process, arter the crabs
are cooked, air cooled and picked, the meat is placed into cans or
similar containers. Much of the crab meat is "sealed" in cans with
snap-lids which are manually pressed into place, iced and sold fresh.
In addition many cans are hermetically sealed, but are not retorted;
rather they are pasteurized in a water bath at 89°C (192°F) for about
110 minutes. Some crab meat is canned (and retorted) in the
conventional fashion, but most is not. In canning, additives such as
EDTA (ethylenediaminetetracetic acid), alum, citric acid and other
organic acids are used in very small amounts.
One exception to the above processes is that involving soft shell crab.
In this instance, crabs are harvested during the molting process, are
kept in the plants in "live boxes" and checked every four hours for
progress in shedding their shells. Immediately after the shell is
discarded, the crab is marketed alive (packed in wet grass) as a "soft
shell crab."
37
-------
TO
REDUCTION PLANT
OR LANDFILL; ^ .
OR CLAWS TO '
MECHANICAL PICKER
•• PRODUCT FLOW
• WASTEWATER FLOW
• WASTE SOLIDS
CLAWS. LEG. SHELL
(WATER)
(ORGANICS, HOT WATER)
(WATER)
(SHELL, WATER)
EFFLUENT
Figure 12 Conventional blue crab process,
38
-------
Wastes_Generated
Although some exploratory work has been conducted in the blue crab
processing industry by North Carolina State University, the University
of Maryland, and others, no comprehensive study of the waste waters
produced in the processing of blue crab had been reported at the time
this project was initiated.
In the conventional blue crab processing plant (Figure 12) the water
usage is small. The overall pollutional load is attributable mainly to
the cooking phase and to the plant clean up operation. Cooker
condensates have a BOD of up to 14,000 mg/1, whereas plant clean up
waters have organic strengths of perhaps one-tenth of that. Most
conventional plants utilize ice-making machines which have a continuous
cooling water stream (having no appreciable pollutant loading) which may
flow 24 hours per day.
The major portion of the blue crab is not edible, and as a result is
wasted in processing. This waste, consisting of body juices, shell and
entrails, may range up to 86 percent of the crab by weight (Stansby,
1963), of which 25 percent is liquid lost in cooking. The solid waste
load from the blue crab processing industry for 1971 was calculated to
be 33.6 million kg (74 million Ib) using 51 percent as the residual
solids fraction of the waste. The actual waste volume was somewhat
less, since a percentage of the total crab landed was marketed whole or
butchered to remove only backs and entrails.
The composition of shellfish waste is largely determined by the
exoskeleton, which is composed primarily of chitin, (a polysaccharide
structural material), protein bound to the chitin, and calcium
carbonate. While the major portion of the waste generally consists of
exoskeletal materials, varying significant amounts of attached or
unrecovered flesh and visceral materials are included. The protein
concentration of crab waste is considered low compared to visceral fish
wastes, reducing its value as an animal feed. However, most of the
solid wastes from the blue crab processing industry are utilized in crab
meal for eventual incorporation into animal feed.
SUBCATEGQRIZATION_RATigNAI,E
The characterization program for this study centered around the
Chesapeake Bay area because of its large number of blue crab processors
in a relatively small geographic area. The sampling schedule was
established based on anticipated catches in the Virginia, Maryland and
North Carolina area. Considerable delay was experienced when these
harvests did not materialize on schedule. Conferences with local
industrial representatives indicated that about once about every decade
the early spring blue crab harvest is extremely poor, and 1973 happened
39
-------
to be one of those years. The poor harvest was attributed to locally
heavy rainfall and subsequent dilution of the estuaries with fresh
water.
Several active plants were finally located, and although the plants were
operating intermittently or at reduced levels occasionally, the time
constraints of the study forced the use of these plants for the
monitoring program. They were sampled in depth over a period of several
weeks.
The problems of seasonality and inavailability of raw product served to
emphasize the need for careful consideration of these factors in the
design of proposed treatment systems for the blue crab industry. It did
not, however, provide any substantial basis for further subcategori-
zation of the industry because it appeared that all segments of the blue
crab industry were equally susceptible to inavailability of raw product
at various times during the processing season.
The condition of the raw product on delivery to the processing plant was
of considerable concern in the blue crab processing industry, especially
with respect to dredged crab.
During several of the winter months, (December through March) most of
the crabs that are processed have been dredged out of the mud in the
estuaries where they have taken refuge during their dormant stage. In
the harvesting process these crabs sustain a significantly greater
incidence of injury than do those taken with other methods. The general
condition of the crabs is poor and, therefore, the yield at the
processing plant is markedly lower. Furthermore, a great deal of silt
and mud is carried into the processing plant with the raw material and
must be removed in a prewash step that is not normally employed with
crabs harvested by other means. These combinations of factors likely
cause the waste from the processing of dredged blue crab to be
considerably different from those harvested by alternative measures.
For the present, dredged crab have been included in Subcategoro.es C and
D (depending on whether they are processed mechanically or not) for the
purpose of development of treatment system designs, estimation of
expected effluent levels after treatment and estimation of treatment
system costs. However, since no data are yet available on the actual
percentage of solid and . liquid wastes generated in the processing of
dredged blue crab, this decision must be considered tentative. It
remains to be confirmed (or refuted) during some future blue crab
dredging season.
The variety of the species being processed appeared to be fairly uniform
throughout the blue crab industry and was not a significant factor in
the development of the subcategorization schemes.
A. fourth item considered in subcategorization was "harvesting methods."
As discussed above under "condition of raw product on delivery to the
40
-------
processing plant," the harvesting method employed influences the raw
product condition, which in turn probably affects the waste water
quantity and quality.
"Degree of preprocessing" was not a consideration in the blue crab
industry because only live whole crabs delivered to the processing plant
were incorporated into the finished product. The "manufacturing
processes and subprocesses" were important factors affecting
subcategorization, as discussed earlier.
"Form and quality of finished product," while they did have an impact on
the total levels of waste water constituents, did not drastically alter
the basic character of the waste stream and therefore, were not
considered of sufficient importance to warrant further
subcategorization.
"Location of plant" might conceivably be a significant variable in the
blue crab industry. Blue crab processing plants are found from New
Jersey to Texas and certainly along that vast coastline different
climatic conditions, terrain and soil types are encountered. Clearly,
diversities of site specificity are so complex and so important that
they would overshadow any artificial geographical subdivision
established in an attempt to define more homogeneous subcategories. An
individual processing plant, faced with the problem of abating its
pollution load, might be hindered by its location. Most commonly, the
availability of significant land area with a low ground water table,
sufficient drainage, etc. would be the goal. This is frequently not the
case in the blue crab industry, where plants are often located on piers
or on land with high ground water tables. In general, blue crab
processing plants are either 1) located near small population centers,
which eventually would permit joint industrial-municipal treatment or 2)
situated physically in such a manner that onsite treatment of their
waste waters may be technically feasible.
Additional considerations in subcategorization were "production capacity
and normal operating level;" and "nature of operation (intermittent
versus continuous)." By nature, the blue crab processing industry is an
intermittent process (controlled by product availability) and production
capacity is governed by such constraints as number of employees
available, size of production area, size and number of cookers and
retorts (where used) and availability of adequate storage. In the
monitoring phase of this study, no evidence was found to indicate that
either of these variables significantly affected the waste streams from
the processing plants. Therefore, no subcategorization along these
lines was attempted.
The last two variables considered in the subcategorization scheme were
"raw water availability" and amenability of the waste to treatment."
Raw water availability was not a consideration in the slue crab industry
because no. in-plant modifications or waste treatment additions would
U1
-------
significantly increase the amount of raw water required by the
processor. Waste treatability is not a significant factor for further
subcategorization but is is partially responsible for separating the
blue crab industry into Conventional and Mechanized.
For all of the above reasons, the United States blue crab processing
industry was placed into two subcategories (Conventional and Mechanized
discussed below) for the purpose of designing and estimating the costs
of treatment systems and for developing recommended effluent standards
and guidelines.
MECHANIZED BLUE CRAB PROCESSING (Subcategory D)
Processing
The mechanized blue crab processing scheme is shown in Figure 13.
Initial processing is similar to that for conventional blue crab
discussed earlier. Instead of complete manual processing a claw picking
machine is utilized. It consists of a hammer mill followed by a brine
separation chamber where the meat is floated away from the shell and
exits the chamber via the brine overflow. The shell is removed counter-
currently on an inclined belt. A few plants use this machine for pre-
picked bodies and claws, not just for claws alone. Of the 184 plants in
the industry perhaps ten plants employ the machine for crab claws.
Perhaps another two or three employ the machine for complete body
cavities ("cores"). Operating on claws alone, a typical mechanized
plant utilizes the mechanical picker 5 to 10 hours per weex, or more ifi
additional claws are purchased from other plants.
The plants employing the claw picking machines enjoy a slightly higher
percentage yield than the remainder of the plants. In addition, the
back or lump "fin" meat is separated and marketed as a premium product.
The remainder of the processing steps is similar to those used in
conventional blue crab processing.
Wastes^Generated
In those operations employing claw machines, because of the nature of
the process, the BOD loadings are significantly greater than those of
the conventional plants, and water usage is increased many fold as shown
in Section V. The waste water includes both the brine used in the
flotation tanks and the wash water used to remove the brine from the
meat after it has been separated from the shell. Whereas the .waste
waters from a conventional blue crab processing plant can oe expected to
be biodegradable, those from a plant employing a picking machine would
likely present salt toxicity problems to some biological waste treatment
U2
-------
systems. This, in fact, has already been noted in one location in the
Eastern Shore area of Maryland, where the digesters in the local
nunicipal plant (receiving blue crab processing wastes) experience
frequent upset conditions.
-------
TO
REDUCTION PLANT
OR LANDFILL
' PRODUCT FLOW
' WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
Figure 13 . Mechanized blue crab process,
44
-------
SUBCATEGORIZATION_RATIONALE
As a result of this study the blue crab industry had to be broken down
into at least two subcategories. The first (Subcategory B), encompassed
conventional blue crab processing and the second (Subcategory C)
included those blue crab processing plants employing the a claw picking
machine for the removal of meat from claws or from body sections or
both.
The utilization of the claw picking machine either for claws or for
bodies, or for both, introduced significantly greater quantities of
waste water, BOD, grease, etc., into the waste stream and at tne same
time, changed the character of the waste stream through tne addition of
large quantities of sodium chloride. Sodium chloride at the levels
found in these blue crab processing plants is inhibitory to many
biological treatment systems. Its toxic effect is increased by the fact
that the machines are operated on the average less than two days per
week, meaning that waste streams fluctuate from very low salinity to
extremely high salinity from day to day throughout the processing
season. Since the above factors would seriously affect all three main
considerations in development of subcategorization schemes:
1. design configuration;
2. expected effluent levels after treatment; and
3. cost of treatment;
it was decided to subcategorize the industry based on the use of the
claw picking machines.
The other considerations for potential subcategorization were discussed
earlier under Subcategory B - Conventional Blue Crab Processing and the
same conclusions are relevant to this Subcategory.
ALASKA_DUNGENESS, KING_AND_TANNER_CRAB
The second major crab fishery in the United States (behind blue crab) is
centered in the state of Alaska and is made up of three commercial
species, dungeness (Cancer magister), king (Paralithodes camtschatica),
and tanner (Chionecetes bairdii) crab. The tanner crab is also referred
to as the snow or spider crab. The Alaskan crab industry differs from
that of the blue crab in that a relatively small number of processing
plants handles a very large volume of product. Furthermore, the typical
Alaska crab operation is considerably more mechanized than the typical
blue crab operation. Based on these reasons and considerations of
extreme seasonality, harsh climate, frequent unavailability of usable
land, and high costs, the Alaskan crab industry was placed in a separate
category from the remainder of the United States crab industry.
-------
As discussed in the introduction to this section, the waste water
characteristics from the processing of sections and whole crab differed
significantly (see Section V) from those of the meat process waste
stream, leading to the desingation of separate subcategories for each.
ALASKAN_CRAB_MEAT_PROCESSING (Subcategory E)
Background
Until recently the major crab species processed in Alaska was the king
crab. In 1970, for instance, of the more than 34.5 kkg (76 million
pounds) of crab processed in Alaska, 68 percent were king crab, whereas
18 percent were tanner and 12 percent Dungeness crab. In the ensuing
three years, however, tanner crab have become increasingly important and
soon will challenge king crab for the leadership position in terms of
quantity processed.
In contrast to the blue crab harvest, the Alaskan crab harvest takes
place exclusively through the use of baited traps or "pots." On
unloading from the pots the crabs are placed in "live tanks" on board
the fishing vessel and are transported alive to the processing plant
where, in most instances, the crab are transferred to on-site live tanks
to await processing. In a few instances, on-site live tanks are not
employed, the crab being processed immediately upon unloading from the
fishing vessel. This practice has proven, however, to be inefficient
and it is expected that the use of live tanks will continue into the
forseeable future.
For each of the three species of crab processed in Alaska, seasonality
is an important factor. Tanner crab enjoy the longest processing
season, extending from January to May in the Kodiak area. The major
season for king crab in the Kodiak area is about one and one-half months
long during the months of August and September and for Dungeness crab
the two month season peak begins in mid-June. These seasons are a
function of location. Alaska is an extremely large state, having 58,000
km (36,000 miles) of shoreline (more than the total contiguous 48
states) and fishing boats range as far as 1600 km (1000 miles) from base
to take advantage of crab availability during slack seasons locally.
Processing
Land-based live tanks are usually constructed of steel or wood.
Capacities vary from 23 to 45 cu m (6000 to 12,000 gal). In Alaska as
much as 7300 kg (16,000 Ib) of live crab are stored in a medium-sized
live tank. The salt water in the live tanks is continuously
recirculated from the local harbor. Residence times vary from ten
minutes to one hour. In the past, in congested areas, high mortality
46
-------
rates in the live tanks have resulted from the use of poor quality
intake water. This poor quality has been the result of pollution of the
local area with processing wastes. Live tank intake lines are usually
located on or near the bottom of the local waterway to prevent inter-
ference with navigation. Decomposing detritus on the bottom has created
dissolved oxygen deficits and generated toxicants such as hydrogen
sulfide which in turn have led to the high product losses in the live
tanks. Live tank crab are normally processed as rapidly as possible and
are seldom held for more than a few days. Tanner crab seem to be more
sensitive to live tank storage conditions than the other two species
(Hartsock and Peterson, 1971). This is because tanner are deep water
crabs and exhibit a lower tolerance to overcrowded conditions and
environmental changes.
Each of the three species handled in Alaska is processed into at least
three different forms of finished product: canned meat, frozen meat,
and sections and legs—sections being the term designating body halves.
In addition, Dungeness crab, and to a very limited extent king crab, are
processed for marketing whole. The section and leg processes and the
Dungeness whole processes produce the least waste, while the meat
processes for freezing and canning produce considerably greater
quantities, although the characteristics, of course, are similar (see
Section V) .
The processes for frozen and canned meat products are depicted in
Figures 14 and 15, respectively. All plants handling a given product
utilize approximately the same unit operations with occasional small
variations in the butchering, handling, storing and conveying
procedures. These variations generally do not alter the waste water
characteristics significantly.
Two operations common to all processes except the whole crab process are
butchering and cooking. In the butchering process, the crab are
transported from the live tanks to the butcher area either on belts or
in steel tubs where they are placed in a holding area to await
butchering. The live crab are butchered by impaling them on a metal
plate. This cuts the body in two, allowing the viscera to fall to the
floor while at the same time, removing the carapace (back) as a single
piece. Next the gills are removed from the animal through the use of a
rotary wire brush or paddle wheel. At one plant a paddle wneel is used
to both butcher and gill in a single step. Currently, in most plants in
Alaska the viscera, carapaces, and the gills are fed into a grinder
intermittently. Dead crab are sorted out prior to butchering and are
presently also ground. These grinders pperate from 50 to 70 percent of
the time during processing and the resulting waste load constitutes a
large portion of the total solid and organic wastes emanating from the
processing plant.
-------
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
OVERFLOW TO OCEAN
( CARAPACE, VISCERA, GILLS ) /
= PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
— = = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
03\ = GRINDER
I
) OUTFALL PUMPED TO
SEVEN FATHOM DEPTH
Figure 14 King and tanner crab frozen meat process
48
-------
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
PRECOOK IBLOOQ,WAIERL_
= PRODUCT FLOW
— — » WASTEWATER FLOW
=•=•==.« WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
(GR) = GRINDER
OUTFALL PUMPED TO
SEVEN FATHOM DEPTH
Figure 15 King and tanner crab canning process
49
-------
Two types of cookers are used in the crab processing industry in Alaska.
They are distinguished by product flow and are termed either batch
cookers or flow-through cookers. Both types are common. Some crab
plants employ two cooking periods during the processing operation—a
precook and a final cook. When the precook is used, it is designed to
firm the meat, rinse off the' residual blood from the butchering
operation and minimize heat shock of the subsequent cooking step.
Precooking at 60° to 66°C (140° to 150°F) normally lasts from one to
five minutes. The main cook is conducted at about 99°C (210°F) for 10
to 20 minutes. Salt is usually added to the cooker water in
concentrations of 50,000 to 60,000 mg/1 Nad (as chloride) (Soderquist,
et al., 1972b) . Batch-type cookers range in size from 760 to 3800 1
(200 to 1000 gal). Makeup water is added periodically to replace losses
from evaporation, product carryover, and water overflow. Steam is
normally employed to heat the tanks to the desired temperature. The
cookers are usually drained and the cooking water replaced once or twice
per shift.
Flow-through cookers range in size from 1.9 to 9.5 cu m (500 to 2500
gal). The crab are conveyed through the cooker on a stainless steel
mesh belt. Nearly all flow-through cookers in Alaska employ steam-
heated hot water, although at least one plant was observed by the field
crew using steam cooking directly. As was the case with batcn cookers,
flow-through cookers (also called "continuous cookers") are drained and
refilled one to two times per shift (except steam cookers).
The following paragraphs discuss briefly the process variations employed
in the preparation of different product forms.
King and Tanner Crab Frozen Meat Process
In the Alaskan plants processing king and tanner crab for the frozen
meat market (Figure 14), the crab are stored in live tanks in the normal
manner and transported to the butchering area as needed. The carapace,
viscera and gills are removed in the butchering area. The butchering
waste is currently ground and subsequently discharged through a
submarine outfall, via a flume to a surface discharge point, or is
sometimes simply dumped through a hole in the floor onto the water
beneath the plant. After the crabs are butchered, the legs are
separated from the shoulders on circular or stationary saws. Stationary
saws consist simply of fixed saw blades along which the crab are passed
to effect the separation of the legs from the shoulders. Next, the crab
parts are precooked for four to five minutes at 60° to 66°C (140° to
150°F). Some processors collect the claws after the precook, brine
freeze them and market them as "cocktail claws" much as is done in the
blue crab industry. Others handle the claws as additional sources of
picked meat and after the precook, the meat is "blown" from the claws
and shorter more "meaty" i°g sections with a strong jet of water. The
meat from the larger leg . ions and from the shoulders is often
50
-------
extracted with rollers or shaken from the shell. In the roller
operation the parts are placed manually or hydraulically between two
rubber rollers (looking very much like those of an old-fashioned
wringer-type washing machine) and the meat is squeezed from the shell as
the legs or shoulders pass through the rollers. Txie shells are
subsequently often flumed from the rollers to a grinder prior to
entering the main waste stream.
Broken shell and other detritus are hand-picked from the meat. Tne meat
is then manually segregated into three categories: claw meat, leg meat,
and shredded meat. It is next cooked at 93° to 99°C (200° to 210°F) for
8 to 12 minutes, rinsed, and cooled with fresh water. At this point,
the meat is packed into trays, usually in 6.8 kg (15 Ib) batches and 180
to 350 ml (6 to 12 oz) of saline solution or ascorbic acid solution is
added to each tray. The type and volume of additives employed varies
from processor to processor. The trays are frozen and later boxed for
shipping.
In at least one crab freezing operation in Alaska, no precook is used.
The crab are simply cooked at 93°C (200°F) in a flowthrough cooker for
10.5 minutes. This operation takes place with the gills still intact on
the animals. After cooking the gills are manually separated and
discarded. Legs are subsequently removed from the shoulders on
stationary saws.
The major differences between the freezing of king and tanner crab legs
and sections are the use of rollers almost exclusively for tanner
(contrasted with their infrequent use for king crab) and small
variations in cooking time. Wastewater characteristics for the two
species are similar.
51
-------
In this operation (Figure 15) the crab meat is processed in much the
same way as crab meat in the freezing process through the second cook.
At that point the meat is manually packed into cans of various sizes,
the most common one being 184 grams (6.5 oz) and a sodium chloride-
citric acid tablet is added to each. Next, a vacuum is drawn on each
can and the lid is sealed with a "double roll seamer." The cans are
then placed into baskets and retorted for 50 to 60 minutes at 116°C
(2UO°F). Cooling is normally accomplished in the retorts by flooding
them with cold water for 7 to 12 minutes. The baskets are then removed
from the retorts and the cans allowed to dry prior to boxing for
shipment.
Dungeness_Crab
The main Dungeness crab season begins in mid-June and lasts through mid-
August in Alaska. As a result, onsite sampling was not conducted during
maximum Dungeness crab processing activity; however, some monitoring of
Dungeness crab processing was accomplished in Kodiak, Alaska and the
data resulting from these activities together with the data gathered
previously in Oregon by Oregon State University (Soderquist, et al.,
1972b) served as bases for the Dungeness crab recommendations in this
report.
In Alaska, Dungeness crab are most frequently processed for sale as
whole crab. When processed into canned or frozen meat products,
processing schemes similar to those in Figures 1U and 15 are employed.
Projections
Harvesting of Dungeness crab are on the decline whereas king crab seemed
until recently to have reached a plateau. In 1971 and 1972, however,
harvests increased. Production appears to be determined in large part
by the size of the' previous year's survival of offspring. Recent
catches are outlined on Table 9.
The relative stabilization of king crab harvests has been due largely to
stricter controls imposed on the fishing industry by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game ( , 1972). The controls established a
king crab fishing season lasting from five to seven montns in Alaskan
waters.
52
-------
Tanner crab have been increasingly harvested in recent years. Abundant
stocks exist off the northern Pacific Coast and production which has
been accelerating rapidly, should continue to increase (Alverson, 1968)
until the demand exceeds the supply or until stricter controls are
established on the fishery by the Alaska regulatory authorities.
Wastes_Generated
As is the case with blue crab, the major portion of the Alaskan harvest
is not edible and as a result is wasted in processing. The yield for
king crab and Dungeness crab meat operations have been listed as 20
percent (Jensen, 1965) and 27 percent ( , 1944) , respectively.
Tanner crab yields are even lower than these two values. Using an
average yield figure of 20 percent it can be concluded that 80 percent
(on the average) of the Alaskan crab harvest is wasted. For the purpose
of estimating solid waste volumes, furthermore, this figure might be
reduced by 50 percent to account for leaching of solubles during cooking
and to take into consideration the significant percentage of the harvest
processed as sections or whole crab. Assuming, then, that 57 percent of
the total harvest in Alaska eventually becomes solid waste, it was
calculated that 23,400 kkg (25,800 tons) of solid wastes were generated
by the Alaskan crab industry in 1972. As tanner crab harvests increase
over the next few years, the percentage wastage figure will increase
proportionately in Alaska and the total tonnages of crab waste produced
will rise slowly.
53
-------
Table 9
RECENT ALASKA CRAB CATCHES (NOAA-NMFS).
1969 1970 1971 1972
Species kkg (tons) kkg (tons) kkg (tons) kkg (ton)
Dungeness crab
King crab
Tanner crab
22,300 (24,550) 26,500 (29,250) 19,400 (21,350) 11,800 (13.000)
25,300 (27,900) 23,600 (26,050) 31,900 (35,200) 33,600 (37,000)
5,080 ( 5,600) 6,570 ( 7,240) 5,760 ( 6,350) 13,150 (14,500)
in
-------
As mentioned in the blue crab discussion, the composition of Crustacea
waste is largely chitin, protein and calcium carbonate plus varying
amounts of flesh and visceral materials. The Ketchikan Technological
Laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries Service listed typical
compositions of Alaskan crab waste as shown on Table 10. The protein
concentration of crab waste is considered low compared to visceral
waste, reducing its value as a potential source of animal xeed. How-
ever, some work has been done involving fortification of crab meal with
higher protein sources.
Table 10. Typical crab waste composition ( , 1968) .
Composition
Species Source Protein Chitin CaCO3
king crab Picking line 22.7 42.5 34.8
tanner crab Leg and claw shelling 10.7 31.4 57.9
tanner crab Body butchering and
shelling 21.2 30.0 48.8
Essentially no definitive comprehensive data on the character of Alaskan
crab processing waste waters were available prior to the present study.
A thorough characterization program, therefore, was conducted and the
results are outlined in Section V.
SyBCATEGQRIZATigN_RATIONALE
Subcategorization for the Alaskan crab industry was relatively
complicated. At the beginning of this study it was assumed that as many
as ten subcategories would be designated, one for eacn final product
generated in the processing of each species:
1. frozen tanner crab meat
2. canned tanner crab meat
3. tanner crab sections
4. frozen king crab meat
5. canned king crab meat
6. king crab sections
7. whole Dungeness crab
8. frozen Dungeness crab meat
9. canned Dungeness crab meat
10. Dungeness crab sections
55
-------
In the course of the field work it became evident that, although
differences in the above processes existed, the variations in waste
water flow and content noted were not significant when compared to the
normal plant-to-plant and day-today variations within each o±" those
preliminary subcategories, except in the general comparison of meat
versus sections and whole crab.
The king, Dungeness and tanner crab processing industry an Alaska was
separated from the rest of the United States for several reasons. These
reasons were all based on the assumption that a subcategory should be
designated whenever differences between plants would seriously affect
the development of:
1. treatment design configurations;
2. designation of expected effluent levels after
treatment; and/or
3. estimation of costs of treatment.
The Alaskan crab industry is noted for its large processing plants.
Although the plants process crab only a few months per year, their
production levels are significantly greater than those ot plants in
other parts of the country processing similar crao (tanner and
Dungeness). Raw material availability, furthermore, is very much a
function of weather in Alaska; during periods of poor weather (which
often occur even in the summer months), no raw product is available at
the docks for processing.
The condition of raw product on delivery to the processing plant is
fairly uniform in Alaska and was not considered justification for
subcategorization. Although, as previously mentioned, the tanner crab
mortality in the live tanks on the dock is significantly greater than
that of Dungeness and king, those crabs which were processed (the live
crabs) were of fairly uniform quality throughout tne contractor's
monitoring period.
This is not to say that product yield dees not vary in the course of the
processing season. Crabs taken during the springtime, having more
recently molted, contain a lower percentage of usable meat than those
harvested' late in the season. This consideration, although it affects
the waste water stream in the processing plant, should not prove to be a
detriment to this study because sampling took place during that part of
the year when yields were low and wastage was high. It is not expected
that pollutant levels (in terms of production, such as kg of BOD per
kkg) would increase over the course of the season; rather, they would be
expected to decrease somewhat (although, again, perhaps not
significantly).
As mentioned above, the variety of the species being processed was
initially taken into account in the monitoring phase of this program.
56
-------
The waste water characteristics, however, (Section V) indicate that this
consideration is not sufficient to warrant the designation of a separate
subcategory for each species.
"Harvesting methods" was another variable to be considered in
subcategorization. As mentioned in the "processing" section of this
discussion, crab processing in Alaska is uniformly restricted to the use
of "pots," and therefore, little variability in harvesting methods
exists.
Analogous to the discussion on "condition of raw product," "degree of
preprocessing" was not a consideration in the Alaskan crab processing
industry because, again, all animals enter the processing line alive.
"Form and quality of finished product," while initially considered to be
possible bases for subcategorization, were rejected, based on the
characterization data (Section V), except for the aforementioned
distinction between crab meat and whole and sectioned crab.
A very important item in the Alaskan crab processing industry is the
plant location. In this region of the country, perhaps more than in any
other, site specificity must be an over-riding concern in the
development of waste management, treatment, and disposal alternatives.
Most, if not all, of the king, tanner and Dungeness crab processing
plants in Alaska are located south of Bristol Bay in terrain which can
most aptly be described as "vertical." Virtually every plant is built
on piling because of the lack of suitable real estate.
kThe general location of the Alaskan processors in an area of limited
accessibility and of inflated costs (the Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Price Index lists remote Alaska as 2.6 and Kodiak, Alaska
as 2.5 based on a national average of 1.0) justifies the designation of
a separate subcategory for these processors.
Furthermore, climatic conditions in the Alaska region are unlike those
anywhere else in the United states. Water temperatures remain just
above the freezing level and air temperatures can remain below freezing
for several months without respite.. In the northerly areas, permafrost
interferes with normal construction and foundation design techniques.
In the non-permafrost zones where top soil exists in any quantity, the
ground freezes solid during the coldest months of the year, only to thaw
in the spring and summer causing frost heaves and often producing
extremely poor foundation conditions. It is frequently the case,
especially in the gulf of Alaska and on the Aleutian Islands, that
virtually no top soil exists. The only land available is solid rock and
that is usually reposing at a steep angle. Consideration of waste
treatment design involving equalization basins or treatment lagoons must
contend with either blasting the basins from solid rock or constructing
them of concrete, steel, or similar structural material.
57
-------
Another consideration involves tidal fluctuations. Tidal fluctuations
in Alaska are among the greatest in the world, approaching 12 meters (HO
feet) at times. This phenomenon presents special problems when
designing a waterside facility for transportation of solid wastes.
As was the case in the blue crab industry, the influence of production
capacity, normal operating levels (percent of capacity), and nature of
operation (intermittent versus continuous) did not vary significantly
from species to species within the Alaskan crab industry and did not
distinguish the Alaskan crab industry from the rest of the United
States; furthermore, they did not appear to appreciably affect waste-
water characteristics or anticipated design problems and therefore, were
not judged bases for the designation of subcategories.
The remaining two factors considered in subcategorization, "raw water
availability" and "waste treatability" do not appear to present
insurmountable obstacles to the imposition of effluent guidelines and to
the industries' successful compliance with them. Although fresh water
is extremely expensive in the Alaskan area (costing five to ten times
Seattle prices), and in many areas is scarce to non-existent, the an-
ticipated waste management schemes (discussed in Section VII) would not
impose a significant additional demand on water supplies. Furthermore,
the wastes from the processing of king, Dungeness and tanner crab can be
logically thought to be treatable (under proper conditions) and no known
toxicants are contained in the waste waters. Therefore, these two
factors were not considered bases for subcategorization within the
Alaskan crab industry.
For all of the above reasons the Alaskan dungeness, king and tanner crab
meat processing industries were placed into a single subcategory for the
purpose of designing and estimating the costs of treatment systems and
for developing recommended effluent standards and guidelines.
AIASKAN_WHOLE_CRAB_AND_.CRAB_SECTION_PRQCESSING (Subcategory F)
The following paragraphs discuss briefly the process variations employed
in the preparation of different product forms.
The most common method of perparation of king and tanner crab in Alaska
for the domestic market is the sectioning process shown in Figure 16.
After live tanking and butchering in the same manner as in the meat
process, the legs are allowed to remain attached to the shoulders. The
crab halves (or sections) are placed in wire baskets and rinsed with
fresh water to remove residual blood. They are then precooked at 60° to
71°C (140° to 160°F) for 2 to 5 minutes. Following precooking, the crab
are cooked for about 18 minutes at near-boiling temperatures; in
addition to cooking the meat this process inactivates the "bluing"
enzyme, a compound which, if not inactivated in this manner, causes the
58
-------
crab meat during storage to turn from white to an undesirable blue
color. After cooking, the crab are rinsed and cooled in either a spray
or a dip tank system with circulating fresh water (flow-through). In
the next step the crabs are inspected, sections with missing legs or
with cracked shells are shunted to the meat processing line, and
parasites are removed from the shells manually with scrub brushes. The
solid waste from this area is dry-collected and periodically shoveled
through the butchering area grinder or occasionally a second grinder,
specifically located in this area of the plant. At this point the
cleaned crab sections are sorted according to size and quality, packed
into boxes and frozen. Freezing takes place in either blast freezers or
brine freezers. Those processors employing brine freezing use a dip
tank subsequent to freezing to rinse off the adhering brine and to glaze
the sections. The sections are then boxed and stored in a freezer prior
to shipping.
59
-------
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
OVERFLOW TO OCEAN
=PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
= = WAST SOLIDS FLOW
(ah = GRINDER
(CARAPACE, VISCERAjGILLS) ,
(BLOOD,WATER)
(LEG SHELL,MEAT.WATER)
(ORGANICS, WATER)
(MEAT, WATER)
(MEAT. WATER)
DISCHARGE
"THROUGH FLOOR
1
1
(WATER)
DISCHARGE
VIA FLUME
Fiqure 16 King and tanner crab section process.
60
-------
In Alaska, Dungeness crab are most frequently processed for sale as
whole crab. In this process the crab are held in live tanks until
needed. After inspection for,missing claws and legs they are cooked in
either batch or flow-through cookers. Cooking lasts for 20 to 30
minutes at 99°C (210°F) in fresh water or in water containing 50,000 to
60,000 mg/1 sodium chloride (as chloride). When salt is used, the main
purpose is to impart a more desirable flavor to the crab rather than to
effect any substantial change in meat characteristics.
After cooking, the dungeness crabs are transferred to the packing area,
usually by a belt, where they are spray rinsed. The workers tuck the
legs under the body and place the crab into large steel baskets. The
steel baskets are then immersed in circulating fresh water for 15
minutes to thoroughly cool the crab. Freezing of the crab is then
accomplished by placing the steel baskets in a brine freezer for 30
minutes. After fresh water rinsing for 5 minutes to remove the excess
brine and to glaze the crab they are packed in boxes and stored in a
freezer ready for shipment.
Dungeness crab missing claws or legs are butchered and processed as
sections as previously described for king and tanner crab. The process
is virtually identical for all three species.
There is little organic waste generated in the whole cook operation.
Whenever the number of missing crab appendages is low, the largest
source of organic waste in the whole cook operation is the cooker. The
water usage in the whole cook operation is similar to that in the
section process, the greatest water use taking place in tne cooling and
Irinsing operation.
There is a significant difference in the amount of water used and the
unit waste loads generated between the processing of whole crab and
sections and the processing of meat products (see Section V). The
discussion of subcategorization rationale for crab meat products
(Subcategory E) also applies to this subcategory. Therefore, the
Alaskan dungeness, king, and tanner crab sections and whole crab
processing were placed in a separate subcategory.
DUNGENESS AND TANNER CRAB PROCESSING IN THE
CONTIGyoys_STATES (Subcategory G)
Background
Although processing volumes are small compared to those of Alaska, a
dungeness and tanner crab processing industry does exist along the
Pacific Coast of the contiguous 48 states. The predominant species
processed in this region is dungeness crab. The tanner crab processed
61
-------
in this region are not native; they are shipped frozen from Alaska
during periods of surplus.
Most of the catch is picked for meat or. cooked whole, crab processing
as practiced in the "lower 48" is virtually identical to that practiced
in Alaska. The major difference between the two industries is one of
scale. Whereas a large plant in Oregon, Washington, or California may
pack 7.3 kkg (8 tons) of crab per shift at peak capacity, its
counterpart in Alaska might pack four times that much.
Processing
The crab are removed from the pots and stored in live tanks aboard ship.
The size of the daily catch ranges from 140 to 900 kg (300 to 2000 Ibs) .
The boats usually deliver their catch each evening, unloading and
storing the crabs out of water prior to butchering the following
morning. The crab normally are in excellent physical snape prior to
butchering for they are stored such short lengths of time and the
quantity of crab is so small that there is hardly any weakening due to
crowding, crushing or oxygen depletion.
The butchering process is as previously discussed; the backs are
detached, the viscera removed and the legs separated from the bodies.
Some plants flume waste solids from this process to a central screen but
most employ dry-capture techniques. In the latter instance, the only
flows from the butchering area are clean-up waters.
The next unit operation is bleeding and rinsing. The crab pieces are
either conveyed via belt beneath a water spray or are packed in large
steel baskets and submerged in circulating rinse water. In either case,
a continuous waste water flow results. The crab parts (and whole crab)
are then cooked in boiling water. Whole crab are usually boiled 20 to
30 minutes in a 50,000 to 60,000 mg/1 (as chloride) sodium chloride
solution, containing 650 to 800 mg/1 citric acid. Whereas the salt is
used for seasoning, the citric acid facilitates shell cleaning (by
loosening adhering materials) in a subsequent processing step. Crab
sections, on the other hand, are simply boiled for 12 minutes or so.
The waste water flows from this step, of course, are intermittent,
occuring whenever a cooker is discharged.
As in the bleeding and rinsing step, the next phase, cooling, is
accomplished in two ways. The simpler method employs sprays to cool the
hot crab, resulting in a continuous wastewater flow. Other plants
employ immersion of the crab-filled baskets into tanks through which
cooling water is constantly flowing. After 20 minutes, the baskets are
removed and allowed to drain. The resulting waste waters consist of a
continuous flow (the cooling tank overflow) and a discrete flow (the
cooling tank "dump" plus crab-basket drainage).
62
-------
In the plants of Oregon, Washington, and California picking of the meat
from the shell is a manual operation. The "picking stock" includes
bodies and legs. Yields from Dungeness vary from 17 to 27 percent.
This variation is mainly a function of the maturity of the animal.
Yields increase as the season progresses. No water need be used in this
operation except during washdown.
The cleaned meat is conveyed to brining tanks where loose shell is
separated from the meat by flotation, much as is practiced in the blue
crab industry on the East Coast. The 100,000 to 200,000 mg/1 (as
chloride) sodium chloride solutions are discharged intermittently.
Most of the salt solution remaining on the meat is removed in the next
unit operation, the (immersion) rinse tanks. The discharges from these
tanks are continuous and contain 1500 to 2000 mg/1 chloride.
After rinsing, the meat is drained and packed. Whether packing in
cardboard and plastic for the fresh market or canning the meat, this
operation contributes little to the waste water system except clean-up
flows.
In those instances where the meat is canned, the final step is
retorting. In those where fresh packing is practiced, the last step is
refrigeration. Both processes require water but neither appreciably
contaminates it.
w.gstes_6enerated
The waste water flows from Dungeness and tanner crab operations in the
"lower U8" are similar to those emanating from Alaskan operations with
the singular exception that chloride concentrations are significantly
higher and fluctuate strongly during the processing shift and from day*
to-day (see Section V).
SUBCATEGORIZATION_RATigNALE
Subcategorization for the Oregon, Washington, and California tanner and
dungeness crab processing industry was developed following much of the
reasoning outlined in the discussion of the Alaskan crab industry
(Subcategories D and E) .
The major differences between the two regions1 processing industries
were geographical, with one exception: the use of the brine tank in the
"lower 48," whereas, it was not generally used in Alaska.
The geographical reasons alluded to above, of course, included
considerations of climate, topography, relative isolation of the
63
-------
processing plants, land availability, soil conditions, and availability
of unlimited water. All of the these aspects then, together with the
significant difference in waste water characteristics (chloride) between
the two regions, resulted in the designation of different categories for
the Alaskan industry versus the Oregon, Washington, and California
tanner and Dungeness crab processing industry, for the purpose of
designing and estimating the cost of treatment systems and for
developing recommended effluent standards and guidelines.
SUBCATEGORY_H:. ALASKAN SHRIMP
In addition to crab, the other major Alaskan fishery monitored in Phase
I of this study was the Alaskan shrimp processing industry. The Alaska
pink shrimp (Pandalus borealis) are caught commercially in nets to a
distance of approximately 80 km (50 miles) from shore. The shrimp are
taken directly to a processing plant or to a wholesale marketing vessel.
When long storage times are necessary, the shrimp are iced in the holds
and re-iced every twelve hours.
Background
When commercial shrimp production began in Alaska over 50 years ago,
hand picking was the basic peeling method used. In 1958, automatic
peelers were introduced. The tremendous expansion experienced by the
industry in the last decade can be attributed mainly to the introduction
of these mechanical peelers. From 45 to 180 kg (100 to 400 Ibs) of
shrimp can be hand peeled per day, whereas the capacities 01 modern
shrimp peeling machines vary from 1820 to 5450 kg (4000 to 12,000 Ibs)
per day (Dassow, 1963).
Table 11 lists the Alaskan shrimp processing regions and wastes
generated in 1967. The shrimp season extends throughout tne year in
Alaska but the operation peaks from May through June. Over 4500 kkg
(5000 tons) of wastes are generated annually in Alaska by this industry.
64
-------
Table 11. Alaskan shrimp wastes, 1967 (Yonkers, 1969)
Region Canneries (kkg) (tons)
Aleutian Islands 1 410 ( 450)
Kodiak island 3 3540 (3900)
Southeastern Alaska 2 730 ( 800)
TOTAL 6 4681 (5150)
The Alaskan shrimp processing industry is centered around Kodiak, where
shrimp represent the largest volume of landings. The shrimp processing
waste waters are said (McFall, 1971) to constitute the major portion of
the pollution load being discharged into Kodiak harbor. Approximately
50 machine peelers with a total capacity approaching 340 kkg (375 tons)
of raw shrimp per day are located in processing plants in or immediately
adjacent to the town of Kodiak. Up to 230 kkg (250 tons) of shrimp
waste were discharged into the receiving waters each day during peak
processing periods until the local waste handling plant opened in late
spring of 1973. Most of the shrimp plants have from 4 to 9 machine
peelers, each of which use about 3801 (100 gallons) of process water per
minute.
Shrimp are caught in large nets called "otter trawls." Large planing
surfaces or "doors" are used in conjunction with a lead and float line
to hold the mouth of the bag-like net open. Once onboard the boat, the
shrimp are heavily iced in most instances and remain in the hold for as
long as 5 days. The shrimp are then transported to port, unloaded at
the plant and frequently stored for a few days to condition them for
peeling. In Alaska, fish that are caught with the shrimp are brought to
the dock with the catch and are later manually separated from the
shrimp, and discharged.
The Alaskan shrimp process is depicted in Figures 17 and 18. unloading
and storage, the shrimp are mechanically peeled in one of two main types
of shrimp peelers: the Model PCA and the Model A, both of which are
made by the Laitram Corporation of New Orleans, Louisiana. The PCA
peeler employs a 1.5 minute steam precook to condition the shrimp prior
to peeling. This facilitates the peeling step of the operation and
allows significantly greater through-put of product. The Model A peeler
does not employ a steam precook. In Alaska the PCA shrimp are nearly
65
-------
always subsequently frozen, while the Model A final product is canned or
frozen.
After peeling the meats are inspected and then washed. If they are to
be canned, the meats are blanched in a salt solution for aoout 15
minutes and then dried by various methods to remove surface moisture.
Prior to final canning the shrimp are once again inspected.
When this study was initiated, three subcategories for Aiasxan shrimp
were designated in a preliminary fashion:
1. canned, Model A peeled shrimp;
2. frozen Model A peeled shrimp; and
3. frozen Model PCA peeled shrimp.
The results of the study (Section V) indicated that no significant
differences in the waste waters from the processing of Model A peeled
and canned shrimp versus Model A peeled and frozen shrimp exist.
Furthermore, the differences in the waste characteristics Between the
monitored plants using Model A peelers and those using Model PCA peelers
were only quantitative, not qualitative. Based on these observations,
it was decided to designate the entire Alaskan shrimp processing
industry as a single subcategory.
With both Models A and PCA peelers, the shrimp are fed into the machine
on a broad belt. This insures an even distribution of shrimp across the
width of the peeler. The PCA shrimp are steam precooked while on this
belt. This precook helps "condition" the shrimp by loosening the shell,
making them easier to peel. The processing rate for Model A peelers is
higher than that for the PCA-type, but it is generally felt within the
industry that the PCA peelers yield a higher quality product. Whereas
the Model A can handle approximately 410 kg (900 pounds) of raw product
per hour, Model PCA capacities are limited to about 230-270 kg (500-600
pounds) per hour. These processing rates, as mentioned earlier, vary
greatly with condition of the incoming product.
On the peelers, the shrimp drop onto counter-rotating rollers that
"grab" the feelers of the shrimp and roll the shell off the meat. The
shrimp are pressed against these rollers by overnead racks.
Considerable water is used in both types of peelers to transport the
product and the shell away from the machines. This water may be either
fresh water or salt water. Both types are used in Alaskan processing
plants.
66
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
= = = = == WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
FISH PICKING = =
_ =
AGE
JORGANICSJ i
PEELERS (_SHELL,WATER.)
WASHERS
^SHELLjWATER) I
SEPARATORS
(SHELL,WATER)
SHAKER
BLOWER
SHELL. WATER)
INSPECTION U.MLAJJ _ _
SIZE
(MEAT)
SEAM
FREEZE
BOX
| DISCHARGED TO OCEAN
* DIRECTLY BELOW
Figure 17 Alaska and west coast shrimp freezing process,
67
-------
= PRODUCT FLOW
WASHERS : — —
= WASTEWATER FLOW
• = = = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
OUTFALL PUMPED
TO SEVEN FATHOM DEPTH
Figure 13 Alaska and west coast shrimp canning process,
68
-------
In an average plant approximately 50 percent of the total water use is
in mechanical peelers. Frequently the shrimp meat is flumed from the
peelers to the next step, the washers.
Two types of washers are used for peeled shrimp, one for raw shrimp and
one for cooked. The Laitram Model C washer is designed for detaching
"swimmerettes," gristle and other waste material and shell from raw
shrimp, where the Laitram Model PCC cleaner is designed to wash peeled
precooked shrimp. In the washers, agitators vigorously mix the shrimp
in the trough of the washer, breaking loose any shell not removed in the
peeling process. A few plants that use PCA peelers do not use
subsequent washers because the violent agitation fragments some of the
shrimp.
After washing, the shrimp meat is flumed to separators where the small
meat fragments and remaining shell is automatically removed. Again, two
different designs are used, one for peeled, precooked shrimp and one for
peeled raw shrimp. After passing through the separators, the shrimp
meat is flumed to a dewatering belt. Approximately 20 percent of the
total plant waste water flow comes from the washing-separating area.
After dewatering the Model A peeled shrimp are blanched in a salt
solution for 15 to 17 minutes at 96°C (205°F). Only the shrimp which
are to be subsequently canned are blanched. Usually neither the PCA
peeled shrimp nor the Model A peeled shrimp to be frozen are subjected
to the blanching step. The cooker used for blanching is normally
discharged every four hours.
next step is the final air-cleaning step in a "shakerblower"
This step is not universally used. In this step, the shrimp
meats are dried and any extraneous shell is blown off. Following
cleaning the shrimp are inspected and any shrimp with shell still
adhering to them are removed and wasted. The meat is then further sized
and graded either manually or by machine.
The shrimp to be canned move through the automatic filler and into the
cans. Before the lids are placed on the cans, ascorbic acid is added.
As in the crab industry, the ascorbic acid serves as a color
preservative and prevents the undesirable "bluing" of the meat. In the
next step, the cans are seamed, after which they are retorted for 20
minutes. Those Model A peeled shrimp which are not to be canned but
which are to be frozen are packed without the use of additives.
PCA peeled shrimp, prior to freezing, are rinsed in a salt-ascorbic acid
solution in some processing plants. In others, this step is omitted.
The shrimp are then frozen in plastic bags or in 2.3 kg (5 Ib) cans and
stored to await shipment.
69
-------
Wastes^Gengrated
Jensen (1965) estimated that 78 to 85 percent of the shrimp is wasted in
mechanical peeling.
The National Marine Fisheries Service listed the composition of shrimp
waste as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Composition of shrimp waste ( , 1968) .
Composition (%)
Source Protein Chitin CaC03
Hand peeling 27.2 57.5 15.3
Mechanical peeling 22.0 42.3 35.7
A specialized market for shrimp waste has developed in the fish food
industry. The red pigment of the shrimp (astaxanthin) supplies the pink
color which is characteristic in wild trout but absent in farm trout
(Mendenhall, 1971) .
Crude waste from shrimp cannot provide the major source of protein in
livestock feed because the amount of calcium would be excessive. How-
ever, a simple and inexpensive method for decalcifying meal has beer
developed (Mendenhall, 1971). Other uses for the solid waste producec
in the shrimp processing industry are discussed in Section VII.
Little work has been done to date on the characterization of the waste
waters generated in the Alaskan shrimp processing industry. Crawford
(1969) reported that mechanical shrimp peeler effluents averaged 29,000
mg/1 total solids and 6.<4 percent total nitrogen (dry weight basis).
Recent (and unpublished) work has been conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency and by the National Marine Fisheries Service in the
shrimp plants of Kodiak, Alaska. The results of their studies are
detailed in Chapter 5 (McFall, 1971 and Peterson, 1973a and 1973b,).
SUBCATEGORIZATION_RATIONALE
The reasoning followed in the development of the Alaskan shrimp
subcategory paralleled in many respects the reasoning followed in the
designation of Subcategories D and E. As is the case with the crab
industry, the Alaskan shrimp industry is characterized by large
processing plants operating heavily during the peak processing months of
the year and only intermittently during the remainder of the year. Raw
material availability, as with crab, is very much a function of weather.
70
-------
The availability of raw product at the docks is determined by the
fishermen's ability to set their nets and complete a "drag" through the
shrimp fishing grounds.
Indications are that the condition of raw product on delivery to the
processing plant influences the character of the waste water streams
emanating from the process. Unlike crab, shrimp are delivered to the
plant on ice and the age of the individual animals in a load will vary
from one day to a week. The degree of natural decomposition (or
degradation) varies correspondingly. As a general rule, tne older the
mean age of the animals in a load, the greater will be the total
pollutant content of the processing waste stream.
In addition to age in terms of numbers of elapsed days since harvest,
the biological age of the shrimp appears to affect the waste water
characteristics. Although Phase I of this study was of insufficient
duration to determine the exact effect of maturity on waste water
characteristics, previous investigation by the National Marine Fisheries
Service Technology Laboratory in Kodiak and by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle Laboratory indicate that a significant
difference in total waste loading exists between early spring and late
summer (Collins, 1973). Indications are that as the shrimp mature and
become larger, the organic levels in the waste streams decrease. The
difference in organic load from processing of mature versus immature
shrimp has been indicated to be as much as 50 percent. Tne exact effect
of maturity on waste water component levels remains to oe determined.
As is the case with crab, the product yield tends to increase as the
season progresses. This consideration, although it affects the waste
water stream in the processing plant, should not prove a detriment to
this study because the waste water characteristics developed (Section V)
were generated during a period of relative immaturity of the animal and
correspondingly lower yields than might be expected with mature animals.
Therefore, it is not expected that pollutant levels, in terms of
production, would increase over the course of the season. Rather they
would be expected to decrease somewhat, although again perhaps not
significantly.
The third variable to be considered in subcategorization was "variety
of the species being processed." This variable was not applicable to
the Alaskan shrimp industry and was, therefore, not a justification for
subcategorization.
As discussed in the "Background" section of this report, harvesting of
Alaskan shrimp is carried out virtually exclusively through the use of
otter trawls. Therefore, "harvesting method" was not an important
variable in the subcategorization scheme.
Whereas, "degree of preprocessing" is significant in other shrimp
fisheries where shrimp are sometimes beheaded at sea, and where trash
71
-------
fish are sometimes separated from the shrimp catch prior to returning to
the processing plant, this is not the case in the Alaskan industry. No
preprocessing of the Alaskan shrimp takes place prior to docking of the
vessel next to the processing plant. Therefore, this variable was not
considered a significant factor in the development of subcategories.
The variable "manufacturing process and subprocesses" does apply to the
Alaskan shrimp processing industry. As discussed in the "Processing"
section, two main types of peelers are used, Laitram Model A and Laitram
Model PCA (with steam precook), Furthermore, those shrimp to be canned
were subjected to a subsequent blanching step which was not a part of
the process for shrimp which were to be frozen. While these variables
are significant in the Alaskan shrimp processing industry, their
importance fell short of dictating that a separate subcategory be
established for Model A versus Model PCA peeled shrimp.
"Form and quality of finished product" was a variable that was
considered in the subcategorization scheme and that indirectly has an
effect on the waste water strengths in the Alaskan shrimp processing
industry. That is, shrimp which are to be canned are processed using
Model A peelers and those which are to be frozen are peeled on both.
These differences, however, are covered above under "manufacturing
process and subprocesses" and need not be further considered nere.
"Location of plant" was a very important item in the Alasxan shrimp
processing industry and in large part justified designation of a
separate subcategory. The arguments appropriate or this decision are
the same arguments that are presented earlier in this chapter for
Alaskan crab and need not be reiterated in their entirety here. It is
sufficient to mention that those variables tied to the location of the
plant such as climatic conditions, terrain, and soil types are unique to
the Alaskan region and severely constrain the number of available waste
management alternatives which can be considered in the development of
proposed effluent guidelines.
The effects of "production capacity and normal operating level" are
apparent in the Alaskan shrimp industry because a large amount of the
total plant flow passes through the peelers. That flow remains constant
whether the peelers are running at full capacity or half capacity.
Nevertheless, the influence of these variables was not sufficient to
warrant subcategorization.
The "nature of the operation" was a consideration of near equal
importance to "location of plant." The intermittent nature of the
industry precludes the designation of treatment systems requiring
constant or only mildly fluctuating influent waste streams and further
limits the number of alternatives available to the sanitary engineer.
The variables "raw water availability, cost and quality" and
"amenability of the waste to treatment" were of relatively small
72
-------
consequence in the designation of this subcategory. Although the
maintenance of an adequate fresh water supply is a continual problem in
Alaska, the anticipated waste management schemes (discussed in Section
VII) would not impose a significant additional demand on present water
supplies. Furthermore, the wastes from the processing of Alaskan shrimp
can be thought to be treatable (under proper conditions) and no known
toxicants are contained therein.
For all of the above reasons the Alaskan shrimp processing industry was
placed into a single subcategory for the purpose of designing and
estimating the costs of treatment systems and for developing recommended
effluent standards and guidelines.
S2NzALASKAN_SHRIMP
Of all the seafood studied in Phase I, the most wide ranging was shrimp.
Significant shrimp fisheries are being exploited in waters off the coast
of all the major regions in this country. In addition to the Alaskan
industry a medium size shrimp canning and freezing industry exists on
the lower Pacific Coast, a medium to large size canning industry
operates on the Gulf Coast, centering around the Mississippi river delta
area, a large breading and freezing industry extends from the east coast
of Texas to the east coasts of Florida and Georgia, and a growing shrimp
canning and freezing industry operates in the New England area.
Figures 19, 20, and 21 are plots of all shrimp flow, BOD5, and suspended
solids data (respectively) gathered in this study. A review of these
plots and the shrimp data in Section V reveals that the breaded shrimp
flows and suspended solids average about twice those from the non-
breaded shrimp processors. The settleable solids in the waste waters
from the northern shrimp processors, on the other hand, were nearly ten
times those from southern shrimp processing, breaded or not. As was
expected, the breaded shrimp suspended solids levels were nearly twice
those of the non-breaded shrimp.
The breading of southern shrimp nearly doubled the waste water BOD. The
northern shrimp BOD*s were nearly three times those of the unbreaded
southern shrimp, a phenomenon largely attributable to the differences in
product size (as is discussed later). Paralleling this BOD
relationship, the northern shrimp, COD and oil levels were also
considerably higher than those of the southern shrimp.
These obvious differences, together with contrasts in climate, land
availability and other factors (discussed later) led to the designation
of six subcategories for non-Alaskan shrimp: Northern Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States of More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material
Per Day Subcategory I); Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous
States of 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material per Day
(Subcategory J); Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the
73
-------
Contiguous States of More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material Per
Day (Subcategory K); Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the
Contiguous States of 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day
(Subcategory L); Breaded Shrimp Processing in the contiguous States of
More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material Per Day (Subcategory M);
and Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of 3640 kg (4000
Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day (Subcategory N).
74
-------
= Alaska
8
H
Pn
IDU,UUU
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
a *= Gulf
D= West Coast
o _ Breaded
0
0
0 •
•
0 •
1 1 1 1 1 1
10 15 20 25
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 19
Shrimp production rates and flow ratios
30
75
-------
160 r
140
120
• " Alaska
* = Gulf
D= West Coast
O= Breaded
tr
p
o
CQ
100
80
60
40
20
5 10 15 20 25
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 20
Shrimp production rates and BOD^j ratios
76
30
-------
tn
tn
tn
T)
•H
rH
O
W
(1)
T3
C
Q)
500
400
300
200
• " Alaska
•" Gulf
D= West Coast
O= Breaded
100
o
o
10 15 20
PRODUCTION kkg/day
25
30
Figure 21
Shrimp production rates and suspended solids ratios
77
-------
NORTHERN SHRIMP PROCESSING IN THE CONTIGUOUS STATES
Background
The wastes generated in the shrimp canning, freezing industry of the
contiguous United States were found to vary from region to region. The
variations exhibited were easily traced to two main variables:
differences in product size and harvesting or preprocessing techniques.
The basic shrimp process was found to be consistent from Astoria, Oregon
to Brownsville, Texas to New Orleans, Louisiana to Brunswick, Georgia to
Gloucester, Massachusetts.
In terms of total product marketed, shrimp in the United States are
second only to tuna. The average United States shrimp harvest
approaches 100,000 kkg (224 million pounds) (Langno, 1970). Lyles (see
Table 13) presents considerably higher values. Table 14 shows the
breakdown of the major products for 1970.
The principal species harvested in the Oregon, Washington, and
California waters is the pink shrimp (Pandalus jordani). Production in
this region approaches 6800 kkg (7500 tons) per year, more than 80
percent of which is delivered to Oregon and Washington processing
centers (Soderquist, et al., 1970). According to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the West Coast stocks are capable of producing
roughly twice that amount under ideal circumstances. The shrimp
industry of the New England area is relatively new and has grown
dramatically since 1965. From 1965 to 1969 harvests doubled yearly. In
early years, the fishery was confined to the state of Maine but as
harvests increased, processing spread south and a large processing
center is now located at Gloucester, Massachusetts. Practically all
Massachusetts shrimp landings take place at Gloucester. On Table 15 is
a list of shrimp landings in Maine and in Massachusetts during the 1965
to 1969 period. The normal shrimp season in New England is from
September through May with peak catches occurring from January to April.
Shrimp processing techniques in the region are varied. They include
canning and freezing of both peeled and unpeeled shrimp. The current
trend in processing is toward peeled, fresh-frozen shrimp using standard
automatic peeling machines, in plants operating up to 16 hours per day.
As mentioned earlier, the process for canned or frozen shrimp is fairly
uniform throughout the United States (see Figures 17 and 18), also the
reader is directed to the processing description in the section dealing
with Subcategory G: Alaskan Shrimp. Variations from that general
scheme are discussed below.
78
-------
On the lower Pacific Coast, shrimp are brought to the processing plant
frequently (1-2 days). Very seldom are the shrimp held at sea more than
a few days. After netting, the shrimp are brought onto the deck of the
ship and the majority of the larger fish and debris is removed at that
time. The shrimp are then stored whole in the hold of the boat. These
shrimp are laid in a 5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 in.) mat with about 2 cm or more
of ice put over them. This layering is very important, if not done
properly, spoilage will occur quite rapidly. Although trash fish are
removed from the catch prior to returning to port, approximately one
percent of the delivered load still consists of trash fish and debris,
and must be manually separated at the processing plant. In the New
England area, the shrimp are delivered fresh daily to the processing
plant, heads on. At the plant dock they are inspected and foreign
material is removed; then they are weighed and iced.
The remainder of the shrimp canning and freezing operations on the lower
West Coast, South Atlantic, and Northeast Coast are similar to those
previously discussed in the section on Alaskan shrimp. In the shrimp
canning industry of the Gulf coast and of the West Coast, both Model A
and PCA type peelers are employed, in the New England area, the PCA
type peelers are prevalent. On the West Coast and in the New England
area, some seawater is used in a few plants for processing. Most
plants, however, use fresh water exclusively.
79
-------
Table 13 Recent shrimp catches (Lyles, 1969;
1971c; and ' , 1972c).
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Average
(kkg)
139,600
132,300
143,800
167,000
175,900
151,700
Quantity
(tons)
(153,900)
(145,800)
(158,550)
(184,050)
(193,950)
(167,250)
80
-------
Table 14
Shrimp products, 1970 (
, 1971e;
, 1972e)
Product
Quantity
(kkg)
[tons)
Breaded
Canned
Frozen
Specialty products
Total
46,630
12,020
41,860
140
100,650
(51,400)
(13,250)
(46,150)
(150)
(110,950)
81
-------
Table 15 New England shrimp landings,* 1965-196 9
(Gibbs and Hill, 1972).
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Maine
' (kkg)
942
1738
3147
11,110
Landings
(tons)
(1038)
(1916)
(3462)
(12,250)
Massachusetts
(kkg)
8
11
10
2040
(tons)
(9)
(12)
(11)
(2250)
(kkg)
950
1766
3171
6545
13,110
Total '
(tons)
(1047)
(1947)
(3496)
(7200)
(14,450)
*Heads on
**Entire New England shrimp fishery.
82
-------
Wastes Generated
The discussion of the wastes generated in the Alaskan shrimp processing
industry is applicable to much of the remainder of the shrimp industry
in the United States, especially the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast
industries where the shrimp are of comparable size to the Alaskan
shrimp.
The majority of the work on shrimp wastes has been conducted in the Gulf
Coast area. A demonstration project is currently under way at a major
shrimp cannery in Westwego, Louisiana. This program is designed to
evaluate the efficacy of different screening and dissolved air flotation
techniques.
Subcateqorization Rationale
Subcategorization for the shrimp industry was relatively complicated.
In addition to the previously mentioned factors which differentiate
between northern, southern and breaded shrimp, other factors distinguish
these subcategories from Alaskan shrimp and were discussed in the
"Alaskan Shrimp" section. The major difference between larger Gulf and
South Atlantic shrimp and smaller West Coast and New England varieties
are due to geography and species diversity.
The condition of raw product on delivery to the processing plant does
vary between the northern plants and the southeastern plants which may
practice beheading at sea.
Harvesting methods, production capacity and normal operating levels are
similar in all areas of the country sampled. Manufacturing processes
and subprocesses, form and quality of finished product, and nature of
operation showed variation between the canning processes and breading
processes. Analysis of the data (Section V) indicates that the West
Coast canning process, the Gulf Coast canning processes and the breaded
shrimp processes were each dissimilar enough so they should be
considered separately.
Raw water availability cost and quality is definitely superior in the
Pacific Northwest to that of the Gulf coast and South Atlantic regions.
However, no evidence has been put forth to suggest that this should
justify consideration of separate subcategories.
The size of the processing facility is another significant factor which
requires additional subcategorization. Diseconomies of scale create
economic impacts which require separate limitations for small plants.
For this reason northern shrimp processing is divided into two
subcategories: Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of
More Than 3460 kg (4000 Ibs) or Raw Material Per Day (Subcategory I; and
83
-------
Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of 3640 kg (4000
Ibs) or Less of Raw Material Per Day (Subcategory J).
SOUTHERN NON-gREADED SHRIMP PROCESSING IN THE CONTIGUOUS STATES
Background
In the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic area, the shrimp industry is
the most important seafood industry. The season in that part of the
country runs from April to early June and again from August to early
October. Three varieties of shrimp are processed in the Gulf area, the
pink (Penaeus duorarum); the brown (Penaeus aztecus) and the white or
gray shrimp (Penaeus setiterus). The latter is processed most heavily.
In both the shrimp breading and shrimp canning industries, considerable
importation of foreign stocks from points as distant as North Africa and
Indonesia is practiced.
Processing
As mentioned earlier, the process for canned or frozen shrimp is fairly
uniform throughout the United States (see Figures 17, 18 and 22), also
the reader is directed to the processing description in the section
dealing with Subcategory H: Alaskan Shrimp. Variations from that
general scheme are discussed below. In the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic fishery, the boats normally dc not bring their catch directly
to the processing plant. They commonly dock at central locations
(buying stations) and unload their catch into waiting trucks. Th«|
shrimp are then iced down and hauled to the processing plant. Unlike
other areas, the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp fishery behead a
significant portion of the catch at sea. This is done to minimize
degradation of the product and permits extension of fishing trips. In a
few instances, heads on shrimp are brought to the unloading point where
they are beheaded prior to being loaded onto the truck, for transport to
the processing plants.
In addition to raw waste characteristics the subcategorization rational
follows the discussions presented above for Alaskan shrimp ana northern
shrimp processing.
However, the size of the processing facility is another significant
factor which requires further subcategorization. Diseconomies of scale
create economic impacts which require separate limitations for small
plants. For this reason southern non-breaded shrimp processing is
divided into two subcategories: Southern Non-Breaded shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States of More Than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material
Per Day (Subcategory K); and Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in
the Contiguous States of 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) or Less of Raw Material per
Day (Subcategory L).
84
-------
RECEIVING
(FISHa DEBRIS)
—]
PEELERS
(CARAPACE MATERIAL
HEADS a TAILS,WATER)
(WATER)
r)
1
(CARAPACE MATERIAL. I
WATER) ~H
i
1
(ME AT, WATER)
(DEBRIS)
(SHRIMP PIECES IN DUMP) I
(MEAT, WATER) I
SEAMER
PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
•-== = = ==- WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
RETORT
COOLING TANK
(HOT WATER) I
n
I
(WATER) |
I
EFFLUENT
Figure 22 Southern non-breaded shrimp canning process
85
-------
BREADED SHRIMP PROCESSING IN THE CONTIGUOUS STATES
A large percentage of the shrimp landed on the Gulf Coast are processed
as a breaded product. This product was successfully developed during
the 1950's and markets are continuing to expand.
Processing
The breaded shrimp industry pays a higher price for beheaded shrimp due
to certain types of machinery that can only handle this type oi product.
On the Gulf or South Atlantic Coast, where the breaded shrimp industry
is prevalent, peeling is done either by machine or hand. Moat plants
utilize some form of hand peeling of shrimp. The breaded shrimp schemes
are shown on Figure 23. Hand peeling is used because it gives a much
nicer looking product than machine peeling. There are two different
makes of machine peelers used: Johnson (P.D.I.) peelers, and Seafood
Automatic peelers. The machines have a capacity of 1800 to 5500 kg
(4000 to 12,000 Ibs) per day depending on the make (Dewberry, 1964).
Two types of breading usually occur in each plant: hand and mechanical.
Hand breading is done by experienced women who generally work with the
best product. The shrimp are first dipped in batter, then in bread
until the shrimp are coated, then they are boxed, weighed and sealed.
Mechanical breading employs the same process as the hand breading and is
sometimes called "Japanese Breading." The mechanical breading generally
has two main waste flows: one from the holding tanks and the other is
from the batter mixing tanks overflow. Each plant also has a de-
breading station where improperly breaded shrimp are washed and rerun
prior to boxing.
Shrimp that have been breaded are packaged either as "fantail" shrimp
(shrimp that have the uropods portion of the tail left and are split
part way up the back), or as "butterfly" (split whole shrimp with tail
removed). Butterfly and whole shrimp (either glazed and frozen or
breaded and frozen) are also packaged. The packages are then machine
sealed and frozen. Shrimp are frozen either in blast freezers of I.Q.F.
quick freezers.
The discussion of the wastes generated in the Alaskan shrimp processing
industry is applicable to much of the remainder of the shrimp industry
in the United States.
In addition to raw waste characteristics the subcategorization rational
follows the discussions presented above for Alaskan shrimp and northern
shrimp processing.
86
-------
Another significant factor which requires further subcategorization
involves the size of the processing facility. Diseconomies of scale
create economic impacts which require separate limitations for small
plants. For this reason breaded shrimp processing is divided into two
subcategories: Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of
more than 3640 kg (4000 Ibs) of Raw Material per Day (Subcategory M);
and Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of 3640 kg (4000
Ibs) or Less of Raw Material per Day (Subcategory N).
87
-------
• PRODUCT FLOW
« WASTE FLOW
JBATTER OVERFLOW]
BREADING) I
EFFLUENT
Figure 23 • Breaded shrimp process.
-------
3!iili§-££22§ssin2 (Subcategory O)
The annual consumption of tuna in the United States each year far
surpasses any other seafood. The raw product, processing methods and
size of operation clearly distinguish the tuna industry from the other
fisheries studied during Phase I. For these reasons, tuna is considered
a separate category. The industry may be divided into four main
segments: harvesting, processing for human consumption, production of
pet food, and by-product recovery. For the purpose of this report these
four segments will be discussed with specific emphasis on the pro-
cesssing of human food; pet food production and by-product utilization
will be treated as waste recovery, although each is an integral and
profitable part or the industry. Harvesting will oe considered only
from the standpoint of a raw materials source and shall not be dealt
with in detail.
Background
The United States tuna industry began in 1903 with the production of 700
cases of Albacore tuna packed in California. By 1972, it had grown to
over 31 million cases per year worth $632.5 million with plants located,
not only in the continental United States, but also in Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and American Samoa. In recent years, the industry has been
increasingly dependent on imports of fresh and frozen raw tuna to meet
the demand. As indicated on Figure 24, only 34 percent of the U. S.
supply was packed from domestic landings — compared with 39 percent in
1971 (N.M.F.S., 1973). The four main tuna species of interest to the
tuna processors are the yellow fin (Neothunus mac r opte r us ) , blue fin
(Thunnus thyjinus) , skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) , and Albacore (Thunnus
germg) . These species are divided into the white meat variety,
exclusively Albacore, of which there is a limited catch, and the light
meat varieties of blue fin, yellow fin and skipjack; the latter two
comprise the majority of the tuna canned in the United States. White
meat tuna is considered the "premium" product of the industry, because
of its characteristically white color, firm texture and delicate flavor
as compared with the darker, fuller flavored light meat. Harvesting
with pole and line has given way in the past 20 years to the use of the
purse seiner, which permits the catching of a large volume of fish in
about one- fourth the time. (Albacore are primarily harvested with pole
and line because they don't school) . After locating a school of tuna,
jthe fish are encircled with a large net which is then drawn closed at
the bottom. The fish are subsequently crowded together and dipped out
of the enclosure into the hold of the boat. Fish harvested locally,
i.e., near the processor, are held in refrigerated cargo nolds or wells
in the ship. An alternate method of storage has been developed for a
catch which must be transported from foreign water, often thousands of
kilometers from the processing plant. This method entails brine
freezing the fish and then holding them .in a frozen state until near the
plant where the fish are then thawed enough to be easily unloaded.
89
-------
SUPPLY OF CANNED TUNA, 1961-72
Million pounds
600
450
10
O
300
150
I
Total supply
l
U. S. pack from
imported fresh
and frozen
U. S. pack from
domestic landings
I
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Figure 24
-------
Processing
The processing of tuna is divided into several unit processes,
specifically: receiving, thawing, butchering, precook, cleaning,
canning, retorting, and finally, labeling and casing. Product flow,
waste water flow, pet food production, and waste utilization is shown
schematically in Figure 25.
The tuna are unloaded from the fishing boats into (one ton bins) and
transported by fork lift trucks to the scale house for weighing. Then,
depending on the condition of the fish, i.e., soft or frozen, and the
production backlog, they are either transferred to cold storage or
directly to thawing tanks; soft fish which may. be fresh or partially
thawed are usually processed immediately. Imported fish, i.e.,
purchased from a foreign country, are also received to fill any gaps in
domestic harvesting.
The fish are thawed in large tanks which hold 8 to 10 one ton bins.
These tanks are equipped with a moveable end plate so that fork lift
trucks can place the bins inside the tanks and subsequently remove them
after the thaw. Once the bins are in place, the end plate is lowered
and fresh water or seawater is pumped or sprayed into the tank. Thawing
then takes place under either static or continuous flow conditions.
Steam is used in some cases to heat the water.
The thaw time depends on three variables: 1) the condition of the fish
with respect to temperature; 2) temperature of the thaw water, and 3)
size of the fish. Smaller species, e.g., skipjack averaging 1.8 to 9.0
kg (4 to 20 Ibs) and Albacore 4.5 to 18 kg (10 to 40 Ibs) , take from two
to three hours to thaw whereas larger species, e.g., the yellow fin
averaging 4.5 to 45 kg (10 to 100 Ibs), take from five to six hours.
Thawing time is increased for fish held in cold storage at -12 to -18°C
(0 to 10°F). A substantial reduction in thaw time is achieved by
heating the thaw water with the addition of steam. After thawing is
completed, the tanks are drained into a collection ditch, the end plate
is raised, and the bins are removed and placed on an automated dumper at
the head of the butchering line.
The thawed fish are dumped onto a shaker conveyor which spreads them out
and transports them to the butcher table. Equipped with a conveyor
belt, wash screen, and circular saw the table is manned by 5 to 10
skilled workers who eviscerate each tuna. The viscera, which comprises
10 to 15 percent of the tuna by weight, is removed and placed in barrels
along the line. The tuna is washed with a water spray and checked for
freshness organoleptically, i.e., by a trained worker who inserts a hand
into the cut made by the butchers and smells it for signs of
putrifaction. Workers at the end of the line place the tuna in mobile
racks containing 14 separate trays. The larger species of tuna are cut
to standard size and set into trays for the precook process which
follows.
91
-------
RAW FROZEN TUNA
FROM BOATS
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
«===-__ = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
(BLOOD, JUICES, SMALL PARTICLES)
(OILS, MEAT, BONE, ETC.)
STICKWATER (OILS.SOLUBLE ORGANICS)
(HEAD, FINS,SKIN, BONE)
(VEGETABLE OIL, MEAT PARTICLES)
(OILS, MEAT PARTICLES, SOAP)
(OR6ANICS, DETERGENT)
(SCRUBBER WATER WITH ENTRAINED ORGANICS)
REDUCTION PLANT
SOLUBLES PLANT -
(CONDENSATE WITH ENTRAINED ORGANICS)
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
CONCENTRATED
SOLUBLES
Figure, 25 Tuna process.
92
-------
A small water jet is usually sprayed onto the saws to keep them clean.
The accumulated waste from the saw and wash screen drips onto the floor
and is collected in a drain running parallel to, and underneath the
butcher table. This drain also collects waters used to nose down the
floor periodically during the day and the equipment washdown at the
completion of the butchering process. The viscera is collected in
barrels and sent to either the fish meal reduction plant or the fish
solubles plant.
The tuna are precooked to facilitate the removal of edible from inedible
portions. The precook process involves three main steps: 1) the steam
cooking of the fish, 2) removal of the steam condensate or "stickwater,"
and 3) the cooling of the fish prior to cleaning.
The racks of butchered fish are wheeled into large steam cookers with a
capacity of 10 tons of fish per cook. Depending upon the size of the
fish or fish sections, the cook will last from 2 to 4 hours at a live
steam temperature of 93°C (200°F). Steam condensate plus oils and
moisture from the fish collects in the cookers and the resulting
stickwater is pumped to a solubles plant which concentrates this and
other by-product liquids.
After the precook, the racks are moved into a holding room and cooled
about 12 hours. The holding or cooling room may be equipped with fine
spray nozzles to hasten the heat loss, but in most cases cooling takes
place under ambient conditions. Because of the time involved in the
precook process, the fish are thawed, butchered, and precooked the day
before they are cleaned and packed. From the cooling room the racks of
cooked tuna are moved into the cleaning area of the packing room.
The trays of cooked tuna are wheeled to the packing room wnere tne fish
are removed from the racks and the tuna placed along the long cleaning
lines which lead the packing machine. There may be from one to ten
lines lin a plant, depending upon its size, with about 100 people working
each line. The line consists of a long double table, with an elevated
shelf separating the two sides and a stainless steel conveyor belt in
the middle of this shelf. At each position along the table is a hopper
feeding another conveyor belt beneath the table. First the head/ tail,
fins, skin, and bone are manually removed from the fish and disposed of
in the aforementioned hopper, conveyor system. This scrap is collected
at the leading end of line and by means of an auger it is conveyed to a
collection area for transport to the fish meal reduction plant.
Depending on size and species, approximately 30 to 40 percent of the
tuna by weight is comprised of this non-edible portion. Next, the red
meat which constitutes 6 to 10 percent of the tuna is scraped from the
lighter meat into a container for collection and transport to the pet
food production area. Cleaned of all excess material, the meat is
separated into four loins along natural dividing lines, i.e., down the
back and along the sides. These loins along with broken portions of the
loins are placed on the elevated conveyor to the can packing machine.
93
-------
Chunk style tuna is prepared from broken sections whereas whole loins
are used for solid pack tuna. Automatic packing machines shape the tuna
and fill the cans. A spillover of juices onto the floor from the
compaction of the tuna results in the only flow of waste from what is
otherwise a dry process. The cans are then filled with soybean or
vegetable oil, a brine solution, and monosodium glutamate; the oil
replaces the natural oils lost in cooking and lubricates the tuna
against sticking to the sides of the cans during the high temperatures
reached in retorting. The oil delivery system has an overflow
collection system which filters the oil and recirculates it thereby
minimizing loss.
After vacuum sealing in a lid seaming machine the cans are run through a
can washer to remove all the particles and oil from the outside. The
can washers usually have three phases: prerinse, soap rinse, and final
rinse all utilizing hot water. The first two phases are recirculated
water from which the oils and solids are removed. A despotting agent is
often added to the final rinse to protect against mineral deposits on
the cans as the cans dry.
Conveyed by a series of belts, elevators, and wire enclosed gravity feed
lines, the packed cans arrive at the cooker room on one of several lines
depending on can size. Retort cooker buggies, which are semi-circular
in shape to fit into the cylindrical cookers, are filled with cans at
each of these several can lines. When enough full buggies of a
particular can size are loaded they are guided into the retorts on a set
of rails and the doors are bolted shut.
The retorts are essentially large pressure cookers which measure 1.4
meters by 11.1 meters (4-1/2 ft by 37 ft) in which the tuna is
sterilized at 121°C (250/F) for 1-1/2 hours. This procedure insures the
destruction of all living organisms within the can wnich could destroy
the product or more seriously in the case of Clostridium botulinum pose
a fatal danger to the consumer. After the necessary time and
temperature requirements have been satisfied for the particular can
size, the pressure is reduced and the cans cooled with circulating cold
water. A final water rinse contains a despotting agent as is sometimes
used to protect against spotting when the cans dry. The buggies are re-
moved from the retorts to a holding room for further cooling and drying.
Each can is coded at the time of sealing; a representative number are
sampled, tested, and then that code is designated for a certain market
or distributor. After the cans have cooled in the holding room, the
buggies are dumped into a bin from which the cans are alined for the
labeling machine. Application of the label and subsequent casing in
corrugated fiber containers is the last step in the processing plant
before either shipment or warehousing.
-------
P§t_Food_Production
The dark colored meat scraped away from the lighter meat in the cleaning
process is collected and packed as pet food; the industry refers to this
darker meat as "red meat." The packing process differs from the human
consumption line in that less attention is given to the style of pack.
Other flavor ingredients are added and the can filling mecnanisms
deliver the correct quantity of tuna to the can without the extra
process of compaction and shaping. The cans are vacuum sealed, rinsed
and conveyed to the same cook room to be retorted. As these processes
have been previously described, no further mention will be made of them
here.
Non-Tuna Pet Food
In conjunction with the production of red meat tuna, some of the plants
are also equipped for processing other types of pet foods. Viscera from
the beef packing industry, egg, poultry parts, and other ingredients are
prepared and cooked in large vats. The mixture is packed in cans using
machinery very similar to that used in the red meat process and sealed,
passed through can washers, and transferred to the cook room for re-
torting.
2YZ P£°duc t_ Recovery
No part of the tuna which enters the processing plant is regarded as
waste by the industry. Stickwater, the non-edible portions, and the
aforementioned red meat are all collected and further processed into
other products. Red meat, although also a by-product, is discussed
separately from this section because of the similarities and shared
processes with the production of tuna for human consumption.
Fish_Meal_Reductign
All of the scrap removed to obtain the edible portions of tuna, the
spilled scrap and meat cleaned up before washdown, and solids screened
from the waste water are collected and transported to the reduction
plant for further processing.
The waste solids are ground, cooked, and then pressed to remove valuable
juices and oils before the resulting "press cake" is dried by one of
several methods. Depending upon the specific process, small amounts of
wastes are entrained in the various water flows, e.g., steam condensate,
barometric leg waters, air scrubber waters, associated witfi drying. The
resulting fish meal is bagged and marketed for many different uses,
including fertilizer and animal feed additives.
95
-------
The juices and oils collected from the pressing of the cooked solids,
termed the press liquor, are pumped to the solubles plant which
concentrates this liquor along with the stickwater, and also in many
cases a slurry of ground viscera. The usual method is to heat the
liquid with steam in the presence of a vacuum produced by a Barometric
leg. The solubles after concentration by 2 to H phases or "effects,"
are drained off for tuna oil removal or marketed as an animal feed
additive and other uses. Wastes become entrained in the steam and
aspirator waters of this process. Further information may be obtained
from the literature regarding fishery by-product recovery.
SUBCATEGORIZATION_RATIONALE
Consideration of the tuna industry as a subcategory of the seafood
industry was provisionally segregated prior to sampling because of the
homogeniety in the tuna processing methods, extensive by-product
recovery, and the magnitude of production. This segregation was
substantiated by the data and information obtained and subsequent
comparison to the other subcategories of the industry considered in
Phase I. Figures 26, 27, and 28 are plots of all tuna flow, BOD5, and
suspended solids data (respectively) gathered in this study.
Although widely distributed, the tuna processors utilize a common
technology for the production of canned tuna and various by-products.
The waste characteristics of this common technology does show geographic
variation which, although obvious internally, does not justify further
subcategorization of the tuna industry. This variation is due to
operational inconsistencies which could be easily corrected to minimize
differences and thus justify a common waste treatment technology
amenable to all plants.
-------
40,000
30,000
tn
20,000
10,000
• = Puerto Rico
•= Southern California
A= Northwest
j_
I
100 200 300 400
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 26
Tuna production rates and flow ratios
97
-------
= Puerto Rico
= Southern California
= Northwest
20
15
Cn
Cn
Q
O
10
100
200
300
400
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 27
Tuna production rates and BODS ratios
98
-------
en
Cn
-d
•H
r-(
0
tn
OJ
a
0)
0
Cfl
•~ Puerto Rico
•= Southern California
A= Northwest
15
10
100
200
300
400
PRODUCTION kkg/day
Figure 28
Tuna production rates and suspended solids ratios
99
-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
A major effort in Phase I of this study involved actual field
characterization of the waste waters emanating from processing plants in
each of the subcategories. This was necessary because a previously-
completed literature review and interview program concluded that very
little knowledge of the character and volume of canned and preserved
seafood processing waste waters was available (Soderquist, et al.,
1970).
The waste characteristics for the seafood processing industry were
identified using a combination of judgment and statistical sampling
methods. A preliminary stratification was first developed to define
subcategories which were considered likely to be relatively homogeneous
from the standpoint of the application of control and treatment
standards. The processing plants in each subcategory were then treated
as separate populations in terms of sample means and standard deviations
for several important waste parameters.
In cases where the processing plants in a subcategory were located over
a relatively wide area, consultations with knowledgeable industrial and
university people were held and plants identified which were considered
to be typical, while still being located in reasonable proximity to one
Where the plants tended to be in groups, "cluster sampling"
utilized as the basis for the sample design.
Temporal averages of the desired parameters were obtained from the
combined effluent streams and, when possible, the most significant unit
operations. The temporal averages from each process were then averaged
to obtain a combined time and space representation for each category.
The spatial range and standard deviation of the temporal averages were
then inspected to verify the adequacy of the preliminary
subcategorization.
Where the sample coefficient of variation appeared to be relatively
large for some of the parameters, the individual process data were
reviewed to determine if a further breakdown of the subcategory should
be undertaken. In general, variations could be traced to differences in
unit operations between processes. Post-straitification was then
employed and the more typical processing operations separated from the
exception; or processors with the more similar operations were averaged
together to obtain strata which were more internally uniform. In most
cases it was decided that the creation of additional subcategories was
not warranted. The averages for these "sub-subcategories" are included
101
-------
in this section to assist the reader in understanding the sources of
variation.
Where the averages of different preliminary subcategories were similar,
and review of the other pertinent sutcategorization variables warranted
the decision,, all the plants in these subcategories were combined to
obtain averages for more general subcategories.
Sample Program Design
The preliminary subcategorization of the industry was developed through
review of all significant literature, consultation with industry groups,
related governmental represenatives and recognized experts in the areas
of fish processing, and waste treatment and control, based on the
factors discussed in Section IV. The processing plants in each
subcategory were then handled as objects of separate universes.
Based on previous experience in examining wastes from the seafood
processing industry, the parameters considered to be most important from
the standpoint of waste control and treatment were: flow, settleable
solids, screened solids, suspended solids, 5 and 20 day BOD, COD, grease
and oil, organic nitrogen, ammonia, pH, raw product input rate, and food
and by-product recovery.
Most of the processing plants in each subcategory were then identified
by the respective trade organizations. Where the processing plants in a
subcategory tended to be grouped together in certain geographical areas,
the method of cluster sampling was adopted as being the most efficient
in terms of information gained per unit cost. Cluster sampling is
optimal in terms of reducing the sampling error when a collection of
plants is grouped, such that the groups tend to be alike, while showing
heterogenity within the group. This constrasts with "stratified
sampling," where the collection of plants is grouped such that they tend
to be homogeneous witin groups and heterogeneous between.
Cluster sampling is a natural choice in this industry because of a
common organizational structure, while the variability within a group
(or cluster) is often high as a result of plant age, processing level,
management flexibility, and so on. In some cases, however, neighboring
plants may be more alike than plants further apart, contrary to the
principle that cluster sampling reduces error when clusters are more
heterogeneous within than without; however, the cluster sampling method
is still often the most efficient (and the only practical method). The
primary criterion used to select the clusters was whether tiie cluster
appeared to be a scaled-down version of the entire industry in the
subcategory. This is contrary to the principle that clusters be
selected by simple random sampling; however, it utilized prior knowledge
of the industry to better advantage and presented the opportunity for
valuable judgmental inputs.
102
-------
An attempt was made to completely enumerate all the plants in each
cluster; however, this was modified by factors such as raw product
availability and accessibility to plant effluents. In some cases there
was insufficient raw product to keep all plants operating during the
monitoring period.
Individual_Plant Sampling
Time-averaged estimates of the important parameters were obtained by
sampling the total effluent, and in most cases significant unit
operation contributions, over a period lasting from several days to
several weeks for each plant selected. In most cases the effluent was
being discharged at more than one point; therefore, each point was
sampled and flow-proportioned to obtain a sample which would represent
the total effluent.
Immediately after sampling, each aliquot was passed through a standard
20-mesh Tyler screen prior to adding it to the composite. This serves
to remove the larger solids particles (such as crab legs, some shrimp
shell, fish parts, etc.) and thereby greatly reduce the resultant
"scatter" of the data points. The method is especially valuable when
one is dealing with a limited number of samples and the development of a
precise base-line value for each parameter is tfie goal. The
alternatives to this approach were essentially three-fold:
1) to use a larger mesh size;
2) to blend or grind the samples; and
3) to leave all solids intact and in the sample.
,A larger mesh size would have been less defensible than 20-mesh, since
the latter represented the minimum mesh expected to be encountered in
the final designs. To grind the samples would have led to
unrealistically high values for some parameters such as BOD and grease,
because these values are surface-area dependent. Blending a food
processing waste sample can increase its BOD by up to 1000 percent
(Soderquist, et al, 1972a). Since the values obtained through this
method (especially those for BOD—the single most important parameter in
the guidelines) would be unrealistically high and would not relate to
actual receiving-water conditions, this choice was rejected. As
discussed above, the third alternative was not adopted because it would
introduce unacceptable scatter into the results and throw into serious
question the validity of the parameter averages obtained.
Although it was recognized that laboratory screening efficiencies would
likely be significantly higher than full-scale field screening
efficiencies (for the same mesh), smaller mesh sizes could be used in
full-scale application to achieve the same results.
Adoption of the 20-mesh screening method provided accurate, reliable
base-line data for each parameter in each subcategory for screened waste
103
-------
water, thereby permitting confident design of subsequent treatment
components.
Screening of the fresh sample rather than the composited one minimized
leaching from the solids, which would not normally be a contributor if
the waste waters were routinely screened prior to discharge.
For estimates of removal efficiencies for the design and cost estimates,
the literature was consulted to establish the relationship between
screened and unscreened BOD5 for each subcategory. This factor was
applied in full recognition of the inherent inaccuracies associated with
the "unscreened" value.
The flow rates, concentrations and production rates can be studied from
the viewpoint of time-series analysis. An estimate of the true time
average over an infinite interval can be obtained by taking the time
average over a finite interval. Problems arise when the time series
statistics are not independent of a time translation (time series is
nonstationary) . Typical causes are daily and seasonal periodicities.
This can be obviated satisfactorily in many cases by considering the
time series to be periodically stationary, since samples taken at
intervals of the periodicity may be approximately stationary. The time
average can be determined by considering the time functions in each
period to be transient pulses, each with a beginning and end in the
period; and then averaging the sample mean for each period over a number
of periods.
Daily periodicities were handled in the manner described above; however,
the monitoring interval was too short to include even one seasonal
period. This problem was handled by considering the fact that most
processing plants operate at a peak rate while the raw product supply
lasts and then terminate the work shift. An increasing amount of raw
product would then increase the length or number of shifts. A ratio of
waste load to weight of raw product could then be estimated
independently of the amount of raw product or shift length at the time
of monitoring. Information on seasonal variation in raw product
landings which is available from other sources can then be translated
into waste load variation.
Estimates of the averages for each day were obtained by taking a number
of samples during the day and then mixing volumes of all the samples
together in proportion to the flow at the time each sample was taken.
In the limit this is the same as taking a sample from the total volume
of effluent produced during the day. Since mixing is approximately a
linear operation for most of the parameters, a laboratory analysis of
the one composite sample gives about the same results as taking the
average of a series of separate analyses of individual samples.
The number of samples taken during the day was dependent on the
variability of the waste load. For cases where the flow and
101
-------
concentration were judged to be relatively constant only a few samples
were taken. When the flow was intermittent, but rather constant in
volume and concentration a random sampling of intermittent flows was
made and the number of times the flow occurred noted so an estimate of
the total waste load from that source could be developed. Sampling
effort was concentrated at points where the flows and concentrations
were judged to be the most variable and significant to the study.
Data Reduction
The raw waste concentrations and loading per unit of raw product were
estimated for each plant using the following methodology.
The time-averaged flow rate was estimated for each plant (where plant
refers to an individual process at an individual plant) by expressing
the flow rate for each day in terms of an eight hour day and then taking
an unweighted average. The average production time per day was
determined for each process; however, the eight hour day was used to
present the water and product flow rates for each subcategory in a
uniform manner.
An estimate of the ratio of each parameter, except pH, in terms of
weight or volume per unit weight of raw material was obtained using the
mean of the ratio's estimator. The ratio of the parameter to production
volume based on an eight hour day was calculated for each day and an
average of these ratios was determined over all days. The range shown
on the tables is the lowest and highest daily ratio. The weight to
|/eight ratios were expressed in terms of kg/kkg, which is equivalent to
n. lb/1000 Ibs.
The parameter concentrations were expressed in terms of tne ratio of the
load per unit production to the flow per unit production. This weights
the concentration obtained from individual daily samples according to
the daily flow and production volumes. The ranges shown on the tables
are the unweighted daily low and high concentrations obtained.
When the parameter time averages were obtained for each plant, all the
plants in a subcategory were averaged together using equal weights to
obtain a composite time-space representation.
A waste water material balance was determined by averaging the flows
from each unit operation in a manner similar to that described for the
total. The resulting average and range were expressed as percents of
the total average flow. The waste characteristics of the flow from each
operation were tabularized when data were available or described
qualitatively from on-site observations.
Raw product material balances were determined by obtaining food and by-
product production figures when possible and results were expressed as
105
-------
percents of raw product input. The waste percentages shown are the
differences between the raw product inputs and the finished product
outputs.
FARM2RAISED_CATFISH_PROCESSING (Subcategories A and B)
The farm-raised catfish processing industry is relatively new (many
plants are less than 5 years old) and employs similar techniques. This
was essentially substantiated by analysis of the waste loading data.
One variation was the large difference in waste water production
depending on whether the fish were delivered in live haul trucks, or on
ice, or dry.
The samples on which this study is based were taken at five processing
plants during April, May and June of 1973. Those months are some of the
poorer production months in the industry. Because the peak production
season does not come until late summer and fall, mostly small fish were
being processed and the additional amount of time required to process
smaller fish held the production volume down. The major complication
was the severe flooding throughout much of the Mississippi Delta, which
hindered or prevented harvesting of the fish, along with otner normal
industry operations.
There was some difficulty in obtaining samples of the total effluent
since the waste water sources of the processes sampled were quite
diverse and often had several exits from the plant. This was usually
the case where older buildings designed for other purposes had been
converted to catfish processing plants.
Wastewater Sources_and_Flows
Depending on the location of the particular plant, a well or city water
system supplied the raw water and a city sewer system or local stream
were called upon to receive the final effluent. Figure 5 shows a
typical catifsh process flow diagram, and Table 16 gives a breakdown of
the flow sources. The three main flows formed the effluent and its
constituent waste loads. The average waste water flow from the process
plants sampled was 116 cu m/day (0.031 mgd) with a moderately large
variation of about plus or minus 50 percent due mainly to holding tank
and cleaning differences as mentioned. The flow from the live holding
tank area produced the largest volume of water (59 percent) and
contained the least waste. Conversely, the cleanup flows contributed a
realatively small volume of water (7.5 percent), but contained the
highest waste concentrations. The processing flows were the third
factor and they contributed a medium volume of water with a medium to
heavy waste concentration.
Water reuse was limited to the holding tank and was not a universal
practice. Plant U retained water in holding tanks for a week or more
106
-------
with an overflow of roughly 0.2 I/sec (3 gpm) from each tank, and as a
partial consequence, had one of the the lowest total daily flows. Plant
2 had to drain each holding tank completely each time fish were removed
from it because of the tank and plant design. Plant 2 had the highest
total water usage with over two times the flow of Plant 4. Tne other
plants reused holding tank water in varying degrees.
Holding tank flows ran into the tanks from stationary faucets and when
the tanks were full the flow drained through standpipe drains. Clean-up
flows came almost exclusively from hoses but processing rlows were quite
diverse in origin. Processing flows came from skinning machines,
wa-shers, chill tanks, the packing area, and eviscerating tables and
included water used to flume solids out of the processing area.
The by-product solids were removed from the processing area in two ways.
They were "dry-captured" in baskets or tubs and removed by that means or
flumed to a screening and collection point. All of the plants sampled
used the same type of skinning machine, which was designed to operate
with a small flow of water. The skins were washed out o± the machine;
there is no way to effect dry capture of the skins, short or redesigning
the equipment.
While the holding tank flow waste was mainly made up or feces, slime,
and regurgitated organic matter, the processing and clean-up wastes were
made up of blood, fats, small chunks of skin and viscera, and other body
fluids or components. A high waste load came from tne tanxs where the
fish were washed, and from the chill tanks. There was no way to "dry
capture" this waste which was composed of blood, fats, and some
particulate organic materials.
107
-------
Table 16. Catfish process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 116 cu m/day (0.0306 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) live holding tanks 59 55 - 64
b) butchering (be-heading,
eviscerating) — — - —
c) skinning 4 2-7
d) cleaning 14 9-18
e) packing (incl. sorting) 3 1-5
f) clean-up 7 5-9
g) washdown flows 13 9-16
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 5.19 kkg/day (5.72 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 63 — - —
By-product 27 0-32
Waste 10 5-37
108
-------
Product. Flow
Table 16 shows the average breakdown of the raw product into food
product, by-products and waste. The percent recovered for food depends
on the size of the fish and to a slight degree whether manual or
mechanical skinning is used. The average is about 63 percent. Some
plants in rural areas dump or bury the waste solids; however, most save
the solids and ship them to a rendering plant.
The average production rate is about 5.2 kkg/day (5.7 tons/day) with a
range from 3 to 7 kkg/day. The average shift length is about 8 hours
but is quite variable in some plants due to raw product supply.
Raw_Waste Loadings
Table 17 gives the combined average flow and loadings. Tables 18
through 22 list the flows and loadings for each of the five processing
operations sampled. The average BOD loading was 7.9 kg/kkg with a range
from 5.5 to 9.2 kg/kkg. The average BOD concentration was 350 mg/1.
In developing the Catfish Process Summary, Table 17, the flow data from
Plant 2 was omitted. The excessive water use of 31,500 1/kkg was due to
draining the holding tank completely each time the fish were removed.
Common practice in the industry includes holding tank water recycle with
constant runoff and intermittent drainage.
CONVENTigNAL_BLyE_CRAB (Subcategory C)
Based on preliminary observations of blue crab processing operations it
became rather obvious that this part of the industry should be divided
into two subcategories depending on the use of hand or machine picking.
Subsequent analysis of waste loading data confirmed this judgment. The
only exception to the two categories was perhaps the modern high volume
mechanized plants which contribute a relatively higher waste load per
unit of raw product. Much of this would be avoidable, however, through
concerted in-plant water use reduction.
The conventional process using manual picking was considered to be
relatively uniform; therefore, only two processing operations were
selected for sampling.
Wastewater Sgurces_and_Flows
All the plants sampled used domestic water supplies. The conventional
process shown in Figure 12 produced a small amount of waste water,
109
-------
averaging only 2.52 cu m/day (660 gal/day). Table 23 gives a breakdown
of the flow from each unit operation as a percent of the total. The
majority of the flow (60 percent) was cooling water from continuous ice
making operations, but contributed negligible organic waste loads. The
washdown was an intermittent source which contributed an average of 23
percent of the total flow, but also contributed only a small waste load.
The cooker flow averaged 17 percent and contributed the greatest load to
the waste water streams.
Produet_Flow
The proportion of the raw product going into food products, by- products
and waste is given on Table 23. About 14 percent of the crab is
utilized for food (Soderquist, 1970). Up to 80 percent could be
captured for by-products, which would leave about 6 percent entering the
waste water flow.
The maximum conventional rate is about 500 kg/hr (1100 Ibs/hr). The
average production rate was about two-thirds of the maximum. During a
day's operation the processing is continuous; however, the length of the
shift and the number of days the plants operate is intermittent due to
fluctuations in the raw product supply. The average processing time was
7.2 hrs/day for the conventional plant.
110
-------
Table 17. Catfish process summary ( plants).
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
116
(0. 0306)
23, 000 1
(5510)
7.8
180
140
3.2
400
9.2
340
7.9
—
700
16
200
4. 5
27
0. 62
0.96
0. 022
6.3
79
(0.
5, 800
(3780
7.
2.
6.
5.
10
3.
0.
0.
5.
Range
170
021 - 0. 045)
- 31, 500
- 7550)
1 - 650
5 - 3.9
8 - 12
5 - 9.2
-
19
8 - 5. 6
51 - 0. 75
0045- 0.045
8 7. 0
111
-------
Table 18, Catfish process (olant 1).
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
148
(0.039)
20, 900
(5020)
1.2
25
--
530
11
440
9.2
--
860
18
270
5.6
36
0. 75
2.2
0. 045
5.9
136
(0.
18,400
(4400
6.
<•• _
6.
3.
11
3.
0.
0.
5.
Range
155
036 - 0. 041)
- 24, 500
5880)
6 - 44
H «• —
1 - 16
7 - 13
_ _
23
5 - 7.8
32 - 1.1
0046 - 0. 095
5 - 6.3
3 samples
112
-------
Table 19. Catfish process (plant 2).
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
170
(0. 045)
31, 500
(7550)
0.4
14
120
3.9
370
8. 5
230
7.2
--
540
17
120
3.9
20
0. 64
0. 51
0. 016
7. 0
102
(0.
24,400
(5860
11
3.
6.
6.
--
12
2.
0.
0.
6.
Range
204
027 - 0. 054)
- 37, 000
- 8860)
17
2 - 4. 6
4 - 10
3 - 7.9
_
28
7 - 4. 3
48 - 0. 73
014 - 0. 018
8 ' - 7. 2
5 samples
113
-------
Table 20. Catfish process (plant 3).
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
79
(0. 021)
15, 800
(3780)
0.45
7. 1
--
430
6.8
570
9.0
--
1200
19
260
4. 1
42
0.66
0.28
0. 0045
5.8
Range
64
(0.017 -
10,200 -17
(2450
6.3 -
_.
5.2 -
7.3 -
--
14
2.2
0.35 -
0. 002 -
5.2 -
95
0. 025)
,200
4120)
13
--
7.9
10
--
20
6.0
0. 83
0. 005
6.3
2 samples
114
-------
Table 21. Catfish process (plant 4).
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu in/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
80 76 - 85
(0. 0212) (0. 0201 - 0. 0225)
26,300 23,400
(6310) (5610
-28,400
- 6810)
oc ui_icetJ-ij.e ou-L-LUS , HU./ J.
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
25
650
--
290
7.5
210
5. 5
--
380
10
140
3. 8
20
0. 53
0. 53
0. 014
--
640
--
6.0
4. 3
- -
7. 7
2.9
0.42
0. 0085 -
--
670
--
8.9
6.9
--
16
4.6
0. 80
0. 020
--
9 samples
115
-------
Table 22. Catfish process (plant 5).
Parameter
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
102
(0. 027)
20, 500
(4910)
9.3
190
120
2. 5
580
12
410
8.4
68
(0. 018
12, 100
(2900
170
2. 1
5. 1
--
125
0.033)
-28, 000
- 6720)
230
3.2
18
.
730
15
260
5.3
25
0. 51
1.5
0.031
6.6
8. 7
3.2
22
8.6
6.5
6.7
8 samples
116
-------
Table 23. Conventional blue crab process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 2.52 cu m/day (0.000665 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) washdown
b) cook
c) ice
% of Average Flow
23
17
60
Range, %
17 - 26
13 - 21
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 2.59 kkg/day (2.85 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
14
80
6
Range, %
9-16
79 - 86
117
-------
Raw_Waste_Loadincjs
Table 24 gives the combined average conventional flows and loadings and
Tables 25 and 26 list the average flows and loadings for each parameter
for each of the two conventional processes sampled.
The waste loadings from the two conventional processes were quite
similar. The flow ratio ranged from 1060 to 1315 1/kkg (255 to 315.
gal/ton). The BOD ranged from 4.8 to 5.5 kg/kkg and the COD ranged from
7.2 to 7.8 kg/kkg.
Mechanized_Blue_Crab (Subcategory D)
The mechanized blue crab process using the claw picking machine had
greater variability than the conventional process; ranging from an
essentially conventional operation with a mechanical picker used
intermittently for the claws, to modern facilities employing several
mechanical pickers and a pastuerization operation to give longer product
shelf life. A relatively poor harvest and time limitations, however,
permitted only two mechanized processes to be sampled. This was a
significant sample of the industry, however, because less than ten
plants fall into the subcategory.
Conventional plants which employed mechanical claw pickers did so on an
intermittent basis and were considered to be mechanized plants.
Wastewater Sources and^ Flow^
The mechanized process shown in Figure 13 produced considerably more
waste water than the conventional processes. The average flow was about
178 cu in/day (0.047 mgd) with the mechanical picker contributing about
90 percent of the volume. Table 27 gives a breakdown of the flow from
each operation. The cooking water, which had a high organic
concentration, was diluted considerably by the water from the mechanical
picker. The mechanical operation also produced brine wastes from the
flotation tanks and from the subsequent meat washing. The brine tanks
averaged about 1040 liter (275 gal) and were dumped once a shift. The
concentrations of sodium chloride were very high, being about 100,000 to
200,000 mg/1 (as chloride).
118
-------
Table 24. Conventional blue crab process summary (2 plants).
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio/ 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
2.52 2.38
(0.000665) (0.00063
1190
(285)
4.4
5.2
6300
7. 5
220
0.26
760
0.90
50
0.06
7. 5
1060
(255
4. 3
2. 65
0. 00070)
1310
315)
6.2
620
0. 74
4400
5.2
_ _
0. 7
- -
4.8
— - -
0. 78
_ _ _
5.5
7.2
0.21
0. 80
7.
0.
1.
8
30
0
7.2
7.9
119
-------
Table 25. Conventional blue crab process (plant 1).
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
2. 65
(0. 00070)
1310
(315)
3.3
4.3
—
--
600
0. 78
3600
4.8
_ _
5500
7.2
230
0. 30
610
0. 80
46
0. 06
7.9
Range
2.50
(0. 00066 -
1140
(273
1.8
~ — _
__
0.2
4.7
~~ "
6.8
0.24
0.66
0. 05
-.
6.43
0. 0017)
1520
364)
6.8
^ _
--
1.5
5.0
7.8
0. 37
1. 0
0. 08
--
9 samples
120
-------
Table 26. Conventional blue crab process (plant 2).
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
2.38 2.2
(0. 00063) (0. 00058
1060
(255)
972
(233
2.8
0. 00073)
1270
304)
aettieaoie SOJLIOS, mi/i
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
5. 8
6.2
--
660
0. 7
5200
5. 5
;;
7400
7.8
200
0.21
940
1. 0
57
0. 06
7.2
0
-_
0.2
3. 5
_-
5.4
0. 14
0. 55
0. 04
6. 1
28
1.2
9. 0
--
12
0. 36
1.2
0. 07
7. 8
9 samples
121
-------
Table 27. Mechanized blue crab process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 176 cu m/day (0.0465 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) machine picking 90.5 *-- - —
b) brine tank 0.5 — - —
c) washdown 7.7 — - —
d) cook 0.2 — - —
e) ice making 1.1 — - —
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 14 9-16
By-product 80 79 - 86
Waste 6 — - —
122
-------
Product Flow
The proportion of the raw product going into food products, by-products
and waste is given in Table 27. About 14 percent of the crab is
utilized for food (Soderquist, 1970). Up to 80 percent could be
captured for byproducts, which would leave about 6 percent entering the
waste water flow.
The maximum mechanized production rate is about 1.8 kkg/hr (2 tons/hr)
on a raw product basis. The average production rate was a£>out two-
thirds of the maximum. During a day's operation the processing is
continuous; however, the length of the shift and the number or days the
plants operate is intermittent due to fluctuations in the raw product
supply. The average processing time was 4.1 hrs/day for the mechanized
plant, on operating days.
Raw^Waste Loadings
Table 28 gives the combined mechanized plant averages, and Tables 29 and
30 list the average flows and loadings for each of the two mecnanized
processes sampled.
The concentration of all the parameters were much higher tor the
conventional than the mechanized processes. For exdmple, the average
BOD5 concentration from the conventional plants was 4410 mg/j. and only
650 mg/1 from the mechanized plants. However, this was due to the much
greater water use in the mechanized process, which diluted the waste.
The volume of water used per unit cf raw product was about 30 times
greater in the mechanized than the conventional process. The waste
loads per unit of raw product were, therefore, much lower for the
conventional process. For example, the average BOD5 ratio from the
conventional process was 5.2 kg/kkg, compared to 22.7 kg/kkg from the
mechanized process.
The waste loading from the two mechanized processes were more variable
than the conventional processes. The flow ratio ranged from 29,000 to
44,900 1/kkg (6960 to 10,760 gal/ton), and the COD ratio ranged from 29
to 42 kg/kkg. The reason for the larger variation was that one process,
(Table 30) was a modern, high production operation, utilizing water in
many subprocesses while the. other was a more typical older facility.
ALASKA CRAB
The waste characteristics of the Alaska crab industry were monitored
during a period from March through June 1973. The monitoring team
attempted to sample each of the three crab species (king, Dungeness and
tanner) processed in Alaska. However, the investigation was limited to
mostly tanner crab because of seasonality and availability of raw
product.
123
-------
Plants were selected for sampling primarily on the basis of raw product
availability, finished product form and accessibility of waste discharge
points. Sampling efforts were centered around the three primary forms
of finished product: canned meat, frozen meat, and frozen sections.
Each plant marketing a given product uses the same basic unit operations
with small process variations. King and tanner crab data were combined
because the same equipment is used to process each and the waste
strengths were found to be similar.
Each process sampled used a grinder to facilitate fluming of the solid
waste from the butchering and meat extraction operations. It was
obvious that this method increased the wastewater load, as opposed to
handling the solids in a "dry" manner. To substantiate this, samples
were taken with and without grinding. Flow proportioned samples of the
total effluent were taken periodically during each sampling day. The
individual samples were combined with the appropriate quantity of batch
and intermittent flow wastes to approximate the average waste load for
that particular shift.
The samples were screened with a 20 mesh Tyler screen and the screened
solids weighed. The settleable solids and pH were determined in the
field. Three aliquots of the screened sample were sent to , the
laboratory where the remaining parameters were analyzed. The relative
waste load was then determined by relating the shift length and raw
product weight to each parameter.
124
-------
Table 28. Mechanized blue crab process summary (2 plants)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
176
(0. 0465)
36, 800
(8830)
2.6
94
—
330
12
600
22
—
980
36
150
5.6
98
3.6
5.4
0.20
7. 0
76
(0.
29, 000
(6960
77
_ _
22
—
29
4.
2.
0.
6.
Range
276
020 - 0. 073)
- 44, 600
- 10, 700)
110
_
23
-
42
3 - 6.9
7 - 4.4
16 - 0.24
9 - 7.2
125
-------
Table 29. Mechanized blue crab process (plant 3)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
76
(0. 020)
29, 000
(6960)
2.6
77
--
410
12
790
23
_ _
1400
42
150
4.3
150
4.4
8.3
0.24
6.9
Range
19
(0. 005 -
9850 - 50,
(2360 - 12,
33
_I
8. 3
12
--
29
2. 3
3.4 -
0. 19 -
6. 1 -
178
0. 047)
900
200)
124
--
16
32
--
65
8.5
5.2
0.29
7.8
4 samples
126
-------
Table 30. Mechanized blue crab process (plant 4)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
276
(0. 073)
44,600 36,
(10,700) (8,
2. 5
110
--
270
12
490
22
--
650
29
150
6.9
60
2. 7
3.6
0. 16
7.2
273
(0
900
840
57
--
7.
14
--
12
3.
2.
0.
6.
3
Range
284
. 072 - 0. 075)
- 60, 500
- 14, 500)
160
_
,9 - 16
27
_
51
6 7.9
2 - 3.6
13 - 0.22
9 - 8.2
samples
127
-------
Wastewater Sources and Flow
Each of the plants sampled in Kodiak, Alaska uses city water for
processing and water volumes and flow rates were easily obtained from
water meter readings.
Plants outside of Kodiak use mostly salt water in processing except for
the cooking operation which uses local surface waters.
Figures 14 through 16 show the process flow diagrams for the trozen and
canned meat and section processes respectively. The average total waste
water flow and the breakdown per unit operation is given in Table 31 for
the section process, and in Table 32 for the combined frozen and canned
meat processes without use of the grinder. This could be done since the
grinders only operated on an intermittent basis, as the solids in the
butcher area accumulated to a certain point.
The water used in the sections process (Table 31) was about 75 percent
of that used in the frozen and canned meat process. Most of the water
came from the washing and cooling of the meat (60 percent) and
contributed a medium amount of waste. The butcner and cooking
operations contributed a high strength waste but were relatively low
flows. The sorting, freezing and packing operations contributed low
flow and lowstrength wastes. Most of the water in the frozen and canned
meat process (Table 32) came from the meat extraction ana cooling
operations (57 percent) and contributed a moderate strengtn waste. The
butcher and cook flows were high strength but low in volume. The pack,
freeze and retort operations contributed a low-strength waste which was
about 26 percent of the total volume.
Tables 33 and 34 show the water flow breakdown for the sections and
combined frozen and canned meat processed when the grinder was operating
to dispose of the carapaces, viscera and gills from the butcher area.
It can be seen that the water flow increased about 50 percent for the
sections process and 25 percent for the frozen and canned meat
processes. A typical grinder used 170-230 1/min (45-60 gal/min). Most
plants processing sections used only one grinder while almost all frozen
and canned meat operations used two.
128
-------
Table 31. Material balance - Alaska tanner and king crab
sections process and Alaska Dungeness crab whole cooks
(without waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 220 cu m/day (0.058 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) butcher
b) precook and cook
c) wash and cool
d) sort, freeze, pack
e) clean-up
% of Average Flow
5
15
60
10
10
Range, %
2-8
10 - 20
50 - 70
5-15
5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.06 kkg/day (14.40 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
64
34
2
Range, %
57 - 69
20 - 40
1-15
129
-------
Table 32. Material balance - Alaska tanner crab frozen
and canned meat process (without waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 341 cu m/day (0.090 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) butcher
b) precook and cook
c) cool
d) meat extraction
e) sort, pack, freeze
f) retort*
g) clean-up
% of Average Flow
2
5
20
37
11
15
10
Range, %
1-3
2-7
15 - 30
30 - 40
8-20
5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 12.27 kkg/day (13.53 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
14
84
2
Range, %
10 - 20
70 - 89
1-15
* Canning operation only
130
-------
Product_Flow
Table 31 shows the estimated breakdown of the raw product into food, by-
product and waste. "Food" product recovery averaged about 64 percent
for the tanner crab sections process. The amount of food product ranged
from 10-20 percent for the frozen and canned meat plants using tanner
crab. The wide range was due to two exceptional plants, one which
discarded shoulder meat (a practice since changed), thus lowering their
food product recovery and a second plant which employed a mechanical
picker, brine separator, and belt water screening system which increased
their recovery. The other three plants sampled were typical and had
recovery ranges of between 14 and 17 percent.
Recovery varies with age of the crab as well as species. Xield from
king crab varies from 25 to 36 percent (anexuviant weight) depending on
age (Powel and Nickerson, 1963). The recovery increases until the crab
reaches a certain age and then decreases as it grows older. Recovery
also decreases after molting. This decrease in recovery means a greater
percentage of the crab is wasted.
By-product recovery is a new phase of the Alaska crab industry.
Tangential screens are presently being installed in regions with solids
disposal facilities. Unfortunately only one screen was in operation
while the field crew was in Kodiak and the monitoring was completed
before the screening operation was standardized.
The by-product recovery figures listed were estimated by adding the
settleable solids and suspended solids and then calculating the by-
product as the difference between 100 percent and the sum of the waste
and food product. By-product recovery estimates compare favorably with
values listed by Peterson (1972). The raw product input rate was about
the same for the sections, frozen and canned meat processes (12 to 13
kkg/day) .
The shift length varied from plant to plant depending on plant policy
and availability of personnel and raw product. During the peak season
most plants ran two shifts daily, each from 8 to 10 hours. Otherwise
the plants usually ran one 8 to 10 hour shift or until the raw product
supply was depleted.
131
-------
Table 33. Material balance - Alaska tanner and king crab
sections process (with waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 364 cu m/day (0.096 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) butcher and grinding 26 15 - 40
b) precook and cook 19 15 - 25
c) wash and cool 36 20 - 50
d) sort, pack, freeze 9 5-12
e) clean-up 10 15 - 20
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.06 kkg/day (14.40 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 64 57-69
By-product 21 15 - 30
Waste 15 10 - 30
132
-------
Table 34. Material balance - Alaska tanner crab frozen
and canned meat process (with waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 440 cu m/day (0.116 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) butcher and grinding 30 25 - 45
b) precook and cook 3 1-5
c) cool 6 2-9
d) meat extraction 34 30 - 40
e) sort, pack freeze 7 5-10
f) retort* 10 5-15
g) clean-up 10 8-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 8.40 kkg/day (9.25 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 14 10-20
By-product 66 50-75
Waste 20 10 - 30
* Canning operation only
133
-------
L oa d i ng s
Comparing the Alaskan crab whole cook and section process summary. Table
36, to the Alaskan crab frozen and canned meat process summary, Table
38, reveals significant differences between the product types. The meat
process uses approximately twice as much water as the wnoie and section
process, and the BOD5 ratio is 60 percent higher for the meat process.
These differences can be attributed to the fact that mecnanical pickers
are used to extract the meat from the shell in the canned and frozen
meat process. In the whole and section process after removal of the
viscera and gills the crabs are frozen whole or in sections with the
shell in place.
Tables 39 through 42 list the flows and waste loads from the four
section processes sampled without grinders. Tables 43 through 45 list
the flows and waste loads from the three frozen and canned meat
processes sampled without grinders. Tables 46 and 47 show the combined
section and the combined freezing and canning processes respectively
with grinding; it can be seen that the freezing load was significantly
higher than that from the section processes. The reason for this is
that much more solid waste is generated in the freezing and canning
process and there is typically one grinder in the butcher area and one
grinder in the meat separation area while in the section process, there
is just one grinder in the butcher area.
Tables 48 through 51 list the flows and waste loads from the four
section processes sampled with grinders. Tables 52 through 55 list the
flows and waste loads from the four frozen and canned meat processes
sampled with grinders.
Alagkan Crab Me at ^Process ing (Subcategory E)
Table 37 lists the combined averages obtained from sampling one frozen
and one canned meat process. It can be seen that the frozen and canned
meat process used about 100 percent more water than the average whole
cook or sections operation per kkg processed.
Tables 43 and 44 show the waste loading from the frozen and canned meat
processes respectively. The water flow and waste loadings per unit
product were about the same for both plants. Table 45 snows the waste
characteristics from a frozen meat process located in a remote area,
Plant S-2. The water flow per unit product was very high compared to
the other plants sampled. This was due to the large amount of sea water
used for fluming and cooling. The incoming BOD5 was zero because of the
large amount of chlorine used to disinfect the salt water. Tne apparent
COD loading is relatively high because the incoming water to the process
averaged 145 mg/1 COD. Chloride interference in the COD analysis is
134
-------
discussed in Section VI. Plant S-2 was omitted from the summary table
because of its unusually high flows.
Alaskan_Whole_Crab_and_Crab_Section_Processing_ (Subcategory F)
Table 35 lists the combined average obtained from sampling three whole
cook or sections processes.
Tables 39 and 40 show the waste loadings from the two whole cook process
sampled and Tables 41 and 42 show the two section processes sampled.
The water flow and the BOD5 and COD loads per unit product are quite
similar except for the one whole cook process sample (Plant K-8) which
had much higher flows and waste loads. Plant K-8 employed a brine
freezing unit operation while the other plants used blast freezing.
This process was sampled only one day and the sample was not included in
the summary table.
135
-------
Table 35. Alaska crab whole cook and section process
summary - without grinding (3 plants).*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
200 136 - 318
(0. 053) (0. 036 - 0. 084)
flow Ratio, i/KKg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
16, 900
(4040)
2 7
« • '
46
1300
22
210
3.5
330
5.6
1200
21
710
12
30
Oc
. D
77
1.3
2. 9
0. 05
7.6
15,400
(3690
15
18
1. 0
4. 0
6.4
00
. 3
1. 1
0. 02
7.4
- 17, 800
- 4260)
100
25
8. 0
8.0
—
19
0. 7
1. 8
0. 08
8.2
* process water only, table excludes
data from plant K8 (Table 39).
136
-------
Table 36. Alaska crab whole cook and section process -
without grinding (3 plants), including clean-up.*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
220
(0.058)
18,600
(4440)
2.8
52
1300
24
210
3.9
320
6. 0
1200
23
700
13
30
0.56
75
1.4
2.8
0.053
_
_ — _
_ _ _
_
_ —
_
— _ _
-
_
: ::
_
pH
7.6
* Clean up water is included in this table. The values were arrived at
by adding a percentage to the flow rates and wasteload rations shown in
Table 35. The percentages are 10, 10, 14, 10.5, 11, 8, 8, 7, 12.5, 5.6,
6 from top to bottom respectively. The ratio was then converted to mg/1.
137
-------
Table 37. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process
summary - without grinding.*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
310
(0. 082)
32, 700
(7840)
0.49
16
3700
120
170
5.6
270
8.9
400
13
430
14
22
0. 72
73
2.4
2.4
0. 08
7.4
Range
246
(0. 065 -
__
11
79
4.4
8.4
12
0. 65 -
1. 8
0. 07 -
7.4 -
375
0.
22
157
6.
9.
--
16
0.
3.
0.
7.
099)
7
4
78
0
10
5
* process water only
2 plants
138
-------
Table 38. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process—
without grinding—including clean-up.*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
«
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
341
(0.090)
36,000
(8620)
0. 5
18
3600
130
170
6.2
270
9.6
390
14
420
15
22
0.81
69
2.5
2.4
0.085
_
— — »
_
-• « —
: ::
.
: ::
.
: ::
_
_
PH
7.4
* Clean up water is included in this table. The values were arrived at
by adding a percentage to the flow rates and wasteload ratios shown in
Table 37. The percentages are 10, 10, 14, 10.5, 11, 8, 8, 7, 12.5, 5.6,
6 from top to bottom respectively. The ratio was then converted to mg/1.
139
-------
Table 39. Alaska Dungeness crab whole cook process
without grinding (plant K8).*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
280
(0.074)
29,900
(7160)
1. 1
33
370
11
67
2
800
24
_ — _ _
1500
44
27
0. 8
67
2. 0
6.7
0. 2
8.2
: ::
-
-
—
-
_
_ _ _
_
_ _ _
-
_
_
* process water only
1 sample
140
-------
Table 40. Alaska Dungeness crab whole cook process
without grinding (plant Kl).x
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
144
(0.038)
17,400
(4160)
0.86
15
1000
18
57
1. 0
280
4.8
--
550
9.6
29
0. 5
100
1.8
4.6
0. 08
8.2
Range
_ _
__
__
_ _
__
- -
- -
— - —
--
__
__
* process water only
1 sample
141
-------
Table 41. Alaska king crab sections process witnout
grinding (plant Kli). *
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
318
(0. 084)
15,400
(3690)
1.6
24
1600
24
100
1.6
260
4/\
. 0
--
420
6.4
19
* /
0. 3
71
1. 1
1.3
0. 02
7.4
284
(0.
12, 600
(3010
13
7
1.
.
4.
0.
0.
0.
7.
Range
356
075 - 0. 094)
- 17, 600
- 4230)
35
35
2 - 2. 6
Of™ /\
5. 0
_
5 - 7.5
1 - 0.4
8 - 1.4
02 - 0. 03
1 - 7.7
* process water only
5 samples
142
-------
Table 42. Alaska tanner crab sections process witnour
grinding (plant K6).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
,20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
136
(0. 036)
17,800
(4260)
5.6
100
1400
25
450
8. 0
450
8.0
1200
21
1100
19
39
0. 7
62
1. 1
2. 8
0. 05
7.6
132
(0.
14,200
(3400
36
14
5.
1.
13
13
0.
0.
0.
7.
Range
144
035 - 0. 038)
- 21, 300
- 5100)
190
43
0 - 11
0 - 19
30
35
5 1.0
9 - 1.4
04 - 0. 7
5 - 7.8
* process water only
4 samples
143
-------
Table 43. Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process without
grinding (plant K6).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
375
(0.099)
32, 700
(7840)
0. 67
22
4800
157
130
4.4
290
9.4
--
370
12
20
0.65
92
3. 0
3.0
0. 10
7.5
Range
--
--
--
_-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
* process water only
1 sample
144
-------
Table 44. Alaska tanner crab canned meat process without
grinding (plant K8).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
246
(0. 065)
32, 700
(7840)
0. 34
11
2400
79
200
6. 7
260
8.4
400
13
490
16
24
0. 78
55
1. 8
2. 1
0. 07
7.4
227
(0.
29,400
(7050
_ _
0.
63
._
4.
7.
9.
9.
0.
- -
1.
0.
7.
Range
272
060 - 0. 07
- 36, 100
- 8650)
_
6 - 21
98
8 - 9.4
0 - 11
2 - 19
8 - 20
24 - 1.4
_ _ _
5 - 2.2
06 - 0. 08
4 - 7. 5
* process water only
4 samples
145
-------
Table 45. Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process without
grinding (plant S2).*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu in/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
1740 1620 - 2000
(0.459) (0.427 - 0. 528)
146,000 125,000
(35,000) (30,000
0. 32
46
1400
210
57
8.3
340
50
11
1.6
7. 7
16
140
0.8
32
0.9
7.2
-167, 000
- 40, 000)
76
290
12
77
2. 4
7.8
* process water only
8 samples
146
-------
Table 46. Alaska crab section process summary with grinding
(4 plants).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
331
(0.088)
29, 000
(6960)
11
330
10, 000
300
760
22
1200
36
1600
47
2200
64
280
8.2
180
5. 1
4. 8
0. 14
7. 3
Range
155
(0. 041 -
17,600 -43,
(4220 -10,
50
28
7
22
31
34
3
3.3 -
0. 09 -
7. 1
439
0. 116)
400
400)
750
470
32
44
63
80
15
6
0. 18
7. 5
* process water only
147
-------
Table 47. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat process
summary with grinding (4 plants).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
400
(0.106)
51, 700
(12,400)
12
640
16, 000
850
1000
54
1300
66
2300
120
1900
100
350
18
190
10
5.0
0.26
7. 7
322
(0.
32, 800
(7870
150
520
45
54
60
86
4
8
0.
7.
Range
50.7
085 - 0. 134)
- 85, 500
- 20, 500)
- 1800
- 1200
67
89
180
140
31
13
2 - 0.35
3 - 7.9
* process water only
148
-------
Table 48. Alaska tanner crab sections process witn
grinding (plant Kl).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
363
(0. 096)
35,200
(8450)
1.4
50
800
28
200
7
620
22
880
31
960
34
85
3
94
3.3
2.6
0. 09
7.5
--
28, 600
(6860
10
9
2
8
13
14
0.
2.
0.
7.
Range
: ::
-41, 000
- 9820)
90
42
9
28
49
66
2 - 5
1 - 5. 0
07. - 0. 12
4 - 7. 7
* process water only
4 samples
149
-------
Table 49. Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K3).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
439
(0. 116)
43,400
(10,400)
3. 0
130
7100
310
690
30
780
34
--
1800
80
340
15
140
6
4. 1
0. 18
7. 1
344
(0.
28,400
(6800
23
150
8
6.
- -
30
5
2
0.
6.
Range
522
091 - 0.
- 60, 500
- 14, 500)
270
730
72
1 - 60
_ - —
160
54
11
08 - 0.
0 - 7.
138)
45
7
* process water only
15 samples
150
-------
Table 50. Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant K6).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
155
(0. 041)
20, 000
(4790)
38
750
20, 000
410
1600
32
2200
44
3200
63
3200
63
400
8
250
5
8. 0
0. 16
--
148
(0.
15, 800
(3800
460
250
23
14
48
48
4
4
0.
--
Range
159
039 - 0. 042)
- 23, 800
- 5700)
1100
620
40
65
77
84
14
6
1 - 0. 2
-
* process water only
4 samples
151
-------
Table 51. Alaska tanner crab sections process with
grinding (plant Kll).*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
367
(0.097
17, 600
(4220)
22
380
27, 000
470
1100
20
2500
44
;;
4500
80
400
7
340
6
8. 5
0. 15
--
Range
333
) (0. 088 -
14,800 -19
(3540
36
260
7
22
__
46
3
4
0.2
-_
405
0. 107)
, 000
4560)
800
800
30
69
" "" 1
114
12
7
0. 5
--
process water only
5 samples
152
-------
Table 52. Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process
with grinding (plant Kl)*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio,**kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg/
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg^/kkg
pH
Mean
356
(0. 094)
46, 700
(11,200)
5.8
270
11, 000
520
1000
49
1400
64
1300
60
2000
92
620
29
210
10
6.4
0.3
7.3
318
(0.
32, 900
(7880
29
120
4
17
13
14
2
4
0.
6.
Range
409
084 - 0. 108)
- 75, 100
- 18, 000)
750
- 1100
130
190
97
220
140
15
1 - 0. 7
6 - 8. 1
* process water only
**based upon 7 observations
22 samples
153
-------
Table 53. Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process
with grinding (plant K6)*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD , mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
412
(0. 109)
41, 600
(9960)
43
1800
29, 000
1200
1600
67
2100
89
4300
180
3400
140
740
31
310
13
8.4
0.35
--
310
(0.
33, 600
(8060
1300
720
40
34
160
110
10
10
0.
--
Range
454
082 - 0. 12(
- 53,800
- 12,900)
- 3100
- 2200
98
170
200
210
100
17
25 - 0.57
-
* process water only
7 samples
154
-------
Table 54. Alaska tanner crab canned meat
process with grinding (plant K8)*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Mean
322
(0. 085)
32, 800
(7870)
9.8
320
27, 400
900
1400
45
1600
54
3400
110
2600
86
120
4
300
10
6. 1
0. 2
7. 7
246
(0.
25, 900
(6200
110
680
28
19
52
2
6
0.
7.
Range
341
065 - 0. 090)
- 40, 000
- 9600)
1800
- 1700
68
71
: ::
130
8
16
1 0.3
5 - 7. 9
* process water only
12 samples
155
-------
Table 55. Alaska tanner crab frozen meat process
with grinding (plant K10)*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio/ 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
507
(0. 134)
85, 500
(20, 500)
1.8
150
9000
770
650
56
650
56
1300
110
1100
97
82
7
94
8
2.3
0.2
7.9
431
(0.1
60, 900
(14, 600
65
470
31
18
80
49
4
4
0. 1
7. 5
Range
553
14- 0.146)
- 123,000
- 29,500)
300
- 1100
76
92
140
160
10
11
0.3
8.2
* process water only
8 samples
156
-------
DUNGENESS AND TANNER CRAB PROCEgSING IN THE CONTIGUOUS STATES
(Subcategory G)
The waste characteristics data used to typify the dungeness crab
industry outside of Alaska were taken from a study done by the
Department of Food Science and Technology at Oregon State University
(Soderquist, et_ al_., 1972). The major differences between Alaska and
lower West Coast crab plants (Washington, Oregon, California) are waste
disposal and meat picking methods. West Coast plants do not grind their
waste as do the Alaska plants and west coast plants hand pick the meat
rather than using mechanical leg pickers as do the Alasxa plants. No
tanner crab processes outside of Alaska were monitored during this
study; however, the operations are the same as in Alaska except for the
differences discussed above.
The previous study sampled three dungeness whole and fresn frozen meat
processes in Astoria, Oregon for three months starting in November,
1971. Two of the three plants sampled used solid waste fluming systems.
This was not considered to be typical of "exemplary" processing plants.
Therefore, composite samples were taken with and without the flumed
waste flows.
Wastewater_Sources and Flows
A general description of the steps in a dungeness crab processing plant
was presented in Section IV. All of the plants sampled follow tne same
(general steps except for two unit operations. The first variation was
in the bleed-rinse step. After the crabs are butchered the crab pieces
are either conveyed via belt below a water spray or packed into large
steel baskets and submerged in circulating rinsewater. In either case a
continuous waste water flow results. There was no appreciable
difference in the characteristics of the waste streams from each method.
The second variation in processing is the cooling metnod following
cooking. Some plants employ a spray cool and others submerge a steel
basket containing the crabs in circulating rinse water. The waste
characteristics were unaffected by the cooling method.
Table 56 gives the breakdown of the flow from each unit operation as a
percentage of the total flow without fluming. The total average flow
observed for the three processes was about 120 cu m/day (0.032 mgd).
The only water from the butcher area was washdown and contributed a
relatively low flow and waste load. The cooking flow was low in volume
but high in strength. The flow from the bleeding area was moderate and
contributed a large flow but very little waste. The cooling water
contributed a large flow but very little waste. The major source of
waste came from the brining operation which produced a high salt load.
157
-------
The use of fluming to remove solids from the butchering and meat picking
area increased the water flow by about 70 percent and produced a
moderately high waste load.
Product_Flow
The typical West Coast plant processed 5.4 to 7.2 kkg (6 to 8 tons) of
crab per day. There is little variability in the crab processed. The
size and sex restrictions as well as closure of the harvest season by
government agencies during the molting season, have standardized the raw
product a great deal.
The influence of plant size on waste water values could not be reliably
demonstrated in this study because the three plants monitored had
similar production capacities. Comparison of waste water
characteristics, however, with those of Alaskan plants indicates little
effect.
Dungeness crab are prepared as whole cooked, or fresh, or frozen meat.
Whole cooked (cooked unbutchered) crab usually make up a small
percentage of the product; however, the contribution of BOD5 and COD
from the whole cooker is relatively significant because o± the sodium
chloride and citric acid added to the cooking water. The crab are only
whole cooked for special orders and/or to supply the local retail
outlets. Unlike the whole cooks in Alaska which are brine frozen after
processing, these crab are only refrigerated prior to marketing.
Fresh meat is also not a large commodity. Like whole cooks, the shelf
life of the product is short because the meat is refrigerated prior to
marketing. The waste from this product is similar to that produced by
the frozen meat process.
Meat is hand picked with a food product recovery ranging from 17 to 27
percent. This variation is a function of animal maturity, with yield
increasing as the season progresses. Hand picking results in a higher
yield than the mechanical meat extraction methods used in Alaska, where
the yield is about 1U to 17 percent on tanner crab. The waste
percentage shown in Table 56 was determined from the total solids
remaining after screening. By-product was assumed to be the difference
between 100 percent and the sum of waste and food product recovery.
The shift length was fairly consistent for each plant throughout the
monitoring period. A normal shift consisted of about four to six hours
of butchering and cooking and eight hours of hand picking. Those crab
not picked by the end of the day were refrigerated and picked the next
morning.
158
-------
Raw Waste Loading
Table 57 lists the average waste loads without fluming for all three
plants sampled. These values were influenced by both whole cook and
meat picking processes. However, the meat picking process was by far
the largest operation. The time average waste load characteristics of a
typical plant would be similar to that generated by tne meat picking
process alone.
Tables 58 through 60 show the waste load for each plant. The water flow
and loadings per unit product were fairly consistent from plant to
plant.
Samples from the waste flumes were composited with the other unit
operations in two plants. Table 61 shows that waste fluming at Plant 2
increased the water usage 78 percent arid the BOD5, COD, and suspended
solids ratios 21 to 24 percent. Table 62 shows that butcher waste
fluming at Plant 3 increased water usage by 24 percent. The resultant
waste loads increased for all parameters by about 20 percent.
ALASKA_SHRIMP_PROCESSING (Subcategory H)
An estimate of the waste characteristics of the Alaska snrimp industry
was obtained by monitoring two processes during a period from March
through June, 1973. The number of plants sampled was limited by the
availability of raw product during the monitoring period. One plant
sampled employs all new equipment which includes eight Laitram Model PCA
peelers in conjunction with four Laitram Model PCC washers and eight
Model PCS separators. The plant uses seawater and is located in a
remote coastal region of Alaska. This plant is probably more efficient
than most because of its new equipment. It is also larger than the
plants around Kodiak where the size varies from four to nine peelers,
with six to seven being average.
The other process monitored was a typical plant in Kodiak which uses
seven Model A peelers in conjunction with seven washers and nine
separators. This plant processes with fresh water.
Wastewater Sources and Flows
Figures 17 and 18 show the process flow diagrams associated with frozen
shrimp and canned shrimp processes respectively in Alaska. The Model
PCA peeler is normally associated with the frozen product, while Model A
peelers are used either for canned or frozen commodities.
Either seawater or fresh water is used for processing, depending on
plant location with regard to water availability and quality. Seawater
159
-------
is commonly used in the remote areas where good quality water is
available. Those plants located in high density processing areas
generally use city water. One plant in the KodiaK. area uses a salt
water well. The plants using seawater normally use more water than
fresh water plants because the city water is metered.
Table 63 lists the percentage of water used in each unit operation of a
typical shrimp plant (either sea or freshwater). Tables 65 and 67 list
average values for the process water of two shrimp processing plants.
Flows in the former plant were double those in the latter. Trash fish
removal and shrimp storage are small contributors to the total plant
flow, but add a moderate waste load. Peelers are the biggest water user
in the plant and the largest waste load source. Washers and separators
contribute 15 percent of the water and a moderate amount of the waste
load. Meat fluming and clean-up make up 29 percent of the water usage
and add a low to moderate load to the waste stream. Blanchers and re-
tort water (where applicable) are insignificant both in volume and total
waste contribution.
160
-------
Table 56. Material balance - Oregon Dungeness crab whole
and fresh-frozen meat process (without fluming wastes)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 95 cu m/day (0.025 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) butcher (clean-up) 8 4-11
b) bleed rinse 25 12 - 30
c) cook 3 2-4
d) cool 30 26 - 33
e) pick (clean-up) 7 5-8
f) brine and rinse 27 18 - 34
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 6.3 kkg/day ( 7.0 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 22 17-27
By-product 63 50-66
Waste 15 7-23
161
-------
Table 57. West Coast Dungeness crab process summary
without shell fluming (3 plants)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
95
(0.
19,000
(4,560)
84
1, 600
--
140
2.
430
8.
--
680
13
--
84
1.
5.
0.
7.
Range
025)
14,800 - 21,
(3,560 - 5,
1,300 - 2,
--
7 2. 6 -
1 6.6
_ _ -
11
--
6 1.4 -
3 --
10 0.075 -
4 7.3 -
--
300
100)
000
--
2.9
11
--
16
--
2.0
0. 14
7.7
162
-------
Table 58. West Coast Dungeness crab fresh meat
and whole cook process — without shell fluming (plant 1)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
95
(0.025)
14, 800
(3,560)
88
1, 300
180
2. 7
440
6.6
--
740
11
_ _
94
1. 4
6. 1
0.09
7. 3
Range
_ _ —
--
590 - 2,200
1.3 - 4.
4. 3 - 9.
_
7. 3 - 16
--
0.86 - 2.
0.06 - 0.
7. 1 - 8.
2
3
1
14
5
8 samples
163
-------
Table 59. West Coast Dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process — without shell fluming (plant 2)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
--
21,300
(5,100)
94
2,000
:: :: : ::
120
2.6 --
320
6.8
--
520
11
--
66
1.4
3.5
0.075
7.3 6.9 - 8.7
4 samples
164
-------
Table 60. West Coast Dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process — without shell fluming (plant 3)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio', kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
--
20, ,900
(5,010)
72
1, 500
--
140
2.9
530
11
--
570
16
— —
96
2. 0
6. 7
0. 14
7. 7
Range
--
17,600 - 25,000
(4,220 - 5,990)
1,300 - 1,800
--
2.0 4.1
8.5 13
--
14 - 20
--
1.5 2.4
0. 08 - 0. 16
7. 2 - 8.3
4 samples
165
-------
Table 61. West Coast 'Dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process — with shell fluming (plant 2).
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
--
38, 000
(9,100)
92
3,500
--
82
3. 1
230
8. 7
--
370
14
--
47
1.8
2. 4
0.09
7. 3
_.
_
_-
__
_ - _ _ _
- _ _ _ -
~ - - ~ ~
--
_ _ — _
- _ _ _ _
__
__
4 samples
166
-------
Table 62. West Coast Dungeness crab fresh meat and
whole cook process — with shell fluming (plant 3)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
— _ _ _
26,000 22,700 - 30,100
(6,240) (5,450 - 7,220)
69
1,800 1,600 - 2,200
--
120
3.1 2. 1 - 4.4
500
13 12 - 15
__
770
20 15 - 24
— — - —
88
2.3 1.7 - 2.8
5.0
0. 13 0. 08 - 0. 18
7.6
4 samples
167
-------
Table 63. Canned and frozen Alaskan shrimp material balance,
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 1170 cu m/day (0.310 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) fish picking and ageing 4 0-5
b) peelers 45 40 - 50
c) washers and separators 15 10 - 30
d) blanchers 2 1-5
e) meat flume 19 10 - 20
f) retort and cool* 5 3-8
g) clean-up 10 5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.9 kkg/day (15.30 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 15 13-18
By-product 65 50 - 80
Waste 20 15 - 40
* Included in canning process only
168
-------
Table 64. Alaska frozen shrimp process summary (plants SI & K6)*
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammon i a -N , mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
1170
(0.310)
73,400
(17,600)
7.4
540
12,000
860
2900
210
1800
130
2300
170
3700
270
230
17
150
11
6.8
0.50
-
_
_
_
-
-
_ — —
_ •» «
. - -
-
_ — —
PH
7. 7
* Average of Tables 68 and 66 with flow from Table 66 neglected.
169
-------
Table 65.
Alaska frozen shrimp process - Model PCA
peelers (plant SI) - sea water*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
1,630
(0. 430)
138,000
(33, 000)
5. 5
760
4, 800
670
2, 100
290
1,000
140
_ _
2, 000
280
100
14
1, 400
(0.3
108, 000
(26, 000
360
420
190
60
;;
160
4. 5
Range
- 1,780
70 - 0. 470)
- 175, 000
- 42,000)
- 1,100
990
370
210
: ::
360
18
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
7.6
7.4
7.8
* process water only
8 samples
170
-------
Table 66. Alaska frozen shrimp process,
Model PCA peelers (plant SI) — Seawater, with clean-up.*
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day 1,790
(mgd) (0.473)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg 152,000
(gal/ton) (36,300)
Settleable Solids, ml/1 5.8 -- - ._
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg 880
Screened Solids, mg/1 5,300
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 800
Suspended Solids, mg/1 2, 100
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 320
5 day BOD, mg/1 990
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 150
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1 2, 100
COD Ratio, kg/kkg 320
Grease and Oil, mg/1 99
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg 15
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH 7.6
* Clean up water is included in this table. The values were arrived at
by adding a percentage to the flow rates and wasteload ratios shown in
Table 65. The percentages are 10, 10, 16, 20, 12, 6, 9, 14, 7, 1, 39
from top to bottom respectively. The ratio was then converted to mg/1.
171
-------
Table 67. Alaska canned shrimp process - Model A
peelers (plant K2) - fresh water*
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
1,070
(0. 282)
66, 800
(16,000)
2. 7
180
11,000
760
1,300
90
1, 300
90
2, 400
160
3, 000
200
270
18
160
11
5.4
0. 36
8. 1
Range
700
(0.185 -
54, 200
(13,000
13
200
70
30
80
100
6
1. 1
0.25 -
7.6
1,440
0.380
100,000
24,000)
670
1,300
120
200
214
410
53
19
0. 54
8. 5
* process water only
16 samples
172
-------
Product^Flow
Table 63 shows the disposition of the raw product. The total product
recovery ranged between 13 and 18 percent with the estimated by-product
(solid waste) recovery estimated between 50 and 80 percent. The food
product recovery varies seasonally (Collins, 1973). Collins1 study
indicated that the immature shrimp processed in the spring have a higher
waste load than the larger, more mature shrimp processed later in the
summer.
Jensen (1965) estimated a 15 to 22 percent food recovery using
mechanical peelers. The 15 percent recovery average from the Jensen
study may have been influenced by the fact that it may have been
conducted in the spring.
By-product recovery is a new concept in the Alaska shrimp industry.
Tangential screens have been recently installed in regions with solid
disposal programs. The by-product percentage shown in Table 63 was
estimated by totaling the by-product recovery as the difference between
100 percent and the sum of the waste and food product. Screened solid
measurements were not used in this determination because of the trapped
water, which often causes the wet weight of screened solids to be
heavier than the raw weight of the shrimp. The 65 percent by-products
figure is slightly more conservative than the 70 to 75 percent
determined in a study by Peterson (1972).
The shift length at each plant varied with the availability of the
product. When raw product was available, the plant would allow the
•hrimp to age the desired amount and then process the shrimp as rapidly
as possible to avoid spoilage. Two shifts of from eight to ten hours
daily were common.
Raw Waste Loadings
Table 66 summarizes the data from the Model PCA peeler plant using
seawater and Table 68 summarizes the data from the Model A peeler plant
using fresh water. The water flow per unit product was about twice as
high in the seawater plant. The BOD5, and COD load per unit product
were 20 to 50 percent greater at the PCA peeler plant while the
settleable solids (1/kkg) were four times that of the Model A plant. It
is difficult to determine on the basis of existing data whether the
-increased load from the seawater plant was influenced more by the use of
a PCA versus a Model A peeler or by the additional fluming used at this
plant. Shrimp data for the West Coast indicated that PCA peelers may
produce less waste than a Model A peeler; however, this was from a
sample of one plant for each process. Table 6a presents the Alaskan
shrimp processing summary data with the omission of the flow data from
plant S-1.
173
-------
SHRIMP_PROCESSING_IN_THE_CONTIGUOUS STATES
Preliminary study of the shrimp processing industry showed the Gulf and
south Atlantic industry to be much more diverse than the Alaskan or West
Coast industry. Further study indicated that, while the process
variations for the Gulf and lower East Coast were many, the industry
could be divided into three main sections as discussed in Chapter IV;
Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States, Southern Shrimp
Processing in the Contiguous States, and Breaded Shrimp Processing in
the Contiguous States.
Northern Shrimp__Processing in the Contiguous States (Subcategories I and
J)
The shrimp processing industry in the Northern United States including
the New England ,Pacific-Northwest, and California areas is similar to
that in Alaska. Information from West Coast processes was available for
two plants from a study done by the Oregon State University supported by
funds from EPA Grant No. 801007, National Canners Association, and
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.
Wastewater Sources and Flows
Figure 17 shows a typical West Coast shrimp process flow diagram and
Table 69 gives a breakdown of the water used in each operation.
The two plants studied were located either over water or partially over
water, with liquid wastes being discharged directly into adjacent
waterways. The average plant flow was 472 cu m/day (0.125 mgd). The
largest percentage of this flow (61 percent) was attributed to the
mechanical peelers. Water used in these plants for production was all
city water. Due to the use of a larger number of peelers the flow from
Plant #2 (five peelers) was twice as large as that from Plant il (two
peelers). Plant f2 used PCA peelers, which blanch the shrimp prior to
peeling. Plant #1 used the Model A peeler. Plant *2 recycled
approximately 10 percent of the total water flow. The water from the
separators and washers was used to flume the incoming shrimp to the
peelers.
174
-------
Table 68. Alaska canned shrimp process - Model A peelers
(plant K2) - fresh water, with clean up.*
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day 1,180
(mgd) (0.310)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg 73,500
(gal/ton) (17,600)
Settleable Solids, ml/1 2.8
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg 210
Screened Solids, mg/1 12,000
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 910
Suspended Solids, mg/1 1,400
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 100
5 day BOD, mg/1 1,300
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg ^5
20 day BOD, mg/1 2,300
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 170
COD, mg/1 3,100
COD Ratio, kg/kkg 230
Grease and Oil, mg/1 260
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg 19
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1 150
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg H
Ammonia-N, mg/1 ^ g
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg 0 50
pH 8.1
* Clean up water is included in this table. The values were arrived at
by adding a percentage to the flow rates and wasteload ratios shown in
Table 67. The percentages are 10, 10, 16, 20, 12, 6, 9, 14, 7, 1, 39
from top to bottom respectively. The ratio was then converted to mg/1.
175
-------
Table 69. Canned West Coast shrimp material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 472 cu m/day (0.125 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) de-icing tanks 6 4-8
b) peelers (PCA & Model A) 61 57 - 78
c) washer and separator 12 10 - 13
d) blancher 2 1-2
e) grading line 2 1-2
f) can washer 3 0.002 - 6
g) retort and cooling 5 4-7
h) washdown 9 4-10
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 9.0 kkg/day (9.9 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 15 12 - 18
By-product 70 65-75
Waste 15 12 - 17
176
-------
Table 70. West Coast canned shrimp process summary (2 plants)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
472
(0. 125)
60,000
(14, 400)
67
4,000
--
900
54
2, 000
120
2,500
150
3, 300
200
700
42
200
12
6.3
0.38
Range
341
(0.090 -
47, 100
(11,300
2, 400
--
47
95
:: :
160
39
-_
0. 32 -
602
0. 159)
73,000
17,500)
5, 600
--
60
140
;;
230
44
--
0.45
PH
7.4
7.3
7.6
177
-------
Product Flow
West Coast shrimp are not beheaded at sea; the only preprocessing done
is to remove most of the debris and trash fish from the catch. The
debris and miscellaneous fish comprise between 3 and 8 percent of the
raw weight of the freshly caught shrimp.
The average raw product input was about 9.0 kkg/day (9.9 tons/ day) with
the average shift length being 9 hours. The percent of raw product
utilized for food was less than obtained from the Gulf and lower East
Coast canned and breaded shrimp and averaged about 15 percent. The raw
shrimp , when it arrived at the plants, had seldom been held more than
three days. The older shrimp were processed first, and from qualitative
observations there seemed to be a definite correlation between shrimp
age and amount of waste produced. A difference in waste strength was
anticipated due to the strong enzymatic action (degradation) of shrimp
as a function of time. However, due to the plants processing different
ages of shrimp on the same days, the effect of age on waste water
strength could not be substantiated by the data. The solid wastes which
could be utilized for by-product totaled about 70 percent of the input.
This was captured either by vibrating screens or trommel screens. In
many cases the wastes were transported by truck to a rendering plant,
where they were dried and added to fertilizers or used as supplements to
various feeds low in calcium.
Table 70 shows the summary and Tables 71 and 72 show the flows and
loadings from each of the two processes sampled. The PCA peeler process
had a higher flow but lower waste load than the Model A peeler. This
was contrary to the Alaska shrimp case where the PCA process had the
higher load; however, this may have been due to the fact tnat fluming
was used extensively at the PCA plant in Alaska.
SOUTHERN NON-BREADED SHRIMP PROCESSING IN THE CONTIGUOUS STATES
(Subcategories K and L)
Three Gulf Coast shrimp canning processes, considered to be
representative of the industry spectrum, were selected for sampling.
The plants were 25 to 30 years old and most still employed floor gutters
and holes in the wall for drainage. In addition to the data collected,
historical data were available from one plant (Mauldin, 1973).
Wastewater Sources and Flows
Figure 22 shows a typical Gulf or lower East Coast canning process flow
diagram and Table 73 gives the breakdown of the water used in each
operation. Well water was used in two of the three plants sampled for
178
-------
de-icing, peeling and cooling of retorted cans. All other process
waters (for belt washers, etc.) were city water. The COD and suspended
solids concentration in the well water averaged approximately 55 mg/1
each.
The plants in metropolitan areas pumped their waste waters directly to a
sewage treatment facility whereas the other plants merely pumped their
waste to large bodies of water. The total flow rates averaged about 788
cu m/day (0.208 mgd) and were very similar for all the unit processes.
The largest flows were from the peelers, which also caused the largest
flow variations. Some days flows were reduced on peelers. This was due
to the shrimp being too fresh (caught the night before) which made
peeling more difficult. Flow was decreased so the shrimp would pass
over the rollers at a slower rate, thereby being cleaned more
thoroughly. These peelers usually averaged 170 to 227 1/min (45 to 60
gpm) per peeler, but on days when a slow peel was desired, tne flow was
sometimes lowered to 57 to 76 1/min (15 to 20 gpm).
All of the Gulf Coast canning operations plants sampled used Model A
Peelers. The Gulf Coast and lower East Coast shrimp were larger and
easier to peel than the Alaskan or West Coast shrimp.
Product_Flgw
The Gulf coast canning plants produced the same general type of product,
usually in the 6-1/2 oz size can. Brine was added to all cans at each
of the plants, but a combination of lemon juice solution and brine was
added mainly to "piece" cans (broken shrimp). The average raw product
input was about 23.9 kkg/day (26.1 tons/day). The average shift length
was 7-1/2 hours but ranged from 4 to 9 hours. The yield of the shrimp
utilized for food is only about 20 percent (Table 73). The portion
which could be used for by-products was about 65 percent; however, not
all plants had an available rendering plant. Many plants hauled their
solid wastes to the local dump. All three plants sampled employed some
form of screening to remove their large solids. Two forms of screening
were used: vibratory and' tangential. One of the plants sampled used a
tangential screen which has a piston drive solids compressor installed
into the mechanism. This ram squeezed the shells (eliminating 50 per-
cent of retained water), and bagged them into 25 to 30 Ib plastic bags,
which were then transported to the city dump.
Table 74 gives the average flow and loadings from all three of the Gulf
Coast canning processes sampled. It can be seen that the water flow per
unit product was relatively uniform with a mean of about 46,900 1/kkg.
The COD loads were also uniform with a mean of 109 kg/kkg. BOD5 was
available only from Plant tl and averaged 46 kg/kkg.
179
-------
Tables 75 through 78 show the waste characteristics from each of the
three plants sampled. The data collected by the field crew on Plant #1
are given in Table 75 and the data obtained from Mauldin (1973) are
listed in Table 76.
Breaded_Shrimp Processing in_the Contiguous States (Subcategories M and
N)
Two breaded shrimp processes, one on the Gulf and one on the South
Atlantic Coast were sampled during November and December of 1972.
Waste_Water_Sources_and Flows
Figure 23 shows a typical breaded shrimp process flow diagram and Table
79 gives a breakdown of the water used in each operation. The two
plants sampled utilized both well and city water. The average flow was
about 653 cu m/day (0.173 mgd) . The Johnson (P.D.I. - peei, devein,
inspect) peelers averaged 31 percent of Plant #2's flow; this varied
with the number of machines operating. The Seafood Automatic peelers
averaged 12.8 percent of Plant #l's flow for comparable production.
However, the waste concentrations were very close between the two makes
of machines, even though three times as many Johnson peelers were in
operation as compared to Seafood Automatic peelers. This would seem to
indicate that the Seafood Automatic peelers generated a higher waste
load. Washdowns comprised one of the largest single daily flows
originating from these plants, averaging 51 percent of the total. It
appeared that this flow could be reduced significantly with proper water
management.
Prgduct_Flow
Since the breaded and fresh frozen shrimp were beheaded at sea, the
yield was substantially greater in this industry. The range of the
yield (Table 79) was 75 to 85 percent, depending on: type of breading,
method of peeling, size of shrimp, etc.
The raw product was generally in very good condition on arrival; if
caught locally they were kept iced and in coolers until processed.
Frozen shrimp are sometimes kept, if space is available, until all the
fresh shrimp are processed. Most of the imported shrimp at the time of
this study came from India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Ecuador. Some
days at Plant #1 over 50 percent of the shrimp processed were of foreign
origin. The actual working day ranged from a low of seven hours to a
high of eleven hours. Average raw product processed totaled 6.3 kkg/day
(7.0 tons/day) .
180
-------
Table 71. West Coast canned shrimp (plant 1)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
341
(0. 090)
47, 100
(11,300)
120
5,600
--
1, 300
60
3,000
140
3, 200
150
4,900
230
830
39
250
12
9.6
0. 45
7.3
Range
__
38, 200 - 68,800
(9,150 - 16,500)
1,700 - 11,000
--
23 - 96
100 - 170
110 - 190
130 - 350
- - - _ _
6 - 19
0.23 - 1.0
__
12 samples
181
-------
Table 72. West Coast canned shrimp (plant 2)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
602
(0. 159)
73,000
(17,500)
33
2, 400
--
640
47
1,300
95
--
2, 200
160
600
44
160
12
4. 4
0. 32
7.6
Range
--
54,200 -117,000
(13,000 - 28,000)
2, 100 - 2, 700
--
25 - 78
__
_ _
99 - 210
--
7.9 - 16
0.16 - 0.40
--
9 samples
182
-------
Table 73. Canned Gulf shrimp material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 787 cu in/day (0.208 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) peelers (Model A) 58 42 - 73
b) washers 9 8-10
c) separators 7 5-9
d) blancher 2 0.006-2
e) de-icing 4 0.005 - 7
f) cooling and retort 12 8-20
g) washdown 8 7-10
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 23.9 kkg/day (26.4 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 20 15-25
By-product 65 58-71
Waste 15 13 - 18
183
-------
Table 74. Gulf Shrimp canning process summary (3 plants)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
787
(0. 208)
47, ZOO
(11,300)
11
520
—
800
38
970
46
--
2, 300
110
250
12
200
9. 5
10
0. 49
6. 7
693
(0.
33, 000
(7,900
180
16
--
—
65
5.
1.
0.
6.
Range
905
183 - 0.239)
- 58,400
- 14,000)
980
-
50
—
-
120
4 - 36
9 - 12
41 - 0.60
5 7.0
184
-------
Table 75. Gulf shrimp canning process (plant 1A)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
855
(0. 226)
33,000
(7,900)
5. 4
180
757
(0. 200
950
0.251)
480
16
32, 100
(7, 700
180
16
45,900
11,000)
190
17
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
2, 000
65
160
5. 4
210
6.9
14
0. 46
7. 0
42
4.8
6. 1
0. 42 -
-_
93
6. 4
8.0
0.52
--
2 samples
185
-------
Table 76. Gulf shrimp canning process (plant IB)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable .Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
905
(0.239)
41, 700
, (10,000)
24
980
--
620
26
1, 100
46
2,600
110
860
36
46
1.9
840
(0.
35, 500
(8,500
750
~ —
7
41
«• —
87
22
1.
Range
969
222 - 0. 256)
- 58, 400
- 14,000)
- 1, 100
-
30
51
_ — —
120
53
1 - 2.9
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
6 samples
186
-------
Table 77. Gulf shrimp canning process (plant 2)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
693
(0. 183)
473 - 1,190
(0. 125 - 0. 314)
45,900
(11,000)
13
580
1, 100
50
37, 500
(9,000
480
28
- 50,100
- 12,000)
830
62
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
2, 600
120
150
6.8
260
12
13
0. 60
6.5
100
5.9
9.6
0. 47 -
--
130
8.6
13
0. 67
--
4 samples
187
-------
Table 78. Gulf Shrimp process - screened (plant 3)
Parameter
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
787
(0. 208)
58, 400
(14,000)
6.8
400
715
(0. 189 -
50, 100
(12,000
--
320
1, 280
0.338)
66, 800
16,000)
900
720
42
21
65
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
2, 100
120
140
8. 5
200
12
7. 0
0. 41
7. 0
93 - 140
4. 7 - 12
8 - 13
0. 22 - 0. 54
--
5 samples
188
-------
Table 79. Breaded Gulf shrimp material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 653 cu m/day (0.172 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) hand peeling 5 3-7
b) thawing or de-icing 4 2-7
c) breading area 2 1-3
d) washdown 51 29 - 73
e) automatic peelers 38 34 - 55
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 6.3 kkg/day (7.0 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 80 75 - 85
By-product 15 10 - 20
Waste 5 3-6
189
-------
Raw_Waste_Loading
Table 80 shows the summary and Tables 81 and 82 show the flows and
loadings from each of the two breaded shrimp processes sampled. The
waste water flows and the loadings per unit of raw product were very
similar for the two processes and quite similar to the Gull and lower
East Coast canned processes.
TUNA_PROCESSING (Subcategory O)
Seven tuna processing plants were monitored during May and June of 1973.
Three of the plants were located in Southern California and the other
four in Puerto Rico. In addition, data from a study done by Oregon
State University in the fall of 1972 at two plants in the Northwest were
included (Soderquist, et al., 1972). These nine plants represented a
good cross-section of the tuna industry with respect to size, age, and
locality, and, in fact, encompassed nearly 50 percent of the total U. S.
tuna industry.
The sampling methods described in the introduction to this section were
employed at each of the plants. The "end-of-the-pipe" total flow and
unit processes were sampled Whenever possible. Most plants monitored
included on-site pet food lines, many incorporated meal plants and some
operated solubles plants, as well. In each case the "tuna process" flow
referred to in this report includes all secondary processes on-site,
with two exceptions: the barometric condenser flows and the air
scrubber flows, each representing high volumes of water with neglegible|
contamination (in fact, these flows were frequently single-pass sea
water). If more than one outfall was used a total plant effluent sample
was obtained by mixing a flow proportioned composite of all outfalls.
Samples were collected at various time intervals throughout the
production day.
As mentioned in Section IV, the techniques of tuna processing are fairly
universal for the industry; the flow diagram (Figure 25) in that section
applies to each of the plants with only slight variations.
Wastewater_Sgurces_and Flows
The processing of tuna requires a considerable volume of fresh water
obtained from domestic sources and (usually) salt water pumped directly
from the ocean or from saline wells. The saline water or domestic
industrial water is used in direct contact with the tuna in only those
stages prior to the precook operation; except saline water may also be
used in the latter stages where contamination of the cooked fish would
present a problem. Table 83 lists the average flow from each unit
operation.
190
-------
Table 80. Breaded shrimp process summary (2 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
653
(0. 172)
564
(0. 149 -
742
0. 196)
116,000 108,000 -124,000
(27,900) (26,000 - 29,800)
16
1,800
800
93
720
84
860
100
1, 200
140
50
5.8
0.95
0. 11
7.8
1, 500
76
81
2,000
5.4
0. 086
7. 7
110
87
6. 1
0. 14
7.9
191
-------
Table 81. Breaded shrimp process (plant 1)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
564
(0. 149!
416
(0.110 -
746
0. 197)
124,000 91,800 -150,000
(29,800) (22,000 - 36,000)
16
2,000
1, 700
2, 400
890
110
700
87
810
100
1, 100
140
85
47
60
110
130
120
140
160
Organic Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio,
PH
, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
kg/kkg
44
5.4
0.69
0. 086
7. 7
3.3
0. 075 -
__
7.9
0. 12
--
7 samples
192
-------
Table 82. Breaded shrimp process (plant 2)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
742
(0. 196)
108, 000
(26,000)
14
1, 500
--
700
76
750
81
—
1, 300
140
704
(0.
91,800
(22, 000
790
--
70
65
--
100
Range
893
186 - 0. 236)
- 117,000
- 28,000)
- 1,800
_
130
120
_ _ _
190
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio,
PH
, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
kg/kkg
56
6. 1
1. 3
0. 14
7.9
5.3
0.098 -
__
8.5
0. 22
--
7 samples
193
-------
Total water use ranged from 246 cu m/day (0.065 mgd) to 11,700 cu m/day
(3.1 mgd) with an average of 3060 cu m/day (0.808 mgd), where a day was
defined as one 8 hour shift. Flow rates and the ratio of water used to
tons of raw product processed are summarized for all plants on Table 84.
The variation for the flow ratio was relatively large which can be
attributed to the wide variation in the amounts of water used in the
thawing operation. A more detailed discussion of the wastes and waste
flow from each unit operation will be presented later.
Produet_ Flow
The estimated breakdown of the raw product into food, by- product and
waste is shown on Table 83. The average raw product input was about 167
kkg/day (184 tons/day) but the plants sampled exhibited a wide range:
from 25 to 350 kkg/ day. Food recovery averaged 45 percent. Very
little of the raw product was wasted. The red meat was utilized for pet
food: the viscera, head, fins, skin and bone were reduced to fish meal
and the stickwater and press liquor from the reduction plant were sent
to a solubles operation which produced a concentrated fish solubles
product, as discussed in Section IV. The final waste represented only
about 1 percent of the raw input.
Production in southern California and the Northwest was usually on a one
shift basis lasting 8 hours with occasional fluctuations of from 6 to 10
hours. Puerto Rico plants operated on a two shift schedule, the last
shift running somewhat shorter than the first. For the purpose of data
reduction and interpretation, flows and waste characteristics apply to a
standard 8 hour shift.
Combined Raw Waste Loadings
Table 84 shows average flows and loadings of the combined effluent from
all nine processes sampled. The amount of water used per unit product
varied considerably, as noted earlier.
It was also noted that the waste loads in terms of screened solids, BOD5
and COD were relatively low compared to other seafood processing
industries, due to good by-product recovery. Tables 85 through 93 show
the average flows and wastewater loads of the combined effluent for each
plant sampled.
194
-------
Table 83. Tuna process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow, 3,060 cu m/day (0.81 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) thaw
b) butcher
c) pak-shaper
d) can washer
e) retort
f) washdown
g) miscellaneous
% of Average Flow
65
10
2
2
13
7
1
Range, %
35 - 75
5-15
1-3
1-3
6-19
5-10
0-2
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 167 kkg/day (184 tons/day)
Output
% of Raw Product
Food Product 45
By-products
Viscera 12
Head, skin, fins, bone 33
Red meat 9
Waste 1
Range, %
40 - 50
10 - 15
30 - 40
8 - 10
0.1 - 2
195
-------
Table 84. Tuna process summary (9 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
3,060
(0.810)
18,300
(4,390)
1.6
29
71
1.3
550
10
710
13
246
(0.065 -
5,590
(1,340
__
7.0
--
0.95 -
— _ _
3.8
__
6.8
11, 700
3.1)
33, 000
7,910)
--
50
--
1.7
_ _
17
--
20
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
1,900
35
320
5.8
76
1.4
5. 5
0. 10
6.7
14
3.2
0. 75 -
0.0052-
6.2
64
13
3.0
0. 23
7. 2
196
-------
U ni t_Qp_e ra t ion_Characteriz ation
Several unit processes were considered, including: receiving, thawing,
butchering, cleaning, pak-shaping, can washing, retorting, and the plant
washdown.
Receiving was normally a dry process with the exception of Pxant 5 which
used flumes to transport the fish to the scales and then to the thawing
tanks; the latter flow was separate, and was used as the thaw water.
This fluming water, pumped from the bay, flowed at an average rate of
110 I/sec or 3168 cubic meters for an 8 hour day and contained entrained
organic wastes in the form of blood, scales, and juices, with a
corresponding BOD5 and suspended solids concentration of 4.6 Jcg and 2.1
kg, respectively, per kkg of fish unloaded. However, this plant is
presently in the process of converting the fluming system (with its
heavy use of water) to a dry system, as is used in other plants.
Plant 5 was also unique in that the fishing vessels pumped water from
the bilges and brine holding tanks onto the docks where it entered the
plant waste stream. The amount of this water was highly variable, as
was the suspended solid concentration, which varied from 20 mg/1 to 5830
mg/1.
The thawing process accounted for the largest water usage in this
subcategory, with a mean of 65 percent of the total volume, but varied
depending on whether the thaw took place under static or continuous flow
conditions. The organic waste load picked up in this process included
blood, juices, and scales. Separate flows and corresponding waste
concentrations were obtained for three of the plants and are summarized
on Table 94.
Because of the close proximity of the thawing and butchering processes
it was not always possible to measure these flows separately, although
several plants did the thawing at night, temporarily segregating the two
flows, which allowed one or the other to be sampled. This temporal
separation of flows was also helpful in segregating other mixed flows.
The average flow was 7389 1/kkg with a BOD5 of 2.96 kg/kkg, and 2.0
kg/kkg of suspended solids, or 65 percent, 40 percent, and 24 percent
respectively, of the mean totals for these plants.
Approximately 10 percent of the flows came from the butchering areas and
contained blood, juices, small particles of viscera, meat, and scales.
As mentioned in Section IV, the butcher waste flow arises from three
sources: the wash screen, saw washer jet, and the periodic hose down.
This water may be either fresh or salt, depending on the plant. The
total use of water in butchering is presently restricted to points of
necessity.
Comprising 10 to 15 percent by weight, the potential waste load from the
butcher process is approximately 21 kkg/day from an average plant
197
-------
processing 167 kkg/day. However, as mentioned in Section IV, the
viscera are saved and processed in either the fish meal plant or the
fish solubles plant. The data for the waste loadings occurring in the
butcher room from three plants are summarized on Table 94.
198
-------
Table 85. Tuna process (plant 1)
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate, cu ra/day 2,120
(mgd) (0.56)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg 25,700
(gal/ton) (6,160)
Settleable Solids, ml/1 1.2
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg 31
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1 470
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 12
5 day BOD, mg/1 780 ...
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 20 --
20 day BOD, mg/1 "" "
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1 1,900
COD Ratio, kg/kkg 50 --
Grease and Oil, mg/1 210
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg 5.3
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1 51
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg 1.3
Ammonia-N, mg/1 3.5
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg 0.09
pH 7. 1
5 samples
199
-------
Table 86. Tuna process (plant 2)
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate, cu in/day 4,500
(mgd) (1.19)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg 24,300
(gal/ton) (5,830)
Settleable Solids, ml/1 1.9
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg 47
Screened Solids, mg/1 70 --
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 1. 7
Suspended Solids, mg/1 700
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg 17
5 day BOD, mg/1 410
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 10
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1 1,600
COD Ratio, kg/kkg 38 --
Grease and Oil, mg/1 250
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg 6.0
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1 39 --
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg 0.94
Ammonia-N, mg/1 7.4
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg 0. 18
pH 6. 7
12 samples
200
-------
Table 87. Tuna process (plant 3)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
4, 580
(1.21)
23,200
(5,560)
1. 2
28
690
16
780
18
2,800
64
560
13
95
2.2
9.9
0. 23
6. 8
5 samples
201
-------
Table 88. Tuna process (plant 4)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
2, 270
(0. 60)
16, 100
(3,860)
1. 5
24
59
0.95
480
7. 7
610
9.8
1, 700
28
220
3.5
46
0.75
9.9
0. 16
6.5
Range
--
_-
— — — •• ••
_ _ •• w _
- - . __
~ ™ — — — i
--
— — — _ •
--
-_
_-
— _ —
9 samples
202
-------
Table 89. Tuna process (plant 5)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
11, 700
(3.1)
33,000
(7,910)
0. 21
7. 0
_ _
--
170
5. 5
420
14.
__
--
1,300
43
130
4. 3
30
0.99
2. 2
0. 072
6.8
Range
8, 700
(2.3 -
24, 500
(5,870
— — —
0. 5
- _ -.
_-
_ _ —
1. 3
_.
8. 7
__
mm _• ••
12
3. 1
_ — _
0. 55 -
0.044 -
6.2
14, 800
3.9)
40,000
9,580)
— _
12
-• —
--
_.
12
33
--
__
100
6.2
•» •
1.4
0. 14
7.4
8 samples
203
-------
Table 90. Tuna process (plant 6)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Mean
1, 330
(0.351)
8,510
(2,040)
5.9
50
—
1, 200
10
1, 600
14
3, 100
26
590
.5.0
Range
1,140 - 1,
(0. 302 -
7,470 - 10,
(1,790 - 2,
3.3
--
4. 6
—
__
15
2. 2
510
0. 400)
200
440)
190
--
16
—
—
38
8.8
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
6.2
6.0
6.5
5 samples
204
-------
Table 91. Tuna process (plant 7)
Parameter
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
Mean
450
(0. 119)
5, 590
(1,340)
2.9
16
—
--
1,800
9.8
2,300
13
__
--
3,900
22
570
3.2
540
3.0
13
0.072
7. 2
Range
435
(0. 115 -
5, 300
(1,270
_ _ _
10
- - _
--
— « —
6.8
— — _
9.8
__
19
_ — —
2. 4
— _ _
1. 7
_ _ _
0.055 -
6.4
484
0. 128)
5,920
1,420)
_ _
22
_ _
--
__
13
„_
18
--
25
__
4. 1
_ _
4. 3
...
0.090
7.9
2 samples
205
-------
Table 92. Tuna process (plant 8)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
246
(0.065)
10,700
(2,570)
360
3.8
640
6.8
1, 300
14
80
0. 86
2.5
0.027
6.8
8 samples
206
-------
Table 93. Tuna process (plant 9)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
PH
348
(0.092)
17, 600
(4,220)
440
7.8
680
12
1, 600
29
80
1.4
0. 30
0.0052
8 samples
207
-------
no
O
CO
Table 94 Percent of total plant waste by unit
process for BOD and suspended solids.
5
Process
Thaw
Butcher
Pack Shaper
Can Wash
Retort
Washdown
Percent Total
Flow
65
10
2
2
14
7
Percent Total
BOD
5
40
20
14
8
<0.1
18
Percent
Suspended
24
19
16
9
<0.
32
Total
Solids
1
-------
For these plants the butchering process contributed 24 percent of the
suspended solids. Wastage also occurred as the butchered fish lay in
wire racks prior to being cooked; blood and juices drained onto the
floor and were hosed into one of several collection drains. This
contribution was not isolated and must be considered under one of the
unmeasured miscellaneous sources which add to the total plant effluent.
Leakage of stickwater from the precookers presented a problem in that
it, too, was not available for measurement, and therefore must also be
added to the miscellaneous small flows. Stickwater was pumped from the
precookers for reduction or separate discharge by barging to open sea;
the latter was the case in only one plant sampled. Stickwater contains
large amounts of fats, oils, and proteinaceous materials which could
appreciably increase the concentration of the waste discharged if it
were not treated separately. Samples of stickwater obtained from one of
the plants had an average BOD5 of 48.2 kg/kkg, COD of 123.5 kg/kkg, and
33.7 kg/kkg of suspended solids.
After precooking, the tuna were allowed to cool for several hours in a
separate area between the precookers and cleaning rooms. Although
cooling was accelerated in one plant with a fine spray of cold water,
the fish were sufficiently leached of most of the oils and liquids in
the precook that a significant waste loading did not develop at this
point. These wastes are grouped with the miscellaneous sources, and
except for the one plant that used a spray mist, the air cooling process
minimized waste loadings at this point.
The cleaning process which follows cooling (as discussed in Section IV)
was a dry process with over 99 percent recovery of the wastes generated.
These collected wastes were conveyed to a reduction plant which further
processed them into various fishery by-products. A quantification of
the waste loading occurring in this area is included in the washdown
discussion since that is the only time water enters this process.
A small flow was associated with the pak-shaping machines and averaged
8720 I/per 8 hour day, which is less than 2 percent of the total
effluent flow, but contributed 16 percent of the suspended solids as
calculated for one plant which used representative packing machines.
The load from the pak-shaper is summarized in Table 94.
As described in Section IV the cans were washed in three places: water
from the first two was recirculated (solids and non-emulsified fats
being removed by screening and skimming); the final phase usually flowed
continuously. The holding tanks varied from 1.9 cu m/day to 151 cu
m/day and were dumped once or twice per shift; this washwater plus over-
flow and final rinse comprised roughly 2 percent of the total plant
flow. The entrained wastes had an average BOD5 of 0.65 kg/kkg, with
0.80 kg/kkg of suspended solids; the latter represents 9 percent of the
total suspended solids for the plants considered. The waste load from
the can washing operation is summarized on Table 94.
209
-------
Retort cooling water comprised approximately 1U percent of the total
plant flow or U28 cu in/day for the average plant. Because the cans were
subjected to a three-phase rinse prior to being retorted, the
possibility of significant pollutional loading of this water is greatly
reduced. A sample of this cooling water contained 0.0095 kg/kkg of
suspended solids, contributing less than 0.09 percent of the total
suspended solids to the plant effluent. A correspondingly low BOD5 of
0.14 kg/kkg and 0.18 kg/kkg of grease and oil was obtained.
The washdown or clean-up process accounted for 7 percent of the total
plant effluent, or approximately 220 cu m/day for the average plant.
The process occurred after the cleaning and packing was completed and
lasted from 2 to 6 hours, depending on the size of the plant and the
clean-up crew. Because of the addition of caustic cleaning agents, the
effluent pH was elevated from a mean value of 6.17 to a value of 8.4.
Waste from the cleaning operation which had accumulated on tne floors
near machinery was removed prior to the washing down of this area.
Small pieces of bone, skin, meat and fins which escape the initial step
were washed into drains and were removed by screening. The resulting
effluent from this process contained an average of 1.39 kg/kkg BOD5 and
2.53 kg/kkg of suspended solids or 18 percent and 32 percent
respectively, of the total waste loading. During the cleaning process
41 percent of the weight of the tuna was removed; for the average plant
processing 167 kkg/day, this represents 68 kkg of potential waste
material. The material entering the waste stream, however, totaled much
less than this. Most material was recovered and used in the production
of pet food (red meat) and by-products.
As indicated in the preceding discussion of each unit process,
segregation of these processes was not possible in each of the nine
plants in the sample group. Separate flow and waste characterization
was obtainable for each unit process in from 1 to 6 of the plants
depending on the process. Therefore, the percentage contribution of
each parameter applies only to the subsample group and therefore may or
may not total 100 percent for the sum of the process.
210
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
WASTEWATER_PARAMETE^S_OF_POLLyTigNAL_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.
Of peripheral or occasional importance are pH, 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
seafoods 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 encountered, 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 equalization.
Ratignale_For^SelectiQn 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
seafoods state-of-the-art report "Current Practice in seafoods
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.
The studies conducted at Oregon State University over the past two years
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
211
-------
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 pollutional 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 (BOD5)
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 reactions; and 2) organic substances which
indirectly cause a demand to be exerted on the system because indigenous
microorganisms 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 decomposable 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.
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 activities. 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.
212
-------
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 conditions 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
Methgds_, 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 dissolved 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 oxidation 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 fundamental to an understanding of the rate
at which BOD5 is exerted.
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.
213
-------
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 reaction 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. This has been demonstrated (Section V) to be the case for
seafoods processing waste waters as well. This is considered to be a
large enough percentage of the total BOD so that 5-day values are used
in many instances, (Sawyer and Mccarty, 1967). Both the 5-day and the
20-day (ultimate) BOD tests were employed in this study with reasonable
success.
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 slowmoving
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 indicator 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.
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, 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 seafoods
processing industries because of their high concentrations and the
nuisance conditions they cause when allowed to be discharged untreated
to a watercourse. Also, they 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 seafoods had indicated that the Standard Methods 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.
The Standard_Methods oil and grease analysis was used in this study.
0
Recent work (March, 1973) by the staff of the Fishery Products
Technological Laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries Service in
Kodiak, Alaska, indicates that a modification of the Standard Methods
oil and grease analysis markedly improves recovery from crab and shrimp
processing effluents (Collins, 1972). The method of Collins was
designed to be an improved, simplified replacement for the
Standard Methods analysis, to be practicable in most industrial
laboratories without significant investment in facilities. In addition
to improving recovery, Collins1 method allows the filtration of
significantly larger samples, thereby increasing accuracy and
reproducability of the technique. One feature of that method apparently
is the key to its success: the filtration step employed. As mentioned
above, the oils and greases in the seafoods waste water samples cannot
be extracted by the organic solvent if they are not first filtered out
of the aqueous sample. It is, furthermore, implied above that a
significant portion of the oils and greases are not removed in the
filtration step in the standard method. To improve recovery, Collins
recommended a simple and fast filtration technique using a filter aid
and a slurry of filter paper. This method appears to hold considerable
promise and may be the secret to improved recoveries in the analysis of
greases and oils in fish processing effluents. It will be investigated
in depth in Phase II of this study.
215
-------
Minor Parameters Of the minor parameters mentioned in the introduction
to this section, nine were listed—ultimate BOD, COD, pH, phosphorus,
nitrogen, temperature, settleatle solids, coliforms, and chloride. Of
these nine, three are considered peripheral and six are considered of
occasional importance. Of peripheral importance are ultimate BOD, pH
and phosphorous. At no time during the course of this study was pH
found to be of significance. The pH of the vast majority of seafood
processing waste waters is near neutrality. 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 (COD)
The chemical oxygend demand (COD) represents an alternative 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 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 data generated in this study and
presented in Section V. The BOD to COD ratio of seafood processing
wastes is approximately the same as the ratio for domestic wastes,
indicating that the two types of wastes are approximately equally
biodegradable. Another 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 difference between
these two rates. 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 sopnisticated equipment, less highly-
trained personnel, a smaller working area, and less investment in
laboratory facilities. Another major advantage of the COD test is that
216
-------
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. One drawback of the chemical oxygen demand is
analogues to a problem encountered with the BOD also; that is, high
levels of chloride interfere with the analysis. Normally, 0.1 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).
With the possible exception of seawater samples, this does not present a
problem in the fish processing industry, because organic levels are
sufficiently high that dilution is required prior to COD analysis. This
dilution, of course, reduces the chloride level in the sample as well as
the organic level, thereby eliminating or reducing the chloride
interference problem.
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.
3. 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.
217
-------
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 seafoods 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 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 an 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.
Temperature is important in those unit operations involving transfer of
significant quantities of heat. These include evaporation, cooking,
cooling of condensers, and the like. Since, in each of the segments
studied in Phase I, 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 in all phases of the industry.
5 . Chloride
The presence of the chloride ion in the waters emanating from seafood
processing plants is frequently of significance 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 sea water 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
218
-------
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
One parameter which is important in the domestic waste field is
coliform. This is a general term for a group of non-pathogenic bacteria
whose principal origin is fecal matter and which, hence, serve as
indicators for the presence of fecal contamination in waste waters.
Although this particular class of microorganisms is not harmful to man,
the analyses for them are considerably less complex tnan the analyses
for the more fastidious pathogenic organisms. The coliform bacteria are
members of the family Enterobacteriacae. They include the genera
Escherichia and Aerobacter. The coliforms were originally believed to
be entirely of fecal origin but it has been shown that Aerobacter and
certain Escherichia can grow in soil, but, the presence of coliforms
does not always indicate fecal pollution. Needless to say, efforts have
been made to distinguish between fecal coliforms and non-fecal
coliforms. The differentiation between these two groups is not clear
cut (McKinnery, 1962), and hence, has had limited value. As far as has
been determined, Escherichia coli is entirely of fecal origin. The
intermediate forms of Escherichia and Aerobacter are predominantly but
not entirely of soil origin. Some efforts have been made to determine
the presence of E^ coli as opposed to the other coliforms but the
control of water purity is still based on the presence or absence of any
coliform, soil or fecal in origin.
Because of the variation in coliform organisms, microbioiogists have
tried to find other bacteria of fecal origin which were much more
specific. The closest bacterial group to meet these specifications are
the enterococci. Thus far the use of enterococci as the indicator
organisms has not gained acceptance and is still in the experimental
stage. When the coliform test was considered in the development of the
guidelines and the analytical methods to be used in the current study,
it was noted that coliform organisms are indicators of fecal
contamination of water by warm blooded animals. Therefore, the coliform
219
-------
test might be of use as a guideline parameter in, for instance, the
feedlot industry or the meat packing industry where the hosts are
mammals. 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 four 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);
U. that considerable evidence exists that coliform
regrowth frequently occurs in seafood processing waste water
(in much the same manner as regrowth in pulp and paper
processing wastes) and that the degree 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 recommended guidelines.
220
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IN-PLANT_CgNTROL_TECHNI2yES_AND_PROCESSES
The concept of utilizing in-plant changes to reduce or prevent waste and
pollution requires a major change in thinking on the part of industry
and the consumer. Present waste and pollution comes from the fishing
boats (where soluble components accumulate in the bilge and are often
subsequently discharged into harbors adjacent to the plants) as well as
the discharge water from plants, containing both solids and solubles.
Not only do solubles create an unacceptable pollution problem, but they
represent a valuable proteinaceous food material that should be
recovered. Likewise, much of the solid waste currently being reduced to
low-grade animal food or discarded as a waste product can and should be
upgraded to human foods or high-grade animal feed components.
The seafood industry must rapidly reorient its efforts toward a "total
utilization concept," wherein much of the current waste materials are
viewed as "secondary raw materials." This reorientation is not only
necessary for maintaining and improving environmental quality, but for
utilization of the food that is now being wasted. Many phases of the
industry are not compatible with the requirements of today's world and,
even less, with those of tomorrow. The current industry allows the
majority of the 70 million metric ton (77 million ton) world catch to be
either reduced to low-grade animal feed or wasted, in the presence of an
ever-expanding protein-hungry world that needs the nutritional
components in the liquid and solid wastes.
One of the key points in trying to introduce conceptual changes into the
seafood industry is to increase our horizons to maintain a broad
perspective in terms of world fish production and consumption.
Considering that approximately 100 grams of fish per day contains an
adequate amount of animal protein to balance a man's protein diet in
many areas of deficiency, there is enough animal protein in world
seafood production to satisfy the protein requirements of 1.8 billion
people or approximately one-half of the world1s population.
At the present time more than two-thirds of the harvested seafood is not
being directly utilized as human food and approximately one-half of this
amount is being discarded. From a nutritional point of view, this
wasted portion is comparable to the portion being marketed for human
food and represents a tremendous potential for increasing the supply of
animal protein needed by the world's population. Furthermore, effective
utilization of food materials requires familiarization with the world
eating habits. For example, ten years ago salmon eggs, which account
for about five percent of the total weight of the fish, presented a
221
-------
waste disposal problem. Today the Japanese are paying as much as $6.00
per kg ($2.70 per Ib) for salmon eggs to be used for caviar. On the
other hand, people in the United states will not eat salmon egg caviar.
Hence, waste from one nation is considered a delicacy by another.
Maintaining the theme of "total utilization," it is the object of this
discussion to analyze the various factors involved in "closing the
processing cycle" so that raw material is used to the fullest extent
possible with the subsequent minimization of environmental pollution.
The implementation of in-plant changes to accomplish this goal is
certainly more logical than spending large amounts of money to simply
treat food processing wastes at the end of the effluent pipe.
IHfe erdejDe nd enc e_of Harvesting_and Processing
The harvesting of fishery products can be divided into two broad
classifications, namely those involving the catching of large masses in
a single effort and those of catching or harvesting individual animals.
Mass harvesting of fish ordinarily requires expensive and sophisticated
equipment compared to the catching of individual animals. Hence, the
practice of mass harvesting, particularly as applied to the high seas
fisheries, is limited to countries which can afford the expensive
vessels and gear that are required. On the other hand, many fisheries
of the world do not lend themselves to mass catch techniques, since the
fish are not concentrated in accessible areas. With the exception of
certain high seas longline operations that are used for catching
individual fish such as halibut or tuna, small vessels with rather
simple pole-and-line type fishing gear can be used in many parts of the
world for harvesting individual specimens.
Even marketing of highly desirable seasonal fish, such as salmon, has
been somewhat restricted by the gluts of raw material that are available
during a short period of the year. Although the market demand and
processor's profit are greater for quick-frozen salmon, he has continued
to can much of the pack because adequate freezing and handling
facilities have not been available. Furthermore, if a company cannot
diversify into other fisheries and operate over a major portion of the
year, capital investment versus profit greatly limits the degree to
which new freezing and cold storage facilities can be purchased to
handle larger portions of the seasonal catch. Hence, extensive efforts
are being made by companies handling seasonal fish to diversify into
other fisheries to justify their capital investment. This
diversification should be beneficial to the environment in at least two
ways. First, the longer processing season should justify increased
capital expenditures on waste treatment systems (as well as processing
facilities); and secondly, more regular and continuous processing
schedules should increase the number of options available to the waste
treatment system design engineer. Furthermore, a constant supply of
222
-------
solid wastes may justify installation of fish meal plants in areas where
they are currently economically infeasible.
Companies processing and marketing seafoods caught in small quantities
sometimes face the problem of labor costs being more important than
capital investment. Therefore, the fisheries that involve greater
harvesting effort and/or that require more manual labor in processing
generate products more costly to the consumer. Unfortunately, many of
the most desirable products, such as shrimp, crabs, oysters, clams, and
troll caught fishes, fall into this category. In many cases, these
species are not only expensive to obtain, but represent dwindling
resources.
Nutritive_Value_and_Total_Utilization_
Protein Foods
Meat, fish, and fowl are commonly placed in the category of "animal
protein" foods. Meats from these creatures, regardless of origin, have
similar nutritional properties. They contain 15 to 20 percent protein,
which has significant amounts of all essential amino acids.
Cereals and grains all contain protein. However, these proteins, called
"vegetable proteins," are all lacking in certain essential amino acids.
A large segment of the world's population, obtaining essentially all of
its proteins from vegetable sources, suffers from various protein
deficiencies. Furthermore, many people subsisting on vegetable protein
not only are deficient in essential amino acids, but have a general low
intake of total amino acids, due to the low level of protein found in
cereal and grain products.
In general, areas of the world that consume animal protein as a normal
part of their diet seldom are afflicted with the disease "kwashiorkor,"
caused by lack of protein (particularly the essential amino acids).
Although the protein content of fish ranges from 6 to 28 percent (on a
wet basis), it usually lies between 12 and 18 percent. The amino acid
content of fish is very similar to that in mammalian flesh. Hence,
consumption of fish proteins represents a most effective way to supply
all amino acid requirements of man and other animals. In the human
diet, it is necessary to furnish those amino acids which cannot be syn-
thesized by the tissues or organs of human beings. These essential
amino acids occur abundantly in fish.
Fish lipids consist of saturated, mono-unsaturated, and polyunsaturated
fatty acids. Polyunsaturated fatty acids constitute the major portion.
A large part of the twenty-carbon fatty acids of fish lipids is made up
of pentenes (5 double bonds), whereas a large portion of the twenty-two
carbon fatty acids consists of hexenes (6 double bonds). The latter are
223
-------
present in considerably greater amounts than the former in the
phospholipids, a pattern which appears to be typical of fish flesh.
Hence, it can be seen that fish flesh is not only highly desirable as a
completely balanced protein food, but has fats or lipids that are
currently in demand, since they are highly polyunsaturated.
A major problem in the marketing of fish as a protein food lies in the
fact that the desirable unsaturated lipids tend to oxidize quite
rapidly, resulting in rapid fish degradation. This problem is minimized
by filleting, since the trimmings usually have a considerably higher
lipid content and lower protein content than does the edible portion.
These differences can be quite pronounced. Table 95 shows the approxi-
mate composition of various portions of dover sole. Although it can be
seen that the edible flesh (the fillet) has a relatively small lipid
content and will probably be much more stable to oxidation than the non-
edible portion, it must also be pointed out that the non-edible portion
accounts for as much as 70 percent of the original whole fish and
contains almost as much protein as the original fish.
Hence, although fish is a highly desirable animal protein, marketing
techniques in the future must not only improve the distribution and
consumption of the so-called "edible portions," but must develop markets
for the portions now being discarded or reduced to animal feed
supplements.
Supplementary Additives
The fact that such a large portion of the world seafood production is
being either discarded or used for animal feed has directed much recent
research work into developing techniques for utilizing all yortions of a
fishery resource. One of the most promising methods for utilizing whole
fish or waste portions lies in removing the lipid and water fractions,
thus obtaining a high-protein dried "flour" that can be used for
supplementing diets deficient in protein.
224
-------
Table 95. Proximate composition of whole fish, edible
flesh and trimmings of dover sole [Microstomus
pacificus (Stansby and Olcott, 1963)]
Whole
Constituent
Moisture
Lipid
Protein
Ash
Fish
81.9%
3.5%
12.7%
2.7%
Edible
Portion
83.6%
0.8%
15.2%
1.1%
Non-Edible
Portion
_i§l l_jgart s_excep.t_f le sh]_
81.2%
4.4%
11.7%
3.5%
The production of a concentrated fish protein has many advantages in
areas where animal protein supplementation is desired: 1) the product
can be inexpensive on a protein unit basis, thus making it more
attractive to developing countries; 2) removal of water and lipid
stabilizes the product so that it can be stored indefinitely under many
different climatic conditions; 3) many populations o± fisn now
considered to be scrap or industrial fishes can be diverted into the
human food market. The latter not only utilizes a new source of
protein, but expands or creates harvesting and processing industries in
the countries concerned.
Most discussions regarding the utilization of concentrated fish proteins
as food additives center around their use in developing countries having
severe protein shortages. On the other hand, it is predicted that by
1980, of approximately one billion kilograms (2.2 billion Ibs) of
protein additives used in the United States, 0.86 billion kilograms (1.9
billion Ibs) will come from proteins other than milk (Hammonds and Call,
1970). This means that soy, egg, cottonseed, certain nut, chicken, and
fish proteins will become increasingly important. Since eggs and
chickens are strongly dependent on fish meal to keep their prices down
and the vegetable proteins are deficient in certain amino acids, fish
will undoubtedly play a most important role in filling these future
requirements. In fact, the processing of whole fish, as well as fish
waste, will be a major source of protein in the more developed countries
where this tremendous increase in concentrated proteins will be needed
to support fortified cereal grain products, as well as prepared foods.
225
-------
Non-Edible Products
Protein portions of fish and shellfish have high nutritive value and
should be used in the totality for human or animal food. Another major
fraction of the various shellfish harvested is the shell. 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 flocculating, 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.
Another use for Crustacea (i.e., shrimp and crab) shell is as a meal for
animal feed. It is especially desirable for fish diets since the
pigment imparts a pink color to the flesh of captive grown fish,
increasing their market appeal. If effective means of collecting shell
from all Crustacea processed in the United states were available, in
excess of 4500 kkg (5000 tons) of chitosan could be produced yearly.
Even this amount would satisfy only a small portion of the overall world
demand (Penniston, 1973) .
In-Plant Changes^Directed Toward Total Utilization
The previous discussion points out the need for maximizing the
utilization of fishery products. Therefore, the optimal approach to
solving the waste and pollution problems in the seafood industry is to
utilize the raw material fully, rather than waste most of it and
subsequently treat that waste.
There are relatively few unit operations and unit processes used in
seafood processing. Furthermore, there are even fewer components in the
residual solids and liquids. Essentially all fish waste components have
desirable nutritional properties. Based on this analysis, the approach
to in-plant changes is to analyze the various steps in each processing
cycle, determine the form and amount of material available in each step,
and then apply recovery techniques to produce marketable products from
the secondary raw material.
In general, all processing results in visceral protions having
essentially the same nutritive value and composition and in effluent
streams that vary primarily in suspended solids and dissolved solids
content. The dissolved solids vary from highly nutritious proteins to
low molecular weight degradation products from the proteins. The
breakdown products have limited or no nutritional value and increase, at
226
-------
the expense of the proteins, with the age of the raw material and the
severity of the process.
The solids and effluents from all fish and shellfish operations consist
of:
1. Hot and cold water (fresh or seawater) solutions containing
dissolved materials (proteins and breakdown products), suspended solids
consisting of bone, shell or flesh, and foreign material carried into
the plant with the raw material.
2. Solid portions consisting of flesh, shell, bone, cartilage, and
viscera. From the biological standpoint, all of these materials are
either inert or have sufficient nutritive value to make them valuable as
a food or food additive.
The in-plant changes that can be made to solve waste and pollution
problems do not involve extensive study and development of each type of
seafood processing procedure, but conversely, the development of a few
basic techniques that will be applicable to any process. These include:
a. minimizing the use of water (thus minimizing loss of solubles);
b. recovery of dissolved proteins in effluent solutions; and
c. recovery of solid portions for use as edible products.
Effective use of these three procedures would reduce pollutant levels in
effluents from seafood plants.
Minimizing water Use
Without question the first step in improving the loss of nutritive
material in a fish processing plant is to reduce the use of water.
There are many areas in which this can be accomplished at once.
Prior to the heat denaturation of proteins (cooking), a water soluble
fraction can be dissolved that can remove as much as 15 percent of the
total protein. As will be discussed later, this protein can be
recovered as a marketable product but it is more costly and produces a
less desirable product than that originally intended. The amount of
protein loss by leaching is a function of the amount or volume of water
used per unit weight or volume of seafood processed.
One of the first water-saving techniques employed should be to eliminate
the extensive use of flumes for in-plant transport of product. There
are few areas where dry handling of products could not replace flumes.
with, incidentally, significant increases in product yields. Cleaning a
dry belt or container requires a small fraction of the water that would
be used for fluming. Many plants are now using pneumatic ducts rather
than flumes for moving small particles, dry material such as shell, and
wet screened solids.
227
-------
Another water-saving technique would be the use of springloaded hose
nozzles which automatically shut off when released by the user. Much
more water is being used in the average butchering operation than is
necessary. It is a common practice in a butchering line to open the
valve and let it run without control even when no one is actively using
the table position. Steam and water valves are frequently not repaired,
allowing the loss of water, steam, and the discharge of condensate onto
the floor. Water commonly is allowed to run through unused machines,
overflow cleaning or cooling tanks, or pass through empty flumes.
Educating plant personnel to minimize water consumption is the first
step in the process of reducing the industry's environmental impact.
Protein Recovery
Several techniques are available for reclaiming protein from the
portions of the products now being wasted. The protein can be recovered
in the wet form and made into high quality frozen items or it can be
recovered as a meal or flour, ranging from tasteless-odorless fish flour
to fish meal for animal feed. The market for these items is virtually
unlimited, and the choice of process to be installed in a plant depends
on such factors as initial capital investment, length of operating
season, availability of transportation facilities and many other items
peculiar to the specific operation. Four types of processes are either
currently available or will be developed to the point of commercial
feasibility in the near future. These warrant consideration in overall
in-plant control programs and each are discussed briefly below.
1. Conventional Reduction Processes
The conventional reduction process for converting whole fish or fish
waste to fish meal for animal feed has been used for many years. Plant
capacities range from the massive plants of 1450 kkg/day input (1600
ton/day) for processing anchovy in Peru and Chile to the small package
units for processing fish viscera and trimmings from a fish canning or
freezing plant. As shown in Figure 29, a basic large production plant
with a 18.2 kkg (20 ton) per hour input capacity costs about $600,000
for equipment, while the essential facilities for batch-processing 0.9
kkg (1 ton) of waste in U or 5 hours is around $15,000. Of course,
there is a large variation in any plant investment depending on the
building and associated facilities required for a given location.
Frequently, the capital investment for a meal operation in an existing
plant could be greatly reduced if there were building spaces, docks,
steam and other items available for the addition.
228
-------
800
•*» 600
H°
Q.
3 200
15
(T/HR)
20
5 10 15
INPUT WASTE CAPACITY (KKG/HR)
270
Figure 29
Convential meal plant capital costs.
-------
INCINERATOR
V
DRYER
DISCHARGE
ro
GO
o
DRY MEAL
FROM SCREW
VAPOR
CONDENSING
TOWER
TRIPLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR
SOLUBLES
TANK
Figure 30 Continuous fish reduction giant with soLukle recovery and odor control.
-------
In general,/ the cost of producing meal depends on the number of days per
year in which the plant can be continuously operated,,
Of the categories currently under consideration, only large tuna plants,
such as those in Terminal Island, California and Puerto Rico have
sufficient waste material to justify continuous meal plants with the
required odor control and stickwater processing facilities (Figure 30j)
where operating costs can be as low as $66 to $88 per kkg i$60 to $80
per ton) of product,, Meal from these plants is also in greater demand
since the small batch plants do not press the cooked fish to remove oil
and the resulting product has an extremely high oil content. The oil
content is the limiting factor in adding fish meal to an animal feed
rationo The limit for conventional fish meal is 158 of the ration.,
More oily meals must be restricted to a lower level because the oil
flavor is carried over into the flesh of the animalo
Unfortunately, with the possible exception of areas like Kodiak, Alaska,,
where some 14 plants can send both crab and fish waste to a central
reduction plant, there is not sufficient volume in individual plants^
especially those processing crab or shrimp, to justify installation of
conventional reduction facilities,, For example, the lowest cost batch
reduction facility using the simple three-step process shown in Figure
31 would handle approximately 0=9 kkg (1 ton) of raw material producing
about 182 to 200 kg (400 to 440 pounds) of meal in 4 to 5 hours. This
unit, weighing approximately 5000 kkg (11,000 pounds) would be about 4,0
m (13 ft) long by 1=5 m (5 ft) wide by 2=0 m (6-1/2 ft) high and cost
$15,000 to $20,000o Steam equivalent to that from a 7=5 kw (10 horse-
power) boiler would also be required= The waste from 15=9 kkg (17=5
tons) of dressed fish or 5=7 kkg (6=25 tons) of shellfish could be
processed in 24 hours yielding perhaps 0,9 kkg (1 ton) of fish meal and
slightly more shellfish meal= The three mandays required for operation
would cost considerably more than the sales price of cra& or shellfish
meal which is approximately $55-$165 per kkg ($50-$150 per tonj) „ With
the continuing high price of fish meal, however, prudent selection of a
small meal plant for catfish and other finned-fish operations may be a
less expensive means of waste disposal than other methods. It is almost
impossible to accurately cost estimate fish meal operations at the
present time since prices are at an unrealistically high level, Peru,
normally the producer of one-half of the world°s fish meal, has had
greatly reduced output in 1972 and 1973 due to an unusual ocean current
condition. Hence, there is essentially no fish meal available today
(i,e,, imports from Peru in January through April were 55 kkg (60,5
tons) in 1972 and 5,4 kkg (5=9 tons) this year), and the small stocks
are selling up at to three or more times the 1971 prices, if this
shortage continues, production of meal from waste will be practical, but
at normal prices, the operating of small package plants to handle fish
waste is marginal. It will be late 1973 or early 1974 before ocean
stock assessments will allow accurate predictions of fish meal prices,
However, the low cost of shellfish meal offers little hope for
economical disposal of crab and shrimp waste,
231
-------
SEAFOOD
WASTE
ro
CO
ro
BATCH
DRYER
GRINDING
BAGGING
BATCH REDUCTION
OF SEAFOOD WASTE
Figure 31
Low cost batch reduction facility.
-------
Since the batch process does not remove any oil from the fish, the
process makes a rather undesirable product from oily fish. In this case
the continuous or semi-continuous equipment should be used whereby the
cooked fish is pressed to remove some of the oil. This approximately
doubles the cost of a small plant.
Another drawback to a conventional meal plant is the odor caused by the
drier. In areas where large processing plants are located, the odor
problem has never been solved. Scrubbing has been the most successful
technique, but is expensive. Air from the drier is frequently
introduced into the furnace supplying heat to the dryer, where the
temperature is approximately 760°C (1400°F), thus partially burning the
malodorous materials left in the process air. THis air is then
exhausted to the stacks. One small plant might be acceptable in an
area, but where there are many reduction plants the cumulative effect,
even under the best control conditions, is quite obnoxious.
2. Aqueous Extraction
The only way that protein waste can be processed into a high grade flour
for human consumption is to remove the oil from the product, thus
preventing the development of a rancid flavor and odor. Over the past
ten years, considerable research effort has been expended by government
and industry to develop extraction techniques for removing oil and other
components from fish proteins prior to drying them into flours. An
excellent product can be generated by some of the methods but they are
all based on organic solvent extraction, which is much too sophisticated
and expensive for installation in a seafood plant, especially a seasonal
one.
A recent development has involved changing from an organic solvent to
salt water or brine (Chu, 1971). The first phase of this process can be
carried out in small as well as large processing plants with no highly
skilled plant operators required. In order to be practical for
commercialization, this process should be capable of handling any
portion of fish scrap as well as whole industrial fish. This would make
the process applicable to low grade fertilizer products, high grade
animal feed and fish protein concentrate for human consumption. The
process should also require only the low cost facilities available to
small companies. It should, furthermore, not require highly trained
operating personnel and should not produce a waste that will contribute
to the pollution problem.
Figure 32 shows the general brine-acid process used for treating the
fish waste or raw fish which is presently being studied on a pilot plant
scale. The material is ground and homogenized in various concentrations
of water or brine and hydrochloric acid. The sodium chloride tends to
decrease the solubility of various constituents and the acid minimizes
the protein solubility. After varying incubation times the material is
then centrifuged so that the lipid and water fractions separate from the
233
-------
solid residue. For animal feed this solid residue can then be dried and
ground to the necessary particle size. Further washing and extracting
is necessary if it is to be used for human consumption. In fact, a high
quality product can be obtained if it is further extracted with an
organic solvent to remove final traces of taste and odor-causing
components. The pre-extracted product is much easier to extract with an
organic solvent than is fresh fish because there is no problem with
water dilutions and subsequent emulsions and loss of solubles in the
solvent fraction.
234
-------
WATER
BRINE ACETIC ACID
ro
oo
on
WHOLE FISH
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
Figure 32
Brine-acid extraction process.
-------
One distinct possibility for utilizing this process in remote areas
having limited drying capacity is to extract and separate the solids for
subsequent shipment to other areas where drying facilities and refining
equipment are available. It has been found that the brine-acid press
cake can be stored for some time without serious degradation. Thus, it
would be possible to transfer damp press cafce from many plants to one
central finishing area.
A major advantage of this process is that it can be adapted for the
output from any size plant that has an extremely variable load. Since
the major limitation to processing capacity is drying, the extracted
press cake can be bulk stored and shipped to the central drying and
finishing plant by normal surface transportation. The primary
extraction equipment consists of stirred tanks, centrifuges and filters.
Figure 33 indicates approximate equipment costs for the extraction phase
of the process.
A relatively small volume of concentrated effluent, approximately 0.43
liter per kg of waste extracted (0.25 gal per pound), must be treated to
remove the high BOD5 load that ranges from 40,000 mg/1 in stream 1
(Figure 32) to 5000 mg/1 in streams 2 and 3. Much of the BOD5 from
stream 1 is solubilized protein which can be removed almost
stoichiometrically by precipitation with sodium hexametaphosphate. A
study of the complete chemical and biological treatment of the effluent
streams will be completed by the end of this year (Pigott, 1973).
Preliminary cost estimates from pilot plant studies indicate tnat the
operating cost for producing meal from the brine-acid process will be
between 11 and 18 cents per kg (5 and 8 cents per Ib). This will be a
high-grade meal that will not have many of the present limitations of
conventional fish meal. The lower oil content will allow incorporation
into animal and fowl diets at higher levels than are currently possible
without adversely affecting the flesh flavor.
3. Enzymatic Hydrolysis Process
The use of enzymes to hydrolyze fish protein has been reported by
several laboratories. Tryptic digestive enzymes, pepsin hydrolysis,
papain, and many other enzymatic processes have been tried in an effort
to produce a highly functional protein concentrate. In general, pepsin
digestion with continuous pH control at 2.0 has proven to be one of the
best procedures for producing a high quality bacteria-free product
(Tarky and Pigott, 1973).
The basic procedure consists of adding pepsin to a homogenized fish
waste substrate to which equal volumes of water have been added. The pH
is lowered to 2.0 with hydrochloric acid and the mixture is then
continuously stirred at 37°C (99°F). In general, this procedure yields
about 12 percent product based on the raw material. The product has
essentially no fat content and, when spray dried, is a nighly functional
236
-------
powder which is low in only tryptophan. However, when added to
vegetable proteins having sufficient tryptophan, the total protein is
extremely high in quality.
The enzymatic hydrolysis process should be well developed within the
next decade and will yield a valuable product from fish waste. If the
FDA ever permits the use of waste portions for human food, tnen a large
portion of the future protein supplements in prepared food dishes may
come from this source. The material is cheaper to produce than milk
[current estimate, HQ to 55 cents/kg (18 to 25 cents/lb)] and equal or
better in protein value when added as a supplement. The process flow
sheet is shown in Figure 34.
This process will probably never be as effective as the brine acid
extraction technique for handling the large volumes of seasonal protein
waste in the seafood industry since it requires longer times for the
hydrolysis reaction and is a more sophisticated technique. However, the
future will see large volumes of both fish waste and whole industrial
fish processed in this manner for high quality functional protein
derivitives.
4. Protein Precipitation from Effluent Streams
Some streams of plant processing water and the effluent from the brine-
acid process have high concentrations of dissolved protein. As
previously discussed, laboratory work has shown protein to be
recoverable almost stoichiometrically by precipitation with sodium
hexametaphosphate. The protein- phosphate complex is highly nutritional
and can be used as a high grade animal supplement.
This process may have application in some streams of sufficient
concentration to warrant the treatment. This is especially true for
concentrated cooking and blanching solutions that have high levels of
proteins which have been solubilized during contact with the product.
Solids Recovery
As previously mentioned, shellfish waste consists of the shell portion
(which is a three component material) and the soft portion which
includes the meat and soft waste material that adheres to the shell.
The previously discussed methods of recovering dried protein material
are all applicable to the soft portions which can be washed or
mechanically removed from the shell. However, the meal from the shell
portion has relatively little value and, in the forseeable future, it is
not going to be economically feasible to process shell into meal. This
is particularly the case in remote areas.
237
-------
rv>
oo
oo
50
75
i
(T/DAY)
100
25 50 75
WASTE EXTRACTION CAPACITY (KKG/DAY)
50
100
Figure 33
Brine-acid extraction primary facility costs (excluding dryer).
-------
During the past two years a process for producing chitin and other by-
products from shellfish waste has reached the semicommercial pilot plant
scale. As shown in Figure 35, the chitosan process consists primarily
of caustic extraction to remove the proteins from the shell, followed by
a hydrochloric acid extraction to produce a calcium chloride brine from
the calcium salts normally found in the shell. The remaining material,
commonly called chitin, is the structural material that holds the shell
together.
The pilot plant is capable of processing several hundred kilograms of
shell per day, producing a chitosan product of the following properties:
less than 2 percent ash; 8 percent or greater nitrogen (dry basis);
soluble in acetic acid, viscosity of 12 centipoises (0.00025 Ib-sec/sq
ft) in 1 percent solution of 0.5 N acetic acid at 25°C (77°F).
The process begins when the incoming shell is conveyed from a hopper
into a grinder. This results in a coarsely ground material of the
proper size for further extraction and processing. The ground shell is
extracted in sodium hydroxide in a trough screw conveyor. This
solubilizes the protein so that the resulting solid contains only
calcium salts and chitin. The solid is then placed in a wooden tank
where the added hydrochloric acid extracts the calcium chloride as a
soluble brine, leaving only chitin as a residue. Following washing and
basket centrifugation, the chitin particles are dried in a rotating drum
dryer. This primary product is then ground to the desired particle size
and packaged for market or further processed to produce chitosan by
deacetylation in hot caustic.
Through a cooperative effort with industry, the University of Washington
Sea Grant Program has made available sample quantities of chitin and
chitosan to research laboratories and industry for their experimental
use. A wide interest has developed for the product which is stimulating
the commerical demand for the material in many areas. In addition, a
good market exists for calcium chloride and the protein derived from the
shell.
On the near horizon are package units that can be put into a large or
small seafood plant for the purpose of pretreating shell and then
sending the partially extracted product to a centrally located plant for
final extraction and finishing. Selling all three of the products
produced from shell may prove a profitable venture for both the packer
and the owner of the central plants. Although the data are preliminary,
Figure 36 indicates the estimated costs of producing chitin in various
size plants.
239
-------
ro
4*
o
FISH WASTEWATER
ACID
OIL AND SLUDGE
HOMOGENIZER
ALKALI
PEPSIN CENTRIFUGE
NEUTRALIZER
FUNCTIONAL
FPC
SLUDGE
SPRAY DRYER
ULTRA FILTRATION PERMEATE
Figure 34 . Enzymatic hydrolysis of solid wastes,
-------
f\J
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID STORAGE
CRAB SHELL
WATER
I JFILTER
Mi i I I '
LJLJ LJ LJ
STEAM
1
1
1
1
. k
{
—\
1
1
• —
HOT AIR
CRYSTALIZER
1
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
-••SODIUM ACETATE
WASTE TREATMENT
Figure 35
Chitin-chitosan process for shellfish waste utilization.
-------
500 -
ro
-F»
no
r
468
PLANT CAPACITY (1000 KKG/YR)**
* Below 2,500 T/YR it is not economical for. a complete processing plant.
Waste must be hauled to a central facility.
** Based on full production for 3 to 4 months per year.
Figure 36
Approximate plant investment for extracting basic chemicals
from shellfish waste (Peniston, 1973)
-------
Deboning and Extruding
One of the most successful developments in the seafood industry in many
years is the carcass deboning technique that will effectively debone any
piece of fish, leaving the meat separated from a dry mixture of bone,
scales, skin and cartilage. The principle of the operation is to
extrude the meat through extremely small openings inaccessible to the
unwanted components in the carcass. A machine capable of producing up
to 0.9 kkg (one ton) of product per hour costs about $20,000.
Although processes utilizing the deboning machines are now being used on
fish, current developments will result, in the near future, in
techniques for processing shellfish waste, as well as carcass waste to
yield ground meat often equal in quality to that now being extracted
from the raw material. This process also stimulates the desire for a
processor to minimize the use of water while handling his waste because
dry raw material is easier to debone than solids suspended in water.
The waste from the deboning operation is a dry material that is quite
easy to dispose of in conventional landfills or other acceptable
disposal methods. Also, the material can be dried and added to fish
meal.
The deboned meat can be used in: a. portion controlled extruded
products;
b. battered and breaded items; and
c. molded and power-cleaved steaks.
Not only will deboning techniques improve the profitability of many fish
processors, but it will be a major factor in alleviating waste disposal
problems. For example, up to 25 percent of the total weight of fin fish
is currently being discarded in the waste since the meat is so located
that it cannot be removed from the carcass. Using deboning equipment,
this meat can be be removed and sold for a price approaching that of the
normal finished product.
Summary and Conclusions - In-giant Control Techniques^and Processes
It has been the purpose of this discussion to outline several of the
major in-plant developments that are either ready for use by seafood
processors or will be available within the next few years. These
techniques, combined with good management to minimize water use and
product wastage, should reduce most of the waste disposal problems now
encountered by industry and will utilize a much greater portion of raw
material entering the plants.
243
-------
END-OF-PIPE_CONTROL_TECHNI2yES_ANp_PROCESSES
Little of the technology which could be available to the seafood
processing, industry has been demonstrated at the operational level.
Most of the processors have little if any significant waste water
treatment at the plant. As a result, most technologies which might find
application in the future are presently unproved. Methods of treatment
described below are organized from the simpler gravity techniques to the
more sophisticated technologies which may eventually be practicable.
The relative cost effectiveness and practicality of each method can vary
significantly with each subcategory of the industry and the location of
the plant site. The applicability of waste treatment technology to
individual sites is contingent on land availability, operational
continuity, in-plant plumbing configuration, water source and other
factors such as climate and product which determine the most cost-
effective technology.
Waste; Sol ids^Segaration, Cgncentration and Disposal
All of the subcategories produce large volumes of solids. 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. The importance of capturing such solids in dry
form, in order to retard biochemical degradation, has been recognized by
the processors and discussed in an earlier part of this section. Many
end-of-pipe 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.
Accordingly, the descriptions below are divided into separation,
concentration, disposal, including recycling and application to the
land, and waste water treatment.
Separation Methods
Screening 1. Equipment
Screening is practiced throughout the crab, shrimp, catfish, and tuna
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:
1. revolving drums (inclined, horizontal, vertical axis)
2. vibrating, shaking or oscillating screens (linear or circular
motion)
3. tangential screens (pressure or gravity fed)
t». inclined through screens
5. bar screens
6. drilled plates
244
-------
7o gratings
80 belt screens
9o basket screens
The specification of mesh or mesh equivalent for screens often is
ambiguous= Wire lattice configurations are specified in terms of the
number of openings per inch (called "mesh10) „ At least two standard
series are used to define mesh size in terms of openings and wire
diameter—Uo S0 sieve and Tyler screen scale sieve. The larger the
sieve number,, the finer the screen„ Ordinary window screen is about 014
mesh*
Rectangular holes or slits are correlated to mesh size either by
geometry or performance data,, Mesh equivalent specified by performance
can result in different mesh equivalents for the same screen,, depending
on the nature of the screen feedo 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 because of hydrodynamic effects.,
Revolving drums or trommel screens consist of covered cylindrical frames
with open ends,, The screening surface is either perforated sheet or
woven mesh. The simplest form is the trommel screen with the drum axis
slightly inclined» Wastewater feeds into the higher open end as the
drum rotates= Retained solids migrate to the lower end and drop off
while the liquid passes through the openings.,
Revolving drums with a horizontal axis operate satisfactorily on salmon
tfaste water ( „ 1973) «, The bottom portion is immersed in the
waste water., Solids retained are picked up by ribs inside the drum and
conveyed upward until deposited by gravity into a centerline conveyor„
Backwash sprays are generally required to clean the screen after the
solids have fallen off=
At least one commercial screen available employs a rapidly rotating
(about 200 rpm) drum with a vertical axiSo The waste water 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
mesh up to 400 mesh have been operated satsifactorily., This unit is
called a concentrator because not all of the impinging waste water
passes througho 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, system in treating crato and shrimp
wastes has been investigated on a pilot scale in the Alaskan crab and
shrimp industries (Peterson? 1973) „
Vibratory screens are more commonly used in the seafood industry for
processing operations rather than waste water treatment., The screen
housing is supported on springs which are forced to vibrate by an
eccentrico Retained solids are driven in a spiral motion on the flat
245
-------
screen surface for discharge at the periphery. Other vibratory-type
screens impart a linear motion to retained particles by eccentrics.
Tangential screens are finding increasing acceptance because of their
inherent simplicity, reliability and effectiveness. They consist of a
series of parallel triangular or wedge-shaped £»ars oriented
perpendicular to the direction of flow. The screen surface is inclined
from 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 waste
water 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.
Floor drains are normally covered with a coarse grate or drilled plate
with holes approximately 0.6 cm (0.25 in) in diameter. One simple and
reliable unit found in salmon canneries is an inclined trough with holes
in the bottom [about 0.6 cm (0.25 in) ] The waste is fed into the lower
end and conveyed up the trough by a screw conveyor; the solids are dis*-
charged over the top after the liquid has fallen through the holes.
Endless mesh belts are commonly used more because they are available
from other process operations than because of their screening
effectiveness.
Processing waste waters from operations in catfish, crab, shrimp, tuna,
and their subcategories are highly variable with respect to suspended
solids concentrations and the sizes of the particulates. On-site
testing is required for optimum selection in all subcategories. Some
generalizations, however, may be made regarding the screening systems.
A coarse grate and a magnet are desirable to 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. Investment in a good magnet is probably warranted for
any system using centrifugal pumps. Centrifugal trash pumps of the open
impeller type are effective for feeding screens if gravity flow is
impossible. Some waste water solids, such as those from shrimp, are
pulverized in passing through even low-speed centrifugal pumps. This
can significantly impair screen performance. Positive displacement or
progressing cavity pumps are superior in this respect although they are
more expensive. Any pump used should include a rapid means of access
into the impeller casing to unplug it.
Screens should be installed with the thought that auxiliary cleaning
devices may be required later. Most of the screen types mentioned above
produce solids containing considerable excess water. In most cases,
this water will have to be removed either mechanically or during storage
by draining. A convenient place to locate a screen assembly is above
246
-------
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.
Some thought should be given to installing more than one screen to treat
different streams within the process plant. Some types of screens are
superior for specific waste waters 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 waste waters 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 to catfish, crab, shrimp,
or tuna wastewaters.
2. Operation
Screens of most types are 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 Teflon
coating.
3. Applications
Screens of proper design are a reliable and highly efficient means of
seafood waste treatment, providing the equivalent of "primary
treatment." A 40 mesh screen [0.4 mm (1/64 in) openings] was shown by
Peterson (1973) to be capable of removing up to 43 percent of tanner
crab waste water COD and up to 64 percent shrimp waste water COD. 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. Screens have the
advantage of seldom requiring additional dewatering before transport
(greater than 10 percent solids) to a reduction plant or other ultimate
disposal site.
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, or
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 principles. These include 1) the vertical settling velocity of
discrete particles to be removed and 2) 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-
247
-------
density suspensions. The current absence of settling basins or
clarlfiers in the catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna industries indicates
the ^desirability of simple onsite settling rate studies to determine
appropriate design parameters for such liquid streams undergoing
treatment.
Removal of settled solids from sedimentation units is accomplished by
drainoff, scraping, and suction-assisted scraping. Rapid removal is
necessary to avoid putrefaction. Seafood processors using crines and
seawater 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 temperature. Aerated
equalization tanks may provide needed capacity for equalizing and mixing
waste water flows. However, deposition of solids and waste degradation
in the equalization tank may negate its usefulness.
Major disadvantages of sedimentation basins include land area
requirements and structural costs. In addition, the settled solids
normally require dewatering prior to ultimate disposal.
Chemical coagulants can be added to sedimentation processes to induce
removal of suspended solids. Properly designed and operated
sedimentation units incorporating chemical coagulation can remove
practically all particulate matter. Dissolved contaminants, nowever,
will require further processing to achieve the necessary removals.
Concentration_Methods
Although screenings from seafood waste water do not require dewatering;
sludges, floats, and skimmings from subsequent 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.
Sludge Treatment
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 all sludges
produced in treating catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna 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
248
-------
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 solid fraction. For example, lime may be deposited on the walls of
solubles plant 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 by-product recovery ( , 1973).
1. Equipment
A large variety of equipment is available for sludge dewatering and
concentration, each unit with its particular advantages. These include
vacuum filters, filter presses, gravity-belt dewaterers, spray dryer,
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.
2. Applications
Little if any solids dewatering and concentrating equipment is presently
employed in the catfish, crab, shrimp, or tuna industires. The wide
variety now available implies that workable equipment exists which is
suitable for moderately-sized installations [over 757 cu m/day (200,000
gpd) ]. Sludge and float flows from smaller installations will probably
not utilize dewatering equipment economically. This condition has the
effect of favoring the larger processors.
Disposal Methods
A very high degree of product recovery is practiced in the tuna
industry, where solubles and meal plants are available. Where such
facilities do not yet exist, alternative methods of solids disposal must
be considered.
1. Incineration
Incinceration of seafood solid wastes has not been tried in the catfish,
crab, shrimp, or tuna industries. Incineration by means of multiple-
hearth furnaces has been effective with municipal wastes and sludges,
when operated on a continuous basis. Intermittent start-up and shut-
down is inefficient and shortens the useful life of the equipment. A
technique for incincerating solid wastes in a molten salt bath is under
development, with one unit in operation. The by-products are carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and a char residue skimmed from the combustion
249
-------
chamber. This device may prove to be viable in reasonably small units
(Leasing, 1973) .
Both types of incineration waste beneficial nutrients while leaving an
ash which requires ultimate disposal. Air pollution effects, are
generated and must be minimized with emission control equipment.
2. Sanitary Landfill and Land Disposal
Sanitary landfill is most suitable for stabilized (digested) sludges and
ash. In some regions, disposal of seafood waste solids in public
landfills is unlawful. Where allowed and where land is available,
private landfills may be a practical method of ultimate disposal. Land
application of unstabilized, putresible solids as a nutrient source may
be impractical because of the nuisance conditions which may result. The
application of stabilized sludges as a soil conditioner 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.
3. Deep Sea Disposal
In addition to placement in or on the land, dispersal in the atmosphere
(after incineration), the third (and only remaining) ultimate disposal
alternative is dispersion in the waters. 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. Deep sea disposal of
seafood wastes can be a practical and possibly beneficial method of
ultimate disposal. The U. S. Congress recognized the unique status of
seafood wastes when it specifically exempted fish and shellfish
processing wastes from the, blanket moratorium on ocean dumping contained
in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-532) .
Grinding and disposing of wastes in shallow, quiescent bays has been
practiced in the past, bu"t will undoubtedly 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 generally a deep
disposal site would not.
The identification of suitable sites for this practice undoubtedly
demands good judgment and detailed knowledge of local conditions. Used
in the right manner, however, deep sea disposal is an efficient and
250
-------
cost-effective technique second only to direct solids recovery and by-
product manufacture.
Wastewater_ Treatme nt
Wastewater treatment technology to treat practically any effluent to any
degree of purity is available. The costeffectiveness oi a specific
technology depends in part on the contaminants to be removed, the level
of removal required, the scale of the operation, and (importantly) on
local factors, including site availability and climate. Because these
factors vary widely among individual plants in the catfish, crab,
shrimp, and tuna 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 biological and
physical/chemical methods for the removal of carbonaceous contaminants,
salts, and nitrogen. With the systems proposed (Sections IX and X), no
need for salt removal is anticipated.
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is not practiced in the Phase I industries except
for a small pilot project in Maryland at a blue crab processing plant.
Sufficient nutrients are available in most seafood waste waters,
however, to indicate that such waste waters are amenable to aerobic
biological treatment. The salt found in nearly all waste waters except
those of Subcategories A, catfish and B, conventional blue crab
processing, discourage 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, althoug'h
inhibited by "shock loadings" of salt, have been demonstrated feasible
at full scale for the treatment of saline wastes of reasonably constant
chloride levels.
1. Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process consists of suspending a concentrated
microbial mass in the waste water 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
equalization 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.
251
-------
A recent study concluded that influent (petroleum-based) oil levels
should be limited to 0.10 kg/day/kg MLSS (0.10 lb/day/ Ib MLSS)
(Barnhart, 1971).
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.
2. Extended Aeration
The extended aeration process is similar to the conventional activated
sludge process, 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, although some inert materials must be
removed periodically.
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 dispersed and settle slowly,
requiring a long period of settling. The system is relatively resistant
to shock loadings, provided the clarifier has sufficient surface area to
prevent the loss of bacteria 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.
Although treatment units are available in all size ranges, it is
unlikely that activated sludge will prove to be the most cost-effective
treatment where 1) processing is intermittent, or 2) 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.
3. Rotating Biological Contactor
The Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC), or Biodisc
light-weight plastic discs approximately 1.3 cm
unit, consists of
(0.5 in) thick and
252
-------
spaced to 2»5 to 3.8 cm (1 to 1,5 in) on centers, Tne cylindrical
discs,, to 3=4 m (11 ft) in diameter,, are mounted on a horizontal shaft
and placed in a semicircular tank through which the waste water flows.
Clearance between the discs and tank wall is 1.3 to 1,9 cm (0,5 to 0,75
in)o The discs rotate slowly, in the range of 5 to 10 rpm, passing the
disc surface through the incoming waste water. Liquid depth in the tank
is kept below the center shaft of the discs, Reaeration is limited by
the solubility of air in the waste water 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 slough settles
rapidly but 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. Normally0 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 multistage 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
BOD5 removal kinetics approach a first order reaction, the first stage
should not be loaded higher than 120 g BOD5/day/m2 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 BOD5 concentrations can be treated efficiently by the
RBC-type system.
Because 95 percent of the solids are attached to the disc system^ 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 effluents of higher quality than at design
flow. During periods of no flow, effluents can be recycled for a
limited time to maintain biological activity.
Both the Rotating Biological Contactor and the trickling filter process
(discussed below) utilize an attached culture. However, with the
rotating disc the biomass is passed through the wastewater rather than
waste water over the biomass, resulting 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 process requires housing to protect the biomass from exposure
during freezing weather and from damage due to heavy winds and
253
-------
precipitation. Pilot plant testing in Canada has shown that salmon
canning wastes can be successfully treated by the RBC process (Claggett,
1973). Salt deposits resulting from salt water operations would be of
special concern.
4. High-Rate Trickling Filter (HRTF)
A trickling filter consists of a vented structure of rock, Fiberglas
plastic, or redwood media on which a microbial flora develops. As waste
water 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. 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 sole operational variable being
recycle rate. The treatment efficiency of a well-designed deep-bed
trickling filter tower of 4.3 m (14 ft) or more with 100 percent 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 waste water temperatures below 7°C (45°F).
Below 2°C (35°F), treatment efficiency is low. The effect of grease and
oil in trickling filter influent has not been evaluated, they would
likely be detrimental.
5. Ponds and Lagoons
The land requirements for ponds and lagoons limit the locations at which
these facilities are practicable. Where conditions permit, they can
provide reasonable treatment alternatives.
Lagoons are ponds in which waste water 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 completely
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 insolation,
temperatures, wind velocities, etc. for critical periods (winter and
summer, respectively). These variables affect the selection of design
parameters. Loading rates vary from 22 to 112 kg BOD5/day/ha (20 Ib to
100 Ib/day/acre), and detention time from 3 to 50 days.
254
-------
Although not used in the fish processing industry, lagoons are in common
use in other food processing industries. Serious upsets can occur. The
oxidation pond 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 catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna 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).
6. Nitrification-Dentrification
Ammonia is present in various concentrations in waste waters from the
catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna industries. Nearly all the nitrogen,
however, is present in the form of organic nitrogen. This nitrogen can
be expected to be converted to ammonia within non-aerated flow
equalization tank and other treatment units, aided by facultative
saprophytic bacteria, (Sawyer and Mccarty, 1967). Ammonia exerts an
oxygen demand on the receiving waters when oxidized to nitrate. Nitrate
then is available as a nutrient, which in a few quiescent bays may be
the critical, growth-limiting nutrient. This condition may, in isolated
instances, give rise to a demonstrable need for nitrogen removal .tor the
sake of water quality. The extent to which organic nitrogen in seafood
wastes is removed by physical-chemical or biological treatment, remains
to be evaluated.
Where substantial concentrations of nitrogen remain after reduction of
carbonaceous oxygen demand and solids removal, a biological
nitrification-denitrification step may be practicable. Nitrification
can occur in any of the biological systems described above, under
appropriate operating conditions. Subsequent denitrification, however,
requires an anaerobic (or nearly anaerobic) environment and other
controlled conditions to accomplish microbial reduction of the oxidized
forms of nitrogen to gaseous nitrogen. This system would likely be
incompatible with salt water solutions, common in the shrimp, crab, and
tuna industries. This is because the primary denitrifying organisms are
relatively fastidious and sensitive to environmental influences, such as
the osmotic pressure imbalances that would result from high (and
fluctuating) salt levels. No nitrogen removal requirement is anticipated
in the catfish processing industry.
Bacterial assimilation of nitrogen under aerobic conditions may prove
practicable. Each kilogram of bacteria produced in this process will
assimilate about 0.13 kilograms of nitrogen. A supplemental bacterial
feed of nitrogen-free substrate such as methanol and perhaps phosphorus
might be required to optimize nitrogen removal by means of bacterial
255
-------
uptake. Nitrogen would be removed with the sludge for furtner reduction
or processing. This technology has not been evaluated with seafood
waste waters, (Metcalf and Eddy, 1972), and may, indeed, be self-
defeating, because the nitrogen level in the effluent would have been
reduced at the expense of increased carbon and phosphorus levels.
Physical-chemical treatment is capable of achieving high degrees of
waste water purification in significantly smaller areas than biological
methods. This advantage comes often at 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 costeffectively 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, eiectrodialysis,
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 waste waters. This technology is
not in common use; factors restriting its use have concerned economic
feasibility.
Chlorine could be generated electrolytically from saltwaters adjoining
all crab, shrimp, and tuna processors, and utilized to oxidize the
organic material and ammonia present (Metcalf and Eddy, 1972). Ozone
could be generated on-site and pumped into deaerated waste water.
Deaeration 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 ofxer the
advantages of compact size. The operability of the technology with
saline wastewaters, and the practicality 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 physicalchemical
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 waste water
lifts materials in suspension to the surface. These materials include
substantial dissolved organics and chemical precipitates, under
controlled conditions. Floated, agglomerated sludges are skimmed from
the surface, collected and dewatered as described above. Adjustment of
pH to near the isoelectric point can effect appreciable removals of
dissolved protein from fish processing waste waters.
256
-------
Because the flotation process brings partially reduced organic and
chemical compounds into contact with oxygen in the air bubbles,
satisfaction of immediate oxygen demand is a benefit of the process in
operation.
Present flotation equipment consists of three types of systems for waste
water 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 as 30 seconds, and
require only about 185 to 370 cc of air per liter (0.025 to 0.05 cu ft
of air per gallon) of waste water (Nemerow, 1971). A partial vacuum of
about 0.02 atm (9 inches of water) is applied, which release some air
from 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 airtight structure needed to maintain
the vacuum. Any leakage from the atmosphere adversely affects per-
formance.
2. Dispersed Air Flotation
Air bubbles are generated in this process by the mecnanical shear of
propellers, through diffusers, or by homogenization of gas and liquid
streams. The provision of aeration tanks in this process, for flotation
of grease and other solids, usually is ineffective. Some success,
however, has been obtained on screen-forming wastes (Metcalf and Eddy,
1972) .
3. Dissolved Air Flotation
In this process, the waste water or a recycled stream is pressurized to
2.0 to 3.4 atm (30 to 50 psi) in the presence of air and then released
into the flotation tank. The recycle stream is held in the pressure
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. Althougn Mayo (1966)
found use of the recycle gave best results for industrial waste and had
lower power requirements, the design of flotation units should proceed
from pilot plant studies of the actual wastes involved.
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
257
-------
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 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 waste waters 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 tank than 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 (1966) recommended that
flotation units for industrial applications 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-solids1
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 iniluent BOD5_ and
solids concentration, each in the range of 2000 mg/1. Reductions
reached 95 percent BOD5 removal and 99.7 percent solids removals,
although most removals were 5 percent to 20 percent lower. The higher
removals were attainable using appropriate chemical additions and,
presumably, skilled operation. Dissolved air flotation was installed in
one tuna plant (Subcategofy O) sampled during this study. The system
was being operated without chemical addition or recycle. Additional
flotation units are planned by other processors; securing construction
permits is currently blocked by local requirements for environmental
impact studies and discharge permits. Demonstration-scale units have
been operated on tuna, shrimp, salmon, menhaden and crab waste waters,
with variable success (Jacobs Engineering, 1971; Claggett, 1972;
Standard Products Co., 1971; Mauldin, 1973; Peterson, 1973).
258
-------
It is evident that flotation can provide treatment levels comparable to
biological treatment (Jordan, 1973). Good operation and correct
chemical addition are prerequisites for high treatment efficiency. 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 costeffectiveness.
Recy_cle_or_ Zero-Pischarge Technology
Zero-discharge technology is practicable where land is available upon
which the processing waste waters may be applied without jeopardizing
groundwater quality. The site, surrounded by a retaining dike, should
sustain a cover crop of grass or other vegetation. Were such sites
exist, serious consideration should be given to land application,
particularly spray irrigation, of treated waste waters. 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 discharges
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 land area to absorb waste water: 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 waste water. Salt water waste flows would be incompatible with land
application technology at most sites. Limiting values of solids 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
259
-------
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 waste water.
Problems in maintenance includes 1) controlling salinity levels in the
waste water; 2) compensating for climatic limitations; and 3) sustaining
pumping without failure. Many soils are improved by spray irrigation.
TREATMENT_DESIGN_ALTERNATIVES
A summary of the equipment efficiencies and design assumptions for the
technology alternatives is presented in Table 96.
Farm-Raised Catfish
Figures 37, 38, 39 and 40 depict the proposed initial treatment scheme,
aerated lagoon-oxidation pond, extended aeration, and aerated lagoon-
spray irrigation alternatives for final disposal of the treated catfish
processing waste waters. The designs were based on the waste water
characteristics and volumes for a typical well-controlled catfish
processing plant. Other bases included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) production volume of 13.6 kkg per day (15 tons per day);
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be balanced partially by anticipated water use reduction
realized through increased in-plant control;
4) availability of adequate land area; and
5) availability of adequate labor.
The basis for the designs and the estimates of effluent levels from the
lagoons in catfish were, for Level I and III, 100 mg/1 BOD5 and 250 mg/1
suspended solids. These numbers were chosen in consideration of the
fact that under the climatic conditions in that part of the country
large concentrations of algae will be a continuing problem, and also
many of the lagoons will contain catfish.
260
-------
TABLE 96
EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCY AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
Segment and Technology
Alternatives
Effluent Concentration or Percent Reduction
of Screened Sample Data
Levels I and III
Level >II
Catfish
Stabilization Ponds
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Land Irrigation (7)
Conventional Blue Crab
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Mechanized Blue Crab
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Alaskan Crab Meat
Screen (2)
Air Flotation (4)
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
Screen (2)
Air Flotation (4)
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Dungeness & Tanner Crab in the
Contegious States
Air Flotation (5)
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Alaskan Shrimp
Screen
Air Flotation (4)
Lagoon System
Northern Shrimp
Screen (2)
Air Flotation (5)
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Southern Non-breaded Shrimp
Screen (2)
Air Flotation (5)
Lagoon System
Extended Aeration
Breaded Shrimp
Screen (2)
Lagoon System
Air Flotation (5)
Extended Aeration
Tuna
Air Flotation (5)
Roughing Filter
Activated Sludge
BOD
100 mg/1
100 mg/1
—
125 mg/1
80 mg/1
0%
OX
40%
0%
OX
40%
0%
40%
0%
40X
40%
TSS
150 mg/1
250 mg/1
—
375 mg/1
200 mg/1
OZ
OX
70X
OX
OX
70X
OX
70*
OX
70X
70Z
OSG (1)
90X
90X
—
75*
. 75X
25Z
25X
(3)
25X
25X
(3)
25X
(3)
25X
(3)
(3)
BOD
60 mg/1
100 mg/1
60 mg/1
4 OX
80 mg/1
60 mg/1
40X
80 mg/1
60 mg/1
75X
80 mg/1
60 mg/1
40X
80 mg/1
75X
80 mg/1
60 mg/1
75X
80 mg/1
60 mg/1
80 mg/1
75X
60 mg/1
75X
TSS
60 mg/1
100 mg/1
60 mg/1
70X
200 mg/1
60 mg/1
70X
200 mg/1
60 mg/1
90X
200 mg/1
60 mg/1
70X
200 mg/1
90X
200 mg/1
60 mg/1
90X
200 mg/1
60 mg/1
200 mg/1
90X
60 mg/1
90X
260 mg/1 j 100 mg/1
40 mg/1 40 mg/1
O&G (1)
90X
90X
90Z
(3)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(3)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(6)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(3)
5 mg/1
(6)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(6)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(6)
5 mg/1
(6)
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
(1) The numbers include removals due to In-plant recovery such as sunms and grease
traps coupled with the end-of-pipe technology.
(2) The desing assumptions are based on the summary of sampling data which were
screened prior to analysis. No further reduction was assumed for plant scale
screening.
(3) Eighty-five percent (85) removal or the level of detection (5 mg/1) of the oil and
grease test, whichever is higher.
(4) Reductions are based on operation as a physical system.
(5) Reductions are based on operation as a physical system for Level I, and a
physical-chemical system for Level II.
(6) Ninety percent (90%) removal or the level of detection (5 mg/1) of the oil and
grease test, whichever is higher.
(7) The Level III assumptions for catfish are based on spray irrigation of process
wastewater and partial recycle of live fish holding tank water with over-
flow and discharge to fish holding ponds.
261
-------
FISH HOLDING TANK OVERFLOW^
OXIDATION
POND NO I
I ACRE
TO RECEIVING WATER
ro
cr>
PO
INFLUENT
SETTLEABLES
SCREENED WASTEWATER ^
4"0 CONC
SOLIDS TO RENDERING
OR ANIMAL FOOD PLANT
Figure 37
Catfish processing,
initial treatment,
-------
OXIDATION POND*2
ro
cr>
LO
AERATED LAGOON
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
VI—
WITH SETTLING CHAMBER
^ 2-K)H> AERATORS W
FLOATING HI-SPEED
.. ... rv.
WOOD
BAFFLE
2 ACRES
SEALED W/ CLAY IN PERVIOUS SOILS
NO SCALE
Figure 38 Catfish processing,
oxidation pond alternative,
-------
Screenings to reduction plant
or sanitary landfill
waters
wage and
r eoollnp
screen
flow
equali-
zation
tank
water
*
G>~*
air
compresso
aeration
tank
< - . i
r t
^
=V
clarif ier
outfall
ro
en
sludge recycle
Figure 39. Catfish processing, extended aeration alternative.
-------
ro
AERATORS
FLOATING HI-SPEED
o
WOOD
BAFFLE
BORROW DITCH
BERM RUNOFF PROTECTION
1/2 HP M.H.
SUMP PUMP
^c
Z
J
5H=PUMP
SOLID SET IRRIGATION SYSTEM
rv
x=5s 1 XI ^^___
— (
7
f
^5
--*-
**" /
i
^
K
"^ XI
L
'
f
u
1
1
1
1
"4-« DITCH DRAINAGE
N. .
5-1 ACRE AREAS
W/IOO FT BUFFER STRIP
NO SCALE
Figure 40 Catfish processing,
spray irrigation alternative.
-------
SCREENINGS TO REDUCTION
PLANT OR SANITARY LANDFILL
3"0 STEEL
IV)
CT>
ALL WASTEWATERS
EXCEPT SEWAGE AND
COMPRESSOR COOLING
WATER .
MESH SCREEN
NO 10 SS
6"»C
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
TANK
6,700 GAL
ONC
.fx..
NONCLOG
14 w
AIR
COMPRESSOR
65 CFM AT
5PSI
EXTENDED
AERATION TANK
I5POO GAL
STEEL
3"0 PVC
If
5s 3'0 PVC
CLARIFIER
4' 6" DIA
OUTFALL
(6"CONC)
EXTENDED AERATION ALTERNATIV
SLUDGE RECYCLE
•r
.
AIR
o—
60 CFM PUMP
40.000 GAL
AERATED
LAGOON
WITH
OIFFUSER
OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER
AERATED LAGOON ALTERNATIVE
Figure 41 Conventional blue crab processing,
treatment alternatives.
-------
The design for the extended aeration alternate for Level II assumed an
effluent quality of 60 mg/1 BOD5 and 60 mg/1 suspended solids.
An obtainable 90 percent reduction of grease and oil was assumed through
the use of simple grease traps coupled with the subsequent treatment
system.
Conventional Blue Crab
Figure U1 depicts the proposed alternative treatment schemes for
conventional blue crab processors. The designs were based on the waste
water characteristics and volumes for typical well-controlled processing
plants. Assumptions included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 5.5 kkg/day (6 tpd)
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased inplant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
Two basic system were considered: the aerated lagoon and the extended
aeration process. With the aerated lagoon for Level I and III it was
assumed that BOD5 would be about 125 mg/1 and suspended solids 375.
With the extended aeration process and the difference in the basic biota
of the systems and the prevalence of endogenous respiration,
concentrations of 100 mg/1 BOD5 and 100 mg/1 suspended solids were
assumed for Level II.
The grease and oil removal due to sumps and simple grease traps was
assumed to be 75 percent for the aerated lagoon system and 90 percent
for the extended aeration system.
Mechanized^blue crab
Figure 42 depicts the proposed alternative treatment schemes for
mechanized blue crab processors. The designs were based on the waste
water characteristics and volumes for typical we11-controlled processing
plants. Assumptions included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 10.9 kkg/day (12 tpd);
267
-------
ALL WASTE WATERS
EXCEPT SEWAGE AND
COMPRESSOR COOLING WATER
SCREENINGS TO REDUCTION PLANT
OR SANITARY LANDFILL
SLUDGE RECYCLE
3"0 STEEL
>
D
>M
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
TANK
I05.00O GAL
AIR
o>—
32GPM
EXTENDED
AERATION
BASIN
46,300 GAL
OUTFALL TO
0- —
CLARIFIER
8' DIA
RECEIVING WATER
6"0CONC
154 CFM
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
PUMP
ro
01
oo
EXTENDED AERATION ALTERNATIVE
,
AIR
(Q)
I30CFM
AERATED
LAGOON
WITH
DIFFUSES
125, OOO GAL
OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER
6"BCONC
Figure 42
AERATED LAGOON ALTERNATIVE
Mechanized blue crab processing,
treatment alternatives.
-------
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased inplant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
Water use reduction was first considered in the design basis. It was
assumed that a 15 percent reduction in water use couia be effected for
Level II and III, which would result in about a 5 percent overall BOD5
reduction. Then, considering the aerated lagoon alternative for
mechanized blue crab, it was assumed that an aerated lagoon could
achieve about 80 mg/1 BOD5 and 200 mg/1 suspended solids at Level I.
Extended aeration was assumed to achieve an effluent concentration of 60
mg/1 BOD5 and 60 mg/1 suspended solids for Level II.
The grease and oil removal due to sumps and simple grease traps was
assumed to be 75 percent for the aerated lagoon system and 90 percent
for the extended aeration system.
Alaskan_Crab_Meat_ Processing
Figures 43, 44, 45 and 46 depict the proposed alternative treatment
schemes for Alaskan dungeness, tanner and king crab processors. The
designs were based on the waste water characteristics and volumes for a
typical large processing plant. Plants in this size bracket would be
designated "twice size" plants in Table 97, "End-of-pipe treatment
costs, cumulative by level," in Section VIII. Assumptions for the
designs included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per weex. operation;
2) a production volume of 45.4 kkg/day (50 tpd);
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased inplant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
Alaskan crab processing plants are larger-scale operations than those in
the "lower 48" states, but the waste waters are still intermittent,
seasonal and of relatively high strength.
The design basis assumed complete retention of the 20-mesh screenable
solids on a screen in a full-scale operation. As discussed in Section
V, the plant samples were screened on a 20mesh sieve in order to create
a base level for comparing data among plants. It was assumed that 70
percent of the remaining suspended solids would be removed in the
flotation unit and that the BOD5 removal would be 40 percent. This
269
-------
assumes significant removals on a screen prior to flotation, so overall
BOD5 removals would be considerably higher.
270
-------
5" STEEL PIPES
ro :
INFLUENT
DRY CAPTURED SHELLS
8 VISCERA FROM PLANT
RAW PROCESSING
WASTES SUMP
2O.OOO 64LSTEELTA«<
t
2 3^rt>
NON-CLOG
PUMPS
3' TANGENTIAL SCREENS
5"SS
SCREENED WASTEWATER
SOLIDS
HOPPERS
36 T CAPACITY
TO DRYSOLIDS HOLDING TANK
Figure 43 Alaska crab processing, initial treatment.
-------
FLOTATION PACKAGE UNIT
RECYCLE
SCREENED WASTEWATER
ro
-•j
ro
FROM SOLIDS HOPPERS
PRESSURIZED
RETENTION
TANK
CHEMICAL
FEED
4.3XIO6 BTU/HR
12"SCREW CONVEYOR
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES
FLOTATION TANK
!4'-6" DIA.
Figure 44 Alaska crab processing/
FLOATED
SOLIDS
TREATED WASTEWATER
20,000 GAL.
STEEL HOLDING
TANK
-------
ro
--j
CO
5" STEEL
TO TIE WITH
OUTFALL LINE
2-40H3
LOW PRESSURE
POSITIVE
DISPLACEMENT
AIR COMPRESSORS i
2-5 HP
EFFLUENT FROM:
FLOTATION UNIT
SUBMERGED DIFFUSED AIR
DISTRIBUTOR
3" STEEL
Z" STEEL
5"STEEL
Figure 45
Alaska crab processing,
first biological alternative,
-------
ro
•-J
5" » ST
EQUALIZATION
a
HOLDING TANK
2,500,000 GAL
AFFLUENT FROM FLOTATION
SECONDARY EFFLUENT
TO OUTFALL
WASTE SLUDGE TO
FLOTATION UNIT
HOLDING TANK
Figure 46
Alaska crab processing,
second biological alternative.
-------
For Levels II and III the in-plant modifications were assumed to effect
a 50 percent water reduction with a commensurate 15 percent BOD5
reduction.
The extended aeration alternative design was based on the research and
development efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ancnorage,
Alaska. Their experience with biological waste treatment was limited to
domestic waste only, as was the case throughout Alaska. It was assumed
that, with proper design, concentrations of 60 mg/1 BOD5 and 60 mg/1
suspended solids could be achieved for Level II guidelines.
The aerated lagoon alternative in Alaska is not going to perform as well
as an extended aeration system. This is due mainly to two factors: one
is algae growth, because of the longer retention time in the system, the
exposure to the long days of sunlight during the summertime; and the
poor settleability of the type of floe that is developed in an aerated
lagoon as compared to an extended aeration system. It was assumed that
the aerated lagoon Level II alternative for Alaska would produce an
effluent concentration of 80 mg/1 BOD5 and 200 mg/1 suspended solids.
The grease and oil removal was assumed to be 25 percent due to a sump
prior to screening, an overall 85 percent after air flotation, and
removal to the level of detection for the grease and oil test, 5 mg/1,
after the biological systems.
Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab gection Processing
Figures 43, 44, 45 and 46 depict the proposed alternative treatment
schemes for Alaska dungeness, tanner and king crab processors. All of
the design assumptions are the same as in the pervious section for
Alaskan Crab Meat Processing.
Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in thg^Contiguous States
Figures 47 and 48 depict the proposed treatment schemes for Dungeness
and tanner crab processors in the contiguous states. The designs were
based on waste water characteristics and volumes for a typical medium-
size plant. Assumptions for the design included:
1) 8 hours shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 12.7 kkg/day (14 tpd);
3) further growth (if any) experienced during the design period (10
years) would be partially balanced by anticipated water use
reductions realized through increased in-plant control; and
275
-------
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
ro
DRY CAPTURED SHELLS AND
VISCERA FROM PROCESSING PLANT
rSTEEL
FLOTATION PACKAGE UNIT
SCREENED AND CONCENTRATED
FLOAT SOLIDS TO REDUCTION PLANT
Figure 47
Dungeness and tanner crab processing, outside
of Alaska
-------
EFFLUENT FROM
FLOTATION UNIT
EQUALIZATION
TANK
300,000 GAL
2 2 1/2 HP
I 71/2 HP HI-SPEED
„ AERATOR
AERATION
TANK
30'DIA
3" STEEL
RETURN SLUDGE
2 1/2 HP
WASTE SLUDGE TO
FLOTATION UNIT
HOLDING TANK
WASTE SLUDGE
2" STEEL TO TIE WITH
4" HD POLYETHYLENE
OUTFALL LINE ^_
TREATED WASTEWATER TO OUTFALL
CONICAL CLARIFIER
UNMECHANIZED
20' TOP DIA 15' DEEP
ACTIVATED SLUDGE ALTERNATIVE
ro
LAGOON ALTERNATIVE
WOODEN
BAFFLE
^»
2-7 1/2 HP HI-SPEED
FLOATING AERATORS
PLAN AT WATERLINE
SLOTTED
* BAFFLE
Figure 48
of Alaska
2" STEEL TO TIE WITH
OUTFALL LINE
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
Dungeness ana tanner crao processing, outside
-------
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The effluent design assumptions are the same as in previous sections.
For disolve air flotation the assumed reductions were 40 percent for
BOD5 and 70 percent for suspended solids for Levels I and III. It was
assumed for Level II that the operation of the flotation unit between
1977 and 1983 would be significantly improved due to increased operator
skill, optimization of chemical type and dosage, and development of new
chemical coagulants and flocculents. It was estimated that by 1983, a
75 percent BOD5 removal in the flotation unit, and 90 percent suspended
solids removal would be obtainable. The Level II extended aeration
process assumed a design effluent quality of 60 mg/1 BOD5 and 60 mg/1
suspended solids; the effluent quality for aerated lagoons was assumed
to be 80 mg/1 BOD5 and 200 mg/1 suspended solids.
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 40
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 15 percent BOD5
reduction.
The grease and oil removal due to sumps and simple grease traps was
assumed to be 85 percent or the level of detection of the grease and oil
test, (5 mg/1), whichever was higher for the flotation systems and the
level of detection for the biological systems.
Al ask an _ S hr i mp_ Processing
Figure 49 depicts the proposed treatment alternatives for Alaska shrimp
processors. The designs were based on wastewater characteristics and
volumes for a typical medium-size plant. Assumptions for design
included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shift per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 31.8 kkg/day (35 tpd);
3) further growth experienced during the desgin period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased inplant
control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The effluent design assumptions are the same as in previons sections.
For disolved air flotation the assumed reductions were 40 percent for
BOD5 and 70 percent for suspended solids for Level II. The Level II
extended aeration process assumed a design effluent quality of 60 mg/1
BOD5 and 60 mg/1 suspended solids; the effluent quality for aerated
lagoons was assumed to be 80 mg/1 BOD5 and 200 mg/1 suspended solids.
278
-------
ro
TREATED WASTEWATER
TO OUTFALL
6 SOLIDS
HOPPERS
1 ASH TO LANDFILL^
-4
NEW SOLIDS REDUCTION PLANT
(BY-PRODUCT PRODUCTION)
Figure 49
Alaska shrimp processing
-------
WASTE SLUDGE FROM ACTIVATED SLUDGE
RAW PROCESSING
WASTES SUMP
ro
co
o
SCREENED AND CONCENTRATED
FLOAT SOLIDS TO REDUCTION PLANT
Figure 50
shrimp processing
-------
4 10 H3 HI-SPEED
FLOATING AERATORS
EFFLUENT FROM
FLOTATION UNIT
EQUALIZATION
-»•».,,>
TANK
TO FLOTATION UNIT
HOLDING TANK
5" STEEL TO TIE WITH
OUTFALL LINE
TREATED WASTEWATER TOOUTFALL
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE ALTERNATIVE
ro
oo
LAGOON ALTERNATIVE
2 30H3
FLOATING
WOODEN
BAFFLE
^~
HI - SPEED
AERATORS
PLAN AT WATERLINE
SLOTTED
If BAFFLE
2 5W
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
Figure 51
shrimp processing
treatment alternatives.
-------
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 40
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 13 percent BOD5
reduction.
The grease and oil removal due to sumps and simple grease traps was
assumed to be 25 percent with an overall removal of 85 percent after
flotation, and to the level of detection, 5 mg/lr after the biological
systems.
Northern_^hrimp^PrQcessing in the Contiguous Statgs
Figures 50 and 51 depict the proposed treatment scheme for Levels I and
III, and the alternatives for Level II shrimp processors. The designs
were based on waste water characteristics and volumes for typical
medium-size plants. (The same treatment train is applied to northern
shrimp processing, southern shrimp processing and breaded shrimp
processing in the contiguous states. Only the sizes of the systems
require changing.) Assumptions included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 18.2 kkg/day (20 tpd) for northern shrimp
processing;
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased in-plant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The design basis assumed complete retention of the 20-mesh screenable
solids on a screen in a full-scale operation. As discussed in Section
V, the plant samples were screened on a 20-mesh sieve in order to create
a base level for comparing data among plants. It was assumed that 70
percent of the remaining suspended solids would be removed in the
flotation unit. At the same time that the flotation unit will reduce
the suspended solids by 70 percent, it was estimated that the BOD5
removal will be HO percent. This assumes significant removals on a
screen prior to flotation, so overall BOD5 removals would be
considerably higher.
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 20
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 10 percent BODf>
reduction. It was assumed for Level II that the operation of the
flotation unit between 1977 and 1983 would be significantly improved due
to increased operator skill, optimization of chemical type and dosage,
and development of new chemical coagulants and flocculents. It was
estimated that by 1983, a 75 percent BOD5 removal in the flotation unit,
and 90 percent suspended solids removal would be obtainable.
282
-------
The Level II extended aeration process assumed a design effluent quality
of 60 mg/1 BOD5 and 60 mg/1 suspended solids; the effluent quality for
aerated lagoons was assumed to be 80 mg/1 BOD5 and ^00 mg/1 suspended
solids.
An overall grease and oil removal due to sumps and simple grease traps
of 85 percent was assumed for the flotation system and reduction to the
level of detection for the biological systems.
Southern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous gtates
Figures 50 and 51 depict the proposed treatment schemes for Levels I and
III, and the alternatives for Level II shrimp processors. Tne designs
were based on waste water characteristics and volumes for typical
medium-size plants. Assumptions included:
1) 8 hours per shift; 2 shifts per day; 5 days per weex. operation;
2) a production volume of 36.4 kkg/day (40 tpd) for southern shrimp
processing;
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased in-plant control; and
H) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The effluent design assumptions are the same as in the previous section
on northern shrimp processing for the treatment alternatives.
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 20
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 10 percent BOD5
reduction.
Byeaded Shrjmp Processing in the Contiguous States
Figures 50 and 51 depict the proposed treatment scheme for Levels I and
III, and the alternatives for Level II shrimp processors. The designs
were based on waste water characteristics and volumes for typical
medium-size plants.
1) 8 hours per shift; 2 shifts per day; 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 12.7 kkg/day (14 tpd) for breaded shrimp
processing;
283
-------
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use reductions
realized through increased in- plant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The effluent design assumptions are the same as in the previous section
on northern shrimp processing for the treatment alternatives.
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 50
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 20 percent BOD5
reduction.
No data was available for the grease and oil content of the breaded
shrimp processing waste water effluent. However, considering the fact
that similar species are processed in the southern shrimp subcategory
the same level was asusmed for the breaded shrimp grease and oil
summary.
Figure 52 depicts the proposed treatment schemes for Levels I, II and
III for tuna processors. The designs were based on wastewater
characteristics and volumes for a typical medium-to- large size plant.
Because production levels of this order are currently found in the
industry, the size was designated a "full size" plant for purposes of
design and cost estimation. Design assumptions included:
1) 8 hours per shift, 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week operation;
2) a production volume of 340 kkg/day (375 tpd) ;
3) further growth experienced during the design period (10 years)
would be partially balanced by anticipated water use redution
realized through increased in-plant control; and
4) skilled treatment system operators would be available.
The Levels II and III in-plant modifications were assumed to effect a 30
percent waste water flow reduction with a commensurate 10 percent BOD5
reduction.
The effluent design assumptions for disolved air flotation are the same
as in previous sections. For tuna it was assumed tnat the screened
effluent would contain a concentration of about 1530 mg/1 BOD5 and 1540
mg/1 suspended solids for Level I. After flotation (using tne 40 and 70
percent reduction factors for BOD5 and suspended solids) , that would be
reduced to 920 and 460 respectively. For Level II, after in-plant
changes and improvements in treatment systems (using the 75 and 90
284
-------
percent flotation reduction factors for BOD5 and suspended solids), it
was calculated that the screened effluent would contain a concentration
of about 1720 mg/1 BOD5 and 1730 mg/1 suspended solids. After flotation
the concentrations are reduced to 430 mg/1 BOD5 and 170 mg/1 suspended
solids.
The roughing filter was assumed to effect a 40 percent BOD5 reduction
and the clarifier about a 45 percent suspended solids reduction to reach
260 mg/1 BOD5 and 95 mg/1 suspended solids. The activated sludge system
was assumed to produce an effluent of about 40 mg/1 BOD5 and 40 mg/1
suspended solids.
The overall grease and oil removal was assumed to be 85 percent for the
flotation system and 90 percent for the biological systems or the level
of detection, whichever was higher.
285
-------
ro
CO
CT»
FLOTATION TANK EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
1
Z SOLIDS
CONCENTRATORS 1.
*- — OP"
SOLIDS LIQUIDS
TUNAPROCESS RAW PROCESS 6 TANGENTIAL SCREENED SUMP
SUMP SCREENS 1 I20.0OOGAL
m- 120,000 GAL ^?^Sup. 6 ^ ""jf^T
T _ ^ SCREW 1 *=*
PHOCtSS CONVEYOR
WASTEWATER
SANITARY RETURN TUNA AND 1 SOLIDS 1
SEWER FLOW PETFOOD I jJoPPER )
(NON \5>CU V6/
PROCESS \^/"^
SALT T
WATER) 1 IPX
! SCREW ^ ^-1 °
CONVEYOR \ 1 G>
SOLIDS TO REDUCTION "
"• ROUGHING
44,000 CU FT
WASTE
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
1
3 SLUDGE TANKS
30,000 GAL
FLOW EQUALIZATION
. TANK
•> 1 6 MG
2 CLARIFIERS
^DIA
^
O
>=<
t
FLOTATION UNIT
r~
FLOTATION TANK
]_ 26' DIA
fpRESSURIZATION
CELL
|^
| |
18" 0 CONC f
8" PVC
OUTFALI
DIFFUSE
SECTIOh
Figure 52
Tuna processing
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS SUMMARY
The waste waters from seafood processing plants are, in general,
considered to be amenable to treatment using standard physical- chemical
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 Phase I of this study, the most examplary
from this viewpoint was the tuna industry. Even in this case there was
a relatively wide range in the amount of water used per unit product.
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
often exceed the costs of the changes.
Typical in-plant control costs and benefits in terms oi BOD5 reduction
and waste water flow are summarized in Table 97 for each subcategory.
It can be seen that for some cases a relatively moderate investment can
result in a significant reduction in water used. The BOD5 reduction
represents the amount of BOD5 input avoided by reducing the product-
water contact time through decreased water use.
Typical treatment costs and benefits in terms of BOD5 remaining in the
effluent per unit of product are listed in Table 98 and shown in Figures
53 through 63. It is possible using these figures to get an indication
of the marginal costs and benefits associated with eacii level of
treatment. Depending on the value placed on the quality of the
effluent, the marginal cost and benefit curves can be used to determine
the most cost-effective treatment alternative.
The operation and maintenance costs (O and M costs) for each treatment
level for each subcategory are listed with the capital costs in Table
98. The 6 and M costs tend to increase with level of treatment but are
also dependent on the type of treatment selected. O and M costs are
from 50 percent to 300 to UOO percent higher in Level II than Level I
depending on the industry and the alternative.
Energy costs are included in the O and M costs and are not considered to
be a significant factor except in remote areas oi Alaska where
biological systems may require heat inputs at certain times of the year.
The cost of electrical energy in Kodiak, Alaska is about 10 times the
cost in the "lower 48" and in remote areas of Alaska it is 20 times as
much.
287
-------
Table 97 Estimated practicable in-plant
wastewater flow reductions, costs, and associated
pollutional loadings reductions (Levels II and III).
Subcategory
Catfish
Conventional blue crab
Mechanized blue crab
r\>
§§ Alaskan crab meat
Alaskan whole crab and sections
Other Dungeness and tanner crab
Alaskan shrimp
Northern shrimp
Southern canned, frozen and fresh shrimp
Breaded shrimp
Tuna
Wastewater Flow
Reduction,
% of Total
0
0
15
50
50
40
40
20
20
50
30
BOD
Reduction,
% of Total
0
0
5
15
15
15
13
10
10
20
10
Capital Costs
1971 Dollars, per Plant
Half-size
0
0
1900
30,300
30,300
30,300
30,300
7600
7600
45,500
45,500
Full-size
0
0
2500
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
10,000
10,000
60,000
60,000
Twice-size
0
0
3300
52 ,800
52 ,800
52 ,800
52,800
13,200
13,200
79,200
79,200
-------
Design
Processing
Rate, kkg/day
(tons/day)
»13.7
:ish (15.0)
Jlue Crab
:onventional 5.5
process) (6.0)
Slue Crab 10.6
nechanized (11.7)
process)
Laska Crab 22.7
leat process) (25.0)
Laska Crab
[whole &
sections 22.7
recesses) (25.0)
ingeness and
inner Crab
outside 12. 7
Alaska) (14.0)
31.8
aska Shrimp (35.0)
orthern
Shrimp
outside 18. 2
Alaska) (20.0)
outhern
Shrimp 36.4
nbreaded) (40.0)
12.7
eaded Shrimp (14.0)
ITuna
eluding
ondary 341
ceases) (375)
Treatment
Alternatives
Present
Pond #1 , screening, aerated lagoon
Pond #1 , screening, lagoon, pond #2
Pond #1, screening, lagoon, spray irrigation
Pond #1, screening, extended aeration
Present
Screening , aerated lagoon
Screening , extended aeration
Present
Screening, aerated lagoon
Screening, aerated lagoon , in-plant conservation
Screening, extended aeration
Present
Screening
Screening, reduction of solids
Screening, barge solids to sea
Screening, reduction of solids, in-plant conservation
Screening ( in-plant conservation
Screening, flotation , reduction of solids
Screening , flotation , barging
Screening , flotation, aerated lagoon , barge
Screening , flotation , extended aeration
Present
Screening
Screening , reduction
Screening , barge
Screening, reduction, in-plant conservation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, reduction
Screening , flotation , barge
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Screening , flotation , extended aeration , barge
Present
Screening , flotation
Screening, flotation, in-plant conservation
Screening, flotation*
Screening, flotation* aerated lagoon
Screening, flotation^ extended aeration
Present
Screening
Screening , reduction
Screening , barge
Screening, reduction, in-plant conservation
Screening, flotation, reduction
Screening , flotation , barge
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Present
Screening
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, in-plant conservation
Screening , flotation*
Screening , flotation* aerated lagoon
Screening , flotation* extended aeration
Present
Screening
Screening , flotation
Screening , flotation*
Screening , flotation* aerated lagoon
Screening, flotation* extended aeration
Present
Screening
Screening , flotation
Screening, flotation, In-plant conservation
Screening, flotation*
Screening, flotation*, aerated lagoon
Screening , flotation*, extended aeration
Present
Screening , flotation
Screening , flotation in-plant conservat-f n
Screening , flotation*
Screening , flotation*, roughing filter
Screening, flotation*, roughing filter, activated sludge
Costs, 1971 $ "
Effluent
BOD, kg/kk(
9.9
2.9
2.3
0.1
1.4
7.5
0.15
0.12
33
3.0
2.5
1.9
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
8.1
4.9
4.9
1.*
1.1
12
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.1
5. 1
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.74
0.55
13
4.8
4.1
2.7
0.9
0.69
212
122
122
122
106
64
64
3.5
145
116
70
63
26
3.8
2.9
58
46
28
25
10
3.0
2.3
105
84
50
40
17
4.6
3.5
14
7.8
7 0
2~.9
2.0
0.5
3 Half
Size
0
50,100
60,000
60,700
61,300
o
4000
19 ,000
0
10,000
11,500
78,800
0
81,800
587,000
220,000
613,000
108,000
1,334,000
940,000
2,128,000
2,390,000
0
55,000
269,000
148,000
296,000
459,000
486,000
699,000
634 ,000
1,437 ,000
1,613,000
0
70,000
97,000
97,000
133,000
271,000
0
171,000
712,000
375,000
738,000
1,981,000
1,902,000
4,854,000
0
29,000
90,000
97,000
97,000
119,000
302,000
0
41,000
127,000
134,000
134,000
165,000
422,000
0
52,000
165,000
205,000
205,000
239,000
302,000
o
278,000
318,000
318,000
681,000
978,000
Capital
Full
Size
0
76,000
91,000
92,000
93,000
0
6000
29,000
0
15,200
17,500
119,500
0
124,000
889,000
333,000
929,000
164,000
2,022,000
1,423,000
3,225,000
3,622,000
0
84,000
408,000
225,000
448,000
696,000
736,000
1,060,000
961,000
2,178,000
2,445,000
0
107,000
147,000
147,000
202,000
411,000
0
259,000
1,079,000
568,000
1,119,000
3,004,000
2,883,000
7,357,000
0
44,000
137,000
147,000
147,000
180,000
457,000
0
62,000
193,000
203,000
203,000
250,000
640,000
0
79,000
250,000
310,000
310,000
363,000
457,000
0
422,000
482 , 000
482,000
1,032,000
1,482,000
Daily 0
Twice
Size
0
116,000
138,000
140,000
141,000
0
9100
44,000
0
23,000
26,500
181,000
0
188,000
1,347,000
505,000
1,408,000
249,000
3,065,000
2,160,000
4,890,000
5,490,000
0
127,000
618,000
341,000
679,000
1,055,000
1,116,000
1,606,000
1,457,000
3,301,000
3,705,000
0
162,000
223,000
223,000
306,000
623,000
0
395,000
1,635,000
861,000
1,696,000
4,553,000
4,370,000
11,150,000
0
66,000
207,000
223,000
223,000
273,000
693,000
0
94,000
292,000
308,000
308,000
379,000
970,000
0
120,000
379,000
470,000
470,000
550,000
693,000
0
640,000
731,000
731,000
1,564,000
2,246,000
Half
Size
0
16
20
21
23
0
4
9
0
6
6
16
0
82
456
199
456
82
518
299
650
691
0
55
214
134
214
101
101
259
202
439
466
0
22
22
22
28
31
0
171
572
288
572
664
500
829
0
3
13
13
13
19
24
0
5
18
18
18
27
34
0
13
52
52
52
64
77
0
105
105
105
170
323
Full
Size
0
25
30
32
35
0
6
13
0
9
9
24
0
124
691
302
691
124
786
453
985
1047
0
84
324
204
324
153
153
393
306
665
707
0
34
34
34
43
47
0
260
867
438
867
1007
758
1258
0
5
19
19
19
29
36
0
7
27
27
27
41
51
0
20
79
79
79
97
117
0
160
160
160
258
490
& M
Twice
Size
0
38
46
49
53
0
9
20
0
14
14
36
0
188
1047
458
1047
188
1191
687
1493
1587
0
127
491
309
491
231
595
463
1008
1072
0
52
52
52
65
71
0
394
1314
664
1314
1526
1149
1907
0
8
.29
29
29
44
55
0
11
41
41
41
62
78
0
30
120
120
120
147
177
0
243
243
243
391
743
as a chemical system
Table 98. Ir(!atmeilt ef(lclen£l
-------
Since solids disposal can be a significant problem in some areas,
several of the treatment levels have different solids disposal
alternatives. The costs of each of these is shown in Table 98. The use
of biological treatment systems, such as aerated lagoons and oxidation
ponds can cause problems, if not operated properly. It is important
that trained personnel be associated with these installations.
Typical Plant
Hypothetical system engineering designs were developed tor each
alternative of each treatment level for each seatood processing
subcategory. Each design was based on a two shift production rate using
waste parameters determined from the monitoring program. The waste
water characteristics of each industry subcategory were reviewed in
order to estimate the treatment efficiency of various technological
systems, at each level of application. Where operating data or
published results from other seafood waste facilities were absent, the
probable effluent reductions were estimated. The assumptions were based
on engineering experience with industrial waste treatment, practical
familiarity with alternative treatment operations and the variables
which affect their performance, and extensive working knowledge of
seafood processing methods and systems. Schematic drawings of each
treatment design are presented and discussed in Section VII.
The capital costs of each of these designs were then computed oased on
1971 Seattle construction costs as shown in Table 99. The costs were
then scaled for different geographical areas, such as Alaska, using the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Geographical Index (Table 100). Operation
and maintenance costs given for each design include labor, power,
chemical, and fuel prices and are based on the costs shown in Ta^le 101.'
Costs for half and twice the typical design size were computed using an
exponential scale factor of 0.6 and are listed in Table 102.
For reference, the raw product processing rates in kkg ana tons per day
are listed for each subcategory. These rates are an index of the scale
of production assumed for design and cost estimation purposes. The
costs, however, are suitable chiefly fcr comparing the cost-efficiencies
of alternatives. Their use for estimating construction costs of a
proposed treatment facility, referenced to a known raw production scale,
is not recommended. The actual costs of construction are intimately
tied to terrain, climate, transport, labor, land availability, and other
site constraints, which are best evaluated on an individual basis .by
experienced professionals in the field. Every precaution has oeen taken
to gear the design costs to representative conditions within each
subcategory, yet each plant has unique constraints which distinguish it
from the hypothetical, average plant.
To aid in visualizing the relative cost-effectiveness of alternatives,
the tabulations of Table 98 are shown in graphical form in figures 53
through 63, The marginal cost is indicated by the slope of the curve.
290
-------
Table 99
1971 Seattle construction costs.
Item
1971 Seattle Cost
Earthwork
Piers
300 PSF Loading
1000 PSF Loading
Concrete (linear sliding scale)
Less than 1 cu yd
Over 50 cu yd
Buildings
Process piping
Metal work and equipment
1. steel tanks
2. hoppers and package units
motors, pumps, mechanisms
Outfall lines
Electrical
Land
$ 1.75/cu yd
20.00/sq yd
32.00/sq yd
500.00/cu yd
200.00/cu yd
9.00/sq ft
18.00/sq ft
0.25/gal
from manufacturers
20.00/ft
8% of concrete
buildings, process
piping, metal work,
and equipment
Not included in
the estimate
291
-------
Table 100 U. S. Army Geographical Index*
Area Index
Washington, D. C. 1.0
Seattle, Washington 1.15
Kodiak, Alaska 2.5
Remote Alaska 2.6
Texas 0.96
Louisiana 0.96
Los Angeles, California 1.7
San Francisco, California 1.2
Delaware and Maryland 1.06
Maine 0.95
*Relative Prices Around The World. Civil Engineering,
October, 1971, pp. 91, 92.
292
-------
Table 101
Operation and maintenance costs,
Item
Cost
Location
Power
Labor
Treatment
chemicals
Equipment
maintenance
$0.01/kwh
0.10/kwh
0.20/kwh
7.00/hr
5.00/hr
0.10/1000 gal
0.20/1000 gal
48 states
Kodiak, Alaska;
Hawaii; Samoa
Outside Kodiak
Alaska
48 states
48 states
Alaska
5% of equipment capital cost/year
293
-------
Table 102. End-of-pipe treatment-costs, cumulative levels
Catfish
Blue Crab
(conventional
process)
Blue Crab
(mechanized
process)
Alaska Crab
(meat process)
Alaska Crab
(whole &
sections
process)
Dungenese &
Tanner Crab
(outside
Alaska)
Alaska Shrimp
Northern
Shrimp
(outside
Alaska)
Southern
Shrimp
(unbreaded)
Breaded
Shrimp
Tuna
(including
secondary
processes)
Level
—
I
II, III
II, III
I, III
II
I
III
II
II
I
I
I
III
II
II
II
II
—
I
I
I
III
I
II
II
II
II
—
I
II
III
II
II
I
I
I
III
II
II
II
I
I
III
II
II
II
I
I
III
II
II
II
I
I
III
II
II
II
I
III
II
II
II
Treatment
Alternative
Pond #1, screening, stabilization oond
Pond //I, screening, aerated lagoon
Pond //I, screening, aerated lagoon, pond //2
Pond //I, screening, aerated lagoon, spray irrigation
Pond //I, screening, extended aeration
Screening, aerated lagoon
Screening, extended aeration
Screening, aerated lagoon
Screening, aerated lagoon
Screening, aerated lagoon
Screening, extended aeration
Screening
Screening, reduction of solids
Screening, barge solids to sea
Screening, reduction of solids
Screening
Screening, flotation, reduction of solids
Screening, flotation, barging
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Screening, flotation, extended aeration
Screening
Screening, reduction
Screening, barge
Screening, reduction
' Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, reduction
Screening, reduction, barge
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Screening, flotation, extended aeration, barge *
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon
Screening
Screening
Screening, reduction
Screening, barge
Screening, reduction
Screening, flotation, reduction
Screening, flotation, barge
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Screening
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon
Screening, flotation, extended aeration
Screening
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon
Screening, flotation, extended aeration
Screening
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, aerated lagoon
Screening, flotation, extended aeration
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation
Screening, flotation, roughing filter
Screening, flotation, roughing filter, activated sludge
Capital Costs, 1971 $
Half
Size
30,000
50,100
60,000
60,700
61,300
4000
19,100
10,000
8100
9600
76,900
81,800
587,000
220,000
583,000
77,700
1,304,000
910,000
2,098,000
2,360,000
55,000
269,000
148,000
269,000
459,000
459,000
669,000
604,000
1,407,000
1,613,000
70,000
66,700
103,000
241,000
66,700
171,000
712,000
375,000
708,000
1,951,000
1,872,000
4,824,000
29,000
90,000
89,400
89,400
111,000
294,000
41,000
127,000
127,000
127,000
157,000
414,000
52,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
194,000
257,000
278,000
278,000
278,000
636,000
933,000
Full
Size
45,500
76,000
91,000
92,000
93,000
6000
29,000
15,200
12,700
15,000
117,000
124,000
889,000
333,000
889,000
124,000
1,982,000
1,383,000
3,185,000
3,582,000
84,000
408,000
225,000
408,000
696,000
696,000
1,020,000
921,000
2,138,000
2,445,000
107,000
107,000
162,000
371,000
107,000
259,000
1,079,000
568,000
1,079,000
2,964,000
2,843,000
7,317,000
44,000
137,000
137,000
137,000
170,000
447,000
62,000
193,000
193,000
193,000
240,000
630,000
79,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
303,000
397,000
422,000
422,000
422,000
972,000
1,422,000
Twice
Size
69,000
116,000
138,000
140,000
141,000
9100
44,100
23,000
19,700
23,000
178,000
188,000
1,347,000
505,000
1,355,000
196,000
3,012,000
2,107,000
4,837,000
5,437,000
127,000
618,000
341,000
626,000
1,055,000
1,063,000
1,553,000
1,404,000
3,248,000
3,705,000
162,000
170,000
253,000
570,000
170,000
393,000
1,635,000
861,000
1,643,000
4,500,000
4,317,000
11,097,000
66,000
207,000
210,000
210,000
260,000
680,000
94,000
292,000
295,000
295,000
366,000
957,000
120,000
379,000
379,000
379,000
471,000
614,000
640,000
640,000
640,000
1,485,000
2,167,005
0 & M Costs,
Half
Size
5
16
20
21
23
4
9
6
6
6
16
82
456
199
456
82
518
299
650
691
55
214
134
214
101
101
259
202
439
466
22
22
28
31
22
171
572
288
572
664
500
829
3
13
13
13
19
24
5
18
18
18
27
34
13
52
52
52
64
77
105
105
WS"
170
373
Full
Size
7
25
30
32
35
6
13
9
9
9
24
124
691
302
691
124
786
453
985
1047
84
324
204
324
153
153
393
306
665
707
34
34
43
47
34
260
867
438
867
1007
758
1258
5
19
19
19
29
36
7
27
27
27
41
51
20
79
79
79
97
117
>60
160
160
258
490
S/day
Twlofl
Sizal
!*•
3P
46
49
53
9
20
14
14
14
36
188
1047
458
1047
188
1191
687
1493
1587
127
491
309
491
231
231
595
463
1008
1072
52
52
394
1314
664
1314
1526
1149
1907
8
29
29
29
44
55
11
41
41
41
62
78
30
120
120
120
147
177
243
243
243
391
743
294
-------
An attempt has been made to illustrate the point that improved effluent
quality is achieved in discrete steps as opposed to a smoothly
increasing cost as a function of treatment level desired. The convex
dotted line attempts to indicate that a large incremental investment is
usually required in order to move to the next "quantum" level of per-
formance. The treatment system, when operating properly, should achieve
the removal rates indicated at the point where the next level starts.
However, it is possible, when the system is not operated or maintained
correctly, that it will operate off the curve to the left.
BOD5 was selected as the parameter of greatest environmental
significance for most wastes and receiving waters. The percentage
removal of solids and grease in most technologies listed is roughly (but
not consistently) parallel to that of BOD5. Other common contaminants
such as phosphate, pathogens, total dissolved solids, and toxins are not
present in sufficient concentrations to be of concern in the seafood
industry.
Such parameters may require attention where water recycling within a
processing plant is contemplated. Processors have not yet found such
recycling to be cost-effective for most operations. Furthermore,
federal regulations (FDA) restrict movement in this direction.
In general, the total cost curves show that .the marginal cost curves
resemble a series of peaks with the height of the ^eak generally
increasing as the level of treatment increases. This is in agreement
with published data (e. g. Metcalf and Eddy, 1972) . The highest levels
of treatment have the highest marginal costs requiring that a higher
value be put on the benefit of improved water quality in order to have a
cost-effective system.
Solids
The costs of solids disposal are frequently regarded as supplemental
costs and estimated separately. In the estimates given in Tables 97 and
98, however, solids volumes were calculated and their handling costs are
included. The reason for this is that the solids handling costs can be
extremely variable. For example, the costs of barging solids to a
reduction plant from a remote point in Alaska would be much higher than
the typical costs. In some cases the location of a solids reduction
process near the food processing plant can be an alternative for solids
disposal.
The nutritive value of seafood solids, and their importance in the world
food balance, have been discussed in Section VII. It is estimated that
solids disposal at Koiak, Alaska can be accomplished at a profit of $
.70 per kkg ($ .75 per ton).
295
-------
Air_QualitY
The maintenance of air quality, in terms of particulates, is unaffected
by waste water treatment facilities except when incineration is
practiced. To reduce solids the 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.
Noise
Principal noise sources at treatment facilities are mechanical aerators,
air compressors, and pumps. By running air compressors tor 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.
296
-------
100
o
o
o
EH
Z
W
a
EH
Cfl
W
EH
H
u
W
D
a
D
U
75
I-Pond #1, screening,
lagoon, pond #2
II -Pond #1, screening,
extended aeration
_- O
/
X
Ill-Pond #1,
screening,
lagoon, spray irrigation
Pond #1, screening, aerated lagoon
I I I
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
95
100
L
9.9
I |
2.3 2.0
1
1.2
1 1
0.1
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 53
Catfish treatment efficiencies and costs
-------
40
o
o
o
30
CO
W
H
EH
H
CM
rij
O
W
>
H
s
o
20
10
Il-Screening, extended aeration
I' Hi-Screening, aerated lagoon
'\ I I I
20 40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
100
I I I
7.5 0.2 0.1 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 54
Conventional blue crab treatment efficiencies and costs
298
-------
o 100
o
o
rH
•C/J-
EH
en
w
H
H
u
w
H
EH
S
75
50
25
X
X
.
II-Screening, extended aeration
Screening, aerated lagoon
I, Ill-Screening, aerated lagoon
I l I I I I I
20
40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
100
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
1 1
32.9 3.02.5 1.3
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 55
Mechanized blue crab treatment efficiencies and costs
299
-------
4000
3500
o
o
o
£ 300°
| 2500
CO
w
53
)— |
j 2000
EH
M
(X
CJ
M 1500
w
H
EH
| 1000
u
600
Screening flotation, extended areation
/'
/ p Il-Screening, flota
f \
/ |
1
/ i
/ '
_ i ^Q H-Screen'in9- flotation
/ / \
/ \
1 \
1 , '
/ 1
/ / ^.-o
/ ^ II- Screening, flotation, b
Il-Screening, / y .'
reduction of solids / ' /
o /7 '
I-Screening, Q / /
reduction of solids // /
' ^ /
I- Screening, / jf /
barge solids to sea \ . /
/' 11- Screening
_ --0
^***1 1 1 i^I-Screemng { III 1
tion, aerated lagoon, barge
reduction of solids
jrging
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 100
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
1 II 1 I 1 |
19.3 9.5 8.1 2.0 1.5 0.7 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 56
Alaska crab meat treatment efficiencies and costs
300
-------
3000
o
o
o
g 2000
I
w
H
u
w
s
:D
o
1000
Screening flotation, extended areation
/O Il-Screening, flotation,
/ . aerated lagoon, barge
I/
Il-Screening, flotation, reduction of solids ||
I- Screening, flotation,
Ill-Screening, reduction
9 V
I-Screening, reduction // /
I
-O
II- Screening, flotation, barging
Il-Screening, flotation
/
:. /—Q I- Screening, barge solids to sea
0 20 40 50 60 70 60 85 90
PERCENT BOD REMOVAL
95
100
II
122 8.0 5.1 3.6 1.3 0-7 0.4
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 57
Alaska crab whole and sections treatment efficiencies and costs
301
-------
o
o
o
EH
Z
W
S
W
W
u
W
H
EH
a
D
S
U
500
400
300
200
100
II-Screening, flotation,
extended aeration
II-Screening, flotation, /
aerated lagoon
II-Screening, flotation
Ill-Screening, flotation
I-Screening, flotation
PERCENT BOD REMOVAL
133
4.8 4.1
1.7
0.9 0.5
0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 58
Dungeness and tanner crab other than Alaska treatment efficiencies and costs
302
-------
o
o
o
co-
EH
W
H
W
H
EH
3
|
u
10,000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
500
II-Screening; flotation, aerated lagoon, barge
Il-Screening, flotation,
reduction
I-Screening,
- reduction
^_
^-H-Screening, flotation,
I-Screening, / / •
barge / // bar(?e
0 //
'^•'/ Screening, reduction
? I-Screening
I III I
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
100
ll
I I
212 122 106 27 3.5 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 59
Alaska shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs
303
-------
o
o
o
rH
•M-
W
|
W
H
&l
u
w
H
EH
3
D
S
D
500
400
300
200
100
0
II-Screening, flotation,
extended aeration
Ill-Screening,
flotation .
II-Screening, flotation,
aerated lagoon
, flotation
I-Screening, flotation
I-Screening
I I I I I i
I
1
1
20
40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
100
PERCENT BOD 5 REMOVAL
i I
i i
145 116 7063 26 3.8 1.90
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 60
Northern shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs
304
-------
700
o
o
o
EH
3
W
§
CO
W
CJ
W
i
t»
o
600
II-Screening, flotation,
extended aeration
500
400
300
Ill-Screening, flotation
200
100
__Q
II-Screening, flotation,
aerated lagoon
flotation
I-Screening, flotation
I I
I-Screening
I i i
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 100
PERCENT BODj- REMOVAL
| i I I | I I |
58 46 28 25 10 3.0 1.5 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figxore 61
Southern non-breaded shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs
305
-------
500
400
EH
2
w 300
U
w
D
S
D
U
200
100
Il-Screening, flotation,
extended aeration
• — o
Ill-Screening, flotation
Il-Screening, flotation,
aerated lagoon
^--
Il-Screening, flotation
/ I-Screening, flotation
-I-Screening
I i I I I i
1 1 1
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
95
100
II
i i
105 84 50 40 17 4.6 2.3 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 62
Breaded shrimp treatment efficiencies and costs
306
-------
o
0
o
£
EH
2
W
a
H
C/J
W
H
<
H
<
U
W
H
a
D
a
u
IQUU
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
n
Il-Screening, flotation, x
roughing filter, /
activated sludge ~^^^ /
/
/
i
1
o
Il-Screening, flotation, *
roughing filter j
I
/
/
'
1
1
1
xO ^"°
x^°\ ^^^"
s N^
/ /' Ill-Screening, flotation
- / xx
/ ^
- L / ^-Il-Screening, flotation
/ V
100 YU ^ I-Screening, flotation
1 u
Q lAl 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1
0 20 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 100
PERCENT BOD5 REMOVAL
1 II ii 1 1
14 78 70 2.9 2.0 0.5 0
BOD5 REMAINING (KG BOD5/KKG PROCESSED)
Figure 63
Tuna treatment efficiencies and costs
307
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
For each subcategory within the canned and preserved seafood processing
industry, the "best practicable control technology currently available"
(Level I) must be achieved by all plants not later than July 1, 1977.
Level I technology 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 nighest level of
control that can be practicably applied by July 1, 1977 because present
control and treatment practices are uniformly inadequate within the
farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna segments of the canned and
preserved fish and seafood processing industry.
Consideration of the following factors has been included in the
establishment of Level I technology:
1) the total costs of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from this
application,
2) the age of equipment and facilities involved,
3) the processes employed,
H) the engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques,
5) process changes, and
6) non-water quality environmental impact.
As discussed in previous sections, economic impact studies indicate that
the facilities size requires additional consideration. Different
criteria were established for small plants due to unequal economic
impacts created by diseconomies of scale.
Furthermore, the designation of Level I technology empnasized end-of-
pipe treatment technology, but included in-process technology when
considered normal practice within the subcategory.
An important consideration in the designated 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 oased on
pilot plants, demonstration projects, and technology transfer, the
latter mainly from the meat packing industry, municipal waste treatment
systems and other segments of the seafood as well as the food processing
industries.
309
-------
Because there are no existing waste water treatment facilities at the
plant level, the 30-day and the daily maximum limitations are based on
engineering judgment and the consideration of the operating
characteristics of similar treatment systems as mentioned in the
previous paragraph. The daily maximum limitation for the screening
systems is three times the thirty day limitation; for air flotation
systems, 2.5 times the thirty day limitation; for aerated lagoon
systems, two times the thirty day limitation; for extended aeration
system, three times the thirty day limitation; and for activated sludge
systems, 3.5 times the thirty day limitation. An exception for the
total suspended solids for screening in the Alkaskan shrimp processing
subcategory was made due to the high initial level of the parameter.
The daily maximum limitation of total suspended solids for the Alaskan
shrimp processing subcategory is 1.5 times the thirty day limitation.
sh Processing of more than _90_8_ kg 12000 lbs}_ of Raw
Material Per Day_ ISubcategory Aj_
The recommended effluent limitations for farm-raised catfish processing
are presented in Table 103. The best practicable control technology
currently available includes efficient in -plant water and waste water
management, partial recycle of live fish holding tank water, solids or
by-product recovery as illustrated in Figure 37, and aerated lagoons and
oxidation ponds as illustrated in Figure 38.
The proposed treatment system for waste waters from catfisn processing
can effect a high level of treatment at moderate cost. Catfish
processing waste water flows are small but of high strength compared to
municipal waste waters. Wastewater flows are currently produced during
only a portion of the day for part of the year and are variable from day
to day, depending on the availability of fish.
Catfish processors are located inland in relatively flat areas where
land is generally available. Because of the inland location the
potential for adverse effects by processing wastes on receiving waters
is considerable, with many receiving waters affording limited or
essentially no dilution. As well, catfish processing plants often are
located in or near urban areas where offensive conditions would be
particularly undesirable. In many cases, however, this proximity to
municipalities will provide access to existing domestic sewerage and
treatment systems. The catfish processing industry is located in areas
of moderate climate well suited to aerated lagoons, oxidation ponds and
spray irrigation.
Because of the small flows and the availability of land, reasonably
sized aerated lagoons can be adequately designed. These lagoons can
then provide for equalization for the variable strength waste waters.
Because the aerated lagoon is a stable aerobic process with minimal
mechanization, the energy requirements and operational maintenance are
310
-------
low compared to more mechanized processes such as activated sludge
units.
Disadvantages of aerated lagoons include a susceptibility to effects
from low ambient temperatures, to temperature shifts, and a higher level
of biological solids in the treated effluent than from some other
treatment processes. Except for possibilities of effluent quality
reduction during spring and autumn temperature shifts, cold temperature
effects should be minimal in areas where the catfish industry is
located.
While there is not a problem of continuous solids disposal with aerated
lagoons, intermittent dredging of accumulated solids may be required.
It is assumed that solids disposal systems or by-product production
plants are available for accepting the fish waste solids from catfish
processing.
Farm-Raised Catfish Processing of _908_ kg 12000 lbs]_ or less of Raw
Material Per Day Subcategory. B]_
The recommended effluent limitations for small farm-raised catfish
processing facilities are presented in Table 104. The best practicable
control technology currently available includes efficient iri-plant water
and waste water management, partical recycle of live fisn Holding tank
water, solids or by-product recovery, and oxidation or stabilization
ponds.
The discussion in the previous section pertaining to aerated lagoons
also applies to stabilization ponds.
As shown in Table 96, Equipment Efficiency and Design Assumptions, the
design effluent concentration for suspended solids is 150 mg/1 for
stabilization ponds, as opposed to 250 mg/1 for aerated lagoons.
However, the effluent limitation guidelines are based on the higher
concentration of 250 mg/1 of suspended solids to provide additional
latitude for equipment selection.
311
-------
Table 1Q3
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Farm-Raised Catfish
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
2.3
(4.6)
4.6 (9.2)
Total
Suspended
Solids
5.7 (11.4)
11.4 (22.8)
Grease
& Oil
0.45 (0.90)
0.90 (1.8)
*greater than 908 kg (2000 Ibs) of raw
material per day
312
-------
CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAB PROCESSING (Subcategory C)
The recommended effluent limitation for conventional blue crab
processing are presented in Table 105. The best practicable control
technology currently available includes efficient in-plant water and
waste water management, solids or by-product recovery, and aerated
lagoon systems as illustrated in Figure 41.
Individual conventional crab processing plants are small-scale
operations which generate very small, variable and intermittent waste
water flows of high strength, requiring equalization and holding
capacity similar to that provided by aerated lagoons. Aerated lagoon
processes are relatively stable, produce low levels of waste biological
solids, and require limited operating attention.
Blue crab processing plants usually are located in areas or moderate
climate favorable to biological treatment with flat land available for
waste treatment plant construction. While the processors frequently are
located where reduction or rendering plants are available, they often
are near urban areas where generation of offensive odors or other
nuisance conditions would be undesirable.
MECHANIZED_BLUE_CRAB_PROCESSING (Subcategory D)
The recommended effluent limitations for mechanized blue crab processing
are presented in Table 106. The best practicable control technology
currently available includes efficient in-plant water and waste water
management, solids or by-product recovery, and aerated lagoon systems as
illustrated in Figure 42.
The mechanized process produces considerably more waste water than the
conventional process due to the flow from the mechanical pickers and
subsequent meat washing step. The concentration of sodium chloride is
high because of its use in the brine separation tanks of the mechanized
process.
The treatment system for mechanized blue crab processing plants requires
equalization and holding capacity similar to that provided by aerated
lagoons. Aerated lagoon processes are relatively stable, produce low
levels of waste biological solids, and require limited operating
attention.
Blue crab processing plants usually are located in areas o± moderate
climate favorable to biological treatment with flat land available for
waste treatment plant construction. While the processors frequently are
located where reduction or rendering plants are available, they often
are near urban areas where generation of offensive odors or other
nuisance conditions would be undesirable.
313
-------
Table 104
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Small*
Farm-Raised Catfish Processing Facilities
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
2.3
(A.6)
5.7 (11.A)
0.45 (o.90)
4.6
11.A
(9.2)
(22.8)
0.90
(1.8)
* 908 kg (20001bs) or less of raw material per day of operation.
314
-------
Table 105
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Conventional Blue Crab
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
0.15
(0.30)
0.30
(0.60)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.45
(0.90)
0.90
(1.8)
Grease
& Oil
0.065 (0.13)
0.13 (0.26)
315
-------
Table 106
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Mechanized Blue Crab
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
3.0
(6.0)
6.0 (12.0)
Total
Suspended
Solids
7.4 (14.8)
15
(30)
Grease
& Oil
1.4 (2.8)
2.8 (5.6)
316
-------
ALASKA_CRAB_MEAT_PROCESSING_lSubcategory_EJL
The recommended effluent limitations for Alaskan crab meat processing
are presented in Table 107. The best practicable control technology
currently available consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water
management, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal of solids, and
screening of the waste water effluent as illustrated in Figuure 43. It
is important, in considering "best practicable" treatment schemes, to
strongly emphasize the unique physical situation of the Alaskan
processor when recommending effluent levels.
Alaskan crab processing plants are larger-scale operations than those in
the "lower 48" states, but the waste waters are still intermittent,
seasonal, and of relatively high strength. Many processing plants are
located along very rugged, mountainous coasts, frequently with no level
land available. Thus, treatment facilities would have to be located on
dock area constructed on piling over water.
Foundation conditions often involve solid rock—adding to the expense of
dock facilities or excavation for basins or lagoons. Shipping costs for
construction materials, chemicals and fuel are high. The rigorous
climate, particularly the low temperatures (including the waste water
temperatures) inhibits the applicability of biological treatment,
especially when compounded with the intermittent and highly seasonal
flows. High winds and large tidal fluctuations contribute to the diffi-
culties of constructing and operating treatment facilities.
Neither solids reduction plants nor suitable sites for landfills or
lagoons are generally available for solids disposal; and tne number of
technically qualified personnel is severely limited.
M?ASKAN_WHOLE_CRAB_AND_CRAB_S]ECTION_PEgCESSING (Subcategory F)
The recommended effluent limitations for Alaskan whole crab and crab
section processing are presented in Table 108. The best practicable
control technology currently available consists of efficient: in-plant
water and waste water management, by-product recovery or ultimate
disposal of solids, and screening of the waste water effluent as
illustrated in Figure 43.
As discussed in the previous section, it is important, in considering
"best practicable" treatment schemes, to strongly emphasize the unique
physical situation of the Alaskan processor when recommending effluent
levels.
317
-------
Table 107
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Crab Meat Processing
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
9.6
(19.2)
29
(58)
Total
Suspended
Solids
6.2
(12.4)
19
(38)
Grease
& Oil
0.61
(1.22)
1.8
(3.6)
318
-------
DUNGENESS _ANp_TANNER_CRAB_PROCESS_IN_THE_CONTIGyOUS STATES (Subcategory
G)
The recommended effluent limitations for dungeness and tanner crab
processing in the contiguous states are presented in Table 109. The
best practicable control technology currently available consists of
efficient in-plant water and waste water management, solids or by-
product recovery techniques, and dissolved air flotation systems as
illustrated in Figure U7.
While larger than blue crab processing, dungeness and tanner crab
processing in the contiguous 48 states is a much smaller scale operation
than the Alaskan industry. The resulting waste water flows from
dungeness and tanner crab processing are lower in ooth volume and
strength as well as being intermittent and seasonal. The processors are
located on the somewhat rugged west coast where land availability often
is limited. Nevertheless, a higher level of treatment than Alaska is
justified because of their location in more populous areas, the more
moderate climate, the greater availability of technically competent
operating personnel, closer proximity of reliable sources of chemicals
and equipment and the general availability of solids reduction plants.
Except for screening and one current biological pilot plant in Maryland,
flotation is the only unit operation which has been investigated on a
pilot or demonstration basis with seafood waste waters. Flotation has
found some application in the tuna processing industry and claggett's
pilot plant work in British Columbia has demonstrated high levels of
treatment with chemical coagulation and flotation of salmon wastes.
Other studies include small pilot plant studies on shrimp wastes in
Louisiana and bench scale testing in Alaska.
Flotation offers several advantages in the treatment of small
intermittent waste water flows such as are typical of the tanner and
dungeness crab processing industries. Package flotation units are
readily available in a wide choice of capacities and design. The
flotation unit can be operated either as a purely physical process or,
with the addition of chemical metering and feeding equipment, as a
physical-chemical process. In either case, start-up and shut-down time
is very short (in the order of hours or less) as compared to the build-
up and acclimation periods required for biological processes such as
activated sludge. By pacing (manual or automatic) air utilization and
chemical feeding to waste water flow, and/or by using nolding tanks for
influent to the unit, the flotation process is less susceptable to upset
from intermittent or shock loading than biologicau. processes. If
Claggett's results with salmon can be obtained as well with crab
processing, flotation in combination with screening should provide high
levels of treatment.
319
-------
Table 108
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Whole Crab and
Crab Section Processing
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
6.0
(12.0)
18
(36)
Tota-1
Suspended
Solids
3.9
(7.8)
12
(24)
Grease
& Oil
0.42 (0.84)
1.3
(2.6)
320
-------
Table 109
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
4.8
(9.6)
12
(24)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.81
(1.62)
2.0
(4.0)
Grease
& Oil
0.12
(0.24)
0.30
(0.60)
321
-------
The flotation process offers opportunity for positive control over
levels of treatment achieved through amounts and types of chemicals
used, amount of air utilized and the air/solids ratio, and the mode of
operations via pressurization and recycle.
Because allowable hydraulic loading rates to flotation units otten are
from two to ten times greater than those for clarifiers, the typical
flotation unit is much more compact in size than an equivalent
clarif ier.
ALA§KA_ SHRIMP _PRQCESSING_JSubcategorY_H]_
The recommended effluent limitations for Alaskan shrimp processing are
presented in Table 110. The best practicable control technology
currently available consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water
management, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal of solids, and
screening of the waste water effluent as illustrated in Figure U9.
As discussed in the previous sections on Alaskan crab processing, it is
important, in considering "best practicable" treatment schemes, to
strongly emphasize the unique physical situation of the remote Alaskan
processor when recommending effluent levels.
Shrimp. Processing in the Contiguous States of More Than _1816_ kg
.(Subcategory. I)_
The recommended effluent limitations for northern shrimp processing in
the contiguous states are presented in Table 111. The best practicable
control technology currently available consists of efticient in-plant
water and waste water management, solids or by-product recovery
techniques and dissolved air flotation systems as illustrated in Figure
50.
As discussed in a previous section (Subcategory G) , except for screening
and one current biological pilot plant in Maryland, flotation is the
only unit operation which has been investigated on a pilot or
demonstration basis with seafood waste waters. The reader is refered to
that section for a discussion of the air flotation system.
Northern Shrimp E£2£§I§iQa in the Contiguous States of i§16_ kg li*000
2£ Less of Raw Material Per Day Hubcategory. J]_
l northern
ctes n te contguous states are presented in Table
112. Due to the unequal economic impact caused by diseconomies of scale
the best practicable control technology currently available tor this
subcategory consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water
The recommended effluent limitations for small northern shrimp
processing facilities in the contiguous states are presented
112. Due to the unequal economic impact caused by diseconomi
322
-------
management, sumps for grease and oil removal, and screening systems for
removal of solids from the effluent stream.
323
-------
Table 110
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Shrimp Processing
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
120
(240)
360
(720)
Total
Suspended
Solids
210
(420)
320
(640)
Grease
& Oil
13
(26)
39
(78)
324
-------
Table 111
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
4c
Northern Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
70 (140) 180 (360)
16 (32) 40 (80)
6.3 (12.6) 16 (32)
*greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw
material per day
325
-------
Southern NOD'lISs^ed Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of More
Than l816_ kg 1UOOO IbsJ of Raw Material~Per~DaY ISubcategory JSl
The recommended effluent limitations for southern non-breaded shrimp
processing in the contiguous states are presented in Table 113. The
best practicable control technology currently available consists of
efficient in-plant water and waste water management, solids or by-
product recovery techniques and dissolved air flotation systems as
illustrated in Figure 50.
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of _1§16_
l£2 lii^OO lbsj_ or Less of Raw Material Per Day ISubcategory LJ_
The recommended effluent limitations for small southern non-breaded
processing facilities in the contiguous states are presented in Table
114. Due to the unequal economic impact caused by diseconomies of scale
the best practicable control technology currently available for this
subcategory consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water
management sumps for grease and oil removal, and screening systems for
removal of solids from the effluent stream.
Shrimp Processing In The Contiguous States Of More Than _1816_ kg
Ii2§L of E§w Material Per Day llubcategory M}.
The recommended effluent limitations for breaded shrimp processing in
the contiguous states are presented in Table 115. The best .practicable
control technology currently available consists of efficient in-plant
water and waste water management, solids or by-product recovery
techniques, and dissolved air flotation systems as shown in Figure 50.
Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States of 1816 kg 1UOOO Ibs)
or !§§§ °I B§£ Material Per Day ISubcategory N}^
The recommended effluent limitations for small breaded shrimp processing
facilities in the contiguous states are presented in Table 116. Due to
the unequal economic impact caused by diseconomies of scale the best
practicable control technology currently available for this subcategory
consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water management, sumps
for grease and oil removal, and screening systems for removal of solids
form the effluent stream.
TUNA_PROCESSING (Subcategory O)
The recommended effluent limitations for tuna processing are presented
in Table 117. The best practicable control technology currently
available consists of efficient in-plant water and waste water
326
-------
lanagement, solids and by-product recovery techniques and dissolved air
lotation systems as shown in Figure 52.
'una processing is a very large scale operation compared to the other
;eafood processes studied and discussed above. Generally, tuna plants
ncorporate a high degree of in-plant by-product processing whereby much
f the otherwise undesirable meat, other solids and oils are recovered.
.s a result these waste waters tend to be of medium strength though
arge in volume. In those cases where by-product processing is not
racticed, it is nevertheless probably economically justified and should
e considered an in-plant treatment requirement.
327
-------
Table 112
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Small*
Northern Shrimp Processing Facilities
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
120
(240)
360
(720)
Total
Suspended
Solids
54
(108)
160
(320)
Grease
& Oil
32
(64)
96
(192)
*1816 kg (40001bs) or less of raw material per day of operation.
328
-------
Table 113
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing*
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
28 (56) 70 (140)
11 (22) 28 (56)
1.8 (3.6) 4.5 (9.0)
*greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw
material per day
329
-------
Table 114
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Small*
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing
Facilities in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
46
(92)
140
(280)
Total
Suspended
Solids
38
(76)
110
(220)
Grease
& Oil
(18)
27
(54)
*1816 kg (40001bs) or less of raw material per day of operation.
330
-------
Table 115
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Breaded Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
50 (100) 125 (250)
28 (56)^' 70 (140)
1.8 (3.6) 4.5 (9.0)
*greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw
material per day
331
-------
Table 116
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Small*
Breaded Shrimp Processing Facilities
in the Contiguous States
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD 84 (168)
Total
Suspended 93 (186)
Solids
Grease
& Oil 9 (18)
250 (500)
280 (560)
27 (54)
*l8l6 kg (40001bs) or less of raw material per day of operation.
332
-------
Table 117
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Tuna Processing
Level I
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
7.8
(15.6)
20
(40)
Total
Suspended
Solids
3.0
(6.0)
7.5
(15.0)
Grease
& Oil
0.87 (1.74)
2.2
(4.4)
333
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
For each subcategory within the canned and preserved seafood processing
industry, the "best available technology economically achievable" (Level
II) must be realized by all plants not later than 1 July 1983. Level II
technology is, for this industry, not "... the very best control and
treatment technology employed by a specific point source within the in-
dustrial category or subcategory . . .," but represents technology based
on pilot plants, demonstration projects, and technology transfer, the
latter mainly from the meat packing industry, municipal waste treatment
systems, and other segments of the seafood as well as the food industry.
This was necessary because present waste water control and treatment
practices are uniformly inadequate within the farm-raised catfish, crab,
shrimp, and tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
industry.
Consideration of the following factors has been included in the
establishment of Level II technology:
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 Level II technology, and
6) non-water quality environmental impact.
Furthermore, much greater emphasis in the designation of Level II
technology was given to in-plant controls, than was in Level I. Those
in-process and end-of-pipe controls recommended for Level II 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 significant number
of actual processing plants within a subcategory have been considered in
detail.
The waste water treatment technology and in-process changes which serve
as the basis for the effluent limitations represents only one of many
treatment alternatives open to the processor. Innoviations in
by-product recovery, water and waste water management, and treatment
technology during the interim before July 1, 1983 may eliminate the
335
-------
necessity of employing biological treatment in order to comply with the
recommended Level II effluent limitations.
This section of the report sets forth the proposed Level II guidelines
and limitations as developed from the studies and consultations
conducted, data developed and literature available. The material is
presented below by subcategory, as was done in Section IX.
The operating characteristics of the specific treatment system which
provided the basis for the effluent limitations were considered in
establishing the daily maximum limitations. The factors are the same as
in the previous chapter.
FARM-RAISED CATFISH PROCESSING
The recommended effluent limitations for farm-raised catfish processing
of more than 908 kg (2000 Ibs) of raw material per day (Subcategory A)
and farm-raised catfish processing of 908 kg (2000 Ibs) or less of raw
material per day (Subcategory B) are presented in Table 118. The best
available technology economically achievable includes efficient in-plant
water and waste water management, partial recycle of live fish Holding
tank water, solids or by-product recovery as illustrated in Figure 37,
and extended aeration systems as illustrated in Figure 39.
Those catfish processors employing live hauling and holding tanks should
consider the use of iced delivery and storage. A recent study (soon to
be published) by Boggess, et al. (1973) indicates that iced storage
causes skinning problems not encounterd with live-tank stored fish;
however, the water consumption decrease realized (40 to 50 percent) may
justify the action. It must be noted that little, if any, BOD5
reduction would accrue from this change, since the BOD5 contribution of
the holding tanks to the total plant effluent is only about 5 percent.
It should further be mentioned that a large number of processors now
employ iced storage, so this recommendation will not have a profound
effect on the industry.
Few specific further in-plant water reduction techniques can reasonably
be expected of the catfish industry, because the avarge plant processing
(and clean up) water consumption is already extremely low. Installing
squeeze-nozzles and turning off water flows during work breaks should
reduce waste water flows by at least 1900 1 (500 gal) per shift.
CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAB PROCESSING (Subcategory C)
The recommended effluent limitations for conventional blue crab
processing are presented in Table 119. The best available technology
economically achievable is based on solid or by-product recovery and on
extended aeration system as illustrated in Figure U1.
336
-------
The conventional blue crab process uses less water than any other
industry subcategory reviewed in this study. Average plant flows are
well under 3.8 cu m (1000 gal) per shift. Although inadvertently, the
industry is a model of water conservation.
337
-------
Table 118
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
*
Farm-Raised Catfish
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD 1.4 (2.8) 4.2 (8.4)
Total
Suspended 1.4 (2.8) 4.2 (8.4)
Solids
Grease 0.45 (0.90) 1.4 (2.8)
& Oil
* 908 kg (2000 Ibs) or less and greater than 908 kg (2000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
338
-------
Table 119
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Conventional Blue Crab
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
0.12 (0.24)
(0.36) (0.72)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.12 (0.24)
(0.36) (0.72)
Grease
& Oil
0.026 (0.052)
0.078 (0.156)
339
-------
MECHANIZED BLUE CRAB PROCESSING (Subcategory D)
The recommended effluent limitation for mechanized blue crab processing
are presented in Table 120. The best available technology economically
achievable is based on solid or by-product recovery, in-process
modifications which promote efficient water and waste water management,
and an extended aeration system as illustrated in Figure 42.
The mechanized blue crab process uses water freely, in product fluming,
in shell separation, and in spray-washing of brine from the meat.
Redesign of the meat- shell separation system and subsequent spray
washing network, plus elimination of the few flumes extant in the
industry should effect the 15 percent water use reduction (with
concomitant 5 percent BOD5 reduction) reflected in the Level II effluent
limitations guidelines listed in Table 120. An ultimate goal should be
the elimination of the brine flotation system entirely; perhaps through
replacement by a pneumatic system such as is used as a final loose peel
remover in some shrimp plants, or another suitable device.
ALASKAN_CRAB_MEAT_PROCESSING (Subcategory E)
The recommended effluent limitations for Alaskan crab meat processing
are presented in Table 121. The best available technology economically
achievable is based on by-product recovery or ultimate disposal of
solids, in-process modifications which promote efficient water and waste
water management, and an air flotation system as illustrated in Figure
43. Air floation operated as a physical system, offers the possibility
of effective treatment while still being able to cope with the problems
of intermittent and variable waste water flows and rigorous climatic,
geographic and isolation conditions. Secondary treatment processes
(Figures 44 and 45) could not be expected to perform adequately under
these limitations.
The Alaskan crab meat industry is a large water user, compared to the
other industries in Phase I of this study. Elimination of fluming,
additional employment of dry capture techniques, redesign of process
flow patterns and general in-plant emphasis on water conservation should
effect the 50 percent water use reduction (with resulting 15 percent
BOD5 reduction) reflected in the Level II effluent limitations
guidelines listed in Table 121.
Well before 1983, the dissolved air flotation system should emerge from
the "demonstration" stage and become a fully operational, optimized
physical treatment system.
340
-------
Table 120
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Mechanized Blue Crab
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
1.9 (3.8)
5.7 (11.4)
Total
Suspended
Solids
1.9 (3.8)
5.7
(11.4)
Grease
& Oil
0.53 (1 06
1.6 (3.2)
341
-------
Table 121
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Crab Meat Processing
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
4.9 (9.8)
12
(24)
Total
Suspended
Solids
1.6 (3.2)
4.0 (8.0)
Grease
& Oil
0.10 (0.20)
0.25 (0.50)
342
-------
ALASKAN WHOLE CRAB AND CRAB SECTION PROCESSING (Subcategory F)
The recommended effluent limitations for Alaskan whole crab and crab
section processing are presented in Table 122. The best available
technology economically achievable is based on by-product recovery or
ultimate disposal of solids, in-process modifications which promote
efficient water and waste water management, and an air flotation system
as illustreated in Figure 43.
As discussed in the previous section, air flotation offers the
possibility of effective treatment while still being able to cope with
the problems of intermittent and variable waste water flows and rigorous
climate, geographic and isolation conditions. Elimination of fluming,
additional employment of dry capture techniques, redesign of process
flow patterns and general in-plant emphasis on water conservation should
effect the 50 percent water use reduction (with resulting 15 percent
BOD5 reduction) reflected in the Level II effluent limitations
guidelines listed in Table 122.
DUNGENESS_AND_TANNER_CRAB_PROCESSING_
IN_THE_CONTIGUOyS_STATES (Subcategory G)
Biological treatment such as aerated lagoons is proposed for Level II
treatment (see Figure 48) because these processes are better able to
cope with the intermittent and variable flows encountered in the
industry than some of the other biological processes. Climatic and
geographic conditions are adequate to sustain these processes at
satisfactory levels of operation.
The dungeness and tanner crab industry outside of Alaska is somewhat
more conservative in water use practices than their northern
counterpart. Nonetheless, considerably more attention could be paid to
water conservation in the industry, along the same lines as outlined for
the Alaskan crab industry in the previous subsection. Employing good
water management in-plant, the industry should be capable of effecting a
40 to 50 percent reduction in water consumption, and thereby reduce
waste water BOD5 loadings by at least 15 percent. These reductions,
together with the expected improved treatment efficiencies due to
optimization of dissolved air flotation as a physical-chemical treatment
system , were the bases for the development of the Level II recommended
effluent limitations guidelines listed in Table 123.
It should be mentioned that the majority of processors in this
Subcategory are located in or near population centers of sufficient size
to justify construction of municipal treatment facilities. In such
cases the processors will likely elect to cooperate with the
municipalities in a joint treatment scheme. These industrial wastes are
expected to be compatible with domestic biological treatment systems.
343
-------
Table 122
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Whole Crab and
Crab Section Processing
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
3.1
(6.2)
7.8
(15.6)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.99 (1.98)
2.5
(5.0)
Grease
& Oil
0.072 (0.144)
0.22 (0.44)
344
-------
Table 123
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
0.92
(1.84 )
1.8
(3.6)
Total
Suspended
Solids
2.3
(4.6)
4.6
( 9.2)
Grease
& Oil
0.057 ( 0.114 )
0.11 ( 0.22 )
345
-------
ALASKAN_SHRIMP_PROCESSING (Subcategory H)
As proposed for Subcategories E and F: Alaska crab acove, .Level II
treatment for Alaska shrimp proposes flotation as the process of choice
(see Figure 49) . Rationale for this selection parallels tfidt for Alaskan
crab meat and whole crab section processing.
The Alaska shrimp industry, like their counterpart crab industry, is a
heavy water user. In fact, even a moderately well-controlled shrimp
plant in Alaska uses about three times the water per pound of raw
product that a crab plant does. This is attributable largely to the
fact that the shrimp process is considerably more mechanized, especially
in the peeling phase. From 40 to 70 percent of the total plant flow
passes over the Model A or PCA peelers.
As a consequence, shrimp plants have not the opportunity to cut water
consumption as dramatically and drastically aa crab plants.
Nevertheless, reduction of 40 percent (and more, in plants winch employ
considerable fluming) are achievable by 1983. Concomitant BOD5
reductions of at lease 13 percent can be expected. These values, plus
the improvements in flotation systems efficiency mentioned earlier, form
the bases for the recommended effluent limitations guidelines outlined
on Table 124.
NORTHERN_SHRIMP_PROCESSING_IN_THE_CONTIGUOUS STATES
The recommended effluent limitations for northern shrimp processing in
the contiguous states of more than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw material
per day (Subcategory I), and northern shrimp processing in the
contiguous states of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less of raw material per day
(Subcategory J) are presented in Table 125. The oest available
technology economically achievable is based on solids or oy-product
recovery, in process modifications which promote efficient water and
waste water management, and aerated lagoon systems as illustrated in
Figure 51.
Biological treatment utilizing aerated lagoons is proposed as the basis
for the Level II guidelines because these systems are oetter able to
cope with the intermittent and variable flows encountered in the
industry than some of the other biological processes available.
Climatic and geographic conditions are adequate to sustain these
processes at satisfactory levels of operation.
Even though the northern shrimp processor uses considerably less water,
on the average, than the typical Alaskan processor, water use reductions
of 20 percent are achievable by 1983. Concomitant BOD5 reduction of at
least 10 percent can be expected. These reductions, together in the
expected improved treatment efficiencies due to optimization of
dissolved air flotation as a physical-chemical treatment system, were
346
-------
the bases for the development of the Level II recommended effluent
limitations guidelines.
347
-------
Table 124
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Shrimp Processing
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
64 (128)
56 (112)
2.2 (4.4)
160 (320)
140 (280)
5.5 (11.0)
348
-------
Table 125
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Northern Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
3.8 (7.6) 7.6 (15.2)
9.6 (19.2) 19 (38)
0.24 (0.48) (0.96)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kq (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
349
-------
SOUTHERN_NON;BREADED_SHRIMP_PROCESSING
INlTHE_CONTIGyOUS_STATES
The recommended effluent limitations guidelines for southern non-breaded
shrimp processing in the contiguous states of more than 1816 kg (4000
Ibs) of raw material per day (Subcategory K) and southern non-breaded
shrimp processing in the contiguous states of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less
of raw materials per day (Sufccategory L) , Table 126, are based on the
same technology and follow the same rational as presented in the
previous section for northern shrimp processing.
BREAD ED_SHRIMP_ PRQCES SING_ I N_ THE
CONTIGUOUS^STATES
The recommended effluent limitations guidelines for breaded shrimp in
the contiguous states of more than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw material
per day (Subcategory M) and breaded shrimp processing in the contiguous
states of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less of raw material per day
(Subcategory N) , Table 127, are based on the same technology and follow
the same rational as presented in the section for northern shrimp
processing.
The breaded shrimp industry is a heavy water user, employing twice the
water per pound of raw product than northern and southern non-breaded
shrimp processors. A water use reduction of 50 percent (and more, in
plants which employ considerable fluming) is achievable by 1983.
Concomitant BOD5 reductions of at least 20 percent can be expected.
TUNA_PROCESSING (Subcategory O)
The tuna industry was quite different from the other Pnase I industries.
Tuna was the only high seas species covered. The typical processing
plant is several orders of magnitude larger than those found in the blue
crab or catfish industries. Tuna companies were found to operate more
like the large industrial concerns they are, rather than in the
provincial manner in which some small processors were managed.
Accordingly, their waste streams flowed more continuously, broadening
the scope of available treatment alternatives.
Level II treatment (see Figure 52) for the tuna processing industry
proposes roughing trickling filters combined with convenrional activated
sludge because this combination of biological processes can result in
compactness, flexibility, and ability to handle variable loads.
On a relative scale the tuna industry is clean. By-product development
in the form of pet food, fish meal, solubles and stick water recovery
have been developed to a high degree.
350
-------
Areas in which improvements could be made (in some plants) include
adoption of dry receiving, rather than fluming of the rish from the boat
to the plant; installation of bilge water handling systems to prevent
the pumping of bilges into the local waters; adoption of air cooling of
the tuna following the precook and development of recirculating
(immersion) thaw tank water systems.
Utilization of some or all of these concepts, together with conservation
programs, could lead to water consumption savings of 30 percent, with
concomitant BOD5 reductions of 10 percent.
Realization of these goals, together with the progressive improvement of
treatment system efficiencies, provides the basis for the effluent
levels recommended in Table 128 for the tuna industry.
351
-------
Table 126
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
3.0
(6.0)
6.0
(12.0)
Total
Suspended
Solids
7.6
(15.2)
15
(30)
Grease
& Oil
0.19
(0.38)
0.38 (0.76)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
352
-------
Table 127
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for *
Breaded Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
4.6 (9.2) 9.2 (18.4)
12 (24) 24 (48)
0.29 (0.58) (0.58) (1.16)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
353
-------
Table 128
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Tuna Processing
Level II
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
0.51 (1.02)
1.8 (3.6)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.51 (1,'02)
1.8 (3.6)
Grease
& Oil
0.064 (0.128)
0.22 (0.44)
354
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE 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 publication 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 deter-
mination 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 must also be given to:
1) operating methods;
2) batch as opposed to continuous operations;
3) use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw materials;
4) use of dry rather than wet processes (including a substitution
of recoverable solvents for water); and
5) recovery of pollutants as by-products.
With the exception of farm-raised catfish processing of more than 908
kg (2000 Ibs) of raw material per day and farm-raised catfish processing
of 908 kg (2000 Ibs) or less of raw material per day, the effluent
limitations for new sources are based on the best practicable technology
currently available with appropriate effluent level reductions due to
in-plant modifications as discussed in Section X and outlined in Table
97.
The new source farm-raised catfish effluent limitations. Table 129, are
based on spray irrigation of process waste water and partial recycle of
the live fish holding tank water with overflow and discharge returned to
fish holding ponds which may produce an intermittent discharge into the
navagable waters.
As discussed in Section X, those catfish processors employing live
hauling and holding tanks should consider the use of iced delivery and
storage. A recent study (soon to be published) by Boggess, et al.
(1973) indicates that iced storage causes skinning problems not
encountered with live-tank stored fish; however, the water consumption
355
-------
decrease realized (40 to 50 percent) may justify the action. It must be
noted that little, if any, BOD5 reduction would accrue from this change,
since the BOD5 contribution of the holding tanks to the total plant
effluent is only about 5 percent. It should further be mentioned that a
large number of processors now employ iced storage, so this
recommendation will not have a profound effect on the industry, but
could provide a basis for no discharge of effluent waste water into the
navigable waters.
The new source performance standards for conventional blue crab
processing are presented in Table 130; for mechanized blue crab
processing, Table 131 for Alaskan crab meat processing, Table 132; for
Alaskan whole crab and crab section processing. Table 133; for dungeness
and tanner crab processing in the contiguous states, Table 134; for
Alaskan shrimp processing, Table 135; northern shrimp processing of more
than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw material per day and northern shrimp
processing of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less of raw materials per day. Table
136; southern non-breaded shrimp processing of more than 1816 kg (4000
Ibs) of raw material per day and, southern non-breaded shrimp processing
of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less of raw material per day, Table 137;
breaded shrimp processing of more than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of raw
material per day and breaded shrimp processing of 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or
less of raw material per day, Table 138; and for tuna processing. Table
139.
No constituents of the effluent's discharged from plants within the
farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna industries 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 waste water treatment plant. The effluent,
however, should have passed through the equivalent of "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 wastewater 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 acceptable to the treatment plant is
dependent on the relative sizes of the treatment facility and the
processing plant and must be established by the treatment facility.
356
-------
Table 129
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for „
Farm-Raised Catfish
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD 0.10 (0.20) 0.20 (0.40)
Total
Suspended 0.20 (0.40) (0.40) (0.80)
Solids
Grease 0.10 (0.20) (0.20) (0.40)
& Oil
* 908 kg (2000 Ibs) or less and greater than 908 kg (2000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
357
-------
Table 130
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Conventional Blue Crab
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
0.15 (0.30)
0.30 (0.60)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.45 (0.90)
0.90 (1.8)
Grease
& Oil
0.065
0.13 (0.26)
358
-------
Table 131
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Mechanized Blue Crab
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
2.5
(5.0)
(5.0)
(10.0)
Total
Suspended
Solids
6.3
(12.6)
13
(26)
Grease
& Oil
1.3
(2.6)
2.6
(5.2)
359
-------
Table 132
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Crab Meat Processing
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
8.2
(16.4)
25
(50)
Total
Suspended
Solids
5.3
(10.6)
16
(32)
Grease
& Oil
0.52
(1.04)
1.6
(3.2)
360
-------
Table 133
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Whole Crab and
Crab Section Processing
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
5.1 (10.2) 15 (30)
3.3 (6.6) 9.9 (19.8)
0.36 (0.72) 1.1 (2.2)
361
-------
Table 134
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
4.1
(8.2)
10
(20)
Total
Suspended
Solids
0.. 69
(1.38)
1.7
(3.4)
Grease
& Oil
0.057 (0.114)
0.14
(0 .28)
362
-------
Table 135
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Alaskan Shrimp Processing
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
100
(200)
300
(600)
Total
Suspended
Solids
180
(360)
270
(540)
Grease
& Oil
11
(22)
33
(66)
363
-------
Table 136
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
3f.
Northern Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
62 (124) 155 (310)
15 (30) 38 (76)
5.7 (11.4) 14 (28)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
364
-------
Table 137
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
25 (50) 63 (126)
10 (20) 25 (50)
1.6 (3.2) 4.0 (8.0)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
365
-------
Table 138
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for *
Breaded Shrimp Processing
in the Contiguous States
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton) kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
& Oil
40 (80) 100 (200)
22 (44) 55 (110)
1.5 (3.0) 3.8 (7.6)
*1816 kg (4000 Ibs) or less and greater than 1816 kg (4000 Ibs) of
raw material per day of operation
366
-------
Table 139
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for
Tuna Processing
Level III
Maximum
30-Day Average
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
Daily Maximum
kg/kkg (Ib/ton)
5-Day BOD
7.0 (14.0)
18
(36)
Total
Suspended
Solids
2.7
(5.4)
6.8
(13.6)
Grease
& Oil
0.78 (1.56)
2.0
(4.0)
367
-------
SECTION XII
Acknowledgements
The Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge the
contribution to this project by Environmental Associates, Inc.,
Corvallis, Oregon. The work at Environmental Associates was performed
under the direction of Michael Soderquist, Project Manager, assisted by
Michael Swayne, Electrical Engineer. Other contributing Environmental
Associates staff members included Edward Casne, Chemical Engineer, Bruce
Montgomery, Fisheries Scientist, William Hess, Chemist, David Nelson,
Biologist, William Parks, Fisheries Scientist, Joan Knowles, Chemist,
Margaret Lindsay, Nurtirionist, Charles Phillips, Electrical Engineer,
James Reiman, Food Scientist, William Stuart, Metallurgical Engineer,
Joan Randolph, Leith Robertson, Lily To, and John Gorman.
Appreciation is expressed to those in the Environmental Protection
Agency who assisted in the performance of the project: K.A. Dostal,
OR&D, NERC, Corvallis; Brad Nicolajsen, Region IV, Robert Hiller, Region
VI; Allen Cywin, Ernst P. Hall, and George R. Webster, Effluent
Guidelines Division; Ray McDevitt, OGC, Headquarters and many others in
the EPA regional offices and research centers who assisted in providing
information and assistance to the project. Special appreciation is
expressed to Linda Rose and others on the Effluent Guidelines Division
secretarial staff who contributed to the completion of the project.
Special acknowledgement is made of the assistance given by Elwood H.
Forsht, Project Officer, whose leadership and direction on the program
are most appreciated.
Acknowledgement is made of contribution by consultants Dale Carlson,
George Pigott, and Wyne Bough.
In addition, the advice of many experts in industry, government and
academia was solicited. Major contributors from government included
Jeff Collins and Richard Tenney of the Kodiak Fishery Products
Technology Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service; Bobby J. Wood
and Melvin Waters of the Pascagoula Laboratory of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and David Dressel of the Washington Office of the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
University personnel who were consulted on the project included Michael
Paparella, University of Maryland; Roy Carawan, Frank Thomas, and Ted
Miller of North Carolina State University; Arthur Novak, Samuel Meyers,
and M.R. Rao of Louisiana State University; and Ole Jocob Johansen of
the University of Washington; Kenneth Hilderbrand and William Davidson
of Oregon State University; Gerald Rohlich of the University of Texas;
and Thomas Boggess, and J.R. Russell of the University of Georgia.
369
-------
Industry representatives who made significant contributions to this
study included A.J. Szabo and Frank Mauldin of Dominque Szabo and
Associates, Inc. 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; and
Charles Jensen of the Kodiak Seafood Processors Association. Other
industrial representatives whose inputs to the project were strongly
felt included Roy Martin of the National Fisheries Institute; Ken
Robinson and Vic Blearo of the American Shrimp Canners Association;
Everett Tolley of the Shellfish Institute of North America; Jim Barr of
the Tuna Research Foundation; Richard True of the American Catfish
Marketing Association; Porter Briggs of the Catfish Farmers Association;
and Robert Prier of the Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Association.
Of particular value was the advice provided by Ed Pohl, Research
Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, and Leroy Reid,
Senior Sanitary Engineer, Arctic Health Research Laboatory.
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 would be prohibitive, their
assistance is greatfully acknowledged.
370
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
. 1944. Operations Involved in Canning. Fisheries Leaflet
No. 79. In: Research Report No. 7, Commercial Canning of Fisheries
Products. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, B.C., pp. 93-111.
. 1950a. Commercial_]Fisheries_Reyiew, 12:9, 12.
. 1950b. Fish Baits: Their Collection, Care, Preparation
and Propagation. Fishery Leaflet No. 28. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 26 pp.
. 1956a. Fish Oils in Sprays for Citrus Trees, commercial
Fisheries Review, 18:3, 9.
. 1956b. Fish Roe and Caviar. In: Report No. 7. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U. S.D.I. Washington, D.C., pp. 299-308.
. 1957a. Commercial Uses for Menhaden Oil. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 19:4a, 3-4.
. 1957b. How About the New Marine Oils. Fisnery Leaflet
528. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 8 pp.
. 1959a. Improved Fish Glue. Trade News, 12:5, 15.
. 1959b. Menhaden Industry - Past and Present. Commercial
Eisheries Review, 21:2a, 24.
. 1959c. Visceral Meal. Trade_News, 12:12, 13-14.
. 1960. Fish Flour is Primarily A Protein Concentrate - Not
A Substitute For Grain Flour. Commercial Fisheries Review, 22:6, 13-14.
. 1961. Report of the International Conference on Fish in
Nutrition. FAO Fisheries Report No. 1. Washington, D.C., 91 pp.
. 1963. The U.S. Tuna Industry. Good Packaging, 24:7, 56-
76.
. 1964a. Fishmeal Plant Development. World Fishing, 13:51-
55.
. 1964b. Increased Use of Fish Meal in South Seas; Layer,
Pet Food Use Adds to Consumption. Feedstuffs, 36:1, 63-64.
371
-------
. 1964c. Report on Waste Disposal in Pago Pago Harbor,
TutuilaT American Samoa. Kennedy Engineers. San Francisco, California.
. 1964d. Salmon Waste Utilization. Commercial Fisheries
Review, ~~26: 10, 13.
. 1965a. Atlas-stord Package Meal Plants. Stord Barty
Industries. Bergen, Norway, 8 pp.
. 1965b. Salmon Caviar Industry Developing in Alaska.
Commercial_Fisheries_Review, 27:21.
. 1966a. Marine Protein Concentrate. Fishery Leaflet 584.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C., 27 pp.
. 1966b. Packaged Fish Meal Plants. Chemical Research
Organization. Esbjerg, Denmark, 4 pp.
. 1968a. Canned Fishery Products. C.F.S. No. 4949. Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington,
D.C., 17 pp.
. 1968b. Fish Paste Product. Japanese Patent 15-779-68.
Food Science and Technology Abstracts, 1:1, 104 (No. l-R-19).
. 1968c. Master Plan for Fisheries: Cultured Catfish
Fishery. Region 4 Catfish Committee, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 35 pp.
. 1968d. Preservation and Processing of Fish and Shellfish -
Quarterly Progress Report. Technological Laboratory, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Ketchikan,
Alaska, 2 pp.
. 1968e. Reverse Osmosis Units Dewater Solutions. Chemical
Engineering, 75:2, 115-116.
. 1969a. A Survey of Waste Disposal Methods for the Fish
Processing Plants on the Oregon coast. Oregon State Sanitary Authority.
Portland, Oregon, 77 pp.
. 1969b. ABCOR Membrane Ultrafiltration. Abcor, Inc.,
Cambridge, Mass., 6 pp.
. 1969c. Computer Projects 73% Frozen Food Poundage Rise
During Next Decade. O.uick_Frozen_ Foods, 31:11, 45-46.
. 1969d. Fish Protein Joins War on Hunger. Chemical_Week,
104:61-63.
372
-------
44:8, 53.
1969e. Fish Protein Plant in Canada. Food Manufacture,
_________ . 1969f. Freezes Catfish with Liquid Nitrogen. Food
Engineering, 41:12, 66-67.
___ . 1969g. Industrial Fishery Products, 1968 Annual Summary.
C.F.S. No, 4950. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C., 9 pp.
________ . 1969h. Marine Sardine Waste Survey. Research Report 2-69.
Washington Research Laboratory, National Association. Washington, D.C.,
6 pp.
________ . 1969i. Osmosis is Key to Whey-out Unit. Chemical
lD9iQ§§riD3» 76:5, 20.
________ . 1969 j. Protein Recovery from Fish Filleting Wastewaters.
Ef f luent~Water Treatment Journal , 9:46-47.
________ . 1969k. Stanpack - Complete Self-contained Fish Meal
Plants. Bulletin 674. Standard Steel Corporation. Los Angeles,
California, 3 pp.
____ _ . 19691. Station Experiments with Catfish By-products.
Feedstuff i, 41:19, 38.
______ . __ . 1970a. A Program of Research for the Catfish Farming
Industry. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife service,
U.S. D.I. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 215 pp.
__________ . 197 Ob. Economic Aspects of Solid Waste Disposal at Sea.
Report No. PB. 195-225. National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce. Springfield, Virginia, 85 pp.
________ . 1970c. Evaluation of an Experimental Fish Reduction
Process Applicable to Small Fisheries. Final Report, Technical
Assistance Project No. 99-6-09028. Economic Development Administration.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C.
______ _ . 1970d. Extracts Crabmeat Automatically. Food^ Engineer ing,
42:2, 36."
______ . 1970e. FPC Plant Becomes Canadian Property. Oceanology
ID£ ernat iona 1 r 2:1, 13.
_________ . 1970f. Fisheries of the United States. ... 1969. C.F.S. No.
5300. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C., 89 pp.
373
-------
. 1970g. Micro Straining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overflows. Crane Co., Cochrane Division. Federal Water Quality
Administration, Department of Interior. Program Number 11023 EVO,
Contract Number 14-12-136.
. 1970h. $5 Million Contract Awarded for Construction of FPC
Plant. Qcean Industry, 5:1, 16.
. 1970i. Process for Waste Water Developed by Danish Firm.
Fj.sh_Boat_-_New_Or leans, 15:11, 25, 32.
. 1970j. Shrimp Factory Waste Reduced to Meal. Fishing News
International, 9:10, 34-36.
. 1970k. Tuna and Tuna-like Fish Received by California
Canneries, 1969. Western Packing News Service, 65:9, 5.
19701. Turning Waste Into Feed. Chemical Week, 107:24.
. 1971a. Canned Fishery Products - 1969. C.F.S. No. 5254.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Washington, D.C., 17 pp.
. 1971b. Canned Fishery Products - 1970. C.F.S. No. 5560.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 17 pp.
. 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. Frozen Fish Value up 14%; Hits $1.5 Billion in
1970. 2uick_Frozen_Foods, 34:86-89.
. 1971e. Industrial Fishery Products - 1970. C.F.S. No.
5561. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 9 pp.
. 1971f. OSU Mechanizing the Crab Industry. Corvallis
Gazette Times, August 4, 1971.
. 1971g. Packaged Fishery Products - 1969. C.F.S. No. 5256.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 5 pp.
. 1971h. Packaged Fishery Products - 1960. C.F.S. No., 5562.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 5 pp.
374
-------
. 19711. Pollution Abatement and By-Product Recovery In
Shellfish" and Fisheries Processing. CRESA Joint Venture. Food,
Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc., Environmental Protection
Agency. Project No. 12130FJQ, 85 pp.
. 1971j. Processed Fishery Products, Annual Summary - 1969.
C.F.S. No. 5723. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, D'.C., 42 pp.
. 1971k. Seafood Cannery Waste Study. Phase I - 1971.
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield. Bellevue, Washington, 48 pp.
. 19711. Seafood Waste Characteristics and Some Effects on
Water Quality. Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Operations
Office, Anchorage, Alaska, 42 pp.
. 1971m. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 13th Edition. American Public Health Association,
Washington, D.C., 874 pp.
. 1971n. Western Packing News, Service, 68:1, 4.
. 1972a. Canned Fishery Products - 1971. C.F.S. No. 5901.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 14 pp.
1972b. Crabshells Decrease Soil Acidity. Agricultural
"21:16.
. 1972c. 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.
. 1972d. Food Fish - Situation and Outlook. Current
Economic Analysis F-13. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C., 87 pp.
. 1972e. Industrial Fishery Products - 1971 Annual Review.
Current Economic Analysis 1-17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C., 35 pp.
. 1972f. Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities. Clark,
Dietz and Associates - Engineers, Inc. Sewacje Works Journal, 17:514-
515.
. 1972g. Investigation of Screening Equipment ±or Salmon
Cannery Wastewater. National Canners Association Northwest Research
Laboratory, Seattle, Washington, 26 pp.
375
-------
. 1972h. Microbiological Evaluation of Marine Peptones.
Haynie Products, Inc., Protein Division, Baltimore, Maryland, 13 pp.
. 1972i. Ocean Dumping. E.P.A. Office of Legislation
(unpublished) , 8 pp.
. 1972j. Packaged Fishery Products - 1971. C.F.S. No. 5908.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C., 5 pp.
. 1972k. "Pollution and the Fisheries," reprints of EPA 6-
WP-72-2, Water Pollution Control Directorate.
. 19721. Processed Fishery Products, Annual Summary - 1970.
C.F.S. No. 5883. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, D.C., 48 pp.
. 1972m. "Proposed Waste Treatment Study for American Shrimp
Canners Association," Domingue, Szabo and Associates, Inc., Lafayette,
Louisana.
_ _. 1972n. The TVA Catfish Program. The Catfish Farmer,
44734-357
. 1972o. "Wastewater Engineering," CollectionTreatment-
Disposal, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill.
. 1973a. Bibliography of R 6 M Research Reports.
Publications Branch, Research Information Division. E.P.A.-R5-73-012,
E.P.A., Washington, D.C.
. 1973b. Processors to Keep Plants Going During Shortage
Period. The Catfish^Farmer, 5, 3:19.
. 1973c. The Farm-Raised Catfish Processors. The Catfish
5, 3:20-21.
Ahlstrom, E. H. , 1968. An Evaluation of the Fishery Resources Available
to California Fishermen. In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of the
United States (D. Gilbert, ed.). Publications in Fisheries New Series,
Volume IV. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp. 68-80.
Alschul, A. M., 1969. Food: Proteins for Humans. Chemical and
News, 47:49, 68-81.
Alverson, D. L. , 1968. Fishery Resources in the Northeastern Pacific
Ocean. In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of the United States.
(D. Gilbert, ed.). Publications in Fisheries, New Series, Volume IV.
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp. 86-101.
376
-------
Anderson, E. E., 1971. U.S. Patent No. 3-586-515.
Anderson, J. O., K. Wisutharom and R. E. Warnick, 1968. Relation
Between the Available Essential Amino Acid Patterns in Four Fish Meals
and Their Values in Certain Broiler Rations. Poultry Science, 47:6,
1787-1796.
Anderson, L., 1945. A Preliminary Report on Alkali Process for the
Manufacture of Commercial Oil from Salmon Cannery Trimmings, Fishery
M§£l$et News, 7:4, 4-7.
Antonie, R. L., M. Wech, 1969. "Preliminary Results of a Novel
Biological Process for Treating Dairy Wastes." Proceedings of the 24th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Engineering Extension
Series, Part One, p. 115.
Arnesen, G., 1969. Total and Free Amino Acids in Fishmeals and Vacuum-
dried Codfish Organs, Flesh, Bones, Skin, and Stomach Contents. Journal
21. th§ Science of Foods and Agriculture, 20:218-220.
Atkins, P. F., O. J. Sproul. "Feasibility of Biological Treatment of
Potato Processing Waste," Journal^Water Pollution Control Federation,
No. 38, p. 1287, Aug. 1966.
Autotrol Corporation, Bio-System Division "Application of Rotating Disc
Process to Municipal Wastewater Treatment." E.P.A. 17050 DAM 11/71.
Baelum, J., 1961. Fish and Fishery Products in Poultry Rations. Paper
No. R/IV.5. In: Report of Food and Agricultural Organization
International Conference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C., pp.
2.22.1-2.22.14.
Bailey, B. E. (ed.), 1952. Marine Oils. Bulletin No. 89. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
Baker, D. A., J. White. "Treatment of Meat Packing Waste Using PVC
Trickling Filters." Proceedings Second National Symposium on Feed
Processing Wastes, Washington, D.C., p. 286, 1971.
Barr, J., 1973. Personal Communication.
Earth, E. F., 1971. Perspectives on Wastewater Treatment Processes—
Physical-Chemical-and Biological. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 43:2187-2194.
Barksdale, B., 1968. Catfish Farming. The_Farm_p.uarterly. 23:4, 62-
67.
377
-------
Beall, D.r 1933. Losses in the Effluent of Pilchard Reduction Plants in
British Columbia. Bulletin 35. The Biological Board of Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, 11 pp.
Beall, D., 1937. Dissolved Nitrogenous Material in the Effluent of
Pilchard Reduction Plants. Journal of the Biological Board of Canada.
3:177-179.
Beatty, G., 1964. Processing and Handling Equipment. Fishimj News
International, 3:375-377.
Bell, F. A., 1963. Distribution and Description of Fisheries. In:
Industrial Fishery Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, pp. 22-40.
Bertullo, V. H., 1968. Fish Protein Concentrates for Human Consumption
- A Review of Processing Methods. In: The Safety of Food. (S. C.
Ayres, ed.). AVI Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 270-
277.
Billy, T. J., 1969a. Personal Communication.
Billy, T. J., 1969b. Processing Pond-Raised Catfish. Ms. AA-61.
Final Draft. Technological Laboratory, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 13 pp. Bisio,
F., 1969. Personal Communication.
Boggess, T. S., Jr., E. K. Heaton, A. L. Shewfelt and D. W. Parrin,
1973. Techniques for Stunning Channel Catfish and Their Effects on
Product Quality. Submitted to Journal_of_Food_Science, 18 pp.
Borchardt, J. A., and F. G. Pohland, 1970. Anaerobic Treatment of
Alewife Processing Wastes. Journal of the Water Pollution control
Federation, 42:2060-2068.
Borgstrom, G. and C. D. Paris, 1965. The Regional Development of
Fisheries and Fish Processing. In: Fish as Food, Volume III (G.
Borgstrom, ed.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 301-397.
Boussu, M. F., 1969. Harvesting Pond-Raised Catfish. Presented at the
Commercial Fish Farming Conference, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia, 11 pp.
Braude, R., 1961. Fish and Fishery Products in Pig Nutrition. Paper
No. R/IV.4. In: Report of Food and Agriculture Organization
International Conference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C., pp.
2.21.1-2.21.42.
Breirem, K., A. E. Kern, T. Homb, H. Hvidsten and O. Ulvesli, 1961.
Fish and Fishery Products in Ruminant Nutrition. Paper No. R/IV.3. In:
378
-------
Report of Food and Agriculture Organization and International Conference
on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C., pp. 2.20.1-2.20.13.
Brocklesby, H. N., and O. F. Denstedt, 1933. The Industrial Chemistry
of Fish Oils with Particular Reference to those of British Columbia.
Bulletin 37. The Biological Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 150 pp.
Brodersen, K. T., October, 1971. "Characterization of Fish Processing
Plant Effluents" for Federal Government of Canada, Department of the
Environment.
Broderson, K. T., 1972. A Study of the Waste Characteristics of Fish
Processing Plants Located in the Maritime Region. Water Pollution
Control Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Report No. EPA-4-
WP-72-1. Ontario, 76 pp.
Brody, J., 1965. Fishery By-Products Technology. AVI Publishing
Company, Westport, Connecticut, 232 pp.
Brooks, D. E., D. M. Crosgrove, and R. A. DeCamp, 1970. Salmon Cannery
Waste Survey. National Canners Association, Northwest Research
Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
Brooks, D. E. and D. M. Crosgrove, 1971. Freezing and Heat Processing
as Preservation Techniques for Salmon Cannery Waste Samples. National
Canners Association. Northwest Research Laboratory, Seattle,
Washington, 6 pp.
Brooks, K., 1970. Centrifuges. Chemical Week, 110:15, 33-48.
Brown, R. L., 1959. Protein Analysis of Shrimp-Waste Meal. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 21:2a, 6-8.
Buczowska, Z. and J. Dabaska, 1956. (Characteristics of the Wastes of
the Fish Industry) . Byuj... Inst. Med. Morsk. Gdansk, 7:204-212.
Bullis, H. R., Jr., and J. S. Carpenter, 1968. Latent Fishery Resources
of the Central west Atlantic Region. In: The Future of the Fishing
Industry of the United States (D. Gilbert, ed.). Publications in
Fisheries New Series Volume IV. University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, pp. 61-64.
Burbank, N. C., J. S. Jumagai. "A Study of a Pineapple Cannery Waste."
Proceedings of the 20th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University,
Engineering Extension Series, No. 118, p. 365 (1965).
Burgess, G. H. O., C. L. Cutting, J. A. Lovern and J. J. Waterman
(eds.), 1967. Fish Handling and Processing. Chemical Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, 389 pp.
379
-------
Burrows, R. E. and N. L. Karrick, 1953. A Biological Assay of the
Nutritional Value of Certain Salmon Cannery Waste Products. In:
Utilization of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste. Special Scientific Report:
Fisheries No. 109. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C.
pp. 49-65.
Butler, C. and D. Miyauchi, 1953. The Preparation of Vitamin Oils from
Salmon Cannery Offal by the Alkali Digestion Process. In: Utilization
of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste (M. Stansby, ed.). Special Scientific
Report No. 109. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C.
Buzzel, J. C., Jr., A. L. J. Caron, S. J. Rykman, and 0. J. Sproul,
July and August, 1964. "Biological Treatment of Protein Water From
Manufacture of Potato Starch—Part I and II." Water_and_Sewage_Works.
Calson, C. J., 1955. Preparation of Smoked Salmon Caviar Spread.
Commercial Fisheries_Review, 27:21.
Camin, K. Q., 1970. "Cost of Waste Treatment in the Meat Packing
Industry." Proceedings of the 25th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue
University, Engineering Extension Series, Part One, pp. 193-202.
Camin, K. Q., November, 1968. "Cost of Clean Water Vol. Ill, Industrial
Waste Profile No. 8. Meat Products FWFCA.
Camn, W. L., 1969. "Waste Treatment and Control at Live OaK Poultry
Processing Plant." Presented at the 18th Southern Water Resource and
Pollution Control Conference, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Carawan, R., 1973. Personal Communication.
Carbine, W. F., 1969. Personal Communication.
Carlson, C., M. Knudson and H. Shanks, 1969. Personal Communication.
Carlson, D. A., 1972. Summary: Food Wastes Research—Where Do We Go
From Here? Proceedings, Third National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes. National Environmental Research Center, E.P.A.
Carlson, D. A., 1973. Personal Communication.
Carlson, D. A., K. Guttormsen, 1969. "Current Practice in Potato
Processing Waste Treatment," E.P.A. DAST-14.
Carpenter, G. A. and J. Olley, 1960. Preservation oi Fish and Fish
Offal for Oil and Meal Manufacture. Torry Technical Paper No. 2. Great
Britain Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Aberdeen,
Scotland, 31 pp.
380
-------
Caudill, H.r 1968. "Application of the Anaerobic Trickling Filter to
Domestic Sewage and Potato Wastes." University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington.
Chur 1971. Total Utilization of Hake (Merluccius_2roductos, Chittenden,
J. A., W. J. Wells. "Rotating Biological Contation. University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Chittenden, J. A., W. J. Wells. "Rotating Biological Contractors
Following Anaerobic Lagoons." Journal Water Pollution Control,
Federation Volume 43, No. 5, pp. 746-54.
Chu, C. and G. M. Pigott, 1960. A Process for Total Utilization of Fish
by Aqueous Extraction. Presented at the 1960 Winter Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Chicago, Illinois, pp. 1-
10.
Chun, M. J., et al., 1970. A Characterization of Tuna Packing Waste.
Water_and_S ewa cje_Wor ks, 117:10, 3-10.
Claggett, F. G., September, 1970. "A Proposed Demonstration Plant for
Treating Fish Processing Plant Wastewater." Technical Report No. 197.
Fisheries Research Board, Canada.
Claggett, F. G., October, 1972. "Clarification of Fish Processing Plant
Effluents by Chemical Treatment and Air Flotation." Technical Report
No. 343. Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Claggett, F. G., 1967. Clarification of Waste Water Other Than Stick
Water from British Columbia Fishing Plants. Technical Report 14.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C., 8 pp.
Claggett, F. G., November, 1971. "Demonstration Wastewater Treatment
Unit." Interim Report 1971 Salmon Season. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada.
Claggett, F. G., January, 1973. "Secondary Treatment of Salmon Canning
Wastewater by Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC)." Technical Report
No. 366. Fisheries Research Board of Can.
Claggett, F. G. and J. Wong, 1968. Salmon Canning Wastewater
Clarification. Part 1. Flotation by Total Flow Pressurization.
Circular No. 38. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C.,
9 pp.
Claggett, F. G.and J. Wong, January, 1968 and February, 1969. "Salmon
Canning Wastewater Clarification." Part I and II, Circular No. 33 and
42. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver Laboratory,
Vancouver, B.C.
381
-------
Claggett, F. G. and J. Wong, 1969. Salmon Canning Waste Water
Clarification. Part III. A Comparison of Various Arrangements for
Flotation and Some Observations Concerning Sedimentation and Herring
Pump Water Clarification. Circular No. 42. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. Vancouver, B.C., 25 pp.
Claggett, F. G., 1970. A Proposed Demonstration Plant for Treating Fish
Processing Plant Waste Water. Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Technical Report No. 197. Vancouver, B.C., 10 pp.
Claggett, F. G., 1971. Demonstration Waste Water Treatment Unit.
Interim Report 1971 Salmon Season. Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Technical Report No. 286. Vancouver, B.C., 4 pp.
Claggett, F. G., 1973. Personal Communication.
Clark, Sidney E., et al., June, 1970. "Biological Waste Treatment in
the Far North." Federal Water Quality Administration. Department of
Interior Project No. 1610.
Clark and Groff Engineers, 1967. Evaluation of Seafood Processing
Plants in South Central Alaska. Contract No. ED-EDA-2. Branch of
Environmental Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Health
and Welfare, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, 28 pp.
Clemens, H. B., 1959. Status of the Fishery for Tunas of the Temperate
Waters of the Eastern North Pacific. Circular 65. Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 42 pp.
Collins, J., 1973a. Tentative Oil and Grease Analysis for Fishing Waste
Effluents. Unpublished technical report (No. 102) , 4 pp.
Collins, J., 1973. Personal Communication.
Combs, G. F., 1961. The Role of Fish for Animal Feeding. Paper No.
R/1.5. In: Report of Food and Agriculture Organization International
Conference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C., pp. 1.5.1-1.5.12.
Cooke, N. E. and N. M. Carter, 1947. Is Our Fish Waste Being Explored
Fully? In: Progress Report of Pacific Coast Station. No. 71.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C., pp. 5-10
Graver, J. H. and F. J. King, 1971. Fish Scrap Offers High Quality
Protein. Food Engineering, 43:75-76.
Crawford, D., 1973. Personal Communication.
Crawford, D. L., 1969. Personal Communication.
382
-------
Crawford, D. L., J. K. Babbitt and D. K. Law, 1971. Utilization of
Fillet Waste from Demersal Species of Food Fish. Nutritional Up-Grading
of Fillet Plant Waste with Deboning and Skinning Machines. O.S.U.
Department of Food Science and Technology, Seafoods Laboratory. Sea
Grant Project No. 013, Astoria, Oregon, 24 pp.
Cronan, C. S., 1960. Clam Shells Kill Waste Acid. . Chemical
Engineering, 67:12, 78.
Cyrus, Wm. Rice and Company, July, 1971. P"Projected Wastewater
Treatment Costs in the Organic Chemical Industry." E.P.A. 12020 GND
07/71.
Czapik, A., 1961. Fauna of the Experimental Sewage Works in Krakow.
Acta. Hydrobiol., 3:63-67.
Dassow, J. A., 1963a. The Crab and Lobster Fisheries. In: Industrial
Fishery Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing
Corporation. New York, pp. 193-208.
Dassow, J. A., 1963b. The Halibut Fisheries. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New
York, pp. 120-130.
Davis, H. C., 1944. Disposal of Liquid Waste from Fish Canneries, from
the Viewpoint of the Fishing Industry. Sewage Works Journal, 17:514-
515.
deSollano, C. D., 1967. Mexican Firm Introduces Shipboard Fishmeal
Plant. The Fishing Gazette and Sea_Angler, 150:6, 63-64.
Dewberry, E. B., 1964. How Shrimps are Canned at a New Orleans Factory.
Food—Manufacture, 39:7, 35-39.
Dewberry, E. B.f 1969. Tuna Canning in the United States. Fooa Trade
5§viewr 39:1, 37-39.
Deyoe, C. W., 1969. Personal Communication.
Dostal, K. A., 1969. "Secondary Treatment of Potato Processing Wastes."
E.P.A. 12060.
Drangsholt, C., 1948. (Proceeds and Apparatus for the Continuous
Treatment of Waste Waters from the Extraction of oils ±rom Herrings or
Whales.) Chim.._et_Industr. 60:574.
Dresoti, G. M., 1967. Fish Solids from Factory Effluents. Fishing News
International, 6:11, 53-54.
Duggan, J. R., 1973. Personal Communication.
383
-------
Dyer, J. A., 1967. Personal Communication.
Eckenfelder, W. W. , 1970. "Water Quality Engineering for Practicing
Engineers." Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, p. 292.
Edwards, L. E. , 1968. Fishery Resources of the North Atlantic Area.
In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of the United States (D.
Gilbert, ed.). Publications in Fisheries, New Series, Volume IV.
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp. 52-60.
Ehlert, H. M., 1962. Treating Oil-Containing Animal Material, Such as
Fish and Fish Offal. U. S. Patent No. 3-041-174, 2 pp.
Emerson, D. B. , N. L. Nemerow, 1969. "High Solids, Biological Aeration
of Unneutralized, Unsettled Tannery Wastes." Proceedings of the 24th
Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University, Engineering Extension
Series, Part Two, p. 869-879.
Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973. Technical Proposal. Effluent
Guidelines — Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood Processing Industry.
Corvallis, Oregon, 74 pp.
Eyck, R. N. Ten, H. W. Magnusson, and J. E. Bjork, 1951. A Brief Study
of the Alkali Process for Recovery of Oil from Pink Salmon Cannery
Waste. Technical Note No. 14. Corruner cial_Fisher ie s_Re view , 13:11, 39-
43.
Fair, G. M. and J. Geyer, 1958. Elements of Water Supply and Waste
Water Disposal. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 597 pp.
Finch, R.r 1963. The Tuna Industry. In: Industrial Fishery Technology
(M. E. Stansby, ed.) . Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, pp.
87-105.
Finsberg, H. and A. G. Johanson, 1967. Industrial Use of Fish Oils.
Circular 278. Bureau of commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C.
Fladmark, M., 1952. Manufacture of Oil and Food Products from Herring,
Whales, and other Sea Animals. United States Patent No. 2-590-303.
Abs tract s , 46:6855C.
Foess, J., 1969. Industrial and Domestic Waste Testing Program for the
City of Bellingham (unpublished) . Cornell, Howland, Hayes and
Merryfield, Inc., Seattle, Washington, 17 pp.
Freeman, H. C. , and P. L. Hoogland, 1956. Acid Ensilage from Cod and
Haddock Offal. In: Progress Report of the Atlantic Coast Stations, No.
65. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, pp. 24-25.
384
-------
Gaffney, P. E. and H. Heukelekian, April, 1958. "Oxygen Demand
Measurement Errors in Pure Organic Compounds, Nitrification Studies."
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, No. 15, p. 503.
Gallagher, F. S., 1959. Fish Meal Fertilizer Wastes. Industrial
Wastes, 4:5, 87-88.
Gilbert, W. S., 1969. Personal Communication.
Grau, C. R., L. E. Ousterhout, B. C. Lundholm and N. L. Karrick, 1959.
Progress on Investigation of Nutritional Value of Fishmeal Protein.
Commercial_Fisheries_Review,21:2z, 1-3.
Green, J. H. and L. C. Schisler, 1972. New Methods Under Investigation
for the Utilization of Fish Solubles, a Fishery By-Product, as a Means
of Pollution Abatement. Abstract to be submitted to the Committee for
the fourth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. To be held in
Syracuse, New York, March, 1973, 1 p.
Greenfield, J. E., 1969. Some Economic Characteristics of Pond-Raised
Catfish Enterprises. Working paper No. 23. Division of Economic
Research, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S.D.I. Ann Arbor, Michigan,
19 pp.
Griffen, A. E., 1950. Treatment with Chlorine of Industrial Wastes.
Engineering Contract Record, 63:74-80.
Grizzell, R. A., Jr., E. G. Sullivan and O. W. Dillon, Jr., 1968.
Catfish Farming: An Agricultural Enterprise. Unpublished report. Soil
Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.
Groninger, H. S., Jr., 1972. Better Utilization of Fisheries Products
Through Improved and New Handling and Processing Concepts. Journal of
Milk and Food Technology, 35:8, 479-481.
Gruger, E. H., Jr., 1960. Methods of Separation of Fatty Acids from
Fish Oils with Emphasis on Industrial Applications. Fishery Industrial
Research, 2:1, 31-40.
Gunther, J. K. and L. Sair, 1947. Process for Treating Fish Press
Water. U. S. Patent No. 2-454-315. Chemical Abstracts, 43:2342.
Guttman, A. and F. A. Vandenheuvel, 1957. The Production of Edible Fish
Protein from Cod and Haddock. In: Progress Reports of the Atlantic
Coast Stations, No. 67. Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, 29 pp.
Hag, S. A., I. H. Siddiqui and A. H. Kahn, 1969. Studies on Blanched
Water - A Waste Product of the Shrimp Canning Industry. Pakistan
2l Scientific and Industrial Research, 12:1/2, 49-51.
385
-------
Hammonds and L. Call, 1970. Utilization of Protein Ingredients in the
U.S. Food Industry, Part II: The Future Market for
Cornell University Agriculture Experiment Station, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
Hannewijk, J., 1967. Use of Fish Oils in Margarine and Shortening.
Circular 279. Bureau of commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, B.C., 19 pp.
Hansen, P., 1959. (Ensilage of Fish and Fish Offal). FAO World
Fisheries Abstracts, Jan/Feb 1960.
Harrison, R. W., A. W. Anderson, A. D. Holmes and G. M. Pigott, 1937.
Vitamin Content of Oils from Cannery Trimmings of Salmon from the
Columbia River and Puget Sound Regions. Investigational Report No. 36.
Bureau of Fisheries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 8
pp.
Hart, J. L., H. B. Marshall and D. Beall, 1933. The Extent of the
Pollution Caused by Pilchard Reduction Plants in British Columbia.
Bulletin 39. The Biological Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 11 pp.
Hartsock, F. B. and P. L. Peterson, 1971. Crab Live-Tanking and
Suggestions for Improved Methods with Special Reference to Tanner Crabs.
Technical Report No. 96. N.M.F.S. Technological Laboratory, Kodiak,
Alaska.
Heaton, E. L., T. S. Boggess, Jr., T. K. Hill and R. E. Worthington,
1972. Dressing Percentage and Waste from Albino and Regular Channel
Catfish Raised in Cages. Unpublished data. Georgia Experiment Station,
Experiment Georgia.
Heaton, E. K., T. S. Boggess, Jr., T. K. Hill and R. E. Worthington,
1973. Quality Comparisons of Albino and Regular (Gray) Cnannel Catfish
of Varying Size. Submitted to Journal_of_Food_Science.
Heaton, E. K., T. S. Boggess, Jr., and D. R. Landes, 1970. Some
Observations of Tank Cultured Channel Catfish. In: Proceedings of
Conference on High Density Fish Culture (J. Andrews, ed.), pp. 41-49.
Heukelekian, J., I. Gellman, 1951. "Studies of Biochemical Oxidation by
Direct Methods, 11. Effects of certain Environmental Factors on
Biochemical Oxidation of
Wastes." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, No. 33, p. 1546.
Hovions, J. C., J. A. Fisher, R. A. Conway, Jan. 1972. "Anaerobic
Treatment of Synthetic Organic Wastes." E.P.A. 12020 DIS
386
-------
Holt, S. J. , 1969. The Food Resources of the Ocean. Scientific
American, 221:3, 178-194.
Hopkins, E. S. and J. Einarsson, 1961. Water Supply and Waste Disposal
at a Food Processing Plant. Industrial Water and Wastes, 6:152-154.
Idler, D. R. and P. J. Schmidt, 1955. A Soluble Fertilizer from Shrimp
Waste. In: Progress Report of the Pacific Coast Station 103.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 16-17.
Idyll, C. P., 1963. The Shrimp Fishery. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.) . Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New
York, pp. 160-182.
Jacobs Engineering Co., 1971. Pollution Abatement Study for the Tuna
Research Foundation, Inc., 120 pp.
Jaegers, K. and J. Haschke, 1957. (Waste Waters from the Fish
Processing Industry). Wasserwi_Wass_._Techru , 6:311.
Jensen, C. L., 1965. Industrial Wastes from Seafood Plants in the State
of Alaska. Proceedings, 20th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue
University Engineering Exten-sion Series, No. 118, pp. 329-350.
Jones, E. D., 1958. Personal Communication.
Jones, G. I., E. J. Carrigan and J. A. Dassow, 1950. Utilization of
Salmon Eggs for Production of Cholesterol, Lipids and Protein.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:lla, 8-14.
Jones, G. I., and E. J. Carrigan, 1953. Possibility of Development of
New Products from Salmon Cannery Waste: Literature Survey. In:
Utilization of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste, Special Scientific Report:
Fisheries No. 109 (M. E. Stansby, et al. , ed.). Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C., pp. 7-35.
Jones, W. G., 1960. The Use of Fish in Pet Foods. Fishery Leaflet 501.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. D.I.
Washington, D.C., 22 pp.
Jones, W. G., 1969. Market Prospects for Farm Catfish Production.
Presented at the Commercial Fish Farming Conference, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 24 pp.
Jordan, G., 1937. (Fish Meal Factories and Their Waste Waters). Kleine
Mitt,.. Vera Wasser^ Boden-u. Lufthy.c[_. 13:308. ~~~
Jordan, R. M. , 1973. Personal Communication. University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado.
387
-------
Jorgensen, G., 1964. Trials with Redfish (gebasteg marinus) for Young
Mink. World Fisheries^Abstracts, 15:Jan-March, 41-42.
Jorgensen, S. E., 1970. Ion Exchange of foastewater from the Foodstuff
Industry. Pollution^Abstracts, 2:2, 163 (No. 71-2TF-0274).
June, F. C., 1963. The Menhaden Fishery. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New
York, pp. 146-159.
Kamasastri, P. V. and P. V. Prabho, 1961. Preparation of Chitin and
Glucosamine from Prawn Shell Waste. Journal of Scientific Industrial
E§§§§rch (India), 20D, 466.
Karrick, N. L., 1967. Nutritional Value of Fish Oils as Animal Feed.
Circular 281. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fj.sh and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 21 pp.
Karrick, N. L., and M. A. Edwards, 1953. Vitamin Content of
Experimental Fish Hatchery Foods. In: Utilization of Alaskan Salmon
Cannery Waste. Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 109 (M. E.
Stansby, et al., eds.). Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington,
D.C., pp. 79-89.
Karrick, N. L. and M. E. Stansby, 1954. Vitamin Content of Fishery By-
products. Cgmmercial_Fisheries_Review, 16:2, 7-10.
Karrick, N. L., W. Clegg, and M. E. Stansby, 1954. Vitamin Content of
Fishery By-Products. Commercial_Fi§heries Review, 19:5a, 14-23. (
Kato, K. and S. Ishikawa, 1969. Fish Oil and Protein Recovered from
Fish Processing Effluent. Water and_ sewage Works, 116:412-416.
Kawada, H., K. Kataya, T. Takahashi, and H. Kuriyama, 1955. (Studies on
the Complete Utilization of Whole Fish. Part 4. The Chemical
Composition of Some Fish Viscera and the Fish Soluble Feed Made from
Cuttlefish Liver.) Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific
Fisheries, 21:7, 503-511. ~
Keil, R. and F. Randow, 1962. (Chemical and Bacteriological Results in
Waste Waters of the Rostack Fish Works.) Wasserw. Wass. Techn., 12:291-
393.
Kempe, L. L., N. E. Lake and R. C. Scherr, 1968. Disposal of Fish
Processing Wastes. Office of Research Administration, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 46 pp.
Kennedy Engineers, Inc., 1964. Report on Waste Disposal in Pago Pago
Harbor, Tutuila, American Samoa, 24 pp.
388
-------
Kennedy Engineers, Inc., 1972. Updated Report on Wastewater Disposal,
Pago Pago Harbor, Tutuila, American Samoa, 93 pp.
Khandker, N. A., 1962. The Composition of Shrimp Meal Made From Fresh
and Spoiled Shrimp Heads. Commercial Fisheries, Review, 19:5a, 14-23.
King, F. J., J. H. Carver and R. Prewitt, 1971. Machines for Recovery
of Fish Flesh from Bones. American Fish Farmer, 2, 11:17-21.
Knobl, G. M., Jr., 1967. World Efforts Toward FPC. In: The Fish
Protein Concentrate Story. Food, Technology, 21:1108-1111.
Knowlton, W. T., 1945. Effects of Industrial Wastes from Fish Canneries
on Sewage Treatment Plants. Sewage_Works Journal, 17:514-515.
Kohler, R., Sept., 1969. "Das Flotationsverfahren und seine Anwendung
in der Abwassertechnik." Wasser luft_und Betrieb. Vol. 13, No. 9.
Kornberg, W., 1966. Extraction Process Wins Protein from Fish.
Chemical_Engineering, 73:4, 98-100.
Krishnaswamy, M. A., S. B. Kadkol and G. D. Revankar, 1965. Nutritional
Evaluation of an Ensiled Product from Fish. Canadian Journal of
Biochemistry, 43:1879-1883.
Kyte, R. M., 1957. Enzymes as an Aid in Separating Oil from Protein in
Salmon Eggs. Commercial Fisheries Review, 19:4a, 30-34.
Kyte, R. M., 1958. Potential By-Products from Alaska Fisheries:
Utilization of Salmon Eggs and Salmon Wastes. Commercial Fisheries
Review, 20:3, 1-5.
Landgraf, R. G., Jr., D. T. Miyauchi and M. E. Stansby, 1951.
Utilization of Alaska Salmon Cannery Waste as a Source of Feed for
Hatchery Fish. Conunercial_Fisheries_Reyiew, 13:lla, 26-33.
Landgraf, R. G., Jr., 1953. Alaskan Pollock: Proximate Composition.
Commercial^ Fisheries^Reyiew, 15:7, 20-22.
Langno, R. D., 1970. Relationships of Shrimp Width and Weight to
Mechanical Sizing. Studies in Marine Economics. Report No. 308., 4 pp.
Lantz, A. W., 1948. Utilization of Freshwater Fish, Trimmings, and
Offal. Progress Report of the Pacific Coast Station No. 76. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C., pp. 78-80.
Larsen, B. A. and W. W. Hawkins, 1961. The Quality of Fish Flour, Liver
Meal and Visceral Meal as Sources of Dietary Protein. Journal of
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 18:1, 85-91.
389
-------
Lassen, S., 1963. The Sardine, Mackerel and Herring Fisheries. In:
Industrial Fishery Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, pp. 131-145.
Lassen, S., 1965. Fish Solubles. In: Fish as Food, Volume III (G.
Borgstrom, ed.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 281-299.
Lee, A. W., 1968. Continuous Dissolved-Air Flotation of Emulsified
Mineral Oil. Thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology. Dissertation
Abstracts, 30:13, 1727.
Lee, C. F., 1951. Chemistry of Menhaden: Report on Literature Study.
Cpmmercial_Fisheri§s_Re_yiew, 13:lla, 11-20.
Lee, C. F., 1958. Report on Development of Fungicides from Fish Oils.
Commercial_Fisheries; Review, 20:6, 20.
Lee, C. F., 1961. Industrial Products Trends...Developments. Fishing
Gazette (New York), 78:13, 130-132.
Lee, C. F. and F. B. Sanford, 1963. Handling and Packing of Frozen
Breaded Shrimp and Individually Peeled and Deveined Shrimp. Commercial
Zi§h§£i§s Review, 25:11, 1-10.
Leekley, J. R., R. G. Landgraf, J. E. Bjork and W. A. Hagevig, 1952.
Salmon Cannery Wastes for Mink Feed. Fishery Leaflet No. 405. Fish and
Wildlife Service. U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 30 pp.
Leong, K. C., G. M. Knobl, Jr., D. G. Snyder and E. H. Gruger, Jr.,
1964. Feeding of Fish Oil and Ethyl Ester Fractions of Fish Oil to
Broilers, Poultry Science, 43:1235-1240.
Lessing, L., July, 1973. "Assault of the Earth Joins the War on
Pollution." Fortune, p. 138.
Limprich, H., 1966. Abwasserprobleme der Fischindustrie (Problems
Arising from Waste Waters from the Fish Industry.) IWL-Forum 66/IV, 36
pp.
Liston, J., G. M. Pigott, G. R. Limb and B. Manickan, 1969. Studies in
the Rational Total Utilization of Fishery Products. In: 1968 Research
in Fisheries. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp. 79-81.
Longnecker, 0. M., Jr., 1968. The Place of the Shrimping Industry in
the United States Fisheries. In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of
the United States (D. Gilbert, ed.). Publications in Fisheries, New
Stories, Volume IV. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp.
111-117.
390
-------
Lopez, J. L. G.t 1967. Fish Meal Manufacturing Machines on Board
Shrimpers - Economic Study. Available from: Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 11
pp.
Lorio, W. J., 1973. Catfish Research at Mississippi State. Tne Catfish
5, 1:38-39.
Luneburg, H., 1943. (Investigations of Waste Waters from the Fishmeal
Industry) . Wasser and Abwasser, 41:15.
Lyles, C. H., 1969. Fisheries of the United States . . . 1968. C.F.S.
No. 5000. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 83 pp.
Magasawn, 1968. (The Achievement of Waste Water Treatment in Public
Nuisances Prevention Corporation). Weiter_and Waste, 10:66.
Magnusson, H. W. and W. H. Hagevig, 1950. Salmon Cannery Trimmings.
Part I. Relative Amounts of Separated Parts. Commercial Fisheries
Review, 12:9, 9-12.
Mahoney, J. G., M. E. Rowley and L. E. West, 1970. Industrial Waste
Treatment Opportunities for Reverse Osmosis. In: Membrane Science and
Technology. Industrial, Biological and Waste Treatment Processes. (J.
E. Flinn, ed.) . Plenum Press, New York, 240 pp.
Majewski, J., 1959. Liquid Feed Concentrate from Fishes and Fish
Wastes. Centraine Laboratorium Przemysto Rybnego.
Malick, J. G., et al., February, 1971. "Salmon Cannery Waste Study."
Fisheries Research Institute, University of Wasnington, Seattle,
Washington.
Marvin, J. and E. E. Anderson, 1959. Animal Food from Clam Waste.
United States Patent No. 3^017-273.
Mattei, V. and W. T. Roddy, 1959. The Use of Fish Oils for Fatliquoring
Leather. III. Suitability of Ocean Perch, Herring, Salmon, and
Menhaden Oils in Fatliquoring. Journal of the American Leather Chemists
Association, 54:640-653. ~~
Matusky, F. E., J. P. Lawler, T. P. Quirk and E. J. Genetelli, 1965.
Preliminary Process Design and Treatability Studies of Fish Processing
Wastes. Proceedings, 20th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University Engineering Extension Series, No. 118, 60-74.
Mayo, W. E., June, 1966. "Recent Developments in Flotation for
Industrial Waste Treatment." 13th Ontario Industrial Waste Treatment,
pp. 169-181.
391
-------
Mauldin, F., 1973. Personal Communication. Unpublished data, Canned
Shrimp Industry. Waste Treatment Model in Louisana Sampling Plant.
McFall, W. T.r 1971a. A Batch Screening Study of Shrimp Processing
Waste and Tanner Crab Ground Butchering Waste. First Draft.
Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Operations, 7 pp.
McFall, W. T., 1971b. Personal Communication.
McGauley, T. C. and L. Peterson, 1971. Report on a Waste Treatment
System for the Propoise Harbour Fish Cannery. (Unpublished report).
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 8 pp.
McKee, L. G., 1948. Planting and Marketing Oysters in the Pacific
Northwest. Fishery Leaflet 52. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C., 6 pp.
McKee, L. G., 1963. The Oyster, Clam, Scallop and Abalone Fisheries.
In: Industrial Fishery Technology. (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, New York, pp. 183-192.
McNabney, Ralph and John Wynne, August, 1971. Ozone: tThe Coming
Treatment? Water_and Waste Engineering, p. 46.
Meade, T. L., 1971. Recent Advances in the Fish By-Products Industry.
CRC Critical^Reviews^in Food^Technology,2:1, 1-19.
Meinhold, T. F. and P. C. Thomas, 1958. Chitosan - Useful Chemical from
Shrimp Shells. Chejnical_Prgcessincj, 21:4, 121.
Meiske, J. C. and R. D. Goodrich, 1968. Minnesota Reports Results of
Beef Cattle Experiments - Value of Oyster Shells and Alfalfa-Breme Hay
in Finishing Rations for Yearling Steers. Feedstuffs, 40:42, 63.
Mendenhall, M. A., 1971. Utilization and Disposal of Crab and Shrimp
Wastes. Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 2. Publication No. 15, Anchorage,
Alaska, 39 pp.
Metcalf 6 Eddy, Inc., 1972. "Waste Water Engineering Collection,
Treatment, Disposal." McGraw-Hill Company, p. 206.
Meyer, F., 1973. Personal Communication.
Meyers, #. P. and J. E. Rutledge, 1971a. Economic Utilization of
Crustacean Meals. F§e_dstuffs, 43:43, 16.
Meyers, s. P. and J. E. Rutledge, 1971. Shrimp Meal - A New Look at an
Old Product. Feedstuffs, 43, 49:31.
392
-------
Michaels, A. S.r 1968. New Separation Technique for the CPI. Chemical
Engineering Progre ss , 64:12, 31.
Miller, J., 1973a. Personal Communication.
Miller, J. , 1973b. National Effluent Standards. Presented at ABA Water
Quality Seminar April 6, 1973, San Francisco, California. Office of
General Counsel, E.P.A. , 16 pp.
Mulkey, L. A. and T. N. Sargent, 1972. Catfish Processing - Waste Lands
and Water Management. Unpublished Report. E.P.A. Southeast
Environmental Laboratory, Athens, Georgia, 33 pp.
Muzzarelli, R. A. A., 1970. Uptake of Nitrosyl 106 - Ruthenium on
Chi tin and Chitosan from Waste Solutions and Polluted sea Water. Water
Research, 4:451-455.
Nachenius, R. J. , 1964. Stickwater Evaporator Fundamentals. Fishing
N§ws International, 3:3, 53-54.
Nakatani, R. E. , et al. , December, 1971. "The Effects of Salmon Cannery
Waste on Water Quality and Marine Organisms at Petersburg, Alaska,
1971." Fisheries Research Institute. University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington.
National Marine Fishery Service, 1973. Fisheries of the United States,
1972. C.F.S. No. 6100. National Oceanographic Atmospheric
Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C., 101 pp.
Needier, A. B. , 1931. The Haddock. Bulletin No. 25. The Biological
Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada, 28 pp.
Nelson, D. J., T. C. Rains and J. A. Norris, 1966. High-Purity Calcium
Carbonate in Freshwater Clam Shell. Science, 152.:1368-1370.
Nemerow, N. L. , 1971. "Liquid Waste of Industry. Theories, Practices
and Treatment." Addison - Wesley Publishing Company, p. 87.
Novak, A., 1973. Personal Communication. Nunn, R. R., 1969. Fish
Protein Concentrate is on the Rise. Part 2: The VioBin Process and How
it Works. Ocean Industry, 4:1, 36-40.
Nunnallee, D. and B. Mar, 1969. A Quantative Compilation of Industrial
and Commercial Wastes in the State of Washington. 1967-69 Research.
Project Study 3F. State Water Pollution Control Commission. Olympia,
Washington, 126 pp.
Olden, J. H. , 1960. Fish Flour for Human Consumption. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 22:1, 12-18.
393
-------
Olden, J. H., 1960. Good Prospects for Fish Oils as PreFlotation Agent.
The Fish Boat. 5:6, 45.
Oldfield, J. E. and A. F. Anglemier, 1957. Feeding of Crude and
Modified Menhaden Oils in Rations for Swine. Journal of Animal Science,
16:4, 917-921.
Olley, J., J. E. Ford, and A. P. Williams, 1968. Nutritional Value of
Fish Visceral Meals. Journal_of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
19:282-285.
Ousterhout, L. E.f and D. G. Snyder, 1961. Effects of Processing on the
Nutritive Value of Fish Products in Animal Nutrition. Paper No. R/IV.l.
In: Report of Food and Agriculture Organization International Con-
ference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C., pp. 2.18.1-2.18.11.
Paessler, A. H. and R. V. Davis, 1956. Waste Waters From Menhaden Fish
Oil and Meal Processing Plants. Proceedings, llth Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University. Engineering Extension Series, No. 91,
371.
Pallasch, 0., 1960. "Behr - und Handtuch der Abwassertechnik." Verlag
Von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn. Berlin - Munchen. Band II., pp. 336.
Paparella, M. W., 1973. Personal Communication.
Patterson, W. L. and R. F. Banker, 1971. "Estimating Costs and Manpower
Requirements for Conventional Waste Water Treatment Facilities." EPA
17090 DAN. October.
Pearson, B. F., M. J. Chun, R. H. H. Young and N. C. BurbanJc, 1970.
Biological Degradation of Tuna Waste. Proceedings of the 25th
Industrial Waste Conference, Part II. Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, pp. 766-772.
Peniston, Q. P., 1973. Personal Communication.
Peniston, Q. P., E. L. Johnson, C. N. Turrill, and M. L. Hayes, 1969.
A New Process for Recovery of By-Products from Shellfish Waste.
Presented at the 24th Annual Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 11 pp.
Perkins, C., 1973. Personal Communication.
Peterson, P. L., 1973a. Treatment of Shellfish Processing Wastewater by
Dissolved Air Flotation. Unpublished report. N.M.F.S., Seattle,
Washington, 15 pp.
394
-------
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.
Pigott, G. M., 1971. "Fish Waste for Profit - Not Pollution."
Proceedings of 26th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana.
j
Pigott, (£. M., 1973. Personal Communication.
Pilney, J. P., E. E. Erickson and H. O. Halvarsen, 1972. "Results of
Industrial Waste Study." The National Provisioner. Volume 166, No. 8,
February, pp. 27-52.
Pottinger, S. R. and W. H. Baldwin, 1946. The Content of Certain Amino
Acids in Seafoods. Commercial Fisheries Review, 8:8, 5-9.
Power, H. E., 1963. A Report to the Fishing Industry on the
Characteristics of Fish Protein Concentrates Made From Various Raw
Materials. New Series Circular 15. Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Technological Research Laboratory. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2 pp.
Prater, A. R. and W. A. Montgomery, 1963. Fish Preservation Inquiries.
III. Fisheries By-Products. 1. The Liquid Ensilage of Fisn tor Animal
Feedstuffs. Fisheries News^ letter, 22:10, 16-18.
Quigley, J., et al., 1972. "Waste Water Treatment in Commercial Fish
Processing: Reducing Stick Water Loadings." Sea Grant Advisory Report
No. 1. WIS-SG-72-401. November.
Rails, J. W., W. A. Mercer, W. W. Rose and C. L. Lamb, 1968. "Research
On Waste Reduction in Food Canning Operations." Proceedings of the 23rd
Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University. Engineering Extension
Series, Part Two, pp. 214-231.
Rasekh, J., B. R. Stillings and V. Sidwell, 1972. Effect of Hydrogen
Peroxide on the Color, Composition and Nutritive Quality of FPC.
Journal of Food Science, 37:423-425.
Rasmussen, D. H., 1971. Pollution Abatement Study. Project No. 747.
Tuna Research Foundation, Inc., Terminal Island, California, 75 pp.
Reid, L., 1973. Personal Communication.
Riddle, M. J., et al., 1972. "An Effluent Study of a Fresh Water Fish
Processing Plant." Reprint EPS G-WP-721. Water Pollution Control
Directorate, Canada, May.
395
-------
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.
Robinson, R., 1969. Personal Communication.
Rodale, R. (ed.)., 1970. Fish Protein Concentrate. So^alej^s Health
Bulletin, 8:2, 1.
Rogers, T. G., 1971. Salmon Cannery Pollution - Solution?
Environmental Law, 2:1, 116-144.
Rousseau, J. E., Jr., 1970. Shrimp-Waste Meal: Effect of Storage
Variables on Pigment Contents. Commercial Fisheries_Review, 8:8, 5-9.
Runnels, J. L., 1970. Disposal of Industrial Wastes in the Brunswick
River. University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Russell, J. R., 1972. Catfish Processing - A Rising Southern Industry.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 224. Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Sanford, F. B., 1957. Utilization of Fish Waste in Northern Oregon for
Mink Feed. Commercial^Fisheries Review, 19:12, 40-17.
Sanford, F. B. and C. F. Lee, 1960. U.S. Fish - Reduction Industry.
Commercial Fisheries TL14. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., 77 pp.
Sanford, T., 1970. Waste Problems in Seafood Processing. Proceedings,
Workshop on Food Processing Wastes. ESR-15 (W. M. M. Crosswhite, ed.).
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 33-37.
Saucier, J. W., 1971. "Anaerobic or Aerated Lagoons?" Water and Wastes
Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 5, May, pp. 610-628.
Sawyer, C. N., 1956. Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. Volume I. (J. McCalee and W. W. Eclenfelder, Jr., eds.).
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.
Sawyer, C. N. and P. L. Mccarty, 1967. Chemistry for Sanitary
Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 518 pp.
Schultz, G., 1956. (Purification of Waste waters from Fish Ponds).
Wasserwirtsh. Wassertech., 63:74-80.
Seagran, H. L., 1953. Amino Acid Content of Salmon Roe. Technical Note
No. 25. Commercial Fisheries Review, 15:3, 31-34.
396
-------
Seagran, H. L., D. Morey and J. Dassow, 1954. The Amino Acid Content of
Roe at Different Stages of Maturity from the Five Species of Pacific
Salmon. Journal of Nutrition, 53:1, 139-149.
Seagran, H. L., 1963. Lake and River Fisheries. In: Industrial
Fisheries Technology (M. E. Stansby, ed.). Reinnold Publishing
Corporation, New York, pp. 79-86.
"Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index," 1963. Public Health
Service Publication No. 1069. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Scyfried, G. F., 1968. "Purification of Starch Industry Waste Water."
Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University,
Engineering Extension Series, Part Two, pp. 1103-1119.
Shaw, A. J. and B. H. Levelton, 1971. Utilization of shellfish and Fish
Cannery Wastes at Kodiak, Alaska. Preliminary Feasibility Report.
Project 70-340. B. H. Levelton and Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., 87
PP-
Shearon, W. H. Jr., 1951. Oyster-Shell Chemistry. Chemical and
Engineering News, 29:21, 3078-3081.
Shifrin, S. M., I. B. Pesenson and A. N. Zabbarov, 1972. (Mecnanical
Cleaning of Waste Waters from Fish Canneries.) Ryb. Khoz., 2:60, 5.
Sidhu, G. S. and W. A. Montgomery, 1969. Current Trends in Fish
Handling and Processing. Fogd_Technology_in_Australia. 21:10, 510-515.
Simon, B., 1969. Personal Communication.
Slavin, J. W. and J. A. Peters, 1965. Fish and Fish Products. In:
Industrial Wastewater Control (C. F. Gurnham, ed.). Academic Press, New
York, pp. 55-67.
Smith, J. G., 1966. Thoughts on the Future; California's Commercial
Fishery Resource. Presented to Humboldt Bay Fisheries Association,
Inc., and to Humboldt Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Humboldt,
California, 8 pp.
Smith, R., 1968. "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Waste
Water." Journal Water Pollution Control^Federation. Vol. 40, No. 9,
pp. 1546.
Smith, R. M. R., 1970. Personal Communication.
Snyder, D. G. and H. W. Nilson, 1959. Nutritive Value of Pollock Fish
Scales as Determined by Rat Feeding Tests. Special scientific Report,
397
-------
Fisheries No. 260. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington,
D.C., 11 pp.
Soderquist, M. R., 1969. A Survey of Oregon's Food Processing Wastes
Problems. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest
Pollution Control Association, Seattle, Washington, 35 pp.
Soderquist, M. R., K. J. Williamson, G. I. Blanton, Jr., D. C.
Phillips, D. K. Law and D. C. Crawford, 1970. Current Practice in
Seafoods Processing Waste Treatment. Water Quality Office, E.P.A..
Washington, D.C., 117 pp.
Soderquist, M. R., G. I. Blanton, Jr. and D. W. Taylor, 1972a.
Characterization of Fruit and Vegetable Processing Wastewater.
Proceedings, Third National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. E.P.A.
Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 409-436.
Soderquist, M. R., et al., 1972b. Progress Report: Seafoods Processing
Wastewater Characterization. Proceedings, Third National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes. E.P.A. Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 437-480.
Sorensen, K., 1966. Fishmeal. Commercial Fishing, 4:8, 11-12.
Spinelli, J., 1973. Stablization of Fish Wastes. Presented at 1973
Meeting, Pacific Fisheries Technologists, Yakima, Washington, 11 pp.
Sproul, o. J., K. Keshavan, M. W. Hall and B. B. Barnes, 1968. "Waste
Water Treatment from Potato Processing." Water and sewage Works,
February, pp. 93.
Sripathy, N. V., D. P. Sen and N. L. Lahiry, 1964. Preparation of
Protein Hydrolysates from Fish Meal. Research and Industry, 9:9, 258-
260.
Stansby, M. E., 1947. Composition of Fish. Fishery Leaflet 116.
Seattle Technological Laboratory. Fish and wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C., 16 pp.
Stansby, M. E., 1953a. Introduction. In: Utilization of Alaskan
Salmon Cannery Waste. Special Scientific Report. Fisheries No. 109 (M.
E. Stansby, et_ al_., eds.). Fish and wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.
Washington, D.C., pp. 5-7.
Stansby, M. E., 1953b. The Processing of Tuna. In: Tuna Industry
Conference Papers, Circular 65. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish
and wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C., pp. 76-85.
Stansby, M. E., 1960. Possibilities for Applying Fish Oil to Air-
Flotation. Commercial Fisheries^Review, 22:2, 17-21.
398
-------
Stansby, M. E., 1963. Processing of Seafoods. In: Food Processing
Operations (M. A. Joslyn and J. L. Head, eds.). AVI Publishing Company.
Westport, Connecticut, pp. 569-99.
Stansby, M. E. and H. S. Olcott, 1963. Composition of Fish. In:
"Industrial Fishery Technology." (M. E. Stansby and J. A. Dassow,
eds.). Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, pp. 339-349.
Steffen, A. J., 1970. "Waste Disposal in the Meat Industry 1." Water
and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. B-20—B-23.
Streebin, L. E., G. W. Reid and A. C. Hu, 1971. "Demonstration of a
Full-Scale Waste Treatment System for a Cannery." E.P.A. 12060 DSB.
September.
Stenzel, R. W., 1943. Treating Oily Wastes Water Such as Those from
Fish-Canning or Vegetable Oil Plants, chemical Abstracts, 37:2500.
Talsma, T. and J. R. Phillip (eds.), 1971. Salinity and Water Use.
Wylie-Interscience. New York.
Tangier, K. H., 1942. (Waste Waters from Fish Meal Factories.)
Gesundheitsinq, 65:157.
Tarkey, W. and G. Pigott, 1973. "Protein Hydrolysate From Fish Wastes,"
Journal of Food Science, (in press. Volume 38, No. 4) .
Tarr, H. L. A. and C. P. Deas, 1949. Bacteriological Peptones from Fish
Flesh. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 7:9, 552-561.
Taylor, W. H., 1970. Personal Communication.
Tenney, R. D., 1972. Chemical Oxygen Demand. Unpublished Technical
Report 101. Fishery Products Technology Laboratory. N.M.F«S. Kodiak,
Alaska, 12 pp.
Tenney, R. D., 1973a. Personal Communication.
Tenney, R. D., 1973b. Shrimp Waste Streams and COD. Unpublished
Technical Report No. 1V4. Fishing Products Technology Laboratory.
N.M.F.S., Kodiak, Alaska.
Tetsh, B., 1954. (Separators for Light Material in Waste Waters,
Technique with Special Reference to Waste Waters from the Fish
Industry). Ber^Abwass._Techn. Verein., 9:278-286. Thomas, F. B.,
1973. Personal Communication.
Thurston, C. E. and P. P. MacMaster, 1959. The Carbonate Content of
Some Fish and Shellfish Meals. Journal of the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists, 42:699-702?
399
-------
Thurston, C. E., L. E. Ousterhout and P. P. MacMaster, 1960. The
Nutritive Value of Fish Meal Protein: A Comparison of Chemical
Measurements with a Chick Feeding Test. Journal of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, 43:760-762.
Thurston, C. E., 1961. Proximate Composition of Nine Species of Sole
and Flounder. Journal of_Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 9:313-316.
Tomiyama, T.r et_ al_., 1956. (Studies on Utilization of Wastes in
Processing Shellfish). Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific
Fisheries, 22:6, 374.
Torgersen, G. E., 1968. Treatment of Mink Food Manufacturing Wastes.
Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference, Engineering
Extension Series No. 132. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, pp.
497-506.
Tryck, Nyman and Hayes, 1971. Kodiak_.Metropolitan Area. Interim
Regional Water Quality Management Plan, 63 pp.
Tschekalin, P. M., 1951. (Production of an Adhesive Substance from
Waste Waters from Processing Plants). Chemi_Zbl., 1228, II; 1382-1383.
Tsuchiya, H., 1971. Treatment of Waste Waters from Fish and Meat
Processing Plants. Chemical Abstracts, 75:260.
Varge, C. R., 1968. Personal Communication.
Venkataraman, R., 1969. Fishery By-Products and Their Utilization.
Indian_Farming.
Ventz, D. and G. Zanger, 1966. (Contribution to Biological Purification
of Effluents from Fish Processing Plants.) Fisch Forchung. Wissen^
Schriften, 4:91-97.
Vilbrandt, F. C. and R. F. Abernethy, 1930. Utilization of Shrimp
Waste. In: Report of Commissioner of Fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries
Document 1078, pp. 101-122.
Wells, J. W., Jr., 1970. "How Plants Can Cut Rising Waste Treatment
Expense." National Prgvjsioner, 163, 1, 82.
Willoughby, E. and V. D. Patton, 1968. "Design of Modern Meat-Packing
Waste Treatment Plant." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, No.
40, January, 132 pp.
Wheaton, F., 1969. Engineering Approach to Oyster Processing.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 15 pp.
400
-------
Wheeland, H. A., 1972. Fishery Statistics of the United States 1969.
Statistical Digest No. 63. U.S. Department of commerce. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C., 474 pp.
Wigutoff, N. B., 1952. Potential Markets for Salmon Cannery Wastes.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:8, 5-14.
Wilcke, H. L.r 1969. Potential of Animal, Fish, and Certain Plant
Protein Sources. Journal of Dairy Science, 52:409-18.
Winchester, C. F., 1963. Choice Sea Food for Farm Animals. Feedstuffs,
35:7, 18.
Yonker, W. V., 1969. Personal Communication.
Young, J. C. and P. L. McCarty, 1968. "The Anaerobic Filter for Waste
Treatment." Department of Civil Engineering Stanford University,
Technical Report No. 87, March.
401
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge Process; Removes organic matter from sewage by
saturating it with air and biologically active sludge.
A§ration_Tank: A chamber for injecting air or oxygen into water.
Aerobic_Organism: An organism that thrives in the presence o± oxygen.
Algae__(Algal_: Simple plants, many microscopic, containing chlorophyll.
Most algae are aquatic and may produce a nuisance when conditions are
suitable for prolific growth.
Ammonia_Strip_p_ing: Ammonia removal from a liquid, usually by intimate
contacting with an ammonia-free gas such as air.
Anaerobic: Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
With reference to crab, meaning without the backs (after
"backing") .
Bacteria: The smallest living organisms which comprise, along with
fungi, the decomposer category of the food chain.
Bar onetrie 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.
Benthos: Aquatic bottom-dwelling organisms. These include: (i) Sessile
Animals, such as the sponges, barnacles, 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.
Bifurcation: A site where a single structure divides into two branches.
Biological_Oxidation: The process whereby, through the activity of
living organisms in an aerobic environment, organic matter is converted
to more biologically stable matter.
403
-------
Biological,, Stabilization: Reduction in th net energy level ot 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.
ii22£L_Water_lSerum}_: Liquid remaining after coagulation of the blood.
Slowdown: A discharge of water from a system to prevent a buildup of
dissolved solids in a boiler or clarifier.
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.
BOD (5) ; 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.
Those that cause acute food poisoning.
Breaded_ Shrimp: Peeled shrimp coated with breading. The product may be
identified as fantail (butterfly) and round, with or without tail fins
and last shell segment; and as portions, sticks, steaks, etc., when
prepared from a composite unit of two or more shrimp pieces, whole
shrimp, or a combination of both without fins or shells.
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 solution which remains liquid down to 5°F; used in
freezing fish.
Btu: British thermal unit, the quantity of heat required to raise one
pound of water 1°F.
Dr ain : Lowest horizontal part of a building drainage system.
Building __ Drainage _ System: Piping provided 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 __ Fishery __ Efoduct: 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
404
-------
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.
Chemical __ Precipitation : A waste treatment process whereby substances
dissolved in the waste water 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 waste
water .
Cluster __ sampling: A method that is useful for increasing sampling
efficiency and reducing error when the universe can be partitioned into
groups such that the objects in a group are more heterogeneous within
than between.
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.
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.
COD __ (Chemical _ Oxygen Demand) ; A measure of the oxygen required to
stabilize that portion of organic matter in a sample that can be
oxidized by a strong chemical oxidizing agent.
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.
Cglifgrm: Relating to, resembling, or being the colon bacillus.
Comminutor: A device for the catching and shredding of neavy solid
matter in the primary stage of waste treatment.
4Q5
-------
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 of 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.
Condensate; Liquid residue resulting from the cooling of a gaseous
vapor.
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.
Cook: May be referred to as the second cook of a two cook operation.
Crustacea: Mostly aquatic animals with rigid outer coverings, jointed
appendages, and gills. Examples are crayfish, crabs, barnacles, water
fleas, and sow bugs.
Tne process involving the facultative conversion 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 matter 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.
Dissglyed_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.
Dissolved ^Oxygen __ [D^O..!: 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 concentration in the stream, taking into
account the diurnal fluctuations.
Eco logy; The science of the interrelations between living organisms and
their environment.
4Q6
-------
Effluent: Something that flows out, such as a liquid discharged as a
waste; for example, the liquid that comes out of a treatment plant after
completion of the treatment process.
,§ i § : A process by which electricity attracts or draws the
mineral salts from sewage.
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.
Commonly an arm of the sea at the lower end of a river.
Estuaries are often enclosed by land except at channel entrance points.
Eutroghication: The intentional or unintentional enrichment of water.
But ro2hic_Wat er s : 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 experienced, and
arrive at knowledge based on inferences of continuity or tne data.
Z§cultative_Aerobe : An organism that although fundamentally an aerobe
can grow in the presence of free oxygen.
Anaerobe; An organism that although fundamentally an
anaerobe can grow in the absence of free oxygen.
F§cultatiye __ Decomposition: Decomposition of organic matter by
facultative microorganisms.
Fish __ Fillets; 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 shellfish 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.
Fish Solubles; A product extracted from the residual press liquor
(called "stick water") 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. "
407
-------
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.
process by which certain chemicals form clumps of
solids in sewage.
Floc_S kimmings : The flocculent mass formed on a quieted liquid surface
and removed for use, treatment, or disposal,
Grab_SamjDle : A sample taken at a random place in space and time.
Heterotrophic __ Organism; Organisms that are dependent on organic matter
for food.
Identify: To determine the exact chemical nature of a hazardous
polluting substance.
Impact: (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.
Inc iteration ; 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
undergound locations.
Influent: A liquid which flows into a containing space or process unit.
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.
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 in waste water.
KWH: Kilowatt-hours, a measure of total electrical energy consumption.
Lagoons: 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 otuier 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
408
-------
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 (sucn as scallops).
Live_Tank: Metal or wood tank with circulating seawater for the purpose
of keeping a crab alive until .processed.
M: Meter, metric unit of length.
Mm: Millimeter' = 0.001 meter.
Mg/1: Milligrams per liter; approximately equals parts per million; a
term used to indicate concentration of materials in water.
Mgl^r Million gallons per day.
Merus: Largest section of crab leg closest to crab body.
Micros^trainer/microscreen: A mechanical filter consisting of a
cylindrical surface of metal filter fabric with openings of 20-60
micrometers in size.
Mixed Liguor: The name given the effluent that comes from the aeration
tank after the sewage has been mixed with activated sludge and air.
Mortality: The ratio of the total number of deatns to the total
population, or the ratio of the number of deaths from a given disease to
the total number of people having the disease.
Municip_al_Treatment: A city or community-owned waste treatment plant
for municipal and, possibly, industrial waste treatment.
Nitrate^ Nitrite: Chemical compounds that include the NO(3) (nitrate)
and NO(2) (nitrite) ions. They are composed of nitrogen and oxygen, are
nutrients for growth of algae and other plant life, and contribute to
eutrophication.
Nitrification: 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 determining volatile solids.
2£2§Iii£_D§tritus: The particulate remains of disintegrated plants and
animals.
Organic Matter: The waste from homes or industry of plant or animal
origin.
Involving the employment of the sense organs.
409
-------
Qxi
-------
_ water that comes into direct contact with tne raw
materials, intermediate products, final products, by-products, or
contaminated waters and air.
El°£§§§ed_Ei§herY_Produc ts : Fish, shellfish and other aquatic plants
and animals, and products thereof, preserved by canning, freezing,
cooking, dehydrating, drying, fermenting, pastuerizing, 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 organic state into a form in which they are not readily
identifiable, such as fillets, steaks, or shrimp logs.
Purse Seiner; Fishing vessel utilizing a seine (net) that is drawn
together at the bottom forming a trap or purse.
Receiving_Water s : Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water courses that
receive treated or untreated waste waters.
Recycle: 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 waste water for several plant uses.
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.
Reuse: Water reuse, the subsequent use of water following an earlier
use without restoring it to the original quality.
El=y.erse_Osmosis : Tne 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 Contractor; A waste treatment device involving
closely spaced light-weight disks which are rotated through the waste
water allowing aerobic microf lora to accumulate on each disk ,and thereby
achieving a reduction in the waste content.
Round {Live) _ Weight; The weight of fish, shellfish or other aquatic
plants~and animals as taken from the water; the complete or full weight
as caught.
Sample^ __ Comggsite: A sample taken at a fixed location by adding
together small samples taken frequently during a given period of time.
411
-------
Sand_Filter: Removes the organic wastes from sewage. The waste water
is trickled over the 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.
Sanitary_Sewers: In a separate system, are pipes in a city that carry
only domestic waste water. The storm water runoff is taken care of by a
separate system of pipes.
Secondary Treatment; The second step is 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 waste water
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.
Seine: Any of a number of various nets used to capture fish.
Separator: Separates the loosened shell from the shrimp meat.
Se£tleable Matter [solids^; Determined in the Imhoff Cone Test 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 waste water to
treatment plants or receiving streams.
Shaker Blower; Dries and sucks the shell off with a vacuum, leaving the
shrimp meat.
Shock Load; A quantity of waste water or pollutant that greatly exceeds
the normal discharged into a treatment system, usually occuring 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 metnods to complete
waste treatment.
Slurry: A solids-water mixture, with sufficient water content to impart
fluid handling characteristics to the mixture.
Species (Both Singular and plural): A natural population or group of
populations that transmit specific characteristics from parent to
offspring. They are reproductively isolated from other populations with
412
-------
which they might breed. Populations usually exhibit a loss of fertility
when hybridizing.
Stationary; Process with statistics which are independent of a time
translation.
Stick Water; Water which has been in close contact with the fish and
has large amounts of organics entrained in it.
/
Stoichiometric_ Amount; The amount of a substance involved in a specific
chemical reaction, either as a reactant or as a reaction product.
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.
Suspended Solids ; The wastes that will not sink or settle in sewage.
Surface ___ Water; The waters of the United States including the
territorial seas.
Sy_nergism: 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.
Tertiary __ Waste __ Treatment: Waste treatment systems used to treat
secondary treatment effluent and typically using physical -chemical
technologies to effect waste reduction. Synonymous with "Advanced Waste
Treatment".
Total_Di sso lved_solids_iTDSJ_ ; The solids content of wastewater that is
soluble and is measured as total solids content minus the suspended
solids.
A be(^ °f 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.
Universe; The collection of objects or a region of time or space of
which it is desired to determine the collective properties or
attributes.
Vjscus (pl.^Viscera)^; Any internal organ within a body cavity.
Washer: Shrimp are vigorously agitated to loosen the remaining shell
and wash the shrimp meat.
Zero Discharge ; The discharge of no pollutants in the wastewater stream
of a plant that is discharging into a receiving body of water.
413
-------
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
English Unit
Abbreviation
Conversion Table
by
Conversion
TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
Abbreviation Metric Unit
acre
acre - feet
British Thermal Unit
British Thermal Unit/pound
cubic feet/ir.inute
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
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
°F
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
1-b
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
t
y
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
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
a tin
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq en,
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calorie^
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
------- |