U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, P. C.
SECTION 74
PROCESSING STUDY
AUGUST 198O
-------
X
S
z
LU
Q.
CU
-------
EPA SITE VISIT TO BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA SHRIMP PROCESSING FACILITY
I. General
On 2/12/79 an EPA representative visited the King Shrimp facility in
Brunswick, GA. This facility produces breaded and non-breaded shrimp
and discharges wastewater to the Brunswick River. The purpose of the
^'sUjjiastg, document conditions aj; tJhjsJfacjHtY and to meet with J.R.
Duggan, the plant manager, and Dr. Wayne Bough, of the University of
Georgia Marine Extension Service.
II. Wastewater Characteristics and Existing Waste Treatment
King Shrimp is a large facility that discharges approximately 360,000
gallons of wastewater per day. Aj for all shrimp process lflg_OB£ca_tiojis «
s"oTjds7 Georgia water quality standards require that the dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels of receiving waters be maintained at an average of 5
parts per million (ppm) and at a minimum of 4 ppm. In efforts to maintain
the Brunswick River waters at this level, the^Gwr^la_Dep_artn]ent_of
Environmental JYotection- .(DEP.) .. has, requi red J__tp_ a
s_hip..slip 6'rTthe .Brunswick River hear the plant. Ac£ordin_g_tp__the
^5PJ^ia..^E£J_thJ_s__aj_e'a" Deceives li.ttle flushing and significant "accumulations
of shell occurred. The local health department received a number of
complaints about "the odors in this area at low tide. As noted above,
this facility has recently achieved 85% BOD removal and, in addition,
the discharge outfall has been relocated to a deeper part of the river
v^eTe j:ufnejits"2W^ the wastes. Although a portion of
fhT"6uiTdFp~o'f~wastes~ in ~th1Ts'hip" slip "still "remains, conditions have
improved and fewer complaints have been received regarding this facility.
-------
Other Information
Of major concern to King Shrimp are the Georgia water quality standards
which require that waters be maintained with an average dissolved oxygen
(DO) content of 5 ppm and a minimum of 4 ppm at any time. These standards
are the basis of requiring secondary treatment (or the equivalent) for
all point sources. The water quality-based treatment requirements are
more stringent than the national technology based standards currently in
effect for this industry. Currently, King Shrimp is the only major
Georgia seafood processor that does not practice secondary treatment of
its entire waste flow.
Mr. Duggan stated that these water quality standards as applied stringently
to the discharge of seafood wastes are unfair. Mr. Bough indicated
that, in his opinion, a minimum DO standard of 4 ppm is not suitable for
coastal estuarine waters and that even in unpolluted pristine coastal
^waters the DO sometimes falls below 4 ppm. Mr. Duggan felt that Georgia's
(' strict environmental policies have contributed to the economic decline
of the seafood processing industry in this area; he indicated that other
nearby states impose less stringent environmental controls on seafood
processors.
/The Georgia Department of Environmental Protection indicates that the
( water quality standards are necessary to protect the coastal waters
which serve as spawning grounds for various harvestable species, including
, shrimp. Thus, the standards are viewed as necessary to protect the
( seafood industry.
-------
(1) G. A. Rhame
OBSERVATIONS ON THE DISPOSAL OF SHRIMP HEADS INTO SHEW CREEK,
MT. -PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
The writer was requested by the management of the Mt. Pleasant,
S. C., Water and Sewer Commission (1) to make a study of the pro-
blems of shrimp head disposal from shrimp processing plants located
on Shem Creek in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.
Shrimp processing plants within this area are devoted to the
simple operation of heading, washing, grading and icing for distri-
bution. There is no peeling, breading or canning on site. Heads are
the most important component of waste, with some discards. Business
is quite brisk in good years.
Summary and Conclusions
Disposal of shrimp heads from the Shem Creek processors by local
waste treat plants, hauling to landfill, complete destruction or
production of by-products would impose a crippling financial burden
I "
on the processors. There may be some future to the by-products system,
Disposal to the local city sewage treatment plant would cause
a BOD overload. Dangers of health hazards and DO depletion from dis-
posal to Shem Creek appear to be exaggerated. Care would be needed to
prevent aesthetic objections. The present system of barging to a
nearby harbor channel has worked well at moderate cost. It should be
continued until problems connected with other possible systems are
eliminated.
Analytical Studies
Some local shrimp heads were obtained and subjected to the BOD^
determination in the laboratory of the Mt. Pleasant sewage treatment
plant. Heads were weighed wet to avoid ]oss of volatile organic com-
ponents, broken up in a household blende?" contain:! ng 1000 ml of
-------
G. A. Rhame
distilled water. BOD^ of the resulting mixture was determined
according to Standard Methods (2). After a few unreasonably low re-
sults all. incubation bottles were seeded with 0.5 ml of fresh
settled sewage. DO was measured by the Sodium Azide-Winkler method.
A number of runs were aborted for various reasons. Results are shown
in Table 1. The results in Table I work out to 150 Ibs. of BOD5 per
1000 Ibs. of shrimp heads.
A letter from John M. Knox of the South Carolins BHEC states
that the department's laboratory at Charleston, S. C. , found 170 Ibs.
i
of BOD^ per 1000 Ibs. of "shrimp or shrimp fragments". Most of the
organic matter in shrimp is in the part used for food -- the tail.
Development Documents (4) for the EPA "Guidelines and Standards
for Canned and Preserved Seafood" show that a considerable study was
made, but none on operations like those at Mt. Pleasant. One opera-
tion showed a BODt^ of 46 Ibs. per 1000 Ibs. of shrimp processed. (The
only one where BOD was measured) . The above shows a BOD-organic ni-
trogen ratio of 4. 6/1. The ratio for "normal" sewage is considerably
higher.
Quantity of Waste
Data obtained from the South Carol.! na Wildlife and Marine Re-
sources Department is shown in table II. The figures in parentheses
were calculated by the writer.
From table II it can be expected that on the basis of 25 working
days per month, upwards of 8,000 Ibs. of heads per day would be wasted
and that this would represent about 35% of the weight of shrimp
landed.
From the analytical, data and table II it can be expected that a
waste load of 'about 1,200 Ibs. BOD 15 would be qenor<-\ tod on n maximum
-------
(3) G. A. Rhame
operating day at Shem Creek.
Waste Disposal Alternatives
Disposal to Sewer
Sewers of the City of.Mt. Pleasant Water and Sewer Commission
are abailable to the Shem Creek processing plants and probably have
adequate hydraulic capacity. • ;
Previous experience with disposal to sewer has shown that
, V,"
\
shrimp heads rapidly clog sewers. The peculiar "prickly" shape of
.: .."" ' . ' v •
the heads probably caused "them to ball up. Passage thru a grinder
eased this problem. Shem Creek sewers discharge to the city's main
plant, which has a capacity of 1.1 mgd. or about 11-,000 f*rf*. BOD^ /day
The addition of 7,000'P<&s. BOD-per' \3ay during the busy season
would result in an unmanageable load. The effect of off-peak loads
would not be good. If, by some presently impractical technical process
the shrimp-head load could be discharged to the sewage treatment plant
at a steady rate throughout the year there would still be an unde-
sireable reduction in the allowable household connections.
Service charges for use of the system would presumably by set on
an equivalent per-capita basis. Cost to the processors would be sub-
stantial .
Disposal by Private Treatment Plant
Development Documents for the EPA Guidelines (4) contain a
considerable discussion of proposed methods of treating shrimp pro-
cessing wastes from breading a-^d canning plants.
Collina and Tenney (6) (7) present some interesting ideas on
simplified analytical control of seafood processing waste treatment
,*
plants. Arfelaborate cal.ihrnt.ion process is required and might bo
useful for application to SOW£KIC treatment plant: control.
-------
(4) G. A. Rhame
Brenninf leld, Winn and Phillips (8) Discuss .seafood waste
treatment (without reference to shrimp) and make a pertinent ob-
servation': "The wastewater treatment cani tal costs in almost all
cases exceed the present capital investment in the processing plant
and facilities". The combination of relatively high capital costs,
seasonal operation, need for skilled operators and small areas of
land available near shrimp processing plants would make local waste
treatment systems a bankruptcy burden on processors.
Conversion tb Salable By-Products or Complete Destruction
\,
The S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (5) re-
ported on a considerable study of the problems and economics of
conversion to a salable by-product and complete destruct by incinera-
tion. Transportation to a regional conversion or destruction plant
was an essential assumption of the study. Thi.s adds a substantial
cost. The study presents no conclusions or recommendations, but the
general attitude is not encouraging.
The EPA Development Document (4) describes on page 171 a waste
screen built onto a hydraulic ram which compresses the screenings.
This device greatly reduces the bulk and water content of the waste,
which would reduce transportation cost and fuel needed for drying
or incineration. Refrigeration while holding for transportation
might become practical.
To the writer's knowledge the only by-products plant in the
state is that of the Blue Channel Corporation at Port Royal, S. C.
The system is used primarily for crab residues and is reported to
out
have handled shrimp residues wi th/jdif f iculty. (Conversation with
Will Lacey). (5)
-------
(5) G. A. Rhame
Disposal to Landfill
This procedure was tried by the Shorn Creek processors. Decom-
position of the shrimp heads during accumulation and transportation
generated.highly unpleasant odors. Complaints led to stoppage of
this practice. Compression and refrigeration of wastes during holding,
if adequate refrigeration capacity is available, would improve this
situation.
Disposal Into Shem Creek
Shem Creek is a small tidal estuary of the Charleston, S. C.,
V
harbor. Average tidal range is about 5 feet. The estuary is bridged
by U. S. 17 (Coleman Blvd.) in Mt. Pleasant, S. C. That portion of
the creek on the harbor side of the bridge has a dredged depth of
7 feet. It is narrow, bordered by shrimpers docks, mostly on the East
side, and has a considerable salt marsh and a large tributary tidal
drainage ditch on the West side.
The portion of the estuary on the landward side of U. S. 17
rapidly tapers off to very shallow depths at lov; tide and becomes very
narrow. It is surrounded by a considerable area of lightly flooded
salt marsh with tidal drainage ditches serving highly populated areas.
Dry-weather inflow is negligible.
Attempts to sutdy disposal of shrimp heads into Shem Creek
immediately ran into a frustrating situation - there is no data on
water flow in and out of the creek.
The SC WMR and DHEC departments (9) made a joint study of this
situation at a time when there were no shrimp heads or other formal
effluents reaching the creek. Their results show a rapid dispersal
of dye into the harbor. Some moved out of the creek in a very short
time, some moved very slowly" -- as usual. DO concentrations were
-------
(6) G. A. Rhame
normal for such a body of waiter in summer, averaging about 5.5 ppm.
i
Unfortunately, their current meter malfunctioned.
The main channel between the bridge and the harbor was measured
during the above effort. Dimensions found were:
Length - 5300 feet
Width - 150 feet
Depth - 12 feet at high tide
7 feet at low tide
Volume - 9.5 x 10& cubic ft. at high tide
- 5.0 x 106 cubic ft. at low tide
- 500 x 106 Ibs. water at high tide
A rough (tracing wa's made of both parts of the creek from an
V
aerial photograph. The graph paper overlay method indicated that
the area of channel and marsh on the landward side of the bridge was
at least 25 times that of the channel on the harbor side of the
bridge -- which would receive all of the shrimping waste. If the
average flooding depth of the landward marsh is considered to be one
inch (the marsh is very irregular) the total volume of water passing
through the channel to the landward marsh would be 1/6 the volume
of the channel. A complete tidal cycle in the Charleston area takes
about 12.5 hours.
Estimation of oxygen consumption
Assume "standard" rate of demand exertion for lack of other
data.
Ultimate BOD = 1.5 x BOD5
BOD5 = 0.11 x ultimate
°'' - 0.11 x 1.5 x BOD5
0.11 x .1 .5 x 1200 Ibs.
= 200 Ibs. if all waste released
in one tidal cycle
= 200 = 0.4 ppm for channel volume
500
Demand would be less in practice since two shifts would last
longer than one tidal cycle. Effects on DO from a peak day operation
of 16 hours would be cyclical and minimal.
-------
(7) G. A. Rhame
Possible health hazards were not evaluated for lack of data.
Note that the creek is not well adapted to swimming or water skiing
due to lack of access, narrow channels landward of the bridge and
considerable shrimp boat traffic during warm weather in the dredged
channel.
It appears possible that the unsightly appearnace of shrimp
heads in the creek and marshes could be eliminated by grinding and
underwater discharge. This would have to be verified by on-side ex-
periment.
Acknowledgements:
The writer wishes to express his thanks to the following for
help in acquiring information:
Charles R. Jeter, Chief, Bureau of V?astewater and Stream Control,
SCDHEC, and Staff
Charles M. Bearden, Director, Office of Conservation, Management
and marketing, SCWMRD, and Staff
Carl Dysinger, Project Officer, Food Industries Branch, EPA
Barbara A Bassuener, Manager of Public Affairs, WPCF
-------
(8) G. A. Rhame
References
(1) Mt. Pleasant Water and Sewer Commission, Mt. Pleasant, S. C.,
Ronald E. Bycroft, Manager
(2) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
14th Ed., WPCF, AWWA and APHA
(3) Knox, John N., Compliance Section, SCDHEC, letter of 12/13/78
to G. A. Rhame
(4) Development Documents for EPA "Effluent Guidelines for Canned
and Preserved Seafood" (4) GFR 48 8, FR 23134, as amended.
Section on Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
(5) Lacey, Wl H., III., report to Dr. E. B. Joseph, Director, Marine
Resources Center, SCWMRD, "Shrvimp Head Disposal"
(6) Collins, .J. and Tenney, R. D. — "Fishery Wast Effluents: A
Method to Determine Relationships Between Chemical Oxygen De-
mand and Residue". Fishery Bulletin, 74, 4, (1976)
(7) Collins, J. and Tenney, R. D. — "Fishery Waste Effluents: A.
Method for Determining and Calculating Pollutant parameters"
Fishery Bulletin, 7_5, 2 (1977)
(8) Brenninfield, R. B., Winn, P. N. and Phillips, D. G. —
"Characterization Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater from
Maryland Seafood Plants" - Journal WPCF, ^0, 1943 (1978)
(9) Lacey, W. H. Ill, "Shem Creek Study" June, July and August,
1977') SCWMRC and SCDHEC
-------
(9) G. A. Rhamo
TABLE I
Weight Shrimp mgq BOD per I, Grams per
Head - Grams of Mixture 1000 gr head
4.74
7.07
4.85
9.27
15.14
7.66
5.14
4 6 5
1100
660
1480
2600
115^0
700
100
153
136
159
170
150
136
Average 149
-------
(10)
G. A. Rhamo
TABLE IT
Monthly Landings CL Shrimp at Shem Creek
1.975
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
April
May
June
July
August
September-
October
November
December
Lbs. - Heads Off
--
94,010
192,061
208,798
126,834
234,913
196,331
110,595
83,912
3,422
107,364
213,906
319,322
183,206
207,787
156,073
196,262
13,919
Lbs. - Hea<
--'
144,859
305,917
357,306
199,667
362,149
302,350
170,317
129,224
1976
5,270
165,728
340,013
512,726
286,717
320,487
240,353
302,242
19,895
Lbs. - Heads (5)
50,849
113,849
148,508
72,833
127,235
106,019
59,722
45,312
1,848
58,364
126,107
193,404
103,511
112,700
84,280
105,980
6,976
(34)
(37)
(41)
(.36)
(26)
(36)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(37)
(36)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
Source: Fisheries Statistics Section, SCWMRD
(numbers in parentheses inserted by the writer!
-------
SITE VISITS TO LOUISIANA SHRIMP CANNERIES
Calvin Dysinger, Project Officer
I. General
The Gulf Coast shrimp canning industry consists of approximately 15-20
canneries located along bays, rivers and bayous. In addition, a number
of shrimp freezing and oyster processing operations are located in this
area. EPA representatives visited several canneries during the period
11/8/78-11/9/78 to document existing waste treatment practices and
visable aesthetic conditions resulting from waste discharges. Plant
managers provided additional information.
The following facilities were visited:
Facility Discharge Point
Violet Packing, Violet, LA Mississippi River
Cutcher's Canning Co., Westwego, LA Mississippi River
Robinson Canning Co., Westwego, LA Mississippi River
Gulf Coast Packing, Dulac, LA Grand Caillou Bayou
Grand Caillou Packing Plant, Dulac, LA Grand Caillou Bayou
II. Process Description
Shrimps are caught along the continental shelf and are unloaded at
receiving stations. The shrimp are packed into crates and trucked to
the processing plants.
As the shrimp arrive at the plant, they are unloaded into a tank where
shell, rocks and other debris are mechanically removed. The shrimp are
transported into the plant by conveyor and are visually inspected to
further remove debris. The shrimp are then mechanically sorted by size.
Processing consists of freezing or canning; some facilities operate both
freezing and canning processes. Shrimp may be frozen either unpeeled or
after peeling and may be breaded prior to freezing. Shrimp are also
peeled prior to canning. The entire process of preparing peeled shrimp
for canning consists of mechanical peeling, agitation (to remove pieces
of shell), mechanical deveining (optional), steam cooking, grading for
size, final inspection, filling the cans, addition of brine water,
sealing and retorting.
III. Wastewater Characteristics
A Gulf Coast shrimp cannery generates approximately 100,000-250,000
gallons of wastewater per day. This water contains significant amounts
of biochemical oxygen demanding wastes as solids or soluble material.
The major sources of wastewater and solids are the peeling and deveining
machines. In facilities where breading occurs, this operation generates
additional biodegradable wastes.
-------
IV. Existing Haste Treatment and Recovery Operations
In-Pi ant Controls
A large variation in waste management practices was observed at the
facilities visited. As a portion of an EPA demonstration project, a
considerable effort has been made in the Violet Packing facility to
implement in-plant changes to reduce water use (with concurrent reduction
in waste loads). These changes include replacement of flumes with dry
conveyors and modification of valves and nozzles to decrease water use
in cleaning the product and machinery. The other facilities, particularly
those in the Dulac, LA area, were less sophisticated with regard to
water conservation, and generally.in efforts to minimize waste discharges.
End-of-Pipe Treatment and Haste Solids Handling
Violet Packing, Cutcher's Canning Co. and Robinson Canning Co. all
operated screens to remove gross solids from their wastewaters. Both
Violet Packing and Robinson Canning Co. also operate dryers which
produce shrimp meal from the wet solids retained by the screen. The
plant managers indicated that the market value of the meal was low and
that the greatest advantage to meal production was to reduce the volume
of solids requiring disposal. Cutcher's Canning Co. does not operate a
dryer. The solids generated at this facility are mechanically partially
dewatered (to reduce their volume) and hauled away to be used as fertilizer
or to be landfilled.
The Gulf Coast Packing and Grand Caillou Packing facilities operate no
end-of-pipe treatment. The plant managers indicated that there were no
available means of disposal for screened solids. The local water table
was too high to permit landfilling of seafood wastes.
V. Receiving Water Effects
Violet Packing Co., Cutcher's Canning and Robinson Canning Co. - These
facilities discharge screened effluent to the Mississippi River. The
particulates and soluble wastes discharged by these facilities did not
have a readily apparent effect on this large body of receiving water.
The potential exists for these discharges, in combination with other
point sources, to impact both water quality and biota. A sampling
program would be required to fully assess the impact on the benthic
assemblages.
Gulf Coast Packing and Grand Caillou Packing Co. - These facilities
discharge untreated wastes to the Grand Caillou bayou. Although this
small, slow_mqving body of water^ has been,.classified,as.water-quality
limited' by the state of Louisiana, these plants have been allowed to
disclha^rge_tjieir_wasj.esLjvi thput;_ treatment because of_diffi.cul.ty ,.in
disposing _of_screened_.so.lids. According to the plant managers, these
facilTtie's will eventually receive municipal treatment upon completion
of construction of a local treatment works.
-------
The receiving water in the vicinity of these facilities appeared very
stagnant and murky. It appears that the water movement in the bayou is
insufficient to disperse the untreated discharge by these plants. The
surface waters appeared oily and foamy.
VI. Other Information
A major problem for the shrimp industry in this area is solids disposal.
Conventional solids recovery techniques (i.e. shrimp meal production)
are not generally profitable in this region. The market demand for this
low protein meal is quite low. Industry representatives recognize the
need to conduct research on alternative solids recovery technologies,
but they indicate that the industry has insufficient money to devote to
such work.
The canners contend that pollution control requirements beyond screening
(such as dissolved and flotation) are environmentally unnecessary and
are overly expensive for the industry. They estimate that installation
of DAF treatment will result in a net price increase of five percent per
case of shrimp produced.
-------
EPA Site Visit to Southern Florida Seafood Processing Facilities
I. General
There are a large number of small seafood processing plants
located in southern Florida along the keys. The major commodity
processed in this area is shrimp, with lesser amounts of
lobster, crab and finfish. During 2/15/79 - 2/17/79 an EPA
representative visited several processing plants located on
Key West and Stock Island. The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation Marathon Office provided additional information.
The following plants were visited:
Singleton Packing Corp., Key West
Singleton Packing Corp., Stock Island
Coral Shrimp Co., Stock Island
King Shrimp Co., Stock Island
Morgan Shrimp Packers, Stock Island
Key Tex Shrimp Inc., Stock Island
II. Process Description and Waste Characteristics
Shrimp arrive at the plants by boat. The heads are removed
at the plant and the shrimp may be manually or mechanically
peeled before packing. No canning is done at the plants in
this area; seafood commodities are either frozen or packed
in ice for shipping.
Shrimp heads and shells constitute the major source of waste
solids generated by these facilities. Total pounds of waste
(as shrimp heads) generated per year has been estimated for
some of these facilities. The following information is
supplied by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
-------
-2-
Ib/year shrimp heads
Facility discharged
Singleton Packing, Stock Island 315,000
Coral Shrimp Co., Stock Island 20,000
King Shrimp Co., Stock Island 20,000
Morgan Shrimp Packers, Stock Island 100,000
Key Tex Shrimp Inc., Stock Island 15,000
All wastes are currently discharged without treatment at
these facilities.
III. Receiving Water Conditions
The coastal waters around Key West and Stock Island are
polluted by a number of different sources including sewage
plants, power plants and commerical and private boats in
addition to the seafood waste discharges. The surface waters
near the seafood plant discharge points appeared murky and
oily with bits of floating debris. Although the seafood
discharges are not wholly responsible for the conditions in
the harbor, they appear to be contributing to degradation of
these waters.
-------
EPA Seafood Study-Site Visits to Maine Sardine Canneries
I. General
The Maine sardine canning industry consists of 15 canneries found
at various locations on or near the Maine coast including bays,
inlets and estuaries. As part of the Section 74 Study, I visited
a number of processing locations during the period 10/17/78-10/20/78
waste_trea,tmejit_jractices. and visible aesthetic
waste discharges. In addTtTon,"! discussed
W- \ th~ese~and other issuesTwith va~rious~pTanirmanagers and with a repre-
sentative of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The following facilities were visited:
— " Facility " ' " Discharge Point
Stinson Canning Co., Bath, ME Kennebec River
Holmes Packing, Rockland, ME Rockland Harbor
North Lubec Canning Co., Rockland, ME Rockland Harbor
Port Clyde Packing, Rockland, ME Rockland Harbor
Stinson Canning Co., Prospect Harbor, ME Prospect Harbor
Sea-pro, Rockland, ME (reduction facility)
II. Process Description
Sardines arrive at the processing facility either by boat or by
truck. The fish may be pumped to storage bins or may be processed
r- directly. These storage bins contain refrigerated brine (a salt
solution) to preserve the fish until they are processed. Within
the plant, fish (and waste) are transported to and from the
processing tables either by flumes or by conveyors. Conveyor systems
minimize water contact and thus generate less waste than the fluming
systems.
Processing generally consists of removing heads and tails, packing
into cans, precooking, addition of packing oils or sauces, sealing
the cans, retorting and cooling. Most of these steps generate waste
of various types. Cans are packed manually. In some cases, steaking
machines are used to cut the tail sections into small pieces, which
are then manually packed into cans. Precooking occurs before the cans
are sealed. This operation partially cooks the sardines and removes
undesirable fish oils. Packing sauces or oils are added automatically
by the sealing machine. The subsequent washing process removes any
waste or oils which may adhere to the cans. The cans are then automatic-
-------
ally loaded into the retort, where the final cooking process is com-
pleted at 235°F for one hour. Fina'
washed again and packed into cases.
pleted at 235°F for one hour. Finally, the cans are water cooled,
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Sardine canneries are characterized by a relatively low wastewater
flow (10,000-20,000 gallons per day). However, these facilities
generate significant amounts of biochemical oxygen demanding wastes
(BOD), suspended solids and especially grease and oil. Specific
processes which contribute a large portion of the waste are head and
tail removal (or steaking) and the steam precook operation, which is
a major source of fish oil.
IV. Existing Waste Treatment and Recovery Operations
Generally, between 40 and 60 percent of the raw sardine product is
actually canned as a final product. The remaining 40-60 percent
consists of waste - heads, tails, meat and oil. A significant amount
of this waste is recovered and is npj^j^cbarged_tp the^loca-l—r-&c.eiyijTg
waters.
The major means of waste collection observed in these facilities
are as follows:
(1) Dry collection of heads and tails in the plant before
they enter the waste stream.
(2) Use of rotary or tangential screens to remove small
particles of waste from the waste stream.
(3) Use of oil separator units to recover oil from the
steam cook process water. .
Solids generated by screening are either sold to local lobstermen
as bait or sold to a reduction facility (i.e. Sea-pro) where they are
processed into fish meal and oil. Fish oil collected from the oil
separator units is also sold to the reduction facility for purification.
At several facilities, a portion of the waste stream is segregated
and pumped to the local municipal system. This generally includes
only the fresh (non-saline) water such as the steam cook water (after
oil separation) and the sanitary waste water. This fresh water con-
stitutes only about 5 percent of the total waste streams for a typical
facility; the remaining 95 percent of the waste stream (mostly salt
water) is discharged directly (after screening to remove solids).
-------
c/
v/
Although the existing waste collection technologies (screens and oil
separators) are quite simple in concept, some of the plant managers
reported problems in practical operation of this equipment. Most
notably, one facility's screen required nearly continuous cleaning
to prevent clogging.
Additional information regarding waste recovery processes is pre-
sented in the technology and waste handling sections of this report.
V. Receiving Water Effects
Although previous EPA work has characterized the sardine cannery
effluent discharges in some detail, no formal ecological effect
studies have been done along the Maine coast to determine the impact
of these effluent discharges on the receiving waters. Hence, the
'information presented here is limited to observations and informa-
tion supplied by industry and Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) personnel.
Stinson Canning Co., Bath. Me - This facility discharges screened
wastewater directly to the Kennebec River (excluding cooker water,
which is sent to the local treatment plant). The outfall discharges
under a dock along the shore of the river where some pieces of waste
up to 1/2" could be seen. However, most of the waste particles were
very fine and were mixed with air bubbles introduced by the discharge
pump. At high tide, when the water was relatively slack, the cannery
discharge produced a visible discoloration of the river water ex-
tending about thirty feet from shore with some oil visible on the
surface of the river. In contrast, during the outward tidal flow,
the wastewater discharge was rapidly dispersed. The plant manager
indicated that the discoloration from the discharge was due to the
air bubbles pumped out with the wastewater and that this problem could
be solved through installation of a wastewater holding tank and exten-
sion of the outfall. He further reported that he had received no
complaints from the surrounding community regarding the effluent
discharge.
Holmes Packing, North Lubec Canning Co., and Port Clyde Packing. Rock!and, ME
These facilities (along with several local freezing facilities) dis-
charge screened effluent to Rockland Harbor (excluding cooker water,
wash down and can wash water which are sent to the municipal treatment
works). Although relatively little processing was occurring at these
facilities during the visit, a small amount of oil was visible on the
surface of the harbor (near the discharge points).
-------
The plant managers of these facilities feel strongly that the present
level of treatment (screening with oil separation) is more than
adequate to protect the environment from adverse effects. They
indicated that since the implementation of screening and oil sepa-
ration there has been less visible grease on the surface of the harbor
near the canneries. However, the plant managers also stated that
the removal of these wastes (with their nutrients) resulted in fewer
fish and lobster in the area. They further indicated that the twelve
foot tides at Rockland prevented any accumulation of wastes in the
harbor.
Maine DEP personnel indicated that the canners have caused some
environmental problems in Rockland Harbor. Most notably, there are
reports of seagulls being coated with oil (floating on the surface)
and drowning. In addition, there have been some complaints about
the oil which tends to coat rocks and adhere to boats in the area.
Stinson Canning Co.. Prospect Harbor - This facility is located in
a more remote area than the other sites visited. Most of the process
wastewater passes through a screen and is discharged directly.
The outfall extends about forty feet from shore and discharges the
effluent into a depth at low water of ten feet. At this facility,
the cooker water is not pumped to a municipal treatment works; rather,
this waste stream passes through an oil separator and is discharged
directly, resulting in a greater discharge of fish oil than at the
other plants visited. The Maine DEP has documented problems due to
the floating oil in Prospect Harbor. This cannery has installed a
boom on the surface of the harbor above the outfall as a means to
help contain the fish oil floating on the surface. The plant manager
indicated that, since the installation of the boom, they had received
substantially fewer complaints about the oil.
VI. Other information
JJjeJ1ajn^EP_reqorts_that the..jjlstalJLatlon__pf^ screens_and oil separator
units hasj^esulted in irmproved water qual^Uy^ajfiOjBAthetijfs^ Tfiejnajjir
rem|TnTng~proble^ isTEel-ClJ^JLiiiOis'h oii^which_ is not_always dissi-
pat^7Diy^UrTenti~and tidaljnovemen£S-» Existing" oTTTepafator units
/ treat only Ifhe highly oily cooker water; the oil generated by other
^ processes in the plant is not currently removed. Technically, it appears
i that the application of air flotation would substantially decrease
the amount of oil discharged by the canneries.
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
TECHNOLOGY FOR
SEAFOOD PROCESSING WASTE
TREATMENT AND UTILIZATION
SECTION 74
SEAFOOD PROCESSING STUDY
PREPARED FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
BY THE
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
PORTLAND, MAINE
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-4931
MARCH 1980
-------
Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 7050, Downtown Station • Portland, Maine 04112
Telephone: 207-775-5401 TELEX: 94^329
2983-10
(SL 2.51)
March 3. 1980
Mr- Calvin J. Dysinger
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall - East Tower
401, M. Street, S.W. -
Washington, DC ,20460
Dear Cal:
Subject r Final Report
Section 74 Seafood Processing Study
Contract So. 68-01-5772
i , " V
Enclosed please find our final report entitled "Technology for Seafood
Processing Waste Treatment and Utilization" which is the Jordan Com-
pany-1 s written contribution to the Section 74 Seafood Processing Study.
This document reflects the industry comments which were based on the
draft final report and submitted to EPA on April 17, 1979. The draft
version of the report was prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-01-4931.
In accordance with Woffc Order No. 10, Jordan Company personnel will be
available for consultation, until completion of the Section 74 study,
If you have any specific questions concerning this document or require
further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
J Sincerely yours, -^
EDWARD C. JORDAN. CO., INC.
David B. Ertz, P.E,
Technical Project: Director
DBE/msh
Enclosure
-------
TECHNOLOGY FOR
SEAFOOD PROCESSING WASTE
TREATMENT AND UTILIZATION
FOR THE
SECTION 74 SEAFOOD PROCESSING STUDY
Prepared For
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
By
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
P.O. BOX 7050
PORTLAND, MAINE
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-5772
MARCH 1980
-------
ABSTRACT
Section 74 of the Clean Water Act requires that the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency evaluate and report to Congress the effects of sea-
food processes which discharge untreated natural wastes into marine waters.
To help meet that requirement, this report identifies and describes in-plant
waste management techniques and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies
which are applicable to the seafood industry's pollution control efforts.
Also described are secondary product and byproduct manufacturing options and
solid waste handling and disposal methods which can help the industry better
utilize or more acceptably dispose of its waste materials.
The seafood industry consists of many small-scale, seasonal operations which
intermittently catch and process various fish species. For most of the in-
dustry, existing waste management practices are relatively simple, resulting
in the wasting of a significant portion of the raw material brought to shore.
Removal of a significant portion of this material will depend on developing
potential markets for new byproducts. More complete resource utilization is
possible through continued research efforts in this area. Development of
byproduct markets can afford the opportunity for improved utilization of
proteinaceous materials and concurrently reduce waste volumes and associated
environmental control costs.
Some of the larger, year-round seafood processors, such as the large tuna
canneries and major fish meal plants, practice more diversified waste manage-
ment and environmental control methods. These include effective controls on
water use, water recycling techniques, and better recovery and use of raw
materials not incorporated as part of a human food (primary) product line.
Wastes can be turned into secondary products suitable for human consumption,
such as fish sticks, or they can be processed into byproducts such as pet-
foods, meal commodities, and related proteinaceous or nutrient-rich materials.
Some materials discarded as wastes cannot be converted into useful products.
Improved waste treatment and disposal methods are required to reduce the
quantity of these wastes that enter the environment. The seafood processing
industry can apply-a number of wastewater treatment and solids handling tech-
nologies to reduce waste discharges. Some of the most applicable technologies
are wastewater screening, biological treatment and dissolved air flotation
(DAF) in addition to, or in conjunction with, in-plant modifications to reduce
the amount of wastes requiring treatment. Other, more advanced, technologies
are available but do not appear widely applicable to the industry.
To reduce the quantity of wastes entering the environment, the seafood in-
dustry should improve its water and waste management practices, expand its
efforts in the area of secondary product and byproduct manufacturing, and
incorporate applicable wastawater treatment and solids disposal technologies.
All of these methods have application within the seafood processing industry.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of David B. Ertz, P.E. , Project
Engineer with contributions from Lloyd Fogg, Kenneth Glidden and George Murgel.
Production of the printed document was accomplished with the assistance of
Connie Michaud, Nancy Rosengren, Richard Boothby, Patricia Fasulo, and Robert
Faherty.
The direction and input provided by Calvin J. Dysinger, EPA Project Officer
for this study, is acknowledged.
The Jordan Company wishes to thank the industry members, trade associations,
equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and Sea Grant institutions which pro-
vided information during the conduction of this study. Specifically, the
cooperation and assistance of National Food Processors Association, especially
Jack L. Cooper who coordinated the preparation of industry comments regarding
this report, is acknowledged. Significant contributions were also made by
William R. Schnell of Velsicol Chemical Corporation; Peter M. Perceval of
CHI-AM International, Inc.; E. Lee Johnson of Food Chemicals and Research
Laboratories, Inc.; James Bray of Washington Sea Grant; Fredric M. Husby of
the University of Alaska; and George Snyder and O.A. Clemens of Dravo Corpor-
ation.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Section/Title Page No.
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
I. BACKGROUND 1
II. SCOPE OF EFFORT 1
III. GENERAL APPROACH TO SECTION 74 STUDY 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
I. NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY 3
II. WASTE CONTROL AND TREATMENT 4
A. Tuna and Modern Fish Meal Processing 4
B. Other Industry Segments 4
III. SEAFOOD WASTE UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL .. 8
3. WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS 11
I. GENERAL 11
II. IN-PLANT MANAGEMENT 12
A. Water Management 14
B. Waste Management and Associated By-.
products 16
C. Current Application of In-plant Con-
trol Techniques in the Seafood
Industry 16
III. END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT 19
A. Screening 19
B. Oil Separation 20
1. Grease Traps 20
2. Oil Skimming 20
C. Sedimentation 20
D. Biological Treatment 25
1. Activated Sludge Processes .... 26
2. Trickling Filters 26
3. Rotating Biological Contactors
(RBC) 26
4. Lagoon Treatment 27
5. Biological Treatment with Macro-
organisms 27
6. Summary - Biological Treatment 29
111
-------
Chapter Section/Title Page No.
3. Coat. III. END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT (CONTINUED)
E. Physical-Chemical Treatment 29
1. Flotation 29
a. Vacuum Flotation 30
b. Dissolved Air Flotation .. 30
c. Dispersed Air Flotation .. 32
d. Electroflotation 32
2. Advanced Technology 33
a. Reverse Osmosis 33
b. Activated Clay 33
c. Carbon Adsorption 33
d. Chemical Precipitation ... 35
F. Land Treatment 35
G. Summary - End-Of-Pipe Treatment .... 36
4. SEAFOOD WASTE UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL 39
I. BACKGROUND 39
A. Solids Generation 39
1. In-Plant Solids Generation 39
2. End-of-Pipe Treatment 39
B. Current Disposal Practices 40
1. Contiguous United States 40
a. Secondary Utilization .... 41
b. Byproduct Manufacturing .. 41
c. Land Disposal 42
2. Alaska 43
a. Non-Remote Areas 43
b. Remote Areas 44
C. Future Considerations 44
II. SECONDARY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 45
A. Separation Of Gross Solids At Source 45
B. Secondary Products From Finfish
Wastes 46
C. Secondary Products From Shellfish
Wastes 47
III. BYPRODUCT MANUFACTURING 47
A. General Ingredients 47
B. Gross Solids 47
1. Finfish Wastes 47
2. Shellfish Wastes 50
C. Screened Solids 51
1. Finfish Wastes 51
2. Shellfish Wastes 51
D. Dissolved Air-Flotation (DAF) Sludge 51
1. General 51
2. DAF Float Characteristics 52
3. DAF Float Handling 52
4. DAF Float Utilization 53
IV
-------
Chapter
Section/Title
Page No,
4. Cont. III. BYPRODUCT MANUFACTURING (CONTINUED)
5. DAF Float Disposal 54
a. Nitrogen Content 54
b. Oil and Grease 55
c. Sodium Concentration 55
d. Salinity 55
e. Odor Potential 55
6. Summary 55
E. Waste Activated Sludge 56
F. Summary - Byproduct Manufacturing .. 57
IV. MEAL PRODUCTION FROM SEAFOOD WASTES 57
A. Background 57
B. Alaskan Meal Production 58
1. Anchorage 59
2. Cordova 59
3. Juneau 60
4. Ketchikan 60
5. Kodiak 60
6. Petersburg 61
7. Naknek - South Naknek 61
8. Dutch Harbor 61
9. Kenai Penninsula 61
V. CHITIN/CHITOSAN PRODUCTION FROM SHRIMP
AND CRAB WASTES 62
A. Description of Chitin/Chitosan Pro-
duction Process 62
B. Properties and Applications of
Chitin/Chitosan 62
C. Current Status of Chitin/Chitosan
Production 65
1. Raw Materials 65
2. Cost 68
3. Markets 68
D. Outlook 69
VI. ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SEAFOOD WASTES 69
A. Barging 70
B. Landfilling 70
C. Other Disposal Methods 71
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOMESTIC SOURCES A-l
APPENDIX B - BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FOREIGN SOURCES B-l
APPENDIX C - SELECTED FOREIGN ABSTRACTS C-l
APPENDIX D - GLOSSARY OF TERMS D-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1. WASTE REDUCTION AND COSTS RELATED TO APPLICA-
BLE TECHNOLOGY FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS OF THE
SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 6
2.. COST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE IMPLEMENTA-
TION OF IN-PLANT MEASURES TO REDUCE WATER USE
AND WASTE LOADS 13
3. - UTILIZATION OF FINFISH WASTES 17
4. UTILIZATION OF SHELLFISH WASTES 18
5. REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR SCREENING SYSTEMS
APPLICABLE TO SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS 36
6. REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
DESIGNED FOR SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS 37
7. REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR DAF SYSTEMS APPLICA-
BLE TO SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS 38
8. IDENTIFIED CHITIN/CHITOSAN APPLICATIONS 66
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No,
1. UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL ANTERNATIVES FOR
WASTES RESULTING FROM SELECTED LEVELS OF
WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 9
2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THAW WATER RECYCLE SYSTEM 15
3. PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF HORIZONTAL ROTARY SCREEN
OR ROTOSTRAINER 21
4. PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF A TANGENTIAL OR STATIC
SCREEN 22
5. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR A WASTEWATER SCREENING
SYSTEM 23
6. TYPICAL GREASE TRAP CONFIGURATIONS 24
7. PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CON-
TACTORS OR BIO-SURF PROCESS 28
8. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
(DAF) TREATMENT SYSTEM 31
9. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A REVERSE OSMOSIS UNIT .. 34
10. PROCESS SCHEMATIC OF A CONVENTIONAL FISH MEAL
PLANT WITH SOLUBLES PRODUCTION 49
11. PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR CHITIN PRODUCTION FROM
SHELLFISH WASTES 63
12. PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR CHITOSAN PRODUCTION FROM
CHITIN 64
VII
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
On December 27, 1977, the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) was adopted to
amend several provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500). Section 74 of the new Act requires the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a study to determine the effects of
seafood processes which dispose of untreated natural wastes into marine waters.
Investigations must address the geographical, hydrological and biological
characteristics of such waters. In addition, technologies to facilitate the
use of nutrients in these wastes or to reduce their discharge into the marine
environment must be examined. The findings of these investigations are to be
reported to Congress.
II. SCOPE OF EFFORT
As part of the overall Section 74 study, a work program was developed to
identify and assess the applicability of various technologies for byproduct
manufacturing, in-plant waste control, wastewater treatment, and solids hand-
ling and disposal within the seafood processing industry.
Developing costs associated with achieving waste reductions through in-house
management and end-of-pipe treatment were also to be considered during this
effort.(126) The work program emphasized the utilization of seafood proces-
sing wastes for human consumption and the manufacturing of byproducts such as
fish meal, fish oil and chitin/chitosan. While fish meal and fish oil have
established markets, the widespread use of chitin/chitosan is subject to
economic and regulatory constraints. For byproducts which have not been
accepted for animal consumption the regulatory constraints were addressed.
The economics relating to these manufactured byproducts, as well as their
marketability, are part of the investigations undertaken by another contrac-
tor, Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (DPRA) of Manhattan,
Kansas. To assist in the market feasibility effort, background information
was developed regarding the technical aspects and the costs of installing and
operating byproduct facilities.
This report addresses: 1) the control of seafood processing waste discharges,
and 2) the current and potential uses of the materials eliminated from plant
effluents. Discussions relating to disposal alternatives and waste utili-
zation within the contiguous states also pertain to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam,
and American Samoa. Other study participants are assessing water quality
impacts at various geographical locations and determining the market feasi-
bility of certain,byproducts manufactured from seafood wastes.
III. GENERAL APPROACH TO TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION 74
This report presents information assembled for earlier development of effluent
limitations guidelines for the seafood industry and supplemented with more
-------
recent information collected and analyzed to specifically fulfill the re-
quirements of Section 74. Continuing with the approach established during the
guidelines work, the general characteristics of the industry have been con-
sidered during this effort. The major areas of interest have been: 1) appli-
cable waste control and treatment technology; and 2) utilization and disposal
of seafood wastes resulting from the implementation of control technology.
More specific information regarding the generation and character of seafood
processing wastes and the methods available for its control and utilization
can be found in the development documents (42, 43) and the draft report pre-
pared for the reassessment of effluent guidelines for the industry. (126)
Foreign and domestic sources of information were identified through manual and
computerized literature searches. Data which appeared pertinent to the Sec-
tion 74 study was requested; all information received was reviewed and cate-
gorized for summarization in this report.
Technology deemed to be readily applicable to the seafood processing industry
was emphasized during the evaluation process. In-plant control and end-of-
pipe treatment costs have been updated during this effort. Conventional
byproduct manufacturing which includes the production of meal and oil commod-
ities has been addressed for selected areas of Alaska and the contiguous
United States. More innovative techniques for utilizing seafood processing
wastes have also received attention.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses two of the major topic areas relating to the Section 74
seafood processing study:
1. waste control technology and the costs associated with reducing seafood
waste discharges; and
2. utilization and disposal of materials incurred through the application of
. waste control technology.
These topic areas are examined to indicate existing practices and character-
istics of the seafood industry, as well as potential ways for the industry to
achieve further reductions in waste discharges to the marine environment. In
some cases, technologies which have not been widely used by the U.S. seafood
processors in the United States have been evaluated based on their application
in foreign countries or within related food processing industries.
I. NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY
Because they have characteristics which are fundamentally different from the
remainder of the industry, the tuna processing segment and modern fish meal
plants (with solubles) should be assessed separately with respect to waste
control and utilization. Many of the major tuna processors and modern fish
meal plants practice on-site byproduct recovery at levels of sophistication
which are significantly higher than much of the rest of the seafood industry.
Through such practices, wastes entering treatment facilities or marine waters
are minimized. Major tuna processors currently have in-place, the highest
level of wastewater treatment employed by the industry.
Seafood processors comprising the remaining segments of the industry are
generally small, seasonal operations, often family-owned. Most are labor-
intensive or operate antiquated processing equipment and demonstrate limited
and unsophisticated waste management techniques when compared to the tuna
processing industry.
The significance of the waste loads which are generated by the seafood pro-
cessors has been recognized by EPA during its previous investigations.(29, 75,
118, 145) The impact of waste discharges from this industry has been docu-
mented at several sites.(29, 75, 118, 145) Under the provisions of Section 74
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, recent data has been collected and analyzed to
develop an up-to-date summary of the industry's current practices and the
potential for improving waste management and raw material utilization.
-------
II. WASTE CONTROL AND TREATMENT
A. Tuna and Modern Fish Meal Processing
Major tuna canneries and modern fish meal facilities exemplify the concept of
total raw material utilization for the seafood industry. Extensive efforts
are made by tuna processors to collect materials which cannot be used for
human consumption for byproduct recovery. Some canneries recycle tuna thaw
water, which is the largest single source of wastewater in the plant, to
significantly reduce the volume of wastewater requiring treatment.
Fish meal facilities have employed the recycle approach for unloading raw
material from boats. In some cases, a pneumatic system has been installed
which only requires a small amount of water for operation. Unloading water is
usually combined with stickwater and washwaters for the production of solubles
as a byproduct. When recycling is practiced, condenser water and low-con-
tamination condensate represent the largest volume of water discharged to
receiving waters. Because these streams have such low levels of contamina-
tion, they are discharged directly (without treatment) to receiving waters.
The installation of thaw water recycle systems at canneries less advanced than
some within the industry and the reduction of water consumption in other areas
are future considerations for additional in-plant management in tuna proces-
sing segments. For end-of-pipe treatment, the optimization of in-place DAF
systems is in order. Some consideration should also be given to biological
treatment systems as a treatment alternative. Wastes from the tuna industry
have been shown to be treatable by biological systems, as demonstrated by the
Terminal Island, California municipal treatment plant. Effective treatment
would be realized since the tuna industry processes essentially year-round;
however, land requirements of such systems could be prohibitive for some
canners.
Containing spills and reducing water use during washdown are pertinent to
modern fish meal facilities. Pollutant levels in the resulting waste stream
are not great enough to warrant treatment.
Facilities which do not now have the capability to evaporate the soluble
streams (stickwater and bailwater) can provide the necessary equipment to do
so, or employ barging for deep sea disposal as an alternative.
B. Other Industry Segments
Although processing activities vary among the remaining segments of the sea-
food industry, the general approach to proper waste management and its inhe-
rent benefits remains the same. The most effective means to reduce waste dis-
charges from this portion of the industry would be for processors to generally
upgrade, where possible, in-plant operations to control water use, minimize
water contamination, and reduce the wasting of raw materials. A program
employing such measures has a number of direct and immediate advantages:
o reduced water consumption, resulting in cost reductions;
o reduced waste loadings, resulting in lower environmental control
costs; and
-------
o improved potential for more complete raw material utilization,
including the manufacturing of marketable secondary products and by-
products.
It is important to recognize that reduced water consumption does not result in
a proportional reduction in waste loadings. Rather, when water is recycled
and used only where necessary, the waste constituents become concentrated in
the liquid waste streams. The reduced volume and higher concentrations faci-
litate treatment.
The economic incentives for more effective in-plant waste management are
matched by a growing concern for improved environmental protection on the part
of the industry. Processors in the segments of the seafood industry other
than tuna and fish meal, generally have only screening (a simple technology)
in-place. An updated approach to waste control emphasizes simple physical-
chemical treatment methods (such as DAF) in conjunction with in-plant measures
for most industry segments. This suggests that most operations generating
relatively high wastewater flows and loadings can upgrade their wastewater
treatment practices to achieve additional reductions. However, the cost of
these improvements require consideration for any operation.
For plants which generate low waste flows from manual operations, effective
controls include in-plant waste management practices followed by screening.
Examples of such operations include hand-filleting bottom fish, hand-butch-
ering salmon, most crab processing activities, and hand-shucking clams and
oysters. Higher levels of treatment are available to these operations if
necessary. The only plants which simply grind and discharge their wastes are
plants in remote areas of Alaska.
For catfish processing areas, which are usually located inland, simple bio-
logical wastewater treatment systems (e.g., aerated lagoons) are applicable.
Land for such systems is more available away from coastal areas. In addition,
some of the catfish processors have municipal wastewater treatment plants
available which can accept processing wastes.
With few exceptions, the waste management concepts and wastewater treatment
technologies discussed herein have already, been proven by model plants within
various segments of the seafood industry. The levels of technology having
application to the various industry segments reflect present knowledge con-
cerning their effectiveness and associated costs. They also reflect the
special nature of the seafood industry, including its processing operations
and geographical location. Moreover, many of the technologies considered
applicable to the seafood industry have been applied successfully by related
food industries in the United States and abroad. In the United States, re-
lated food industries generally utilize the technologies discussed herein
along with other more advanced technologies, which are not applicable to the
seafood industry, to achieve higher levels of wastewater treatment.
Applicable technologies, associated pollutant reductions and associated costs
are presented in Table 1 for the various seafood industry segments.
-------
TABLE 1
WASTE REDUCTIONS AND COSTS RELATED TO APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY
FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS OF THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY (126)
Technology
In-Plant
Modification
Iii-Place
Tuna
Fish Meal
(w/solubles)
Industry
Application
Tuna
Fish Meal
(w/o solubles)
Waste Reduction
Minimize Loadings
for Discharge or
Subsequent Treatment
Cost
Installed
$20,000-$220,000
$270,000-$550,000
Range
Daily
$20 -
$275 -
O&M
$250
$560
Screening
Catfish
Blue Crab
West Coast Crab
Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Salmon
Bottom Fish
Clam
Oyster
Sardine
Herring Fillet
Abalone
Tuna
Catfish
Blue Crab
West Coast Crab
Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Salmon
Bottom Fish
Clam
Oyster
Sardine
Herring Fillet
Abalone
Catfish
Blue Crab
West Coast Crab
Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Salmon
Bottom Fish
Clam
Oyster
Sardine
Herring Fillet
Abalone
Tuna
Catfish
Blue Crab
West Coast Crab
Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Salmon
Bottom Fish
Clam
Oyster
Sardine
Herring Fillet
Abalone
Removal of
Oversize Solids
(Generally larger
than 0.03-inch)
Contiguous States
$5,000-$75,000 $5 - $75
Alaska
$10,000-$220,000 $5 - $240
$48,000-$178,000 $24 - $180
Contiguous States
$46,000-$160,000 $ 7 - $250
Alaska
$79,000-$260,000 $33 - $270
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Technology
Grease Trap
Air Flotation
In-Place
Sardine
Tuna
Biological Systems
Aerated Lagoons Breaded Shrimp
Activated Sludge
Industry
Application
Catfish
Blue Crab
West Coast Crab
Sardine
Tuna*
Salmon*
Bottom FishT
Sardine*
Herring Fillett
Blue Crabt
West Coast Crab*
Shrimp*
Breaded Shrimp!
Clamt
Oyster*
Cattish
Tuna
Tuna
Waste Reduction
Cost Range
Removal of free
oil and grease for
recovery
Finfish
BOD : 50-80%
TSS: 70-95%
O&G: 80-95%
Shellfish
BOD : 40-65%
TSS: 60-75%
O&G: 70-90%
Installed
Daily O&H
BOD : 75-85%
TSS: 70-80%
O&G: 85-95%
BOD : 80-90%
BOD;?: 80-90%
TSS: 75-85%
O&G: 85-95%
Contiguous States
$1,000-$3,000 $2 - $13
Alaska
$3,000-$11,000 $10 - $80
$200,000-$800,000 $280-$!,800
Remaining Segments
$178,000-$600,000 $14-$1,000
$110,000-$160,000 $45 - $70
$190,000-$2,250,OGO $80-$890
$150,000-$!,000,000 $200-$!,000
""Demonstrated on a full-scale or pilot plant level.
iKngineering judgment based on performance achieved for related industry segments.
-------
III. SEAFOOD WASTE UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL
Wastes generated by seafood processors, other than the tuna and fish meal
segments, are proteinaceous, containing materials which have some value.
Seafood processors are not always well-equipped to produce valuable products
from their waste materials. It is not always profitable to do so. Simple
disposal often represents the cheapest and least cumbersome way to deal with
unwanted raw materials from the processing plants. The industry has been
utilizing rather convenient, inexpensive disposal options (such as direct
ocean discharge of raw wastes) which have tended to discourage additional
waste material utilization while potentially affecting receiving water quali-
ty. The general philosophy has been that you can put back into the sea sub-
stances that came out of the sea.
The more complex the practices for waste material retention or capture, the
more need there is for alternatives for the utilization or disposal of these
wastes. Tuna canneries have installed lines to produce petfood from portions
of the fish which are not acceptable for human consumption. In addition,
viscera and scraps are collected for the production of other byproducts, such
as meal, oil and solubles, requiring equipment similar to that utilized by the
fish meal segment.
Production of fish meal from whole fish (menhaden and anchovies) generates a
concentrated waste stream called stickwater. At some facilities, stickwater
is combined with unloading water to generate solubles by evaporation. This
byproduct can be introduced into the meal drying process or enhance quality
or, it can be marketed separately, an approach which has been adopted by some
tuna canners.
Tuna processors employing physical-chemical treatment (DAF) for their waste-
waters are faced with the disposal of the resulting sludge (float). Current-
ly, disposal is accomplished by conventional means, such as landfilling.
Investigations are required to establish the feasibility of producing an
animal feed additive, fertilizer from float, or disposal at sea.
For the remaining segments of the industry, enlightened waste material util-
ization will require improved in-plant waste management to improve solids
recovery. Solids which can be collected and potentially utilized include
gross solids (heads, viscera, etc.) from the processing lines, screened solids
from end-of-pipe treatment systems, the solids captured by physical-chemical
wastewater treatment systems (such as DAF), and the solids generated by bio-
logical wastewater treatment systems. Once collected, these solids have
potential for reuse as foodstuffs, nutrient products, animal feed, fertilizers
and other useful materials, depending on the species processed, processing
steps employed, chemicals used, and the granting of approval for selected uses
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Options for the disposal/utiliza-
tion of wastes resulting from the implementations of waste management prac-
tices are illustrated in Figure 1.
For most finfish species, the production of fish meal offers a means of waste
material utilization and disposal. Fish meal plants, similar to those in-
stalled at tuna canneries, are operated by independent companies or cooper-
ating seafood processors located in major processing centers. The canning of
petfood products has also gained some acceptance as a means of waste material
utilization by specific segments of the seafood industry.
8
-------
GROSS SOLIDS
CONCENTRATED
WASTE STREAMS
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
OAF
TREATMENT
UNITS
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
UNITS
SECONDARY
PRODUCTS
BYPRODUCTS
DISPOSAL
FISH STICKS. CAKM,ETC
SSPARATER BOE
FISH PROTEIN SPREAD
POTENTIAL HiCM 6HAI* PROTEIN
ANIMAL fOOp.
flS.HHlAL.oi
f IS» f E.6W
tANO
peep SEA PISPQSAL
FABRICATED MEAT PRODUCTS
CLAM JUICE PRODUCTS
DRY FLAVOR INGREDIENTS
CONCENTRATED BROTH
r\
MEAL PRODUCTS
FERTILIZER
AOUACULTURE FEED SUPPLEMENT
ANIMAL FEED
CHITIN/CHITOSAN
PEPTONES FOR MICROBIO. MEDIA
r\
GRIND S DISCHARGE
LAND DISPOSAL
DEEP SEA DISPOSAL
f VlSM MEAL,0|L, 60LU8LES -" ^ J tANP DISPOSAL
f ANIMAL rejo$, f I*M row ~ [ , N..,.,,,.,.,X OEE.P SEA OISPC
3£A OISPP5AL
\
S
MEAL PRODUCTS. FERTILIZER
AOUACULTURE FEED SUPPLEMENT
ANIMAL FEED
CHITIN/CHITOSAN
ANIMAL Pteu ADDITIVE
(SUBJECT JO FOA *PP«OVAU
r~\
LAND DISPOSAL
DEEP SEA DISPOSAL
LANDFILL
AGRICULTURAL SHKSAOIN8
ANIMAL FEED ADDITIVE
(SUBJECT TO FDA APPROVAL)
FERTILIZER
6QIL AMENDMENT
ANIMAL FBEO
LANDFILL
AGRICULTURAL SPREADING
LANDFILL
f OIL ENRICHMENT
SOIL AMENDMENT
ANIMAL FEED
LANDFILL
SOIL ENRICHMENT
Figure 1. Utilization and disposal alternatives for wastes
resulting from selected levels of waste control technology.
-------
Shellfish wastes (crab and shrimp) can be converted into a meal product, but
one which has a lower protein content and poorer market value than the meal
from finfish plants. Another byproduct which can be manufactured from shell-
fish (crab and shrimp) wastes is chitin and its derivative, chitosan. These
natural polymers have potential for a wide range of applications, but have not
been economically produced in quantity in the United States. A Japanese
manufacturer currently provides most of the world's supply of chitin/chitosan.
The future may bring greater attention to the properties of these shellfish
derivatives, thus attracting a greater market. To be economically competi-
tive, chitin/ chitosan would have to be produced at a large regional or na
tional plant which would need to receive adequate volumes of shellfish wastes
from a large number of processors.
Solids which are not converted into byproducts require disposal either on the
land or in the ocean. Land application requires the availability of a suit-
able site. Techniques are available to incorporate seafood processing wastes
into the soil to increase nutrient contents in support of agricultural activi-
ties. If simple disposal is the key objective, suitable landfill sites can
provide the means when they are available.
Conditions in most of the Alaskan processing areas preclude land application
or landfilling of seafood processing wastes. For this isolated segment of the
industry, alternatives are thus limited to byproduct manufacturing or ocean
disposal.
Byproduct alternatives for the Alaskan seafood processors include the manu-
facture of fish meal and associated products at selected processing centers.
Meal plants are currently operated in Seward, Petersburg and Kodiak. The
market feasibility of establishing regional meal plants in other Alaskan
locations is currently being evaluated by DPRA. Smaller package-type meal
plants may also represent a feasible alternative for certain processors.
Other byproduct alternatives include freezing of gross finfish solids for
shipment to Seattle petfood manufacturers and the stabilization of shells
through deproteinization. The stabilized shell material and protein can then
be transported to other locations for byproduct manufacturing or other forms
of utilization.
Designated ocean disposal sites are located within 5 miles of most Alaskan
seafood processing centers. Barging of wastes to these sites can usually be
accomplished at a reasonable cost, thus minimizing the impact on near-shore
waters.
Progressing to higher levels of waste management will increase the quantity of
residuals requiring utilization or disposal. Byproduct production represents
a solution for disposal of gross and screened solids at some locations. For
DAF sludge disposal, the tuna processors have employed dewatering and land-
filling. However, long-term solutions to the disposal requirements for float
and waste activated sludges must continue to be sought.
10
-------
WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
-------
CHAPTER 3
WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
I. GENERAL
The character of the wastes generated by seafood processors relates to the
species being processed, the volume of production, and the processing methods
utilized. Generally, mechanized operations consume more water and result in
higher waste loads per ton of raw material processed than manual techniques.
Of the total volume generated, the major portion of the waste consists of
gross solids such as heads, viscera, shells and carcasses. The remainder
comprises smaller pieces suspended in the process wastewaters. Other types of
waste products result from subsequent processing steps to produce specialty
items. For example, some shrimp plants incorporate a breading operation as
part of their normal activities; this results in the presence of bread crumbs
and batter in the process waste streams.
Water is used by seafood processors for a number of operations including the
unloading of boats, the transport of raw materials within the plant, various
processing steps, and washing and cleanup operations. Additional uses, such
as retorting, do not generally result in the contamination of the water; these
noncontact flows can be discharged without treatment. Acceptable in-plant ma-
nagement consists of isolating noncontact flows and implementing measures
which can reduce the process water use and help control the amount of wastes
that are allowed to escape into the floor drains and collection system of the
plant. When process contact water has been allowed to leave the processing
area, it is known as wastewater.
Concern for the environmental effects of wastewaters discharged to receiving
waters by municipal and industrial point sources, including the seafood pro-
cessors, has led the United States Congress to provide EPA with the authority
to issue guidelines for the cleanup and regulation of these discharges.
Federal regulations, referred to as secondary treatment and effluent limi-
tations guidelines, have specified the maximum amount of waste materials or
pollutants which can be discharged by municipalities and industrial point
sources, including seafood processing plants.
So far, much of the seafood industry has done little in terms of controlling
waste discharges in comparison to other food processing industries. Other
food processors, such as meat packers, poultry processors, and fruits and
vegetable plants, have adopted more sophisticated and costly technologies than
those implemented by the seafood industry. Although the characteristics of
these industries may differ from those of the seafood industry, the concepts
relating to waste control and treatment for all are comparable.
The assessments of waste control and treatment which have been accomplished to
date have identified special characteristics of the seafood industry. Typical
of most segments of the industry are small processing plants which often
operate only intermittently during the year. Many of the smaller plants are
family-owned. Manual labor is prevalent and waste management practices are
often antiquated. An exception is the tuna industry, which typically operates
on a larger scale and operates essentially year round. Most tuna processors
11
-------
also employ more sophisticated waste treatment technologies than other seg-
ments of the industry. Modern fish meal facilities also represent a higher
level of sophistication in terms of waste management.
For the most part, seafood processors are located in built-up shorefront
areas. Some are actually built over the water on piles, and still others are
located on seagoing vessels. In many instances, processors have limited land
available for expansion or the construction of wastewater treatment facili-
ties.
Technologies for reducing the discharge of solid and liquid wastes from sea-
food processing plants can be segregated into two categories. The first
category encompasses in-plant management techniques and modified operating
procedures. The second classification involves equipment and appurtenances
which treat the wastewater after it has left the processing areas. These are
referred to as "end-of-pipe" technologies and generally represent a more
elaborate approach to waste control than in-plant modifications.
II. IN-PLANT MANAGEMENT
In-plant management techniques and modified operating procedures constitute
two major areas: 1) water management (i.e., the reduction of water consump-
tion through housekeeping methods and/or recycle/reuse); and 2) waste man-
agement (i.e., control of waste materials allowed to enter the plant efflu-
ent) . Both water conservation and waste management can help reduce the cost
of implementing end-of-pipe treatment technologies. Decreased water usage can
reduce the total volume of wastewater which requires treatment, thus minimiz-
ing the required size of treatment equipment and the associated capital and
operating costs. When the flow to treatment is reduced, the greater cost
savings are realized in total capital investment, with a lesser impact on
use-associated costs. Similarly, by decreasing the amount of solids which
enter the waste stream, one reduces the amount of wastes which must be removed
by end-of-pipe treatment technologies. Again, equipment sizes and use-asso-
ciated treatment costs, which includes the handling and disposal of residuals,
can then be reduced.
Table 2 illustrates the impact of in-plant measures on the costs of installing
and operating end-of-pipe treatment facilities. Representative seafood indus-
try segments are listed in the table, and treatment costs are compared based
on water use for a "model" plant and for a plant which lacks sufficient in-
plant controls. The model plants and other plants, although not named, rep-
resent existing plants which were characterized during the study to reassess
the effluent guidelines for the seafood industry.(126) Model plants are those
which are achieving baseline water use and waste load values established for
the particular segment.
The model plants generate less wastewater than plants which lack in-plant
management practices, reflecting the use of water-saving techniques by most
model plants. Since operating costs are more directly impacted by flow, the
cost savings are more apparent for daily operation and maintenance (O&M) for
all selected segments. Cost comparisons show that processing plants in cer-
tain segments can achieve pollution control at a lower capital investment by
implementing in-plant modifications prior to installing wastewater treatment
12
-------
TABLE 2
COST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
1N-PLANT MEASURES TO REDUCE WATER USE AND WASTE LOADS
In-Plant Cost
End-Of-Pipe Cost
Cost Savings
Industry Plant Size
Segment (Tons/Day)
Northern 8
Shrimp
Tuna 250
Mechanized 35
Salmon
Mechanized 30
Bottom Fish
Steamed 7
and Canned
Oyster
Type Of
Plant
Model
Other
Model
Other
Model
Other
Model
Other
Model
Other
Total Daily
Flow (MGD)
0.10
0.14
0.67
1.14
0.12
0.17
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.14
Capital
($1,000)
15
0
120
0
45
0
35
0
10
0
O&M
($/Day)
10
0
130
0
40
0
25
0
5
0
Capital
($1,000)
295
300
470
670
275
310
310
340
290
320
O&M
($/Day)
415
480
760
1,170
315
500
380
460
465
540
Capital O&M
($1,000) ($/Day)
55
80 280
185
55
20 70
-------
facilities. Higher initial costs can be often justified in terms of operating
cost savings.
Comprehensive water and waste management programs have been shown to produce
economic benefits for seafood processors which can break away from traditional
practices of discharging wastes directly to receiving waters with little
regard to either volume or composition. In-plant modifications and techniques
associated with comprehensive water and waste management programs are de-
scribed below.
A. Water Management
Reduced water consumption is the principle goal of water management. Another
objective is to minimize contact between solids and water, since this allows
organics and proteins to dissolve in the water. Simple methods can be used to
reduce consumption and minimize solids-water contact.
Many processors use water to unload and transport raw and/or finished products
within the plant. In some facilities, hydraulic conveyance of waste materials
is also typical. Such practices could be modified by installing conveyor
belts or pneumatic (vacuum) conveying systems. Pneumatic equipment has been
used by plants within various segments of the industry to unload raw material
from boats and to convey waste materials from separation equpment to storage.
Spring-loaded hose nozzles which automatically shutoff when not in use are
commercially available to help conserve water. Faucets can be installed at
individual stations along manual butchering tables so that water at an un-
occupied station can be turned off. The installation of high-pressure hose
and faucet nozzles and the use of high pressure/low-volume water supply sys-
tems are other ways to reduce water consumption within a processing facility.
Some processing steps produce more wastes than others. Extremely contaminated
water from these areas can be isolated from the main waste stream and sub-
jected to separate recovery operations or treatment processes.
More sophisticated water management methods involve the recycle and reuse of
water. Some canneries recycle water which is used to unload boats. Less
contaminated waste streams can often be directed to receiving areas or raw
material washing operations for reuse without treatment. Water which is used
to thaw frozen fish could be reheated and recycled as shown in Figure 2. A
similar approach can be used for washing sealed cans.
In some cases, isolated waste streams can be converted into useful products.
For example, an east coast clam processor converts water used to wash minced
clam meats into a marketable product comparable to clam juice.(66, 161)
Investigations have demonstrated the potential of further processing this
concentrated material into a dry clam flavor ingredient.(74)
In-plant measures such as those mentioned above normally require that produc-
tion managers and employees of a given processing plant become more aware of
conservation techniques and their impact on total plant water use. Most
efforts (such as turning off faucets, hoses, and processing equipment which
require water for operation) are simple, direct and inexpensive ways to reduce
overall pollution abatement costs for a particular plant.
14
-------
THAW
—\
I
I
NS j
1
i
1
V *
<
k
\
RETENTION
TANK
,-.
< (^ ' ACID
«.. STFAkJ
COLLECTION
SUMP
\
LEGEND
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PUMP
©
DRAIN TO WASTEWATER SUMP
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of thaw water recycle system.
-------
B. Waste Management and Associated Byproducts
The principal goal of waste management is to collect the relatively large
pieces of waste, such as fish carcasses, viscera, shells, discarded scraps,
etc., before they enter the waste streams. A major advantage of this concept
is that it provides greater potential for utilizing or converting waste mater-
ials into marketable secondary products or byproducts.
Simple waste management techniques are available to most seafood processors.
Brooms, shovels, and/or squeegees can be employed as important tools during
dry cleanup efforts to collect scraps which have fallen to the floor. Solids
which- are collected in this manner will not be washed into a drain or require
removal by end-of-pipe technology. Another technique consists of placing
containers under conveyor belts and processing tables to collect falling or
discarded scraps. Once collected, certain waste solids can be utilized to
manufacture either secondary products or byproducts having some value. Some
progress has been made in this area; however, efforts toward achieving the
concept of total utilization have, for the most part, been more fully explored
by researchers. Individual byproducts and secondary products currently being
manufactured or having potential for future production from finfish and shell-
fish wastes are identified in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The secondary products and byproducts which can be manufactured from waste
solids will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter of this report,
entitled "Seafood Waste Utilization and Disposal". That discussion will also
address disposal alternatives for plants which lack the opportunity to utilize
their waste materials.
C. Current Application of In-Plant Control Measures
In-plant control measures to effectively manage waste have been generally
lacking in the seafood industry. The reluctance of processors to adopt com-
prehensive waste management programs can be attributed to two factors: 1) the
maintenance of traditional practices and conceptions which are based on the
rationale of "returning to the sea what came from the sea;" and 2) the rela-
tively unsophisticated end-of-pipe technology adopted by the industry which
does not emphasize the need for reducing incoming waste loads. For example,
plants located in remote areas of Alaska grind processing wastes for dis-
charge. In non-remote areas of Alaska and in the contiguous United States,
general housekeeping practices for controlling wastewater generation at its
source are encouraged.
With the proper incentives, all segments of the industry can identify and
adopt the appropriate, in-plant water and waste management practices. Allow-
ing plants to continue grinding wastes for discharge to the marine environ-
ment, as is currently performed, does not provide the required incentives.
The elimination of flumes for raw material, finished product and waste con-
veyance and replacement by dry handling methods is an example of a simpler,
but effective means of reducing water use and solids-water contact. With the
application of higher levels of treatment technology, the primary step is to
evaluate in-plant activities. It is readily apparent that in-plant measures
and process modification will play an important role in minimizing the eco-
nomic impact on the industry when implementing more sophisticated and costly
end-of-pipe treatment technology.
16
-------
TABLE 3
. UTILIZATION OF FINFISH WASTES
Commodities Currently Being Produced and Marketed:
a. Fish meal
b. Fish oil
c. Fish solubles
d. Fish silage
e. Petfood
f. Machine separated flesh for use in:
1. dips
2. snacks
3. frankfurters
4. fish cakes
5. fish sticks
6. fish loaves
g. Fertilizer
h. Fish feeds
i. Bait
Byproducts which have been Investigated or Suggested:
a. Feeds for use in aquaculture (i.e. the artificial cultivation of
aquatic animals)
b. Recovered protein
c. Single-cell protein production (e.g. using fish wastes to grow
yeast cultures)
d. Compost nutrients
e. Anti-coagulant drugs
17
-------
TABLE 4
UTILIZATION OF SHELLFISH WASTES
Commodities Currently Being Produced and Marketed:
a. Crab Meal
b. Fertilizer (37)
c. Construction products, e.g. oyster shells (32)
d. Clutch-planting media for maintaining the productivity of
oyster beds, e.g. oyster shells (32)
e. Hog feed, e.g. clam shells and crab shells (32)
f. Scouring agent for vegetable processing (95)
Byproducts Which Have Been Investigated or Suggested:
a. Chitin (from crab or shrimp shells)
b. Chitosan (from crab or shrimp shells)
c. Industrial acid neutralizer, e.g. clam and oyster shells (95)
d. Substitute in pressed wood panels (95)
e. Texture material for paints (95)
f. Abrasives (95)
g. Filter for oil well drilling mud (95)
h. Component in winter tires (95)
i. Pigmentation ingredient (98)
18
-------
III. END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT
Even the best water and waste management techniques cannot completely elimi-
nate wastewater from a processing plant. Many technologies are available for
treating this wastewater, ranging from relatively simple separation techniques
to advanced biological and physical-chemical processes. More advanced tech-
nologies generally produce cleaner discharges, but at higher costs. Moreover,
the removal of more pollutants results in a greater volume of residuals re-
quiring disposal.
The levels of treatment employed by seafood processors have generally been
low, reflecting the nature of the industry. In certain areas of Alaska,
in-place technology consists of grinding the wastes then discharging the
solids through an outfall which is either submerged or above the water line.
The grinding approach which was conceived to facilitate solids dispersal is
consistent with EPA policy for designated Alaskan areas. However, this
approach cannot be readily considered a total solution for handling the over-
all waste disposal problem.(26)
In a few areas where processors are discharging to receiving waters (usually
inland waters) with water quality considerations, more complex treatment is
currently required by state-level environmental control agencies. However,
the technology is available for seafood processors, in general, to further
reduce wastes which are discharged to the marine environment. End-of-pipe
treatment approaches being utilized or currently available to the industry are
described below.
A. Screening
In general, screening is the primary step in removing solids from wastewaters
generated by the food industry. Meat packers and poultry processors employ
screening equipment prior to subjecting process waters to higher levels of
treatment. However, most seafood processors use screens to capture solids
from the wastewater prior to discharging to receiving waters. Screened solids
are usually collected in hoppers, totes, trucks, etc., and in some cases are
used to manufacture byproducts. Available screening devices for gross and
fine solids removal include the following.
Coarse solids removal equipment:
a. revolving drums (inclined and horizontal);
b. basket screens;
c. belt screens;
d. inclined troughs;
e. bar screens; and
f. drilled plates.
19
-------
Fine screening equipment (20-mesh equivalent):
a. revolving drums (inclined, horizontal, and vertical axes);
b. tangential screens (pressure or gravity fed); and
c. vibrating or oscillating screens (linear or circular motion).
As indicated above, a variety of solids recovery equipment with various sizes
of openings is available to the processor. Frequently, a coarse screen is
used ahead of and in series with fine screens. The most common equipment for
gross solids removal has been observed to be the revolving drum-type. Screen
opening sizes are generally %-inch diameter or larger. These units remove the
larger solids and reduce loadings to fine screens. Revolving drums and tan-
gential screens are commonly used by the seafood industry for fine screening
and are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Current practices
include the use of fine screens by most segments of the industry. Figure 5 is
a schematic diagram of a typical screening installation which includes a
collection sump, pump(s), screen(s), solids conveyance and solids storage
hopper. An outfall is also required to direct the screened effluent to marine
waters or subsequent treatment.
B. Oil Separation
Many marine animals contain natural fats (oil and grease) which can find their
way into the process wastewater. Particularly oily species, such as sardines,
may contribute so much fat that special techniques for its removal may be
justified. Grease traps and oil skimming mechanisms are used for this pur-
pose. In many instances, the recovered material can be reprocessed into a
salable byproduct.
1. Grease Traps. Earlier investigations indicated grease traps to be appli-
cable technology for selected segments of the industry, including catfish and
crab processors. Grease traps are basically tanks which allow the fats, which
are lighter than water, to rise to the surface where they can be removed
either by manual or by mechanical means. Figure 6 illustrates typical config-
urations for a grease trap which can reduce the quantity of fats and oils
entering receiving waters where they would float to the surface.
2. Oil Skimming. Oil skimming, which functions under the same principles as
grease traps, has been adopted by the sardine canning industry for a small
concentrated waste stream. The wastewater resulting from the precooking
operation is isolated and directed to the skimmer, where free oil is recovered
for sale to a Tenderer. Therefore, a portion of the costs associated with
this equipment is recovered through the sale of a waste material.
C. Sedimentation
Pollutant particles which are heavier than water will tend to settle to the
bottom of a quiescent tank. The level of technology which takes advantage of
20
-------
HEA080X
ROTARY SCREEN
WASTEWATER FEED INLET
DOCTOR
SLAOE
SOLIDS FOR COLLECTION
Figure 3. Perspective v>^w of a horizontal rotary screen
or Rotostrainer (Hycor Corporation).
21
-------
SURGE FLAP
OVERSIZE
SOLIDS FOR
COLLECTION
HEAOBOX
WASTEWATER
FEED INLET
STAINLESS
STEEL SCREEN
Figure 4. Perspective view of a tangential or static screen.
22
-------
N>
LO
RAW WASTEWATER
COLLECTION
SUMP
SCREEN
PUM
(P
(P
in.
SOLIDS
.5 CONVEYOR
SCREEN
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
TO OUTFALL OR
FURTHER TREATMENT
SOLIDS
STORAGE HOPPER
Figure 5. Schematic layout for a wastewater screening system.
-------
REMOVABLE COVER
INLET PIPE.
J ""=»»• OUTLET
RECTANGULAR CONFIGURATION
USING A CONCRETE BOX
REMOVABLE COVER
INLET PIPE
n
.OUTLET
-CLAY TILE PIPE
CIRCULAR CONFIGURATION
USING CLAY TILE PIPE
REMOVABLE COVER
4-CLEANOUT
OUTLET
CONVENTIONAL CONFIGURATION
FOR SMALLER VOLUMES
Figure 6. Typical grease trap configurations.
24
-------
this principle is called sedimentation, and includes grit chambers, sedimenta-
tion tanks and clarifiers.
Grit chambers have been found to be applicable to clam and oyster processors.
They are designed to remove heavy, "gritty" materials such as sand, dirt, and
shell fragments which could erode or damage wastewater treatment equipment.
When installed, grit chambers are commonly placed before screens or any other
treatment equipment.
Sedimentation is not applicable for the majority of the seafood industry. To
accomplish separation of organic solids, wastewater needs to be retained in
the tanks for long periods of time. The putrescible nature of fish wastes
prohibits the use of sedimentation by most of the industry.
D. Biological Treatment
Biological treatment systems are designed to foster the growth of microorga-
nisms which are capable of decomposing waste matter. Most systems require the
removal of larger solids and consist of a mixed culture of microorganisms
which include protozoans, bacteria, yeast and rotifers. Keeping these organ-
isms propogating presents a difficulty for seafood processors which do not
maintain a regular schedule or process year-round. When their activities
cease, no wastes are generated and the organisms are thus deprived of their
food source. Although short-term interruptions may not significantly impair
the effectiveness of certain systems, extended shutdown periods would require
that the organisms be provided with a supplemental energy source, such as fish
food, to maintain acceptable pollutant removals. Other considerations include
sudden increases in waste loads, called shock loadings, which can have an
adverse effect on the organisms involved. In addition, cold temperatures slow
down the activity of the organisms, thus decreasing the efficiency of biolog-
ical systems.
Although they have not received widespread application within the seafood
industry, biological processes comprise a common technology for the treatment
of municipal wastewaters and other effluents generated by some segments of the
food processing industry. The organisms effecting treatment within the system
can be maintained in liquid suspension, or they can attach themselves to fixed
surfaces. Fixed-growth systems, which include trickling filters and rotating
biological contactors (KBC), offer a greater resistance to shock loads than
the suspended biomass systems, particularly if multiple stages of treatment
are used. However, the attached biomass requires exposure to air as an oxygen
source. To prevent freezing during winter operation in northern climates,
trickling filters and RBC's can be covered or installed in a building.
Biological systems can be generally classified according to the type of envi-
ronment provided for the life forms. Aerobic systems promote the growth of
organisms which can exist in the presence of dissolved oxygen, whereas an-
aerobic systems are limited to organisms that thrive in the absence of oxygen.
Various biological processes have been adopted by industries and municipali-
ties to reduce organic loads discharged to receiving waters. Lagoon treatment
which employs either an aerobic or anaerobic process represents a low-activity
system. Examples of high-rate aerobic systems include the fixed growth pro-
cesses and activated sludge systems.
25
-------
Wastewater which leaves a high-rate biological reactor carries clumps, or
floes, of microorganisms and solids with it. Sedimentation techniques, as
discussed earlier, are then required to remove the flocculated organisms and
related solids. A clarifier, which can be a circular tank ranging from 50 ft
to 300 ft in diameter, follows the biological reactor for this purpose.
Although areas required for the high-rate biological systems themselves can be
relatively small, additional land is necessary to accommodate the clarifiers
and any other ancillary equipment.
Several alternatives exist for both high-r"ate biological systems and lagoon
treatment, each with inherent advantages and disadvantages. A brief discus-
sion "of the available options for achieving secondary treatment of wastewaters
is provided below.
1. Activated Sludge Processes. Activated sludge treatment and its modifica-
tions are aerobic, suspended growth processes. Wastewater is conveyed to an
aeration tank, into which air (oxygen) is mechanically introduced to sustain
biological activity. When properly designed and skillfully operated, such
systems can achieve high degrees of treatment, particularly for BOD.. Conven-
tional systems retain the wastewater for 24 hours or less. A modification of
the activated sludge process is extended aeration, in which the wastewater is
retained in the aeration tank for longer periods of time. Extended aeration
systems can better tolerate shock loadings which are characteristic of many
food processing operations. Application of the extended aeration process has
been demonstrated on pilot plant and full-scale levels.(39, 86) All activated
sludge systems generate biomass which must be wasted and then handled for
ultimate disposal.
2. Trickling Filters. Trickling filters are basically large circular tanks
filled with plastic media or rocks. Wastewater is distributed over .the sur-
face of the filter with spray nozzles. As wastewater filters down through the
media, it is brought into contact with microorganisms attached to the media.
The mass of the microorganisms increases with continued wastewater applica-
tion, and eventually sloughing will occur. Thus, the treated wastewater and
clumps of biomass are directed from the bottom of the filter to a sedimenta-
tion tank which allows phase separation to occur for discharge of clarified
effluent. The resulting sludge (biomass) is generally dewatered further for
ultimate disposal.
In recent years, the trickling filter approach has decreased in relative
importance as a means for achieving secondary treatment. However, its appli-
cation to reduce organic loadings prior to activated sludge processes has
gained acceptance.
3. Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC). Another example of the fixed bio-
mass approach is rotating biological contactors. As shown in Figure 7, RBC
systems contain a series of disks arranged along a horizontal axis and rep-
resents a compact system. The disks are partially submerged in the waste-
water. As these disks rotate, microorganisms which attach themselves to the
disks are alternately submerged and removed from the liquid. Aerobic oxida-
tion is effected, thus increasing the biomass on the media. As the biomass
26
-------
grows and rotates, the sloughing phenomenon occurs. Clarification must follow
the contactors to obtain an acceptable effluent for discharge. The separated
biological solids are handled in much the same manner as those removed from
trickling filter effluents. The effectiveness of the RBC process for seafood
processing wastewaters has been investigated for fish and shellfish operations
on a small scale.(3, 70)
4. Lagoon Treatment. Wastewater treatment lagoons are usually flat-bottomed
basins enclosed by sloped, earthen dikes. The depth of the basins varies with
the specific type of process selected. For example, aerobic ponds assume a
liquid depth of 2 to 5 ft while anaerobic lagoons may be up to 20 ft deep.
Because they contain such large volumes of wastewater, lagoons are not highly
sensitive to fluctuations in hydraulic and organic loadings. As a result, the
systems can offer reasonable long-term performance in treating the inter-
mittent waste loads generally associated with the seafood industry.
Other food processing industries use various modes of wastewater lagooning,
including aerobic and anaerobic processes. The oxygen required to maintain
aerobic conditions can be introduced into the basins either naturally or
mechanically. If air is mechanically forced into the wastewater, the lagoons
can be deeper, which is an advantage in cold climates and areas with limited
land availability.
Aeration is not required in anaerobic lagoons. However, the organisms which
are used in an anaerobic system are less active than those available in aer-
obic systems. Consequently, the wastewater must be retained in the lagoon for
a longer period of time. Longer retention periods require larger land areas.
In addition, the salt content of some seafood processing wastewaters can have
a harmful impact on the anaerobic organisms.(115) Odors associated with
anaerobic treatment can also pose a problem.
Indications are that more interest has been generated regarding lagoon treat-
ment of seafood wastewaters than for other biological alternatives previously
mentioned. Aerobic lagoons have been investigated for treating shrimp, crab,
and clam processing wastewaters.(68, 136, 162) Conventional anaerobic pro-
cesses have been studied for crab and shrimp process waters; however, they
were not found to be well suited to screened breaded shrimp wastewaters.
(113, 135) The major disadvantage of both types of lagoons is their rela-
tively large land requirement.
5. Biological Treatment With Macroorganisms. Life forms larger than micro-
organisms can also be used to remove pollutants from wastewaters, and then
harvested for non-human consumptive uses. One investigator has studied the
use of municipal wastewaters as a food source for crustaceans and finfish.(157)
Similar schemes have reduced pollutant levels in the wastewater, while pro-
ducing harvestable and marketable products. Fish grown in wastewater can be
used for bait, restocking, petfood or other non-human consumptive uses. Other
investigators have used municipal wastewater to grow algae, which was then fed
to bivalve mollusks, lobsters and finfish.(41, 56, 91, 131, 132)
Additional studies have shown that fish processing wastes can serve as food
sources for crab and salmon. Moreover, seafood wastes were found to be com-
petitive with commercially available fish foods.(133, 157)
27
-------
CO
LAYERED MEDIA WITH
ATTACHED BIOMASS
WASTEWATER
LEVEL
CONCRETE
TANK
CENTRAL SUPPORTING SHAFT
DRIVE MECHANISM FOR
ROTATING DISCS
HOUSING FOR PROTECTION
AGAINST INCLEMENT
WEATHER
WASTEWATER
FEED INLET
Figure 7. Perspective view of rotating biological contactors
or Bio-Surf process (Autotrol Corporation).
-------
6. Summary - Biological Treatment. In general, activated sludge treatment
systems would have some difficulty in effectively treating the wastewaters
emanating from seafood processing plants which operate intermittently. Ex-
tended aeration represents the most attractive modification for effluents of
this nature. Attached growth systems, such as trickling filters and RBC's,
would be inhibited similarly, but to a lesser degree. Clarification is re-
quired for all of these high-rate aerobic processes. Such systems are more
applicable to continuously-operated plants, such as the larger tuna canneries,
which have a consistent supply of raw material. Vessels travel thousands of
miles year-round to harvest fish and return them to port. This practice
enables most tuna canneries to process year-round at a normalized rate of
production. Nevertheless, the limiting factor for this processing segment is
the availability of sufficient land to expand existing treatment facilities.
Although high-rate systems require smaller reactors, additional area must be
provided for clarification.
Aerated lagoons can reliably handle the intermittent and highly variable waste
loads which are characteristic of the major portion of the seafood industry.
Studies have shown that finfish and shellfish wastewaters can be adequately
treated in aerated lagoons. The major disadvantage of lagoons is their land
requirement, which limits their application to most subcategories. Limita-
tions on land availability are apparently not a problem for catfish processors
which are located inland, away from coastal zones.
E. Physical-Chemical Treatment
Physical-chemical treatment technology employs nonbiological processes to
remove pollutants from wastewater. Processes of this nature are usually
applied after more basic treatment, such as screening, has already removed
larger solids from the waste stream. Solids which remain are mostly small and
evenly dispersed throughout the liquid. Certain physical-chemical processes
promote the gathering and isolation of these smaller particles so they can be
removed from the wastewater more easily. For example, chemicals can be added
to help precipitate certain pollutants from solution. Electrical charge
fields can also help stabilize charged particles to facilitate coagulation and
eventually their removal from solution.
1. Flotation. One of the most common forms of physical-chemical treatment
for food processing wastewaters is flotation, in which chemicals and gas
bubbles are introduced into the wastewater. In a tank, the chemicals help
fine solids and oil particles gather into clumps or floes. Tiny gas bubbles
attach themselves to these floes, assisting them to the surface of the water.
The floating material is then mechanically skimmed away, leaving an inter-
mediate layer of clearer water behind. Heavier solids settle to the bottom of
the tank and are removed periodically.
Because flotation represents a relatively simple technology and takes up less
space than sedimentation, it has received considerable attention with regard
to treating wastewaters generated by the seafood industry. It is also better
suited to the types of wastewaters generated by much of the industry. Red
meat, poultry processing and rendering industries have made extensive use of
flotation, usually preceding biological treatment facilities.
29
-------
The application of flotation technology to a variety of related seafood pro-
cessing effluents has been discussed by a number of foreign sources. Specif-
ically, successful treatment of wastewaters has been achieved for Japanese
facilities which process cod, mackerel, squid, tuna and sardines.(248, 249)
Flotation has also been described for fish oil and protein recovery. (76)
Government reports for seven Swedish processing plants addressed the physi-
cal-chemical treatment of food processing effluents, including fish waste-
waters and combined waste streams.(202, 205, 206, 234, 248, 249, 250)
Flotation methods, which are classified according to the technique used to
produce the tiny gas bubbles, include: a) vacuum flotation; b) dissolved air
flotation (DAF); c) dispersed air flotation; and d) electroflotation. These
methods are described below.
a. Vacuum Flotation
Vacuum flotation has not received widespread acceptance within the food
processing industry or for other conventional applications.
b. Dissolved Air Flotation
As shown in Figure 8, dissolved air flotation (DAF) relies on a pres-
surized tank, where air is dissolved into the wastewater at conditions
above atmospheric pressure. This pressure is relieved in the flotation
tank, allowing tiny air bubbles to form and rise to the surface. This
effervescence is analagous to the bubbling of a carbonated soft drink
after it is opened. As the air bubbles rise, they carry with them many
of the pollutant particles, oil and grease suspended in the wastewater.
As early as 1970, the application of DAF technology to the seafood indus-
try was investigated. Specific wastewaters examined included those
generated by the processing of salmon, bottomfish, and sardine.(5, 35)
Less elaborate studies have addressed the flotation of herring crab and
shrimp processing effluents.
DAF technology is currently being used at a number of tuna canneries in
California, Puerto Rico and American Samoa. (46, 48) It has also been
investigated on a full-scale level for a shrimp and oyster cannery in
Louisiana.(83)
Screening is employed prior to flotation at all in-place facilities. A
variety of substances are commercially available for chemically treating
the wastewater prior to flotation. Although chemical conditioning limits
the disposal/utilization options for the floated material, the available
information indicates that chemical conditioning is necessary to provide
acceptable performance for dissolved air flotation systems. Only one
facility, a California tuna cannery, has elected not to add chemicals to
enhance pollutant removals from process wastewaters. However, additional
equipment which is capable of reducing pollutant loadings to the DAF
system has been provided.
30
-------
LEGEND
WASTE WATER
SLUDGE
PUMP
EFFLUENT
RECYCLE
SCREENED
•*
WASTE WATER
I-— •[
EQUALIZATION
TANK
• rS1
AIR
INJECTION
IgJI
i x — ^
^
J
i—t
~^-'
>
-~ f k
ALUM]
NCTENTION
TANK
r^
L,
•*.
POLYMER
S
\
^
~>
„. „
1 6«IT
t
- k^
V
_
•— ~~ ~~
iPh
1 ^ TO
1 RECEIVING
j WATERS
1
J\
t
1
«
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
«— .._. J
DEWATCRING
EQUIPMENT
DISPOSAL
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment system.
-------
c. Dispersed Air Flotation
Disperse air flotation technology introduces air bubbles into the waste-
water mechanically or by direct injection at the bottom of a flotation
tank. This approach has been investigated on a pilot plant level for a
number of seafood processing wastewaters (shrimp, tuna and salmon).
Full-scale applications have been limited to a Terminal Island, Califor-
nia, tuna cannery and a trout processing plant in Idaho.(46, 77) In
Russia, excellent performance was achieved for a flotation cell with
mechanically induced air treating fish processing effluent.(243)
d. Electroflotation
Electroflotation uses electric current (electrolysis) to generate tiny
hydrogen and oxygen bubbles which are used to float the pollutants.
Electroflotation is mechanically simpler and reportedly offers several
other advantages over DAF. It produces less turbulence, which can tend
to detach bubbles from the solids. In addition, destabilization of fine
particles is achieved electrically, which reduces the quantity of chemi-
cals required for effective removal. The major disadvantage of electro-
flotation is its excessive power requirement.
Flotation induced by electrolysis has been established as a potential
pollution control technology for the food industry. Although some pri-
vate testing has been performed on tuna cannery effluents, seafood plants
have not yet adopted this technology on a full-scale level. A study has
been funded by EPA to determine the applicability of electroflotation to
the New England seafood processing industry.
It is important that the economics of this technology be considered in
conjunction with its technical applicability. Recent input from the
equipment manufacturers indicates the need to combine the principles of
electroflotation with dissolved air systems to achieve hybrid systems for
economic feasibility. Specific information relative to the basic design
criteria and operating parameters (power and chemicals) is unavailable at
present. However, a significant advantage identified for the hybrid
system is the concentration of the floated material within the unit to
about twice the normal levels.
It is apparent that electroflotation has not been demonstrated suffici-
ently to gain wide acceptance by the seafood processing industry. How-
ever, some information has been developed in Japan for treating fish
wastewaters with electroflotation; the information provides an indication
of the capabilities of this process.(82)
Flotation technology has been employed for treating a variety of food and
seafood processing wastewaters throughout the world. For a given wastewater,
available information indicates that waste removal rates are comparable for
the various flotation methods. Efficiencies vary for different wastewaters,
and the inherent advantages and disadvantages of each flotation method must be
considered for the specific wastewater to be treated.
32
-------
2. Advanced Technology. There are physical-chemical treatment processes
which are considerably more sophisticated than flotation. However, these
advanced systems are seldom considered by seafood processors, which generally
employ simpler, less expensive techniques.
Possible applications have been identified for advanced treatment processes.
For example, regulatory agencies in certain states are requiring treatment of
the highly contaminated water, called bailwater, used to unload boats filled
with menhaden. Plants of this nature are being encouraged to evaporate the
bailwater to produce fish solubles which can be sold as a byproduct. If the
waste stream can be concentrated before evaporation, then the costs of evapo-
ration can be reduced. Some advanced technologies can fill this or similar
needs, as described below.
a. Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is one advanced technology which can concentrate waste-
water to produce a smaller volume for utilization, treatment or disposal.
A schematic diagram of the process can be found in Figure 9. Wastewater
and pure water are present on opposite sides of a semipermeable membrane,
through which only extremely small particles (such as water molecules)
can pass. High pressure is placed on the wastewater side of the membrane
forcing water molecules through the membrane into the pure water side,
Therefore, a concentrated solution remains on the wastewater side. The
water which has been filtered through the membrane is usually pure enough
to reuse within the plant for washdown or similar purposes.(1) If no
pressure were applied, a natural process called osmosis would cause the
pure water to enter the wastewater side of the membrane in an effort to
equalize concentrations. The application of pressure reverses this
process; hence the name reverse osmosis.
b. Activated Clay
Pollutants can be reduced significantly by passing bailwater through an
acid-activated clay column.(124) This process is much like filtering
water through sand. Since the spaces between clay particles are smaller
than those between sand particles, this method is more effective than
using sand. In addition, activation of the clay makes the adsorption of
organics possible, thus reducing organic pollutant loadings discharged to
surface waters.
c. Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption columns work much like acid-activated clay columns.
Granular carbon is generally used instead of clay. The carbon is speci-
ally treated (activated) to increase the surface area of the carbon
granules and their ability to attract and hold or adsorb pollutant par-
ticles.
33
-------
HIGH PRESSURE
-4444444444444444444444444
• 4444444444444*4444444444
L • 444444444444444444444444
44 4 4 44 44*4444444444444*44
<4444444444444444444444444
• •44444444444444444444444
4444444444444444444444444
*4*44444444*4444*444444444
44 4*444444 444444444444444
„ 4 44 444444 4444444444*44444
•44444*4444444 4^4 4 4^4 444444
4444444444444444444444444
• 444444*4444444*44444444t
*«*4*4*4*4*4*4*«*4*« •*•*•*•*•*•*• •*• 4*4*4*4*4*4
|44444***4*44444**44***4 «_Jh
i444«*4«444444444*44444444
444.4 44444444444*4444*444*1
-,44444444444444444444444*4
>*4*4***4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4
i44*****444*4*44444**4*44«
i444444**4*44**4*444*«*444
444444444444444444444444 ^1
44444****44*444444**44444i
4444444444444444444444444
4444444444444444444444444*
• 44444* ••••• •••••••44444'
::::::::::-.WA.s.T ? w. AT.E R '•:•:•:•:•:'
4444444444444444444444444<
• 44444444444444444444444 4*1
444444 • 4 44444444444444 4.4_4
XvIvXvXvXvXvXvXv.;^
XvXvX-X'XvXvXvXvXv
'444*44*4444444. 4444444*4*
_J4*444444444444*44444444
4444444444*44444444444444
444***44*44444444*44*4444
'•*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*>
44****4*4444444*4*4444444
^4444444444**4***4444444*<
44444***4**4*4444444444**
444***4*4*4V4*4****44***«
^**4***444**444444***4***<
^4_* 44444444*4444*4444444 »-^
• ••****44444****4*******
"*~4*« •*•*•****** 4 • • •*• ******4 • •*•*•*•*•*•'
*****4*4*44444*4444444*4i
"»444*******«***444****4**
4*******444**444*44**4444i
PURE WATER
SEMIPERMEABLE MEMBRANE
Figure 9. Schematic diagram of a reverse osmosis unit,
34
-------
d. Chemical Precipitation
Chemical precipitation can remove colloidal and suspended pollutants
which have escaped other treatment schemes. Chemicals which are added to
the wastewater combine with colloidal and suspended matter forming lar-
ger, insoluble particles. These heavy particles then settle to the
bottom of a tank for easy collection. The principles of this technology
are much the same as those for air flotation, except for the actual
removal mechanism.
There are several other advanced technologies available for the renovation of
wastewater, including ion exchange, filtration, electrodialysis, and chemical
oxidation. However, such sophisticated methods appear unwarranted for the
treatment of seafood processing wastewaters. Further, wastewater treatment
beyond screening has not been encouraged for most processors.
In some instances, advanced wastewater treatment may be desired to produce
renovated water for in-plant reuse. However, most processors generally do not
presently have to worry about process water availability. Any reuse concept
must meet the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration prior to im-
plementation.
F. Land Treatment
The natural filtering properties of the soil and associated plant life can be
exploited by pumping or spraying wastewaters onto the land. This approach for
wastewater renovation is viable when sufficient and suitable land is avail-
able. Existing soil conditions largely determine the suitability of a site.
For much of the industry, adequate land areas are either severely limited or
unavailable.
Three general approaches have been developed for applying wastewater to se-
lected land areas: 1) irrigation of a cover crop or vegetation; 2) allowing
the water to run over the soil which is covered by vegetation; and 3) allowing
the water to infiltrate the soil. Seafood processing effluents require pre-
treatment (a minimum of fine screening) before they can be applied to the
land. Overland flow and infiltration-percolation alternatives will generally
require substantial pretreatment to avoid operational problems.
For an irrigation system, wastewater can be distributed over a designated land
area by spraying or flooding. Screening and/or sedimentation is required to
prevent solids from plugging spray nozzles or clogging the soil. Ultimately,
undesirable odors and system failure can result from soil clogging.
Several factors must be considered when applying seafood processing effluents
to vegetated land. A primary concern is the total dissolved solids content of
the effluent, particularly the sodium concentration. Large uses of salt water
during plant operations could prove to be incompatible with irrigation tech-
nology. Evaluations relative to the specific wastewater requiring renovation
and the site under consideration are recommended.
Climate is also important when considering irrigation systems. Irrigation
systems located in cold climates may require storage facilities, depending
upon the timing and length of the processing season.
35
-------
A final concern is the determination of loading rates. Wastewater character-
istics dictate whether hydraulic application rates or other factors will
control. With a proteinaceous wastewater, such as that found within the
seafood industry, nitrogen loadings must be considered. To prevent ground-
water contamination, the soil and plant system must be able to fully assimi-
late the amount of nitrogen being applied.
There are two clara processing facilities in Maryland which employ spray irri-
gation for ultimate wastewater disposal. Prior to spraying, the plant efflu-
ent undergoes screening followed by sedimentation to minimize problems asso-
ciated with nozzle clogging. At one facility, filtration has been contem-
plated as a further safeguard for the irrigation system. Spray irrigation has
proven to be an effective disposal method for these facilities, which are
essentially manual operations and generate relatively low volumes of waste-
water.
G. Summary - End-of-Pipe Treatment Technology
With few exceptions, conventional wastewater treatment technologies have not
been demonstrated on a full-scale level within the seafood industry. Seafood
processors, in general, use simple techniques which require minimal land
areas. The most basic and prevalent end-of-pipe treatment has been solids
separation by screening. For industry segments which generate small volumes
of low contamination wastewater, this approach, in conjunction with recom-
mended in-plant control measures, should be sufficient to control waste dis-
-uarges. Table 5 provides estimates of relative capital and operating costs
for screening wastewaters generated by a few of these segments.
Physical-chemical treatment processes, such as sedimentation and dissolved air
flotation (DAF), have been employed to a lesser extent. Biological systems
and land treatment alternatives have not been widely adopted to date. Limited
land availability in coastal areas is a major obstacle to implementing such
systems. Technology more sophisticated than DAF has generally not been re-
quired on a federal, regional or state level.
TABLE 5
REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR SCREENING SYSTEMS
APPLICABLE TO SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS (126)
Wastewater
Source
Plant Size Total Daily Capital Cost 0 & M Cost
(Tons/Day) Flow (Gal/Day) ($1,000) ($/Day)
Conventional 7
Blue Crab
Alaskan Shrimp* 20
Hand-Butchered 15
Salmon
Hand-Shucked Clam 25
Alaskan Herring 50
Fillet*
1,850
436,000
12,300
29,000
150,000
46
158
46
47
100
168
16
19
112
•'"Includes building to house equipment and a barge for solids disposal.
36
-------
It is possible to adopt aerated lagoon, treatment as a means to control waste
discharges from the catfish processing segment, which generally has greater
land availability. Where sufficient land is available, the larger tuna pro-
cessors could employ biological treatment. Relative costs to achieve second-
ary treatment for these two segments are displayed in Table 6.
Physical-chemical treatment processes are more applicable than biological
treatment for most of the seafood industry. Physical-chemical processes can
TABLE 6
REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
DESIGNED FOR SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS (126)
Wastewater .
Source
Farm Raised
Catfish
Tuna
Tuna
Plant Size
(Tons/Day)
15
400
400
Treatment
System
Aerated
Lagoon
Aerated
Lagoon
Activated
Sludge
Total
Daily Flow
(ragd)
0.051
1.07
1.07
Capital Cost*
($1,000)
172
540
1,900
0 & M Cost
($/Day)
90
490
750
"^Assumes sufficient land area is available.
achieve high degrees of treatment using relatively small amounts of space. A
disadvantage of the more advanced systems is the higher costs associated with
equipment, chemicals, power, maintenance and other operational requirements.
There is little practical application in the seafood industry for advanced
technology such as carbon adsorption, filtration, reverse osmosis, electro-
dialysis, ion exchange and chemical oxidation due to the extensive pretreat-
ment requirements. In addition, the high level of sophistication demands
considerable operator training and attention.
Flotation schemes appear to have the greatest potential for effluent treat-
ment. The effectiveness of non-optimized dissolved air flotation systems has
been demonstrated on a full-scale level at several tuna canneries throughout
the United States and its territories. Improved removal efficiencies should
be achievable under optimal conditions. Optimization of dissolved air flota-
tion systems involves adjusting the pH of the wastewater to the isoelectric
point of fish protein followed by the addition of the chemicals needed for
coagulation and floculation to achieve the maximum removal of suspended and
colloidal particles. Minor pH adjustments may be required prior to dis-
charging the treated effluents either to a subsequent treatment process or
receiving waters. For other segments of the seafood industry, the capabili-
ties of optimized DAF systems have been demonstrated in the United States and
Canada utilizing federal grants. Information is available for the treatment
of wastewaters resulting from the processing of crab, shrimp, tuna, salmon,
37
-------
bottomfish, sardine, herring, and oyster. Data generated in other countries
supports the application of flotation technology to the seafood processing
industry. Table 7 provides cost estimates for the installation of DAF systems
at plants within selected industry segments. These estimates are based on
flow information which reflects the adoption of in-plant measures applicable
to the specific segment.
TABLE 7
REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR DAF SYSTEMS
APPLICABLE TO SELECTED INDUSTRY SEGMENTS (126)
Wastewater
Source
Southern Non-
Plant Size
(Tons /Day)
10
Total Daily
Flow
(mgd)
0.107
Capital Cost*
($1,000)
230
0 & M Cost*
($/Day)
355
Breaded Shrimp
Mechanized Salmon
Mechanized Bottomfish
Sardine
Herring
Fillet
35
30
70
120
0.119
0.092
0.117
0.359
220
245
200
410
365
360
170
870
*Assumes screens are in-place.
^'"Includes chemical costs for optimization.
Although similar wastewaters are generated by Alaskan operations, the install-
ation of DAF equipment has been found to be impractical in view of the geo-
graphical and climatic conditions. The availability of required chemicals and
skilled labor for optimized operation is also restrictive. Plants in most
processing areas are physically confined or constructed on piles over water.
The expense of providing additional space on a wharf and a building to house
the equipment does not appear warranted. Therefore, in-plant modifications in
conjunction with screens are considered applicable for these segments of the
industry.
Other physical-chemical processes may be feasible for selected waste streams
which are highly contaminated or represent a potential for reuse. Case-by-
case evaluations are required to justify the implementation of this treatment
approach.
38
-------
SEAFOOD WASTE
UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL
-------
CHAPTER 4
SEAFOOD WASTE UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL
I. BACKGROUND
A. Solids Generation
Waste management practices applicable to the seafood industry generate two
types of solids: wastes captured during actual processing; and materials
which escape into the plant effluent for later capture by waste treatment
facilities. In general, the most economical way to reduce the total amount of
waste solids requiring disposal is to capture unused raw materials in-plant,
and to process them into marketable secondary products. Once the raw ma-
terials have entered the waste stream, they are generally more expensive to
recapture. Furthermore, the production of marketable byproducts using ma-
terials separated from the waste stream are more complex and inherently more
costly. The potential markets for these byproducts are more limited than
those for consumable secondary products manufactured in-plant.
Both types of solids will vary in quantity and character depending on the
location of the facility, species processed, time of year, and waste manage-
ment practices. Historically comprehensive in-plant water and waste manage-
ment practices have not been utilized in this industry. As a result, the need
for identifying methods for recovering materials for subsequent utilization
has been minimal.
1. In-Plant Solids Generation. Waste fish solids, processing scraps and meat
fragments which remain after processing of a primary seafood product can be
collected and processed into a variety of secondary products and byproducts
such as petfood, fish meal and animal feed supplements. By collecting these
solids at their source, the volume of solids entering the central waste stream
can be significantly reduced. Relatively simple management practices are
available to approach total utilization of the raw material; however, these
practices have not been widely implemented in some segments of the seafood
industry. Although methods to recover raw material are relatively simple, the
adoption of the. total utilization approach is subject to economic considera-
tions, market availability, and governmental regulations.
In some segments, water is used to convey raw materials from boats to storage
facilities inside the processing plants. In-plant systems also rely heavily
on hydraulic conveyance. As a general objective, the industry needs to become
more aware of ways to reduce water use through alternative dry handling sys-
tems. Attention to limiting water use could result in better recovery of
in-plant solids and reduced discharges of potentially useful materials as
waste.
2. End-of-Pipe Treatment. Wastewater from most seafood processing operations
is not subjected to high levels of treatment. Most common are simple solids
separation systems, usually screens, which physically separate larger solids'
from the waste stream. These separated solids can be collected for byproduct
manufacture, or they can simply be transported to a disposal site. Because
there are no chemicals added to the screened solids, they are more acceptable
for byproduct manufacturing than solids captured using higher levels of tech-
39
-------
uology. The available alternatives for disposal are also more numerous.
Options include the manufacture of animal feeds, aquaculture nutrients, agri-
cultural fertilizers, landfilling and barging for deep sea disposal.
Beyond screening, which is prevalent in the seafood industry, some plants
employ sedimentation, dissolved air flotation (DAT) and biological treatment
systems for additional reductions of waste constituents in the screened ef-
fluent. Technologies more sophisticated than DAF have generally not been man-
dated by the environmental regulatory agencies, thus there is little demon-
strated application of full-scale wastewater treatment by the industry.
Simple sedimentation has been adopted by some shellfish (clam and oyster)
processors for the removal of sand, silt and shell fragments. Landfilling of
the separated solids is commonly employed.
Dissolved .air flotation (DAF) has received some attention for its application
to the seafood industry. It has been used successfully by some of the major
tuna processors, and has seen widespread use by related food industries such
as poultry processing, red meat packaging and rendering. The solids which
are skimmed from the surface of the flotation unit are than directed to a
collection vessel. System operations can be aided by chemical coagulants and
flocculents at an optimum pH. Chemical additions are necessary to provide
adequate DAF performance; however, their use inhibits the conversion of the
resulting sludge (float) into byrproducts. Float characteristics in relation
to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for animal feeds will
be discussed later in this section.
DAF sludges, or the skimmed solids, are water-laden, typically consisting of 5
to 20 percent solids. The technology is available to dewater this semi-liquid
material to approximately 30 percent solids with a coincident two-thirds
volume reduction. The decision to do so would depend on the adopted disposal
method and the inherent economics. For example, liquid DAF float can be
hauled to a land application site and sprayed on the ground or injected be-
neath the soil surface, whereas dewatered float is limited to surface spread-
ing.
DAF sludge contains valuable nutrients, plus oil and grease which require care
when used in any land application scheme. Alum is often used to aid the
flotation process; thus significant concentrations of aluminum may be present
in DAF float. The presence of salt (and sodium) must likewise be considered
in terms of the toxicity to cover vegetation and effects on the soils at the
selected disposal site.
B. Current Solids Disposal Practices
The Alaskan seafood industry differs in many ways from operations in the
remaider of the United States. Therefore, the discussion relating to current
solids disposal practices will segregate Alaskan processors from those in the
contiguous states.
1. Contiguous United States. Among the solids disposal methods practiced by
seafood.processors in the contiguous United States are: a) secondary utili-
40
-------
zation; b) byproduct manufacturing; and c) land application (including land-
filling). These methods are discussed individually below.
a. Secondary Utilization. Waste materials from seafood processing can
be converted into secondary products both to improve total resource
utilization and to reduce or offset the cost of waste management. The
most common examples of secondary products from finfish are fish sticks
and fish cakes, which are comprised of deboned or extruded flesh.
Fish solids can be manually accumulated in totes or bins along the pro-
duction line, which is an effective step in preventing gross solids from
entering the waste stream. Collection troughs can also be designed to
prevent the solids from coming into contact with th; floor. Other meth-
ods of collecting the solids include mesh-type conveyors or coarse screens,
Specific fish parts can be directed to designated area for subsequent
processing into secondary products. Salmon roe, for example, can be
separated, graded, cured, boxed and marketed for human consumption.
Deboned fish flesh can and has been processed into marketable commodities
such as breaded fish cakes for human consumption.
b. Byproduct Manufacturing. More prevalent, however, is the production
of byproducts such as animal food and feed additives. Tuna and salmon
operations have successfully converted wastes into petfood which can
realize a profit. In some cases, the preparation of fish wastes as
petfood is accomplished as part of a line which includes other primary
ingredients such as beef and chicken parts. Some seafood plants have
on-site byproduct facilities. For example, major tuna processors operate
facilities to produce meal and oil from fish scraps and cooker water
generated during canning activities. Other processors collect the
waste materials and ship them to remote off-site byproduct plants.
Finfish processing wastes have also been used as bait, particularly
within the sardine, salmon and halibut processing segments.
The proteinaceous wastes from seafood processors can be converted into a
number of useful byproducts. For example, the reduction process, which
is employed by tuna canneries, yields a protein meal which can be used as
an animal feed supplement. In some instances, the required equipment has
been installed on-site at individual processing plants; however, facil-
ities are available in specific geographical areas to serve several food
processing operations.
Because of the intermittent production schedules typical throughout most
' of the seafood industry, on-site reduction' facilities have not been
widely incorporated at individual processing plants. To make the fullest
possible use of such reduction facilities, some of the larger tuna can-
neries supplement tuna scrap processing with anchovy reduction at appro-
priate times of the year.
Unprocessed wastes have been used to produce fish feeds and fertilizer.
Fresh or frozen fish solids, including catfish offal, have been incor-
porated into an acceptable diet for farm-raised catfish.(85, 139) In
addition, shrimp wastes have been used as a feed supplement for aquacul-
ture for pigmentation.(113). The solids generated during shrimp and crab
41
-------
processing have significant value where a nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer
is required.(38)
Of the various byproducts that can be produced from shellfish wastes, one
of the most interesting is chitin (pronounced "ky'tin") and its deriv-
ative, chitosan. It is a straight chain polysaccharide polymer closely
related to cellulose. Chitin is the second most abundant organic compound
on earth, yet its properties and applications have only recently gained
significant attention.
The technology exists to isolate chitin from protein in shellfish wastes
and to produce chitosan, a commercially interesting derivative. The
resultant natural compound has been found to have applications as a
coagulant in wastewater treatment.(14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22) Additional
uses include additive in paper making and textile dyeing; film for mem-
branes used in electrodialysis (e.g., desalination); thickening and
emulsifying agent; and a wound healing accelerator. Studies have also
shown that chitinous materials can be used as animal feed supplements.
(18, 22) The digestability and nutrient value for ruminating animals has
been established; however, the investigators noted that additional in-
vestigations are necessary to gain Food and Drug Administration approval
of chitosan as a food additive.
These and other byproducts will be discussed more fully in the Section
III of this chapter, entitled "Byproduct Manufacturing."
c. Land Disposal. Secondary product and byproduct manufacturing
account for only a fragment of the total waste management practices
available to the seafood industry. In addition to the gross solids that
can be incorporated into marketable products, there are other processing
residuals, such as DAF float and biological sludges, which are usually
disposed of on land. Disposal is accomplished by applying the material
to land to propagate a cover crop or by burial at a landfill site.
Among the factors that must be considered when applying seafood process-
ing wastes to the land are: 1) nitrogen content; 2) oil and grease
content; 3) sodium concentrations; 4) salinity; and 5) odor potential.
Nitrogen content and odor control are also considerations for landfill
operations. The moisture content of the sludge is an important charac-
teristic when evaluating landfill sites.
Surface spreading and soil injection are two alternative methods for
applying waste sludges to the land. Both methods require suitable site,
weather conditions, soils, drainage and other factors, not the ieast of
which is careful management of the land application operation.
Two approaches are available for landfilling waste treatment residuals:
the cell method and the trench method. Selection of the appropriate
method is based on site considerations. Either method can provide the
environmental control for sludge disposal when properly managed.
The above discussion of solids disposal practices - encompassing secondary
products, byproducts and land disposal - has offered a general perspective of
42
-------
the seafood industry. However, a major segment of this industry is located in
Alaska, where some of the alternatives discussed above may not be applicable.
Land disposal for example, is not feasible for most areas in Alaska. There-
fore, solids handling practices for Alaskan processors are discussed separate-
ly below.
2. Alaska. Seafood processing plants in Alaska are dispersed all along the
Alaskan coast, from the Aleutian Islands to the city of Ketchikan and the
southeastern panhandle. Some of these plants are isolated; others are located
in processing centers which support several seafood operations. The process-
ing centers do not necessarily coincide with population centers. For example,
Anchorage is the most populated area in Alaska; but it supports just one
salmon cannery and a cold storage facility. The largest seafood processing
center (in terms of the number of plants) is in the city of Kodiak on Kodiak
Island, which has approximately three percent of the population of the Anchor-
age area.
Although the conditions encountered throughout Alaska will vary with the
specific location, they are significantly different from those occuring in the
contiguous United States. Some unique factors influencing the handling and
disposal of waste materials are labor availability, weather conditions, ge-
ography, geologic and soil conditions, and relatively high costs associated
with construction and transportation activities. Combinations of two or more
of these factors tend to limit the alternatives available to seafood pro-
cessors for the disposal of waste treatment residues.
A review of the general soil characteristics and geologic conditions for
selected processing areas indicates that land disposal of seafood solids
should not be adopted as an industry wide alternative in Alaska. Input from
the municipalities reinforces this conclusion. Surface spreading or subsur-
face disposal of solids for crop fertilization is limited to agricultural
areas, which are not prevalent in Alaska. Therefore, it appears that by-
product recovery and barging are the two options which are technically feas-
ible for Alaskan seafood processors.
In evaluating the Alaskan seafood processing industry, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has differentiated between remote and non-remote
areas. Solids handling practices, particularly with respect to secondary
product and byproduct manufacturing, differ substantially for remote areas and
specific non-remote locations.
a. Non-Remote Areas. Under the original philosphy, non-remote areas
were selected as those which have significant populations and/or several
processing facilities in a definitive geographical area. These included
Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak and Petersburg. In these
areas, water quality considerations require more rigorous pollution
control efforts. These locations generally offer more Jependable road
and ferry transportation, readily available power, and access to larger
numbers of workers demanding lower wages. These and other economic
advantages, such as the opportunity for cooperative approaches to waste
management, open some seafood waste management alternatives, including
reduction facilities, which are not available to more remote processing
plants.
43
-------
Three Alaskan areas - Kodiak, Petersburg and Seward - have reduction
facilities which convert fish processing wastes to useful byproducts.
Each facility has the capacity to accommodate materials generated by
local processors. Through contractual agreements, the largest reduction
plant, which is in Kodiak, is devoted to serving the 15 processors in the
immediate area. Because of inherent inefficiencies, this plant has been
operating with subsidies from the processors to serve as a convenient,
local waste disposal facility. The facilities in Petersburg and Seward
were originally intended to be economically self-sufficient in producing
fish meal and oil from whole fish and processing wastes generated in
their respective geographical area. However, neither facility has been
operated at full capacity on an annual basis due to the limited avail-
ability of raw material. This limited availability results from the lack
of waste management by area plants. Because the Seward and Petersburg
reduction plants have excess capacity, they will generally accept pro-
cessing wastes transported from outside the immediate area. In the past,
both plants have received and processed wastes from processors located
more than 100 miles away. However, this practice has been generally
discontinued because the plants have chosen to grind and discharge their
wastes in view of economic considerations.
In the absence of on-site or nearby waste processing plants, the collec-
tion and transport of waste materials to a plant which manufactures
petfood represents an alternative waste solids handling procedure.
Alaskan salmon canneries, for example, have collected, packaged and
frozen salmon heads for shipment to Seattle petfood operations. These
salmon processors are then allowed to simply grind their remaining waste
solids for discharge to local receiving waters. Since they choose to
collect and ship a portion of their wastes to Seattle suggests that some
economic advantage is realized through byproduct manufacturing, despite
the transportation costs.
A final disposal option currently available to Alaskan seafood processors
is the collection of gross and screened solids for barging to deep water
dumping sites. Every processing area has a designated dumping site,
usually within a five-mile distance of the processing facility.
b. Remote Areas For the remote Alaskan fish processing plants, there
are generally only two viable waste solids disposal methods: grinding
and discharge to local receiving waters; and barging to deep sea dumping
sites. The vast majority of processors in these areas have elected to
grind wastes for discharge.
C. Future Considerations
Solids handling and disposal practices which have been adopted by most seg-
ments of the seafood industry, in some cases are adequate but are generally
unsophisticated. With the exception of the tuna and fish meal processing
segments, there has been limited implementation of in-plant waste management
practices or secondary or byproduct manufacture. Most demonstrations of
improved in-plant water and waste management have resulted from either a gross
pollution problem or from readily apparent and immediate economic advantages
for more complete raw material utilization.
44
-------
As the environmental responsibilities of various segments of the industry
become better defined, it can be expected that considerable progress can be
made toward reducing waste discharges to receiving waters. The most eco-
nomical way to achieve immediate reductions in processing waste discharges is
through improved in-plant waste materials handling. In particular, the con-
version from fluraing to dry handling of waste materials will yield improved
segregation of useful raw materials for possible secondary or byproduct manu-
facturing. At the same time, dry handling systems, recycling, and general
reductions in water use by the processors will result in effluent volume and
waste load reductions.
The operation of screening equipment to supplement in-plant control measures
at Alaskan processing plants will create a need for options in disposal/utili-
zation. Meanwhile, in the contiguous United States, DAF and biological treat-
ment systems have been found to be applicable to a number of industry seg-
ments. As these treatment facilities are installed and placed on line, they
will produce increasing volumes of solids requiring some means of disposal.
Among the alternatives which are expected to receive increased attention are:
secondary product development;
byproduct manufacturing;
chitin/chitosan production; and
other disposal methods.
These topic areas are addressed in the remainder of this chapter.
II. SECONDARY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
To differentiate between secondary products and fish processing byproducts,
this discussion will focus on secondary products which are suitable for human
consumption. Byproducts will include all other manufactured products and
derivatives which are not directly consumed by man; e.g., fish meal, petfood,
bait, fertilizer, chitin/chitosan, etc.
The processing of secondary products requires separation of raw materials
•(i.e., gross solids) at their source. Means of accomplishing this necessary
first step will be discussed, followed by a review of some of the major sec-
ondary products which can be produced from finfish wastes and shellfish wastes,
respectively.
A. Separation of Gross Solids at Source
Conversion of waste materials into secondary products fit for human consump-
tion generally requires the collection of leftover fish parts during produc-
tion of the primary product. The simplest approach is manual accumulation of
gross solids in totes or bins. Several facilities which hand butcher salmon
have adopted this method to prevent gross solids from entering the waste
stream. Conventional bottomfish is another industry segment which could adopt
manual separation of fish parts for subsequent utilization.
Dry handling of all waste materials is desirable in terms of pollution con-
trol. Belt conveyors are used throughout the food industry for this purpose.
Meal plants operated by or in conjunction with tuna canneries, employ belt or
45
-------
screw conveyor systems to transport the tuna wastes from the cleaning tables
to the meal plant, thereby avoiding the use of water. This operation facili-
tates handling of the waste material during separation and processing at the
meal plant.
To develop secondary products using gross solids, it is essential that the raw
material be prevented from coming into contact with the floor. Various faci-
lities have installed devices which prevent waste solids from hitting the
floor and ultimately entering the waste stream. Coarse screens and mesh-type
conveyors can help achieve this goal, as well as reducing solids loading to
fine screens or other end-of-pipe treatment equipment.
Although the equipment available to collect the raw materials for secondary
product development are relatively uncomplicated, the housekeeping and other
practices of the processors which produce secondary products must be carefully
managed. Great care is required to produce from once-neglected wastes a
commodity now aimed at human consumers.
By collecting gross solids as described above, a seafood processor may achieve
three objectives: 1) more complete utilization of raw materials; 2) the
development of a secondary product which can produce additional income; and 3)
a reduction of waste volumes requiring subsequent disposal. The economics of
secondary product development depend on plant location, species processed,
availability of equipment and market conditions for the secondary product(s).
As the cost of waste disposal increases, so does the incentive for secondary
product manufacturing.
Examples of the secondary products manufactured by finfish and shellfish pro-
cessors are described below.
B. Secondary Products from Finfish Wastes
After fish parts have been collected in a specified area, they can be sub-
jected to a number of secondary processing alternatives. A model example of
such a product is salmon roe. Conventional processing equipment has been
modified and handling practices developed to facilitate roe separation from
mechanically butchered salmon. Subsequently, the roe is graded, cured and
boxed for shipment to Japan. In recent years, salmon roe has become a se-
condary product which is too valuable to be discarded by canning and freezing
operations.
Other fish parts can be isolated and manufactured into secondary products.
Finfish processing plants are capable of producing fish flesh which has been
deboned. Flesh separator machines are available which can recover 37 to 60
percent of minced flesh from various species. In comparison, the conventional
filleting techniques only yield a primary product which ranges from 25 to 30
percent flesh. The machine separator squeezes the relatively soft muscle
tissue through a rotating perforated drum. Skin and bones mat on the outside
of the drum and are scraped off into a waste chute. The minced fish muscle
may be used in fabricated foods such as pasteurized spreads, frankfurters,
fish cakes and fish loaf.
46
-------
Implementation of deboning operations requires a considerable capital invest-
ment and an established market. At least one salmon cannery in the Puget
Sound area determined that the capital expenditures were justified in order to
produce a deboned salmon commodity from materials which are discarded as
wastes by most facilities. Although every salmon cannery cannot be expected
to install a similar line, the economic feasibility should be explored by
individual plants. Other finfish operations also have the potential for
generating deboned or extruded products. Battering and breading operations
may follow to generate marketable commodities such as fish cakes.
C. Secondary Products from Shellfish Wastes
Shellfish, like finfish, can be subjected to mechanical flesh separation. In
Canada, for example, flesh separators have been used on lobster bodies to
produce salable products. Fabricated shrimp products can likewise be produced
in this manner. However, only isolated references to such applications can be
found in the literature.
Secondary products can also be recovered from isolated waste streams. A good
example is the development of a product similar to clam juice from minced clam
washwater. This process, which was recently investigated by a Sea Grant
Institution, has been found to be advantageous both in terms of economics and
water pollution control, achieving a significant reduction in the BOD. load of
plant effluent.(66) Further processing of the product into a dry flavor in-
gredient has also been demonstrated for the East Coast surf clam processor.
(74)
III. BYPRODUCT MANUFACTURING
The manufacture of fish processing byproducts includes a wide variety of
products having applications other than human consumption. The general types
of wastes incorporated into such products are introduced below, followed by a
more detailed accounting of the processes and end-products involved with
byproduct manufacturing.
A. General Ingredients
Seafood processing wastes can be categorized into four general types: gross
solids collected from the production line; screened solids captured prior to
effluent discharge; dissolved air flotation (DAF) sludge; and biological
treatment sludge. All of these wastes are characterized by significant pro-
tein and nutrient contents. Some of the more common byproducts which can be
manufactured from these wastes are described below.
B. Gross Solids
1. Finfish Wastes. Gross solids recovered from finfish processing operations
represent a significant value in terms of total product utilization. Tuna
processors have long recognized the economic advantages of recovering blood
meats and off-color parts of the fish for incorporation into petfood. Some of
47
-------
the tuna processors operate petfood canning lines in conjunction with their
primary processing activities.
Some salmon processors have collected the larger solids and transported them
off-site to petfood facilities. These petfood plants may receive waste fish
material from more than one processor. To date, this option has been adopted
by only a limited number of processing plants.
The cost of equipping, operating and marketing a petfood line has limited the
number of on-site petfood operations at seafood plants. Generally, only the
larger tuna plants which process seafood year-round have installed on-site
petfood lines. One salmon cannery has incorporated waste fish solids into
petfood containing other ingredients. But for the most part, non-edible fish
parts which are retained by plants are transported off-site for subsequent
utilization or disposal. The operation of a petfood plant serving a regional
group of primary seafood processors may offer a better economic situation than
single, on-site operations. Nonetheless, small on-site petfood operations
which handle only fish wastes can reduce waste volumes requiring disposal
while offsetting some of the waste handling costs.
Unprocessed fish scraps from sardine, salmon and halibut processors are often
collected and sold as bait. From sardine packing tables, for instance, the
heads and tails are conveyed to a chum truck. The major use of these mate-
rials is as bait by lobster fishermen, who purchase the waste. On the West
Coast, heads removed from salmon and halibut facilities can be used for bait
as well. This practice is also applicable to Alaskan processing areas.
Because fishing is a seasonal activity, demand for bait fluctuates. When it
is low, the fish wastes can be transported to byproduct manufacturing facil-
ities which may generate fish meal and oil using a reduction process.
The reduction process parallels rendering in other food industries. As shown
in Figure 10, reduction is basically a cooking process followed by drying and
milling to produce a dry fish meal product. Other byproducts include sepa-
rated oil and solubles (the product of stickwater or press water evaporation).
In some cases the solubles, which contain a high level of dissolved matter,
are recycled to the drying operation to increase the capture of protein in the
meal. The protein-rich fish meal is generally used as an animal feed supple-
ment. Oil which is separated during the processing of finfish wastes repre-
sents another salable byproduct. Markets exist for both fish oil and solu-
bles. Potential uses included nutrient supplements for mushroom growing.
Solubles can also provide supplemental nitrogen for composting agricultural
manures.(53)
As with the operation of on-site petfood plants, the operation of on-site fish
meal production equipment is limited in an industry which does not feature
consistent, year-round production. Waste material supply fluctuations have
hurt the profitability of reduction plants, and only a few of the larger
processors produce their own fish meal. Even the regional fish meal .installa-
tions, such as those in Petersburg and Seward, Alaska, have failed to operate
at full capacity because of raw material supply problems. It is anticipated
however, that the increase of bottom fish production in Alaska and the con-
tiguous United States will supplement current raw material supplies, espec-
ially during low activity periods.
48
-------
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
AND/OR FISH WASTES
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
OIL
SEPARATION
OIL
POLISHING
(OPTIONAL)
OIL
STORAGE
WASHWATER
,
EVAPORATOR
UNIT
FINISHED
MEAL
CONCENTRATED
1 STICKWATER
(SOLU8LES)
SOLUBLES
STORAGE
^N
J
/MEAL STORAGE
VAND SHIPMENT
D
Figure 10. Process schematic of a conventional
fish meal plant with solubles production.
49
-------
Some of the supply problems can be avoided by producing fish silage, a liquid
product made by adding acid to fish parts and allowing enzymatic digestion to
occur. Simple equipment can be used to make small amounts of silage from
intermittent raw material supplies. More expensive equipment is needed to
manufacture large quantities, but the required labor skills are minimal when
compared to fish meal production. Liquefaction caused by naturally occurring
enzymes in the presence of acid results in a versatile, high-quality protein
feedstuff which will keep for long periods. The silage process offers addi-
tional advantages over meal production: 1) it is relatively odor-free, and 2)
it alleviates a serious problem of liquid waste disposal. The University of
Washington, among others, has been researching silage production. In Europe,
silage production was developed in Sweden in 1930; Denmark and Poland now have
well-established industries.(54)
The stability, protein content, usefulness and economy of production assoc-
iated with the product are matched by pollution control advantages. At the
present time, silage is fed in liquid form to pigs and cattle. It is a bul-
kier protein product than meal. Accessible, nearby markets are therefore
desirable to minimize the costs of storage and transportation. However, it is
possible to dry the silage to accomplish long-term storage or transporta-
tion. (54) In any form, the stability of silage is a distinct advantage to
seafood processors when compared to other byproducts.
2. Shellfish Wastes. Gross solids from crab and shrimp operations, like
those from the finfish plants, are often converted into protein meal products.
Shells can be ground and dehydrated, then processed into a meal yielding
protein contents of 30 to 40 percent by weight. Full-scale production of meal
from crab and shrimp wastes has been accomplished in Alaska and the contiguous
United States.
Among the problems encountered in producing shellfish meal are a highly odor-
ous drying process, a high calcium content (up to 40 percent by dry weight),
and lower protein content than fish meal. The environmental problems may
require installation of expensive pollution control equipment; yet the shell-
fish meal may be worth only about a one-third the wholesale value of fish
meal.
A relatively new, but simple concept was recently introduced to improve the
economics of converting crustacean wastes to marketable byproducts.(112) The
approach of mechanically separating the protein from the inorganic material
(shells) to allow separate processing of the fractions was found to have
several advantages. The advantages identified include: 1) production of a
proteinaceous meal which approaches the market value of fish meal; 2) isola-
tion of the shell fraction which either can be utilized for the manufacture of
chitin/chitosan, or pulverized to generate a material with desirable proper-
ties; 3) reduction of the volume of shell material subjected to the drying
operation which can be highly odorous and require the installation of costly
air pollution control equipment; and 4) availability as a recovery method for
isolated locations and where dehydration of crustacean wastes is economically
unattractive.
50
-------
Other shellfish waste byproducts include the following:
use of crab and shrimp wastes as an agricultural fertilizer, partic-
ularly where a nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer is required;
use of shrimp protein as a food supplement for aquaculture (salmon
and trout rearing) to achieve desired pigmentation;
peptone production from enzymatic digestion of shrimp wastes;
direct animal feed (e.g., clam bellies for swine); and
production of chitin and chitosan from crab and shrimp wastes.
Among the shellfish byproducts listed above, chitin/chitosan production and
utilization appears to offer the greatest promise for crab and shrimp wastes.
This alternative is specifically addressed later in this chapter, as Section
V, "Chitin/Chitosan Production from Shrimp and Crab Wastes."
C. Screened Solids
Fish wastes which are not recovered as gross solids enter the processing waste
stream and are captured by end-of-pipe treatment facilities. Among seafood
processors, screens are generally the first and most universally applied
treatment mechanism. Solids trapped by the screens can be collected and used
in the manufacture of byproducts, either alone or in combination with gross
solids recovered in-plant.
1. Finfish Wastes. Screenings from finfish processing plants can be pro-
cessed into fish meal and oil with or without the addition of gross solids.
The screenings, like the gross solids, are high in protein and nutrient value
and, can be converted to byproducts such as animal feeds, fish silage, nut-
rients, fish food (often in pellet form), and agricultural fertilizers. The
screening process does not require chemical additives, thus the byproducts
which can be generated from them approximate those described above for the
gross solids.
2. Shellfish Wastes. Screens used by the shellfish processors capture solids
which can be incorporated into most of the same byproducts that were identi-
fied earlier for gross solids. Again, the mechanical separation of protein-
aceous material from crustacean shells for separate processing into byproducts
offers several advantages. The most interesting byproduct appears to be
chitin and its derivative, chitosan. In addition, peptones have been ex-
tracted from screened shellfish wastes to produce a medium for microbiological
growth which can be utilized in laboratory investigations.
D. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Sludge
1. General. Fewer than ten seafood plants (all tuna) operate full-scale DAF
systems on a continuous basis. However, DAF systems have been extensively
used by other related food industries, such as meat, poultry and rendering,
51
-------
having waste loads comparable to those generated by the seafood industry.
Experiences relative to handling and disposing of the resulting sludge in
these particular segments of the food industry will be discussed as they apply
to seafood processors in general.
2. DAT Float Characteristics. The dissolved air flotation process removes
suspended solids, oil and grease from wastewater. A typical DAF unit com-
prises a tank, an air retention vessel, chemical feed equipment and a surface
skimmer. Suspended solids, oil and grease which become attached to air bubbles
and float to the surface, are then skimmed from the water surface and collec-
ted as sludge, or "float."
The volume of float produced by a DAF system generally approaches 1 or 2
percent of the total wastewater throughput. The float is mostly water, vary-
ing from 5 to 20 percent solids content (by weight) and 0.2 to 3 percent oil
and grease (by weight). The composition of the float from a specific DAF unit
will depend on the characteristics of the wastewater being treated, as well as
numerous operating parameters of the DAF system. Among the operating para-
meters of greatest concern are the rate of air introduction (as compared to
the rate of solids entering the system) and the types and amounts of chemicals
added to the system to make it operate more efficiently.
The removal of colloidal constituents can be aided by adjusting the pH to the
isoelectric point of fish protein (pH 4.5 to 5). The addition of chemicals
for coagulation and flocculation of suspended materials also improves overall
DAF performance. Coagulant aids include lime in addition to trivalent salts
such as aluminum sulfate (alum), sodium aluminate and ferric chloride. Other
flotation aids such as lignosulfonic acid (ISA) have been investigated in
various combinations with anionic and cationic polyelectrolytes (polymers) to
improve pollutant removals. From the information available, it appears that
chemical additions are needed to provide acceptable DAF performance.
Chemical additives such as the trivalent salts and polymers remain in the DAF
float that is collected. Also present is salt from any salt water used in the
seafood processing operation. These substances limit the potential uses of
the DAF float which, like other solids from the seafood industry, contain
significant levels of nutrients and proteinaceous material. The approval of
these chemicals by FDA is required to produce animal feed supplements from
chemically coagulated float. At present only one coagulant, LSA, has been
approved by FDA for use in animal feeds. Contact with FDA has indicated that
no additional applications have been submitted by seafood processors for
approval of other coagulants.
3. DAF Float Handling. Unprocessed DAF float is semi-liquid in nature, and
would be handled as a liquid. However, this is not always convenient or
desirable. Although the seafood industry has only limited experience in
handling DAF float, some of the related food industries which use DAF treat-
ment have found that further processing of the float is required to make the
material more suitable for disposal or utilization. Among the processes which
are used to modify the float are the following:
thickening - to further concentrate the sludge, thereby reducing its
volume;
52
-------
stabilization - to reduce putrescible and pathogenic nature of the
sludge and make it easier to dewater;
conditioning - to obtain further stabilization and further increase
dewaterability;
dewatering - to convert the sludge into a moist cake (more than 20
percent solids) which can be more easily handled and transported;
and
drying - to remove essentially all water, thus obtaining a rela-
tively dry material for utilization or disposal.
Use of any of the sludge treatment methods outlined above would depend on the
objectives sought for disposal or utilization of the end-product. For ex-
ample, stabilization is usually required if the sludge is to be landfilled in
an environmentally acceptable manner. If landfill site limitations or trans-
port costs are a problem, dewatering may be used to reduce the volume of
material requiring disposal.
Because of the limited number of applications for this technology, the seafood
industry has very little experience handling the float. The most advanced
approach adopted by a tuna cannery consists of centrifugal dewatering followed
by landfilling. Surveys of meat packers, poultry processors and Tenderers
show that DAF float can be successfully dewatered using gravity phase (liquid/
solids) separation or centrifugation. Many of the processors contacted sub-
ject their DAF sludge, which in some cases contain chemical coagulants, to an
on-site or nearby rendering process.
4. DAF Float Utilization. The trend toward utilization of DAF float can be
expected to increase as land disposal sites become more scarce and environ-
mental restrictions increase. Despite the presence of coagulants, byproduct
development should be pursued in lieu of burying the float. The use of al-
ternative chemical coagulants, such as lignosulfonic acid (LSA), can allow DAF
float to be processed into a salable proteinaceous byproduct which can be
approved for animal feed. This process has been successfully adopted by at
least one meat packer, the Sterling Colorado Beef Company, in the United
States.(59) Another form of DAF float treatment (anaerobic digestion) can
yield methane, a combustible gas which can help offset the energy costs of
pollution control operations.(80) The Coors brewery uses chemical treatment
and DAF to thicken sludge from a secondary wastewater treatment plant. An
approved water treatment polymer is added to assist in the flotation process.
The concentrated sludge from this operation is then dewatered through evap-
oration to produce a material which will be marketed as animal feed, but only
in the State of Colorado because FDA has not approved it for use in interstate
commerce.
As byproduct development becomes more attractive, consideration should be
given to the use of chitosan as a coagulation aid during DAF treatment.
Chitosan has been effectively used as a coagulant for wastewaters generated by
food industries such as vegetable processing, fruit cake production, egg
breaking, meat packing, poultry processing and seafood processing (the latter
at an Atlantic Coast shrimp processing and breading operation).(15, 16, 18,
20, 22) This natural polymer has been found to be at least as effective as,
if not superior to, synthetic polymers. Because chitosan is a natural com-
pound, sludge byproducts such as animal feeds are more plausible. Feeding
53
-------
studies involving rats and chitosan-coagulated byproducts have indicated no
significant physiological effects. However, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has not approved chitosan as an animal feed ingredient as of this time.
Foreign seafood processors have made more progress than domestic operations in
terms of DAF float handling and byproduct development.(212, 224, 234, 252) In
the United States, only limited research performed principally by the tuna
industry has been done in these areas. The FDA must approve any potential
marketable use of the DAF float due to the presence of coagulants; however,
the seafood industry in the United States has not pursued such approval for
any type of byproduct. Consequently, the domestic processors which employ DAF
treatment generally dispose of the float in landfills.
5. DAF Float Disposal. Land disposal has been the principal form of sludge
disposal in the United States.(126) Recently, the application of sludges on
agricultural land has gained importance as opposed to burying the material in
landfills.
All types of sludge contain liquid and solid components which will dictate the
physical handling procedures and environmental concerns of land disposal. For
dewatered DAF float from seafood processors, application methods include land
spreading; for liquid float, application methods include spraying onto the
ground or injection beneath the soil surface.
Disposal practices which rely on land application must take into account the
ability of the soil/plant system to assimilate the materials applied to the
land. The liquid portion is dissipated through percolation, evaporation and
transpiration. Suspended matter is removed by soil particles which act as a
filter, and by naturally-occurring bacteria which can decompose simple organic
compounds. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus may be removed by the
cover crop or fixed within the soil structure.
When using land application as a disposal method, the following character-
istics of DAF sludge from seafood processing operations must be considered:
a.) nitrogen content; b.) oil and grease content; c.) sodium concentration;
d.) salinity; and e.) odor potential.
a. Nitrogen Content. A critical factor in applying DAF float to the
land is the ability of the soil/plant system to assimilate nitrogen.
Crops will use nitrogen for growth; however, some species will use more
than others.
The soil structure must be permeable, allowing the nitrogen to reach the
plant roots. But if the soil is too permeable the nitrogen will rapidly
pass beyond the root system, out of reach for plant uptake. Nitrogen
should not be allowed to contaminate the groundwater, thus soils with
high water tables are inappropriate. Assuming appropriate soils are
available, sludge application rates should be controlled so that the
nitrogen applied is not in excess of the sytem's ability to assimilate
it.
54
-------
b. Oil and Grease. If oil and grease are allowed to concentrate on the
soil surface or within a small subsurface area, then the soil can become
impervious. Oil and grease constituents of DAF float, therefore, require
controlled application and careful incorporation into the soil. The
hydrocarbon molecules in oil and grease will be decomposed by common soil
bacteria if the rate of application is controlled.
c. Sodium Concentration. Because excessive sodium concentrations can
create soil impermeability problems, the rate of sludge application must
be within the capacity of the soil to handle sodium. Different soils can
accommodate different levels of sodium.
d. Salinity. Excessive salt buildup can sterilize soil and inhibit
microbial activity which is necessary for the decomposition of waste
material. In addition, crops have limited tolerances to salt accumula-
tion, which is a consideration with the wastes incurred by seafood pro-
cessors.
e. Odor Potential. The decomposition of waste organic material can
create odor and insect problems if a land application site is poorly
operated. The potential for such problems is minimized by quickly incor-
porating the deposited material into the soil.
6. Summary. As seafood processors proceed to meet their pollution control
responsiblities, the DAF treatment scheme will begin to be utilized by an
increasing number of plants. Consequently, an increase in the volume of float
generated will result. Although only a limited number of processors currently
use DAF technology, this technology has been identified herein as being appro-
priate for much of the industry. DAF float (i.e., the solids, oil and grease)
removed from processing effluents will be utilized, or it will require dis-
posal.
DAF float generated by the seafood industry in the United States is currently
being transported to landfills for disposal. However, as landfill operations
are subjected to more rigorous evaluation, an increasing emphasis will be
placed on DAF float utilization. Because the residuals from seafood waste-
waters are high in nutrients and protein content, potential uses for these
materials .include animal feed supplements and fertilizers for agricultural
activities.
Ultimately, the generation of float will depend on the number of seafood
processors adopting this technology for water pollution control. What these
processors do with the float will be more an issue of economics: simple
disposal will continue to be favored by the processors as long as sites are
available and the costs for disposal are less than those for'byproduct manu-
facturing and marketing.
55
-------
E. Waste Activated Sludge
The previous discussion of byproduct manufacturing from seafood wastes has
included gross solids, screened solids and DAT sludge. The fourth and final
category of solids which may be incurred by seafood processors adopting waste-
water treatment is waste activated sludge. Biological treatment systems which
generate this material rely on the maintenance of a large mass of microorgan-
isms which are capable of decomposing organic wastes. The activated sludge
system is widely used for treating municipal and industrial wastewaters, but
has only limited applicability to the seafood industry.
High' capital and operating costs, large land area requirements and the need
for steady operating conditions are among the reasons the seafood industry has
not adopted biological systems for treating processing wastes. Such systems
can achieve waste reductions that are beyond those obtained by screening and
DAF technology. Most processors are located in developed coastal areas where
land is simply not available for construction of large treatment systems. In
addition, the fluctuations in processing schedules would generally inhibit the
effectiveness of most high-rate systems. Lagoons, which represent low ac-
tivity treatment, require even greater land areas. For these reasons, most of
the available information about the character of waste activated sludge with
the biological treatment of fish processing wastes has been gained through
research activities or inferred from information available for treating other
types of wastewater.
Waste activated sludge from municipal and industrial treatment systems has
been finding increased use as a soil amendment, in some cases supplying nu-
trients for crop-growing. Such crops are not be used for human consumption
because a considerable amount of research is required to establish its safety.
Concern remains for crop retention of toxic chemicals which are generally
present in these sludges.
Growing awareness of the nutrient value of sludge has led to increasing demand
for this material by farmers and homeowners interested in enriching- their
field crops, gardens or lawns. This demand reflects the fact that, in some
cases, the sludge is given away at no cost; normal market conditions have not
yet been established. Some plants charge a fee for delivering the material;
however, this fee is generally intended merely to offset any special handling
and transport costs for the delivery service. The value of the product itself
is not usually considered. Sludge utilization in such cases is viewed simply
as a disposal alternative.
Some efforts have been made to create byproducts from waste activated sludge,
such as a nutrient-balanced dry fertilizer product. There has also been
increasing interest in the protein content of the sludge, which can be pro-
cessed to a single-cell protein (SCP) product and used as an animal feed.
Waste activated sludge is not apt to be a common concern for seafood pro-
cessors. Processing facilities which employ biological treatment will probab-
ly follow the course established by municipal and other industrial operations
which have produced and will continue to produce the greatest volumes of
biological sludges.
56
-------
F. Summary - Byproduct Manufacturing
This section has introduced a variety of concepts and applications for by-
product recovery from residuals generated by the seafood industry. Byproduct
manufacturing offers two principal advantages to the industry: 1) the recov-
ery of a potential revenue-generating product from material that was once
discarded; and 2) the reduction of waste loads discharged to effluent streams
with a corresponding reduction in pollution control costs. Two byproducts -
meal and chitosan - appear to have the greatest potential for meeting the
long-term needs of the seafood industry. These byproducts are discussed in
more.depth in the following sections of this chapter.
IV. MEAL PRODUCTION FROM SEAFOOD WASTES
A. Background
In general, there is a worldwide shortage of protein. While this may not seem
evident in the United States, there are other countries and continents which
have significant protein deficiencies. Protein prices in the United States
are low compared to those in other parts of the world; European prices, for
example, are twice those established in the United States. Worldwide short-
ages are aggravated by worldwide population growth.
The sea offers an" abundance of protein, but only a portion of that which is
harvested gets utilized. To approach total utilization, fish processors must
rely on the production of secondary seafood commodities and byproducts.
Otherwise, much of the protein brought to shore is returned to the environment
as waste material. Fish meal is a widely-accepted proteinaceous byproduct
which can substantially increase the total yield of protein currently achieved
by the fish processing industry.
Within the contiguous United States, many of the larger tuna canneries already
operate on-site meal production plants. The processing of tuna scraps is
supplemented by anchovy reduction at specific plants during part of the year.
However, the seafood industry as a whole has not installed this type of on-
site byproduct equipment, largely because of intermittent production schedules
and the poor profitability experienced by some meal producers. A number of
the processors send their waste material to general rendering facilities which
produce meal and other products (such as tallow and oil) from proteinaceous
wastes received from various sources. It would appear that the concept of
centralized fish meal facilities, cooperatively handling strictly fish wastes
from a number of local processors, may be economically more attractive than
operation of on-site equipment at individual plants.
Small fish meal plants able to process 250 to 1,000 kilograms of raw material
per hour are manufactured and sold as package units; however, none of these
have been identified operating within the United States seafood processing
industry. The relative cost of operating a small-scale meal plant is high
compared to larger operations, largely due to the economy of scale. Even the
larger plants located in Alaska have generally act been operated at an accept-
able profit level; some actually lose money. Recognizing this, fish pro-
cessors have come to regard the operation of meal plants as an alternative
means of waste disposal, rather than a business venture. To these processors,
meal production may represent a lower-cost or less involved waste disposal
57
-------
method than barging or landfilling. The possibility exists for competing
processors to cooperatively subsidize meal plants in the mutual interest of
keeping waste disposal costs to a minimum.
Obviously, meal production would be a preferable disposal method in terms of
total resource utilization. The world market value for protein tends to
fluctuate, but has generally been increasing. As this market improves, the
economic advantages of meal production will increase. Concurrently, the cost
of other forms of disposal may rise, creating a greater incentive for pro-
cessors to choose meal production instead of ocean disposal or land disposal
of their wastes. Since the operation of modern fish meal facilities is fairly
energy intensive, future costs to meet energy requirements will also play a
significant role in the economics of meal production.
B. Alaskan Meal Production
In Alaska, three fish meal facilities are currently operating. Two typical
fish meal installations are operated by processing plants in Petersburg and
Seward. Both include an evaporator for stickwater, the waste stream contain-
ing soluble protein which is extracted after the cooking process. Neither
installation has been operating at full capacity on an annual basis because of
raw material supply limitations. The reluctance of other processors in the
respective areas to separate gross and screenable solids have contributed to
this situation. The third (and largest) meal plant, Bio-Dry Incorporated, is
located in Kodiak, where it receives wastes from about 15 area processors.
Meal commodities are produced essentially year-round, while fish oil is re-
covered during the processing of finfish wastes. Stickwater is discharged to
the harbor without treatment.
The two smaller operations (at Petersburg and Seward) accept raw waste mate-
rials transported by local processors, paying nothing for the wastes and
charging nothing for their acceptance. The Kodiak plant charges a fee for
going out and collecting raw wastes from local processors, much as a municipal
refuse collector might do. Processors who instead choose to transport their
wastes to the Bio-Dry plant receive a credit (to apply against processing
fees). Thus, the only exchange of money is from the processors to the meal
plant; in effect, a service fee for waste disposal.
Because meal production is one of the few alternatives for disposal/utiliza-
tion of Alaskan seafood processing wastes, special care has been taken to
identify key seafood processing centers for further evaluations regarding the
feasibility of operating meal plants in these areas. The rationale for iden-
tifying selected areas will be presented to establish the basis of economic
evaluations to be conducted by another contractor, as part of the Section 74
study.
Previous assessments of the seafood industry, have shown that, although con-
ditions vary from place to place, the Alaskan industry as a whole differs
significantly from that established in the contiguous United States. Some of
the factors uniquely influencing the treatment and disposal of seafood wastes
include labor availability, weather, geography, geologic and soil conditions,
and relatively high costs for construction and transportation activities.
58
-------
Earlier assessments regarding waste control within the seafood processing
industry differentiated between remote and non-remote areas of Alaska, ident-
ifying non-remote areas as those having significant population density or
processing activity. Designated non-remote areas are Anchorage, Cordova,
Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak and Petersburg. It was determined that fish pro-
cessors in these areas are capable of achieving greater reductions in waste
discharges than plants in remote locations. Not all plants in designated
non-remote areas have installed the appropriate equipment (screens) to realize
achievable pollutant reductions.
In addition to the designated non-remote areas, there are three remote loca-
tions which support substantial fish processing activity: Naknek-South Naknek
(Bristol Bay); Dutch Harbor; and the Kenai Peninsula, which includes Kenai,
Soldotna, Ninilchik, Homer and Seward. Because these have been designated as
remote areas, fish processors simply grind and discharge their wastes to local
receiving waters.
Profiles of the nine major processing areas in Alaska are presented below.
1. Anchorage. Because it is Alaska's largest population center, Anchorage
has been designated as a non-remote area. However, the city has relatively
little seafood processing activity, limited to one large cannery and a cold
storage plant, mostly handling salmon. Wastes generated by the cannery repre-
sent a much greater volume than those produced by cold storage plant. The
cannery wastes are ground and discharged to a small stream called Ship's
Creek. Waste materials from the cold storage facility are transported either
to the city landfill or the Seward reduction facility.
Because Anchorage is not a major processing area, it is not reasonable to
suggest a centralized fish meal operation there. There is an existing reduc-
tion plant (150 metric tons per day capacity) in the Kenai Peninsula at Seward,
over 100 miles from Anchorage. Since the reduction facility is operating
below capacity, transporting the wastes to Seward represents a viable alter-
native. Or, the Anchorage processor could install its own, on-site byproduct
manufacturing equipment. If screens were to be installed at the Anchorage
processing plants, the accumulated wastes (gross and screened solids) would
require some form of byproduct manufacturing or disposal. A designated ocean
dumping site is within 5 miles of the city.
2. Cordova. There are four seafood processing plants in Cordova and its
immediate vicinity. The principal commodities include canned and fresh/
frozen salmon, Tanner and Dungeness crab, frozen herring in the round, and
herring roe. Cordova is currently designated as a non-remote area. It is
surrounded by mountains which make the city rather inaccessible to other
population centers by ground transportation. However, the city is serviced by
the state of Alaska marine highway (ferry system) and commercial airlines.
Because more than three processors are located in Cordova and it is a non-
remote area (thus subject to more rigorous waste controls), Cordova is one of
the areas which should be evaluated for centralized fish meal production. The
separation of finfish solids and shellfish wastes should be included in the
59
-------
analytical process due to the different values associated with the respective
meal products.
3. Juneau. Juneau is Alaska's state capital and one of its larger cities;
therefore, it is included in the list of non-remote areas. Like Anchorage,
Juneau does not support an extensive fish processing industry. Two major pro-
cessing plants are located in the Juneau area; principal commodities are
canned and fresh/frozen salmon, and halibut. Because the processing schedule
is normally limited to the summer months, barging of wastes to a designated
dumping site during this season would not be a problem. Juneau is served by a
secondary wastewater treatment plant which would appear capable of handling
wastewater from seafood processors. An easily accessible private landfill
site is available within 5 miles of the local population center.
The number of processing plants operating in the Juneau area limits the prac-
ticality a cooperative waste reduction facility there. Byproducts could be
manufactured individually by the two processors; a foreign manufacturer can
provide meal plants ranging from 250 to 1,000 kilograms per hour for this type
of application.
4. Ketchikan. With an estimated 1976 population of over 10,000, Ketchikan is
classified as a non-remote area. Three major seafood processors operate
within the city limits and a fourth is located about 3 miles from the popula-
tion center. Employment statistics show a seasonal fluctuation that coincides
with the processing season. The main products for this area are canned and
fresh/frozen salmon, halibut, herring and bottomfish.
Ketchikan's location and relatively mild weather allow seafood processing
wastes to be barged for deep sea disposal essentially year-round. Local geo-
graphic conditions limit the potential for land disposal of wastes. Because
the city has no municipal wastewater treatment system, this waste disposal
alternative is also unavailable to local processors. Thus, byproduct manu-
facturing represents one of the few remaining alternatives to ocean disposal.
The feasibility of a centralized fish meal production facility should be given
detailed consideration for the Ketchikan area.
5. Kodiak. Fourteen seafood processors were operating within the city of
Kodiak in 1977, and a fifteenth plant is located just outside city limits.
Thus Kodiak supports an extensive seafood industry; principal commodities
include canned and fresh/frozen salmon, halibut, King and Tanner crab, shrimp
and herring. The city's population density further justifies its designation
as a non-remote area.
Fish processing operations continue throughout the year at Kodiak. And, as
noted earlier, area processors can have their wastes picked up by or delivered
to Bio-Dry, Inc., a local 200-ton-per-day meal plant. This plant, however,
does not evaporate stickwater to enhance the meal quality. In addition, the
variety of species processed in the area (i.e., both finfish and shellfish)
hinders the consistency and quality of the final meal product. Nonetheless,
local processors have been sending their wastes to the meal plant since 1973.
60
-------
The Kodiak processor's have established experience utilizing a centralized
meal plant as a waste disposal option. The operation of the existing faci-
lity, as well as its modification to improve product quality, should receive
detailed analysis.
6. Petersburg. The city of Petersburg is designated as a non-remote area.
Four seafood processing facilities are operating or have operated in the city,
producing fresh/frozen and canned salmon, halibut, herring fillets, Tanner and
King crab, bottomfish and shrimp. Herring is also frozen whole and stripped
for roe.
In 1974, one processor initiated operation of a fish meal plant with a capac-
ity of 100 metric tons per day. The reduction plant has received wastes from
local processors, as well as from seafood plants operating in other areas.
Separation of finfish and shellfish waste is an integral part of the oper-
ation. The barging of wastes from the non-local processors to the reduction
plant has stopped because of the cost incurred in transport. The Petersburg
reduction facility does not operate year-round and has never operated at full
design capacity.
7. Naknek-South Naknek. As many as seven salmon processing plants have
operated along the Naknek river, making this a significant remote area in
terms of fish processing activity. However, the salmon season here averages
only 10 processing days occuring during a 3-week period. This extremely short
duration of waste generation is not conducive to supporting a conventional
fish meal plant.
8. Dutch Harbor. In recent years, the Dutch Harbor area has grown to be the
second largest seafood processing port in the world. The major commodities
are King and Tanner crab, and shrimp. A very small volume of salmon is pro-
cessed in this area. In view of the volume and frequency of waste generation,
this processing center may provide significant raw material for chitin/chito-
san production at a future time. The low value of shellfish meal and the
logistics associated with the Dutch Harbor area are obstacles to the feasibil-
ity of operating a centralized fish meal plant.
9. Kenai Peninsula. There are a number of seafood processors situated in a
relatively small geographical area known as the Kenai Peninsula. This land
mass is adjacent to Anchorage, extending south into the Gulf of Alaska.
Processors are located around the perimeter of the peninsula in such munici-
palities as Kenai, Soldotna, Ninilchik, Homer and Seward. Principal seafood
commodities include canned and fresh/frozen salmon, halibut, King and Tanner
crab, and herring.
The largest and most diversified processor on the Kenai Peninsula is located
at Seward, where operations include a fish meal plant which is capable of
processing 150 metric tons of raw materials per day. The Seward plant handles
wastes from its own processing activities, along with a small volume from
another local processor. However, the plant has not operated anywhere near
its capacity. Therefore, considerations should be given to accepting solids
61
-------
generated by other processors located on the peninsula and Anchorage plants
during economic evaluations.
V. CHITIN/CHITOSAN PRODUCTION FROM SHRLMP AND CRAB WASTES
Meal commodities manufactured from shellfish (shrimp and crab) wastes contain
less protein and have a poorer market value than those manufactured from
finfish wastes. Because of this, attention must be given to alternative
methods of utilizing or disposing of shellfish wastes. A variety of secondary
products and byproducts have already been described in this report. Of these
alternatives, the manufacturing of chitin and"its derivative, chitosan, appears
to offer a unique opportunity for waste utilization which should continue to
be explored.
A. Description of Chitin/Chitosan Production Process
As shown in Figure 11, chitin production requires deproteination and demin-
eralization of shell material. Caustic and hydrochloric acid extraction steps
yield the residual polysaccaride, chitin, which is then washed, dried and
ground into a white powdery substance. Chitin can then be converted into
chitosan through a deacetylation (hot caustic) process as shown in Figure 12.
The entire process is quite sophisticated, and requires extensive quality
control measures, but it produces five marketable products: 1.) chitin; 2.)
chitosan; 3.) protein; 4.) calcium chloride; and 5.) sodium acetate. In lieu
of sodium acetate separation, a caustic recovery process can be incorporated
to reduce chemical costs.
B. Properties and Applications of Chitin/Chitosan
Chitin is an abundant natural carbohydrate polymer, found not only in shells
but also in insect exoskeletons and, to a lesser extent, in fungi and other
plants and animals. It is similar to other natural polysaccarides, such as
cellulose, pectin, starch, and carrageenan. However, most of these poly-
saccarides are chemically neutral or, in some cases, acidic. Chitin differs
from the rest because it has the characteristics of a base (cationic), rather
than an acid.
Because they are cationic and possess a high electrical charge density, chitin
and its derivative, chitosan, exhibit unique properties in combination with
other substances. For example, its high electrical charge density and poten-
tial binding capacity give chitosan the ability to form an ion-exchange resin,
capable of recovering toxic metallic ions from waste streams. It can also
help coagulate materials from various types of wastewater, yielding a natural
coagulated material which may be recycled or utilized more readily than the
residuals from other coagulation processes. For example the use of chitosan
to remove suspended solids from food processing wastewaters results in coagu-
lated solids that can potentially be used as an animal feed supplement.
Chitosan can be made into specialty films such as food wraps and ion-selective
membranes for water and wastewater treatment systems. It produces a strong
bind with negatively-charged polymeric products, giving it applications in the
paper-making, textile-dyeing and adhesives industries (to name a few). It
promotes the healing of wounds in humans, and could also be used as a natural
62
-------
SHELLFISH WASTES
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
DEPROTEINATION
IN
ALKALI
PROTEIN
RECOVERY AND
FINISHING
-[> PROTEIN
STABILIZED SHELL MATERIAL
_£_
DEMORALIZATION
IN
DILUTE ACID
SALT
RECOVERY
PROCESS
(OPTIONAL)
•-£> CALCIUM CHLORIDE
CHITIN
Figure 11. Process schematic for chicin production
from shellfish wastes.
63
-------
SHELLFISH WASTES
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
OEPROTEINATION
IN
ALKALI
PROTEIN
RECOVERY AND
FINISHING
-£> PROTEIN
STABILIZED SHELL MATERIAL
DEMORALIZATION
IN
DILUTE ACID
SALT
RECOVERY
PROCESS
(OPTIONAL)
£> CALCIUM CHLORIDE
CHITIN
Figure 12. Process schematic for chitosan production
from chitin.
64
-------
suture material. Derivatives seem to have application in the selective aggre-
gation of cancer cells. Table 8 lists 76 applications which were identified
by a Brownsville, Tecas, producer who has since discontinued operation.(Ill)
C. Current Status of Chitin/Chitosan Production
Despite all these potential applications, there is presently only one manu-
facturer (small scale) of chitosan in the United States. Previously, pilot-
scale facilities have produced chitosan and then discontinued their operations
because of economic considerations. None of these have practiced the re-
covery of byproducts (calcium chloride and sodium acetate). Other organiza-
tions have merely conducted research or contemplated full-scale production of
chitin/chitosan from selected shellfish wastes. Most of the world's supply of
chitosan is produced by a single manufacturer located in Japan.
The single United States manufacturer of chitosan is located in Seattle,
Washington. Chitosan is manufactured on a pilot scale, having no large,
readily-identified market for the material. An earlier chitin/chitosan pro-
duction plant with a rated capacity of about 150,000 pounds per year, was
operated in the Brownsville, Texas, only for a limited time due to economic
considerations. Velsicol Chemical Corporation of Chicago is currently seeking
funding for a pilot scale production plant which would be able to accommodate
the variable nature of the raw material, in this case crab shells, and evalu-
ate byproduct technology. The proposed pilot facility requires an initial
capital investment of $2 to $3 million and would be located in the Hampton/
Newport News, Virginia area or on the Delmarva peninsula of Maryland and
Virginia. It would require about 5 million pounds of blue crab shell annu-
ally, to support production of 10 tons of chitin per month. Based on the
findings of pilot plant investigations over a two-year period, full-scale
facility, capable of producing 3 million pounds of chitin/ chitosan annually,
could be more extensively evaluated. This facility would be supported by an
annual crab waste generation volume of 60 million pounds from processors in
Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and the northern part of South Carolina.
Among the factors limiting chitin/chitosan production are raw material sup-
plies, raw materials transport, production complexities, and market demand for
the finished product. Each of these factors are discussed individually below.
1. Raw Materials. Chitosan production facilities in the United States, such
as the one which once operated in Brownsville, Texas, have had difficulty
receiving a steady, reliable supply of low-cost raw material. Part of the
problem is that processors can still find other ways to dispose of their
wastes. However, landfills are becoming more reluctant to accept unstabilized
materials, such as seafood wastes, and meal plants are not realizing a profit
from handling shellfish wastes. Many local processors are thus finding them-
selves faced with alternatives, at a time when regulatory pressures are build-
ing for more effective ways of dealing with seafood industry wastes.
65
-------
TABLE 8
IDENTIFIED CHITIN/CHITOSAN APPLICATIONS (HI)
1. Superior adhesive for plywood manufacture. (The bond is stronger than the
wood even after soaking in water.)
2. Superior adhesive for laminating paper (water resistant).
3. Superior adhesive for laminating wood blocks (water resistant).
4. Superior adhesive for joining paper to regenerated cellulose.
5. Superior adhesive for joining paper to wood (water resistant).
6. Superior adhesive for joining paper to cloth (water resistant).
7. Superior adhesive for joining paper to leather (water resistant).
8. Superior adhesive for joining paper to glass (water resistant).
9. Superior adhesive for joining wood to cork (water resistant).
10. Superior adhesive for joining wood to leather (water resistant).
11. Superior adhesive for joining wood to glass (water resistant).
12. Superior adhesive for joining wood to rubber (water resistant).
13. Superior adhesive for joining wood to rayon (water resistant).
14. Superior adhesive for joining wood to canvas (water resistant).
15. Superior adhesive for joining leather to leather (water resistant).
16. Superior adhesive for joining leather to cork (water resistant).
17. Superior adhesive for joining leather to regenerated cellulose (water
resistant).
18. Superior adhesive for joining cork to rayon (water resistant).
19. Superior adhesive for joining cork to canvas (water resistant).
20. Superior adhesive for joining rayon to rubber (water resistant).
21. Superior adhesive for joining rayon to cloth (water resistant).
22. Superior adhesive for joining regenerated cellulose films to other cellu-
lose films (water resistant).
23. Superior prime coating base for painting with specialty paints.
24. Furniture glue (water resistant).
25. Manufacture of wood veneer paper (water resistant).
26. Laminating safety glass.
27. Imparting increased wet and dry strength in paper manufacturing.
28. Imparting water resistance to finished paper.
29. As surface sizing on paper to impart both oil and water resistant proper-
ties .
30. Increasing water resistance of cellophane.
31. As an emulsifying agent and thickener in proprietary sizing emulsions.
32. As a thickener in nonemulsion formulations.
33. As a semi-permanent finish on wool to improve-laundering properties and
aid in retaining shape and greatly reducing shrinkage.
34. As an antistatic coating for synthetic fibers.
35. As a contributer of semi-permanent fullness and stiffness to cotton fabrics,
(Also imparts some water resistance.)
36. Improves acidic foot ointments.
37. Improves antacid tablets.
38. Improves contraceptive jellies.
39. Improves antiperspirants.
40. Improves dyeing characteristics of cellulose fibers and films.
66
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
41. As additive to infant food (including livestock) to enhance growth of the
essential Lactobacillus-Bifidus, thus enhances weaning earlier with less
danger of complications.
42. As an additive to tetracycline promoting rapid adsorption of the antibiotic
by the blood stream and maintaining the tetracycline at a high level.
43. Has similar function to above with other antibiotics.
44. As plastics adhesive.
45. As lubricant and sizing agent in the manufacture of fiberglass reduces
abrasion and breakage of fibers during handling and weaving.
46. Increases color capability of fiberglass.
47. Specialty adhesive for plastic to fiberglass laminates.
48. In removing mercury from industrial effluents.
49. In recovering mercury pollutants to useful compounds.
50. In coagulating oily industrial wastes thus permitting recovery and prevent-
ing pollution.
51. In wound dressings.
52. In biomedical application such as an artificial skin.
53. As special edible food wrappers.
54. In reverse osmosis units.
55. For recovering trace metals from waste, sea and source waters.
56. For definitive water pollution surveying.
57. For imparting radically increased strength to synthetic fibers used in
various fabrics.
58. In domestic sewage treatment plants in remote locations such as base camps
for Alaska pipeline, and where conditions of terrain make other processes
impracticable.
59. As a clarifier in breweries.
60. For improving electrical conductivity of special papers, such as used in
xerox and other photocopying processes.
61. In brewery waste treatment for recovering animal feed-stuffs.
62. For recovery and re-use of undgested proteins from animal wastes.
63. For recovery and re-use of dissolved protein resulting from shellfish and
finfish processing.
64. For recovery and re-use of products from cheese whey in big diaries.
65. As an anti-coagulant intravenous substitute for Heparin use (primarily for
preventing blood clots).
66. For adsorbing D.D.T. and other similar insecticides.
67. As a surgical suture with properties that accelerate wound-healing.
68. For silver recovery in various processes.
69. For recovery of mineral resources of the sea.
70. As an oil-drlling mud additive.
71. For treatment of nuclear power plant wastes.
72. For very rapid determination of nuclear power plant pollution resulting
from accident.
73. As a substrate for a microbial fermentation to produce a new enzyme "Chito-
sanase". Enzyme is used to control infection'in human burns. (WSG)
74. For sensitizing the photo-oxidative destruction of waste organic materials,
such as phenols in industrial effluents. (WSG)
75. For coating and encapsulating particles. (WSG)
76. As a substrate for controlled release or herbicides (WSG)
67
-------
Considering the current shellfish harvests a substantial chitosan industry
could be established in the United States. Although they are seasonal, shrimp
and crab waste supplies appear plentiful in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and
the Chesapeake Bay area. The Dutch Harbor area of Alaska generates a huge
amount of shellfish wastes. However, the remoteness of this area prohibits
serious consideration regarding local chitosan production. Local processors
have been approached by the Japanese, who are interested in buying stabilized
shells from the Dutch Harbor area. Stabilization can be achieved through
deproteinization of the waste material (first chemical process step in chitin
production) with a weak alkalai solution. Not only would shell stabilization
occur, but high grade proteinacous material could be recovered (90 percent
protein). The sale of the protein would significantly improve the economics
of operating such a facility. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has
published regulations for the shipboard transport of the alkali chemical
required for this process as well as those pertaining to hydrochloric acid
required for demineralization to produce chitin. In view of the quality
control which must be excercised for chitin production, stabilization appears
to be the limit for shellfish wastes processing in Alaskan areas.
The availability of shellfish wastes within a given region would have to be
accompanied by a willingness by local processors to cooperate in supplying a
chitin/chitosan manufacturing plant. Market values for chitosan vary depend-
ing on the specific application. But the major volume markets (such as waste-
water coagulation or papermaking) would require a relatively low selling price
for chitosan. Low chitosan prices can only be achieved by large-scale pro-
duction plants receiving consistent supplies of raw material at minimal cost.
Transportation cannot represent a large portion of the costs associated with
operating a chitin/chitosan plant.
2. Cost. To be economically feasible, chitosan production would have to be
large in scale and consistent in quality. Regional processing centers are
thus attractive, receiving wastes from selected areawide processors. Velsicol
estimates that the production costs associated with a full-scale chitosan
plant would be approximately $2.00 per pound of chitosan; whereas their pilot
facility which incorporates added versatility would produce chitosan for about
three to four times that amount. Investigations conducted by a Sea Grant
Institution supports the $2.00 per pound production cost.(64) The Japanese
company which currently produces most of the world's chitosan sold the product
for about $3.00 per pound in 1978, plus transportation costs.
3. Markets. Despite all the potential uses of chitosan, a firm market for
this material has not yet been established. The technology exists for its
production, but additional research is needed to ensure adequate product
performance in many of its applications. Development of a strong market would
probably result from two achievements: 1) a steady output of consistently
high quality chitosan; and 2) a full-fledged marketing (sales) effort.
The reluctance of private industry to enter the area of chitin/chitosan pro-
duction reflects the major capital investment required to construct a manufac-
turing plant of large enough capacity to allow a competitive price structure.
Prices are a reflection of demand, which many feel is not yet great enough to
justify capital expansion. One of the uses of chitosan is in the coagulation
of wastewater. If the Food and Drug Administration were to approve chitosan
68
-------
as an animal food additive, then it would create immediate demand for chitosan
as a coagulant for proteinaceous food processing wastewaters. Sludge from the
treatment process could then be used as an animal feed.
The Sea Grant Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently
reported that chitosan production would be commercially feasible at a produc-
tion rate of between 1 and 4 million pounds per year at a selling price of
$1.00 to $2.50 per pound.(64) The recommended scheme requires that partic-
ipating local shellfish processors separate their wastes into two parts: 1) a
mechanically separated protein; and 2) shell waste residual. The shell waste
residual would be sold to a regional or national-level producer of chitin
derivatives. Several other researchers and industry representatives have
expressed skepticism with regard to the economic feasibility of any such plan.
D. Outlook
Skepticism aside, chitin/chitosan production appears to offer an alternative
to meal production or other forms of shrimp and crab waste disposal. The
potential uses or markets for chitosan have only recently been seriously re-
searched, but already indicate the broad range of applications for the mate-
rial. In the long run, chitin/chitosan production will have to be considered
seriously, not only for its own sake, but also for the sake of resource utili-
zation and hence of environmental protection.
The largest and most immediate use of chitosan appears to be for wastewater
coagulation, particularly in cases where the use of a natural polymer might
enhance the market value of the coagulated sludge (e.g., as an animal feed).
Beyond this, it would be difficult to speculate which application will emerge
as the best potential market for chitosan, or at what price. Nor can it be
predicted when or if this market will develop.
In the immediate future, it appears that chitosan production in the United
States will need to continue at pilot and demonstration levels, awaiting the
establishment of firm market, predictable price structure, and consistent
quality product. As these develop, chitin/chitosan production may indeed
emerge as a long-term solution to the problem of shellfish waste disposal for
certain areas of the country. Such areas would have to contain enough shrimp
and/or crab processors within an acceptable distance to provide a consistent
supply of raw material in support of large-scale chitosan production. Not all
processors will fit into such a scheme.
VI. ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SEAFOOD WASTES
In selecting a waste disposal alternative, a seafood processor should first
consider the manufacture of secondary products or byproducts from this pro-
teinaceous material. If this appears unfeasible, then land application should
be considered, again attempting to take advantage of valuable materials in the
seafood wastes for agricultural purposes. If none of the above courses of
action can be implemented, then the processor must consider the ultimate
disposal of processing wastes by some other means. The two principal altern-"
atives for final disposal are barging (ocean disposal) and landfilling.
69
-------
A. Barging
Alaskan seafood processors have the option of barging their waste materials to
designated deep sea disposal sites which are generally within 5 miles of
shore. Barges are generally operated by individual processors; however,
cooperative efforts are also a realistic option. In the contiguous United
States, most processors have other disposal alternatives available, such as
landfilling and centralized byproduct manufacturing facilities. The United
States territories of Puerto Rico and American Samoa support major tuna can-
neries which are accompanied by fish meal plants. At the byproduct facili-
ties, stickwater is not evaporated to produce solubles; instead, this con-
centrated waste stream is either barged to sea or directed to the respective
wastewater treatment system. Treatment system performance is impacted when
the stickwater is received at the wastewater plant.
B. Landfilling
The landfilling (or burial) of sludges and other solid wastes has tradition-
ally been the most common and least expensive method of disposal. However,
new sites are becoming difficult to find, and there is mounting concern for
the environmental impact of landfill operations. Regulations have been gen-
erated by state and federal agencies specifying the proper standards for
selecting and operating a landfill site. For seafood processors in the con-
tiguous United States, this means greater attention-will have to be given to
cooperative approaches and to joint municipal-industrial sludge disposal
sites. Processors can participate in the operation of an existing sludge
landfill or arrange for the co-disposal of residual solids at a conventional
refuse landfill.
The principal material to be landfilled by the seafood processing industry is
DAF sludge (float) and, to a lesser extent, waste activated sludge. But
disposal of any type of sludge, including the DAF float, will become increas-
ingly difficult as the mandated criteria of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 are implemented. RCRA prohibits future open dumps
and requires upgrading or closing of existing dumps; regulates the treatment,
storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes to protect the land;
and further requires reduction of the waste stream through increased resource
recovery and waste reduction efforts. While final regulations are still being
formulated, it is known that the primary focus of RCRA is on the 21 primary
industries which are known to generate hazardous wastes. Since the seafood
processing industry is a secondary industry, little insight can be provided
regarding the impact of RCRA on float disposal.
With regulations governing landfill operations becoming more restrictive, it
is important to consider dewatering the sludges to make them more amenable to
burial. Dewatered float and waste activated sludges, are also easier to trans-
port to the disposal site than liquid material. Economics and imposed res-
trictions will dictate the need for installing dewatering equipment at the
treatment plant site.
Co-disposal with other types of refuse is common for dewatered waste activated
sludge. But here again, this treatment technology is not expected to find
substantial use within the seafood industry. The more common sludge is ex-
70
-------
pected to result from use of DAF treatment systems. The sludge, or float,
from DAF units is a viscous material that can be handled as a liquid or de-
watered and handled more like a solid. Evaluation of alternative dewatering
systems and their related economics would need to be performed on a case-by-
case basis. Dewatered and undewatered DAF sludge has been landfilled by
California tuna canneries. In Puerto Rico the disposal of liquid float and
dewatered float has been accomplished. Sludge concentration was found to be a
necessary step for this geographical location mainly due to aesthetics and
environmental considerations. In general, relatively few seafood processors
have installed DAF treatment and even fewer have any experience with the
dewatering and disposal of the resulting sludges.
Other food industries which employ DAF treatment units or biological treatment
systems have demonstrated that their sludges can be dewatered and receive safe
disposal .separately in conjunction with other municipal and industrial
sludges.
C. Other Disposal Methods
Several characteristics of the seafood industry have an impact on landfilling
and other disposal options. A significant segment of the industry is located
in Alaska, where geographic, soils and climatologic conditions eliminate
landfilling as a viable disposal alternative. The prevalence of small pro-
cessing plants which operate intermittently prevents consideration of high-
technology, high investment waste disposal options, such as incineration or
pyrolysis for most of the industry.
71
-------
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOMESTIC SOURCES
1. Abu, M.Y.B. " Clarification of Menhaden Bail Water by Reverse Osmosis".
M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, December 1973.
2. "Advanced Wastewater Treatment - Nature's Way", Environmental Science and
.Technology, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1978.
3. Antonie, R.L., and R.J. Hynek, "Operating Experience with Bio-Surf Pro-
cess Treatment of Food Processing Wastes", Proceedings of the 28th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, 1973.
4. Asano, T. et al. , "Centrifugal Dewatering of Municipal and Industrial
Sludge", Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 124, No. 9, pp.130-135. September
1977.
5. Atwell, J.S. et al. , "Water Pollution Control Problems and Programs of
the Maine Sardine Council", Proceedings o_f the 1973 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, 1973.
6. Atwell, J.S. and D.B. Ertz, Transcribed Notes for Visits to Alaskan
Seafood Processing Facilities, (unpublished), July 1977.
7. Balassa, L.L. and J.F. Prudden, "Applications of Chitin and Chitosan in
Wound Healing Acceleration", Proceedings of_ the First International
Conference on Chitin/ Chitosan, edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli, and E.R.
Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea
Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
8. Bansal, I.K., "Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration of Oily and Pulping
Effluents", Industrial Wastes, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 1977.
9. Barnett, H.J. and R.W. Nelson, A Preliminary Report on Studies _to Develop
Alternative Methods of_ Removing Pollutants from Tuna (Albacore) Process
Wastewaters, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, May 9, 1975.
10. Barrett, F. , "The Electroflotation of Organic Wastes", Chemistry and
Industry, October .16, 1974.
11. Beltz, P., Industrial Waste Utilization; A State-of-the-Art Review,
Battelle, Columbus Laboratories.
12. Benkovich, J.F., "Dewatering Screens in Pollution Control", Pollution
Engineering, pp.51-52, May 1974.
13. Beyer, D. L. et. al. , "Effects of Salmon Cannery Wastes on Water Quality
and Marine Organisms", Journal WPCF, Vol. 47, No. 7, July 1975.
14. Bough, W. A., "Chitosan - A Polymer from Seafood Waste for Use in Treat-
ment of Food Processing Wastes and Activated Sludge," Process
Biochemistry, Vol. 11, pp. 13-16, January/February 1976.
A-l
-------
15. Bough, W.A., Chitosan and Its Role in Food Processing and Industrial
Waste Treatment, presented at the Chitin-Chitosan Workshop, Texas A & M
University, June 11-12, 1975.
16. Bough, W.A. , "Coagulation with Chitosan - An Aid to Recovery of By-
Products from Egg Breaking Wastes, Poultry Science, February 1975.
17. Bough, W.A., Dry Cleanup Techniques for Reducing the BOD Waste Load from
Shrimp Processing, presented at the Third Annual Tropical and Subtropical
Fisheries Technology Conference of the Americas, New Orleans, LA, April
.24-25, 1978.
18. Bough, W.A. et al., "Utilization of Chitosan for Recovery of Coagulated
Byproducts from Food Processing Wastes and Treatment Systems" Proceedings
Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA-600/2-76-224,
December 1976.
19. Bough, W.A., and D.R. Landes, "Recovery and Nutritional Evaluation of
Proteinaceous Solids Separated from Whey by Coagulation with Chitosan",
Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 59, pp.1874-1880, November 1976.
20. Bough, W.A., "Reduction of Suspended Solids in Vegetable Canning Waste
Effluents by Coagulation with Chitosan", Journal of Food Science,
Institute of Food Technologists, 1975.
21. Bough, W.A. e_t al. , Pollution Reduction through Dry Clean-up and
By-product Recovery, Marine Extension Bulletin No. 3, Georgia Sea Grant
Program, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, February 1978.
22. Bough, W.A. e_t al. , "Use of Chitosan for the Reduction and Recovery °f
Solids in Poultry Processing Waste Effluents", Poultry Science Vol. 54,
pp.992-1000, 1975.
23. Bough, W.A. et al. , "Waste from Shrimp and Crab Processing Could Be Used
as Microbiological Media", Food Engineering, p. 158, September 1977.
24. Brine, C.J. and P.R. Austin, "Utilization of Chitin, A Cellulose Deriva-
tive from Crab and Shrimp Waste", presented at Earth Environment and
Resources Conference, U.S. Environment and Resources Council, Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, DEL-SG-19-74, September 12, 1974.
25. Brinsfield, R.B. et al. , "Characterization, Treatment and Disposal of
Wastewater from Maryland Seafood Plants", Journal WPCF, Vol. 50, No. 8,
August 1978.
26. Brown and Caldwell, Investigation o_f Crab Waste Disposal Alternatives,
Seattle, Washington, for the Pacific Seafood Processors Association,
March 1979, 58 pp.
27. Brundage, A.L. et al. , King Crab Meal as a Protein Source for Lactating
Dairy Cows, University of Alaska, Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station,
(unpublished) 1978.
A-2
-------
28. Bucove, G.O., and G.M. Pigott, "Pilot Plant Production of a Functional
Protein from Fish Waste by Enzymatic Digestion", Proceedings Seventh
National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA-600/2-76-304, December
1976.
29. Caponigro, Michael A., Benthic Macrofauna, Sediment and Water Quality
Near Seafood Cannery Outfalls in Kenai and Cordova, Alaska, EPA Contract
Number 68-03-2578, SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California, February 15,
1979, 97 pp.
30. .Carroad, P.A. and R.A. Tom "Bioconversion of Shellfish Chitin Wastes:
Process Conception and Selection of Microorganisms", Journal £f Food
Science, Institute of Food Technologists, Vol. 43, 1978.
31. Caruthers, J.A. and F.E. Woodard, "Dewatering of Dissolved Air Flotation
Sludge by Centrifugation," Proceedings £f the 31st Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, p. 628-635, 1976.
32. Carver, J.H. and E.J. Kisc, "Fish Scraps Offers High Quality Protein".
Food Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.75-76, January 1971.
33. Chambers, D.B., and W.R.T. Cottrell, "Flotation: Two Fresh Ways to Treat
Effluents", Chemical Engineering, Vol. 83, No. 16, pp.95-98, August 1976.
34. Christensen, D.E. e_t al., "Electrochemical Waste Treatment System Removes
90% BOD and Suspended Solids, 96% Fats, Oils, and Greases from Beef
Slaughtering Plant Effluent, Food Processing, September 1977.
35. Claggett, F.G. and J. Wong, "Treatment of Fish Processing Plant Waste-
water", Bulletin of The Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 189,
1974.
36. Collins, J. and R.D. Tenney, "Fishery Waste Effluents: A Method to Deter-
mine Relationships Between Chemical Oxygen Demand and Residue", Fishery
Bulletin, Vol. 74, No. 4, 1976.
37. Collins, J. and R.D. Tenney, "Fishery Waste Effluents: A Suggested
System for Determining and Calculating Pollutant Parameters", Fishery
Bulletin, Vol. 75, No. 2, 1977.
38. Costa, R.E., Jr., "The Fertilizer Value of Shrimp and Crab Processing
Wastes," M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, June 1977.
39. Creter, R. V., and J. P. Levandowski, "Simple Waste Treatment for Seafood
Packers", Pollution Engineering, pp.32-33, February 1975.
40. Dambois, I. et al., "Turns 3000 ppm Food Processing Waste into Byproduct,
Cuts Sewage Charges", Food Processing, May 1978.
41. Deboer, J. A., and J. H. Ryther, "Potential Yields from a Waste-Recycling
Algal Mariculture System", The Marine Plant Biomass of the Pacific North-
west Coast, Oregon State University Press, 1978.
A-3
-------
42. D'Elia, C.F. et al., "Productivity and Nitrogen Balance in Large Scale
Phytoplankton Cultures", Water Research, Great Britain, Pergamon Press,
Vol. 11, pp.1031-1040, 1977.
43. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of
the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category,
EPA-440/l-74-020-a, June 1974.
44. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam,
Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, and Abalone Segment of the Canned and
Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-75/041-a,
September 1975.
45. Doyle, J.P., Fishplant Sanitation and Cleaning Procedures, University of
Alaska, Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 1.
46. Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc., Summary Report on the Evaluation of Tuna
Wastewater Treatment Facilities at Terminal Island, California, prepared
under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3287, (unpublished) September 1976.
47. "Effluent Treatment: Some Technical and Management Problems", Food Manu-
facture, August 1976.
48. Ertz, D.B. et al., "Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Seafood Pro-
cessing Wastes - An Assessment," Proceedings Eighth National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes, EPA-600/2-77-184, August 1977.
49. "Field Report: Wastewater Clean-up System Halves Process Effluent
Charge", Food Engineering, May 1976.
50. "Flocculation with Flotation", Effluent and Water Treatment Journal,
p.607, November 1977.
51. Grant, R.A., "Protein Recovery as an Effluent Treatment Process",
Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, pp.616-621, December 1975.
52. Green, J.H. et al., "Investigations of Fishery By-products Utilization:
Ruminant Feeding and Fly Larva Protein Production", Proceedings Fifth
National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA-660/2-74-058, June
1974.
53. Green, J.H. e_t al. , "New Methods Under Investigation for the Utilization
of Fish Solubles, A Fishery Byproduct, As a Means of Pollution Abate-
ment", Proceedings of the 1973 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, 1973.
54. Green, J. H. and J. Mattick, "Possible Methods for the Utilization or
Disposal of Fishery Solid Wastes" Journal o_f Food Quality, Food and
Nutrition Press, Inc., Westport, CT, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp229-251, October
1977.
A-4
-------
55. Green, J.H. "Mushroom Culture: A New Potential for Fishery Products",
Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.27-32, February 1974.
56. Goldman, J.C. et al. , "Mass Production of Marine Algae in Outdoor Cul-
tures", Nature, Vol. 254, No. 5501, pp.594-595, April 17, 1975.
57. Goodwin, R.F., Washington Sea Grant: The First Five Years An Evaluation
o_f Selected Projects, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, April 1974.
58. Hale, L.C. and D. Bauer, "Techniques for Purifying Oily Wastewater",
Plant Engineer, March 17, 1977.
59. Hallmark, D.E. et al. , "Protein Recovery from Meat Packing Effluent,"
Proceedings Ninth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes,
EPA-600-2-78-188, August 1978.
60. Hanover, L.M. et al. , "BOD, COD, and TOC Values for Liquid Wastes from
Selected Blue Crab Pilot Processes", Journal of Milk Food Technology,
Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.155-158, 1975.
61. Hanover, L.M. et al., "Effects of Cooking and Rinsing on the Protein
Losses from Blue Crabs", Journal of Milk Food Technology, Vol. 36, No. 8
pp.409-411, 1973.
62. Handwerk, R.L., "FDA Viewpoint on Water Reuse in Food Processing" pre-
sented at the Seventh Engineering Research Foundation Conference on
Environmental Engineering in the Food Industry at Pacific Grove, CA.,
February 14, 1977.
63. Harris, J.O., "Asphalt Oxidizing Bacteria of the Soil," Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 58, No. 6, June 1966.
64. Hattis, D. and A.E. Murray, Industrial Prospects for Chitin and Protein
from Shellfish Wastes, A Report on the First Marine Industries Business
• Strategy Program Marine Industry Service, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Sea Grant Program, Report No. MITSG-77-3, 1977.
65. Haver, H. , "The Chelating Properties of a Kytex H Chitosan", Proceedings
of_ the First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan, edited by
R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
66. Hood, L.F. e_t al. , "Conversion of Minced Clam Wash Water into Clam Juice:
Waste Handling or Product Development?," Food Product Development,
November 1976.
67. Hopwood, A.P., "Recovery of Oils, Fats, and Proteins from Wastewater",
Recycling and Waste Disposal, No. 8, pp. 183-185, February 1977.
68. Horn, C.R. and F.G. Pohland, "Characterization and Treatability of
Selected Shellfish Processing Wastes", Proceedings of the 28th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, 1973.
A-5
-------
69. Hudson, J.W. and F.G. Pohland, "Treatment Alternatives for Shellfish
Processing Wastewaters, Proceedings o_f 30th Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, 1975.
70. Hudson, J.W. et al., "Rotating Biological Contactor Treatment of Shell-
fish Processing Wastewaters", Proceedings o_f the 31st Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976.
71. Hunt, P.G. e_t al. , "Land Treatment and Disposal of Food Processing
Wastes", Land Application of Waste Matter Conference Paper, published by
Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1976.
72. Husby, F.M. et al. , "King Crab Meal as a Replacement for Soybean Meal in
Growing Swine Diets", University of Alaska, Alaska Agricultural Experi-
ment -Station, (unpublished) 1978.
73. Johnson, E.L. and Q.P. Peniston, New Developments in Shellfish Waste
Processing, Food Chemicals and Research Laboratories, Inc., Seattle, WA,
1974.
74. Joh, Y., Preparation of Clam Flavoring Ingredient from Clam Wash Water,
M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, May 1978.
75. Kama, D.W. , Investigations o_f Several Disposal Locations Used by_ Seafood
Processors at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, October 1976 and September 1977,
EPA 910/8-77-100, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle,
Washington, Surveillance and Analysis Division, February 1978, 47 pp.
76. Kato, K. and S. Ishikawa, "Fish Oil and Protein Recovered from Fish
Processing Effluent", Water and Sewage Works, October 1969.
77. Keith, J.S., "Treating Trout Processing Wastewater--A Successful Case
History, Proceedings Ninth National Symposium pji Food Processing Wastes,
EPA-600/2-78-188, August 1978.
78. Kennedy, D.C., and J. Stone, "What Food Plants Face in Anti-Pollution
Laws," Food Engineering, October 1975.
79. King, M., "Down to the Sea with Money", Forbes, October 15, 1977.
80. Kissam, A. e_t al. , "Preliminary Evaluation of Anaerobic Sludge Digestion
for the Tuna Processing Industry," Proceedings Eighth National Symposium
on Food Processing Wastes, EPA 600/2-77-184, August 1977.
81. Knickle, H.N., "Treatment of Wastewater from Fish and Shellfish Pro-
cessing Plants", OWRR Project No. A-048-RI, (unpublished) July 1974.
82. Kuji, Y. et al. , "Treating Wastewater of Fish Processing by Electrical
Flotation," Journal of Water and Waste, Vol. 17, No. 10. pp. 12-20, 1975.
83. LaFleur, L.F., et al. , "Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Gulf Shrimp
Cannery Wastewater", EPA Project No. S 803338-01-1, (unpublished)
December 1977.
A-6
-------
84. Fawler, F.K., "Cuts River Pollution - Recycling of Water for Transporting
Fish from Boat to Plant Permits Recovery of Solubles", Food Engineering,
Vol. 45, No. 4, 1973.
85. Lewis, W.L. -et al., "A Preliminary Evaluation of a Fish Diet Based on
Roasted Soybeans and Fresh Fish," reprinted from the Proceedings of_ the
27th Annual Conference Southeastern Association of_ Game and Fish Commis-
sioners , 1973.
86. Lin, S.S. and P.B. Qias, "Evaluation of an Extended Aeration Process for
Skokomish Salmon Processing Wastewater Treatment", EPA Grant No. 803911
•(unpublished) August 1978.
87. Lindsay, G. and N.W. Schmidtke, "Screening Demonstration for Three Fish
Processing Plant Effluents", Environmental Protection Service, Fisheries
and Environment Canada, Technology Development Report, EPS 4-WP-77-4,
June 1977.
88. Lotan, R. , "Interaction of Wheat-Germ Agglutinin with Chitin Oligomers
and Microbial Cell-Wall Polymers," Proceedings First International
Conference on Chitin/Chitosan, edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R.
Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea
Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
89. Lovell, R.T., "Utilization of Solid Waste from Catfish Processing
Plants", presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 1975.
90. Madhaven, P., and K.G.R. Nair, "Metal-Binding Property of Chitosan from
Prawn Waste," Proceedings First International Conference on Chitin/
Chitosan, edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7,
May 1978.
91. Mann, R. , and J.H. Ryther, "Growth of Six Species of Bivalve Molluscs in
a Waste Recycling-Aquaculture System," Aquaculture, Vol. 11, pp.231-245,
1977.
92. Marine Publications, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware,
1977.
93. Masri, M.S. e_t al., "Insolublizing Enzymes with Chitosan and Chitosan
Derived Polymers," Proceedings First International Conference on Chitin/
Chitosan, edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7,
May 1978.
94. Masri, M.S. et al. , "Use of Crosslinked Chitosan in the Finishing Treat-
ment of Wood Fabric for Laundering-Shrinkage Control," Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan, edited by R.A.A.
Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
A-7
-------
95. Marsi, M.S., and V.G. Randall, "Chitosan and Chitosan Derivatives for
Removal of Toxic Metallic Ions from Manufacturing Plant Waste Streams,"
Proceedings o_f the First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan,
edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
96. Mendenhall, V., Utilization and Disposal £f Crab and Shrimp Wastes,
Alaska University Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Bulletin
No. 2, NTIS COM-71-01092, March 1971.
97. Meo, M. et al., "Land Treatment of Fish Processing Wastes on Dredge Spoil
Sites: Comparative Cost Evaluations," Coastal Zone Management Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 307-318, 1977.
98. Meo, M. e_t al., Overland Flow in the Louisiana Coastal Zone: The Poten-
tial for Land Treatment of Waste Waters on Diked Dredge Disposal Sites in
South Louisiana, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, Report No.
LSUSG-T-75-04, November 1975.
99. Meyers, S.P. and B.E. Perkins, "Recovery and Applications of Byproducts
from Louisiana Shellfish Industries," Proceedings 2nd Annual Tropical and
Subtropical Fish Technology Conference o_f the Americas, October 1977.
100. Meyers, S.P., and S.C. Sanu, "Nucleotides and Amino Acids in Shrimp
Blanching Water," reprinted from Feedstuffs, Vol. 46, No. 2, January 14,
1974.
101. Meyers, S.P. et al., "Variability in Proamate Analysis of Different
Processed Shrimp Meals," reprinted from Feedstuffs, Vol. 45, 'No. 47,
November 12, 1973.
102. Moody, M.W., Seafood Plant Sanitation, Louisiana State University Co-
operative Extension Service, Publication No. 1879, November 1976.
103. Morris, R.E. and D.G. Bzdyl, "Physical/Chemical System Provides Cost
Saving Pretreatment and Byproduct Recovery", Pollution Engineering, March
1977.
104. Muzzarelli, R.A.A., "Modified Chitosans and Their Chromatographic Per-
formances", Proceedings First International Conference on Chitin/
Chitosan, edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG
78-7, May 1978.
105. National Canners Association, "Preproposal: Utilization of Tuna DAF
Sludge", prepared by Tuna Research Foundation, Terminal Island, CA, May
1977.
106. Noguchi, J. "Studies on the Preparation of Chitin Fibers," Proceedings o_f
the First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan edited by R.A.A.
Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
A-8
-------
107. Patashnik, M. et al., "Smooth, White Spread from Separated Fish Flesh
Forms a Base for Flavored Dips, Snack Items," Food Product Development,
July/August 1973.
108. Patton, R.S. et al., "Nutritive Value of Crab Meal for Young Ruminating
Calves," Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 58, pp.404-409, March 1975.
109. Patton, R.S. and P.T. Chandler, "In Vivo Digestibility Evaluation of
Chitinous Materials," Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 58, pp. 397-403,
March 1975.
110. Peniston, Q. P. and E.L. Johnson, "Method for Treating an Aqueous Medium
with Chitosan and Derivatives of Chitin to Remove an Impurity", U.S.
Patent Office 3, 533, 940, Patented: October 13, 1970.
111. Perceval, P.M., unpublished data, January 1975.
112. Perceval, P.M. and W.E. Nelson, "Improving the Economics of Crustacean
Waste Disposal" (unpublished), September 1979.
113. Perkins, B.E. and S.P. Meyers, "Recovery and Application of Organic
Wastes from the Louisiana Shrimp Canning Industry", Proceedings Eighth
National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA-600/2-77-184, August
1977.
114. "Pilot Plant Could Develop into New Industry for Converting Waste Shells
into Chitin and Chitosan," Pacific Northwest Sea, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1973.
115. Pohland, F.G. and J.W. Hudson. "Aerobic and Anerobic Microbial Treatment
Alternatives- for Shellfish Processing Wastewaters in Continuous Culture,"
presented at the Symposium on Novel Approaches to Microbial Utilization
and Control of Waste, Mexico City, Mexico, November 30 - December 5,
1975.
116. Pohland, F.G., and J.W. Hudson, Wastewater Management Alternatives for
the Shellfish Processing Industry, Georgia Marine Science Center, Univer-
sity System of Georgia, Skidaway Island, GA, Technical Report Series No.
78-2 (SCEGIT -77-157), April 1978.
117. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment o_f Municipal Wastewater, U.S.
EPA Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer, EPA
625/1-77-008, 1977.
118. Provant, S.G., W.T. McFall, and R.K. Stewart, Studies on Industrial
Effluent and Its Effect on Water Quality in St. Paul and Kodiak Harbors,
and Gibson Cove, Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage, Alaska,
Region X, Alaska Operations Office, 1971, 44 pp.
119. Public Law 94-265, "Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976",
94th Congress, H.R. 200, April 13, 1976.
120. Rajulu, G.S. and N. Gowrl, "Chitin from Marine Organisms," Proceedings
First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan, edited by R.A.A.
Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant. MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
A-9
-------
121. Ramirez, E.R., "Electrocoagulation Clarifiers Food Wastewater," High-
lights published by the Water Pollution Control Federation, April 1975.
122. Ramirez, E.R., "Electrocoagulation of Meat Processing Wastewater," WWEMA
Industrial Water and Pollution Conference, Detroit, Michigan, April 1974.
123. Ramirez, E.R., "Direct Comparison in Physiochemical Treatment of Packing-
house Wastewater between Dissolved Air and Electroflotation," Proceedings
£f the 31st Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana,
1976.
124. Ramirez, E.R. and O.A. Clemens, "Electrocoagulation Techniques for Run-
ning Treatment of Several Different Types of Wastewater," presented at
the 49th Annual Conference WPCF Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
October 1976.
125. Rao, M.R. et al., "Pilot Plant Clarification of Menhaden Bail Water with
Acid Activated Clay," First Internationl Congress of Engineering and
Food, Digest of Papers, Boston, MA, August 9-13, 1976.
126. "Reassessment of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Perfor-
mance Standards for the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point
Source Category", draft final report prepared by the Edward C. Jordan
Co., Inc., December 1979.
127. Report on Pollution Affecting Shellfish Harvesting in Calveston Bay,
Texas, EPA Water Quality Office, March 1971.
128. "Resources: Aid for U.S. Fish Processing," Business Week, April 17,
1978.
129. Rosenau, J.R., L.F. Whitney, and J.R. Haight, "Economics of Starch and
Animal Feed Production From Cull Potatoes," Proceedings Ninth National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA 600/2-78-188, August 1978.
130. Ryther, J.H. et al. , "A Fresh Water Waste Recycling-Aquaculture System,"
Florida Scientist, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.130-135, 1977.
131. Ryther, J.H., Marine Polyculture Based upon Natural Food Chains and
Recycled Wastes - Summary, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA, July 1975-June 1976.
132. Ryther, J.H., Preliminary Results with a Pilot-Plant Recycling - Marine
Aquaculture System, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA,
presented at the International Conference on the Renovation and Reuse of
Wastewater through Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems, July 15-21, 1975.
133. Satia, B.P., and E.L. Brannon, "The Value of Certain Fish-Processing
Wastes and Dogfish (Squalus Suckley) as Food for Coho Salmon (Oncor-
hynchus Kisutch) Fry," The Progressive Fish-Culturist, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp
76-80, April 1975.
134. "Screw Press Dewatering Solves Costly Waste Disposal Problem," The
National Provisioner, November 13, 1976.
A-10
-------
135. Seligsohn, M.R., "Thrifty Ways Pay Off for Kane-Miller," Food Engineering,
October 1975.
136. Shotwell, J.A., "A Seafood Solid Waste Process", (unpublished) 1976.
137. Sludge Treatment and Disposal, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, EPA 625/
1-74-006, October 1974.
138. Smith, F.J., "The Economist and the Seafood Producer," reprinted from
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp 1038-1046,
.December 1974.
139. Annual Report of the Warmwater Fish Cultural Laboratories, Stuttgart,
Arkansas, Kermit E. Sneed, Director, 1970.
140. Snider, I. F., "Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Seafood Wastes, "EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar - Upgrading Seafood Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution," New Orleans, LA, March 5-6, 1974.
141. Processing Farm-Raised Catfish, Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 193,
edited by R.T. Lovell and G.R. Ammerman, October 1974.
142. Spatz, D.D. and L. Trauberman, "How Membranes Separate Profits from
Pollution," Food Engineering, October 1975.
143. Stephens, N.L. e_t al., "Preparation and Evaluation of Two Microbiological
Media from Shrimp Heads and Hulls," (unpublished) Department of Food
Science, University of Georgia, College of Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tions .
144. Stuber, D.A. and J.T. Quigley, "Wastewater Treatment in Fish Processing."
Proceedings £f 16th Conference on Great Lakes Resources, pp. 958-966,
1973.
145. Swartz, Richard C. et al., Benthic Macrofauna, Sediment and Water Quality
Near Seafood Cannery Outfalls in Yaquina Bay, Oregon, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Newport, Oregon, Marine and Freshwater Ecology Branch,
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, September 11, 1978.
146. Szabo, A.J. et al. , "Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Gulf Shrimp
Cannery Wastewater," Proceedings Ninth National Symposium on Food Proces-
sing Wastes, EPA 600/2-78-188, August 1978.
147. Takeda, M. , "Use of Chitin Powder as Adsorbent in Thin-Layer Chroma-
tography," Proceedings First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan,
edited by R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachasetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
148. Tarky, W. et al. , "Protein Hydrolysate from Fish Waste," Journal of Food
Science, Vol. 38, pp.917-918, 1973.
149. "Technique Developed to Purify Fish Processing Wastewater," Environment
News, published by EPA New England Regional Office, Boston, MA, August
1978.
A-ll
-------
150. Toma, R.B., and S.P. Meyers, "Isolation and Chemical Evaluation of Pro-
tein from Shrimp Cannery Effluent," Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp.632-635, 1975.
151. Umlauf, J.L., Chitin/Chitosan Shellfish Waste Utilization Program,
Oceanographic Institute of Washington.
152. U.S.D.A., Agricultural Handbook 60, Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline
and Akalai Soils, 1954.
153. ."Use Waste Byproduct to Recover Solids from Processing Wastes," Food
Processing, June 1975.
154. Veslind, P.A., Treatment and Disposal £f Wastewater Sludges, Ann Arbor
Science, 1974.
155. "Wastewater Treatment with Air Flotation," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 7, No. 11, pp.996-997, November 1973.
156. Water Quality Investigation Related to Seafood Processing Wastewater
Discharges at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, October 1975, October 1976,
EPA-910-8-77-100.
157. Welsh, J.P., and B.Q. Welsh, "Mariculture of the Crab, Cancer Magister
(DANA) Utilizing Fish and Crustacean Wastes as Food," California State
University at Humboldt, NTIS COM-74-11247/AS.
158. Wert, F.S., and U.B. Henderson, "Feed Fish Effluent and Reel in Savings,"
Water and Waste Engineering, June 1978.
159. Witherow, J.L., Waste Treatment for Small Meat and Poultry Plants, An
Extension Application, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, June
1976.
160. Yaku, F., "Chitosan - Metal Complexes and Their Function," Proceedings
First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan, edited by R.A.A.
Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Sea Grant Report, MITSG 78-7, May 1978.
161. Zall, R.R. , and I.J. Cho, Production of Edible Foods from Surf Clam
Wastes, presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1976
Winter Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, December 14-17, 1976, NTIS PB 267 410
NS.
162. Zall, R.R. "Reclamation and Treatment of Clam Wash Water," Proceedings
Seventh National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, EPA-600/2-76-304,
December 1976.
163. Zielnski, P.B. and W.E. Castro, Engineering Considerations in the
Aquaculture p_f "Macrobranchium Rosenbergii" in South Carolina, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, December 1976.
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FOREIGN SOURCES
201. Akama, A. and T. Terai, "Treatment of Organic Waste Water," Japan Kokai,
77, 25, 451 (1977), Chemical Abstracts 87, 28620x (1977).
202. Bloomstrom, G., and L. Eklund, "Technical Investigation of the Operations
at Salto Industrial Sewage Purification Plant, Karlskrona," (unpublished)
The Swedish National Environment Protection Board, November 13, 1973.
203. Courtial, W., "Effluent Purification by the Separation and Recovery of
Fat and Protein", Fleischwirtschaft, 55, 1673 (1975).
204. "Developing Countries Have Role in Exploiting Unused Resources", World
Fishing, Vol. 27, February 1978.
205. Eklund, L. and H. Hedin, "Load Measurements at Foodia, Inc., Bua",
(unpublished) The Swedish National Environment Protection Board, Sep-
tember 24-26, 1974.
206. Eklund, L. and E. Swedling, "Load Measurements at Foodia, Inc., at
Ellos", (unpublished) The Swedish National Environment Protection Board,
September 24-26, 1974.
207. Erael'yanova, E.A. et a^. , "Effect of Some Electrolytes on the Coagulation
of Organic Pollutants in Waste Waters," Rybn Khoz (USSR), 4, 76 (1977),
Chemical Abstracts, 87, 43693s (1977).
208. Emel'yanova, E.A. et al. , "Waste Water of. a Fish Meal Feed Plant as a
Complex Poly-disperse System," Rybn Khoz (USSR). 8, 73 (1976); Chemical
Abstracts, 86, 47004v (1977).
209. Fish Processing Liquid Effluent Guidelines, Environment Canada, Environ-
mental Protection Service, June 1975.
210. "Flotation System Uses Micro-bubbles", Food Processing Industry, London,
IPC Consumer Industries Press Limited, Vol. 44, No. 521, April 1975.
211. Fritze, H., "Use of Drum Driers for Processing Various Industrial Wastes
into High-Grade Animal Feeding Stuffs", Escher Wyss News, 1976.
212. Fujita, T. et al., "Studies on the Utilization of Crab Shell Waste -
Chitosan as a Coagulating Agent," Nippon Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha Chuo
Kenkyusho Hokoku (Japan), 11, 49 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 87, 172265c
(1977).
213. Fukuda, Y. et al., "Coagulation Treatment of Waste Water from the Manu-
facture of Marine Products," Mizu Shori Gijutsu (Japan), 18, 453 (1977);
Chemical Abstracts, 87, 106458s (1977).
214. Holladay, D.G., "An Approach to Effluent Treatment in the Food Industry",
Process Biochemistry, December 1976.
B-l
-------
215. Kato, T. and M. Maeda, "Electroflotation Treatment of Waste Water from
the Processing of Marine Products", Mitsubishi Denki Giho, (Japan), 50,
9, (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 86, 110726z (1977).
216. Klopfenstein, D. , "B.C. Plant for the Total Use of All Fish," Fishing
News International, June 1976.
217. Kuji, Y. et al., "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Products Pro-
cessing by Electroflotation", Yosui To Haisui (Japan), 17, 1268 (1975).
Chemical Abstracts; 84, 184488d (1976).
218. Kurosaki, B., "Treating Seafood Wastewaters with Mycelia." Japan Kokai,
76, 20, 249 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 84, 18464ly (1977).
219. Leoni, C. et al., "The Depuration of Waste Waters from Food Preserving
Factories; Effect of Sodium Chloride Concentration on the Depuration
Yield of an Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Plant," Ind. Conserve
(Italy) 51, 175 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 86, 194503k (1977).
220. Mackie, I.M. "Proteolytic Enzymes in Recovery of Proteins from Fish
Waste" Process Biochemistry, Vol. 9, pp.12-14, December 1974.
221. Maeda, M. et al., "Removal of Proteins from Waste Waters by Electro-
deposition," Japan Kokai, 75 141, 855 (1975), Chemical Abstracts, 84,
155326n (1976).
222. Maeda, M. et al., "Treatment of Protein - Containing Waste Waters by
Electrodeposition", Japan Kokai, 75, 141, 582 (1975), Chemical Abstracts,
84, 111365b (1976).
223. Maeda, M. et al. , "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Product Pro-
cessing," Japan Kokai, 76, 131, 163 (1976), Chemical Abstracts, 87,
7296lh (1977).
224. Maeda, M. and T. Ogawa, "Treatment of Waste Water Containing Protein,"
Japan Kokai. 75 159, 150 (1975), Chemical Abstracts 84, 155364e (1976).
225. Maeda, M., "The Treatment of Waste Water by Electrical Flotation Separa-
tion", Nenryo Oyobi Nensho (Japan), 43, 10, 901 (1976), Chemical
Abstracts. 86, 110724x (1977).
226. Matsuura, R. et al., "Electrolysis of Marine Product Processing Waste
Water," Japan Kokai, 76, 36, 764 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 85, l48588y
(1976).
227. Matsuura, R. e_t al. , "Marine Product Process Waste Treatment." Japan
Kokai, 76, 36, 763 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 85, I48587x (1976).
228. Matsuura, R. et aj.., "Treatment of Waste Water Discharged from Seafood
Processing," Japan Kokai, 50, 267 (1975); Chemical Abstracts 84, 184623u,
(1976).
B-2
-------
229. Matsuura, R. et al., "Treatment of Waste Water from Manufacture of Marine
Products." Japan Kokai, 76 41, 257 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 85,
I48571n (1976).
230. Matsuura, R. et al., "Treating of Waste Water from Marine Product Pro-
cessing by Recycling." Japan Kokai, 76, 66, 158 (1976), Chemical
Abstracts, 87, I40749x (1977).
231. Matsuura, R. and K. Akakie, "Treatment of Waste Waters from Seafood Pro-
cessing Plants by Electrolysis," Japan Kokai, 75, 120, 160 (1974);
•Chemical Abstracts, 94, 65080e (1976).
232. Melvin, A. and L. Eklund, "Load Measurements at Abba, Uddevalla" (unpub-
lished), The Swedish National Environment Protecton Board, February 5-7,
1974!
233. Mortensen, B.F., "Effluent Control in Food Processing Industries",
Process Biochemistry, Vol. 12, June 1977.
234. Namisa, M., "Recovering Protein from Waste Water Containing Crude Pro-
tein." Japan Kokai, 75, 33, 142 (1975); Chemical Abstracts, 85, 1006lq
(1976).
235. Nishida, E. , "Coagulation of Fishery Waste Water with Organic Coagu-
lants," Nihon Daigaku No Juigakubu Gakujutsu Kenkya Hokoku (Japan), 34,
291 (1977); Chemical Abstracts, 87, 106395u (1977).
236. "Norway's Fish Meal Producers Look Forward to Another Good Year", Fishing
News International, Vol. 16, March 1977.
237. Ohtake, S., "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Paste Products Pro-
cessing Plants - Electrolysis - Flocculation Method," Japan Food
Science, 14, 7, 58 (1975); Chemical Abstracts, 86, 1266l7a -(1977).
238. Onue, Y, and V.M. Riddle, "Use of Plastein Reaction in Recovering Protein
from Fish Waste", Journal Fisheries Research Board of- Canada, Vol. 30 No.
11, pp.1745-1747, NTIS: COM-74-1089/AS, November 1973.
239. Potter, D.P. et al. , "Fish By-products - Fish Meal and Fish Silage",
Process Biochemistry, Vol. 13, pp22-25, January 1978.
240. Sand, G. , "Twenty Countries Try Norse Fish Powder", Fishing News Inter-
national, Vol. 14, August 1975.
241. Shiflin, S.M. et aj^. , "Mechanical Cleaning of Waste Waters from Fish Can-
neries," Rybn Khoz (USSR), 2, 62 (1972); Chemical Abstracts, 76, 131182e
(1972).
244. Shimoda, Y. et al. , "Analysis of Waste Water Discharged from a Mackerel
Processing Plant," Shizuoka Ken Suisan Shikenjo Jigyo Hokuku (Japan),
78, (1974); Chemical Abstracts, 87, 90247J (1977).
243. Shimoda, Y. e_t a_l. , "Analysis of Waste Water from a Horse Mackerel Pro-
cessing Plant," Shizuoka Ken Suisan Shikenjo Jigyo Hokoku (Japan), 80,
(1974); Chemical Abstracts, 87, 122357p (1977).
B-3
-------
244. Shimoda, Y. et al., "Waste Water Treatment after Processing of Marine
Products III; Waste Water Treatment after the Production of Salted
Mackerel," Shizuoka Ken Suisan Shikenjo Jigyo Hokoku (Japan), 61, (1974);
Chemical Abstracts, 87, 1064l4z (1977).
245. Shimoda, Y. et al. , "Waste Water Treatment After Processing of Marine
Products IV; Waste Water Treatment After Processing of Mackerel,"
Shizuoka Ken Suisan Shikenjo Jigyo Hokoku, (Japan), 61, (1974) Chemical
Abstracts, 87, 1064l4z (1977).
246. Swedling, E. and H. Hedin, "Load Measurements at Salto Industrial Purifi-
cation Plant" (unpublished), The Swedish National Environment Protection
Board, May 7, 1974.
247. Swedling, E. and L. Eklund, "Load Measurements at Foodia, Inc. Industrial
Sewage Plant at Lysekil" (unpublished), The Swedish National Environment
Protection Board, September 24-26, 1974.
248. Swedling, E. et al., "Investigation of the Operations at Skame-Delika-
tesser, Hovicken" (unpublished), The Swedish National Environment Protec-
tion Board, January 15, and April 28-29, 1976.
249. Tagawa, S. et al. , "Removal of Constituents from the Waste Water Dis-
charged from 'Kamaboko' Processing Plants by pH Shifting Method," Suisan
Daigakko Kenkuyu Hokoku (Japan), 24, 1,374 (1975); Chemical Abstracts,
87, 172326y (1977).
250. Tagawa, S. et al., "Removal of Constituents from Waste Water Discharged
from Mackerel Canning Plants by the pH Shifting Method." Suisan Daigakko
Kenkuyu Hokoku (Japan), 25, 1, 75 (1976); Chemical Abstracts, 87, 172325x
(1976).
251. Takagi, M. et al., "Comparative Studies on the Effects of Coagulants on
Activated Sludges from Fish Meat Processing Plants, I," Aichi Ken
Shokuhin Kogyo Shikensho Nempo (Japan), 14, 93 (1973); Chemical
Abstracts, 85, 9915q (1976).
252. Tanaka, Y. et a_l. , "Purification of Waste Water from Marine Product
Processing Plants," Japan Patent Diclosure No. 49-84048, August 13,
1974.
253. Tashiro, H., Treatment o_f Wastewater from Canneries (Shizouka Paper Exp.
Sta., Shizouka, Japan), PPM, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 42-49, 1975.
254. Tatterson, I. and J. Wignall, "Alternatives to Fish Meal: Part 1, Fish
Silage," World Fishing, Vol. 25, p.42, May 1976.
255. Wada, T. et al. , "Waste Water Treatment after Processing of Marine Pro-
ducts III; Waste Water after Processing of Skipjack." Shizuoka Ken Suisan
Shikenjo Jigyo Kokoku (Japan), 60, (1974), Chemical Abstracts, 87, 90246h
(1977).
256. Wignall, J. and I. Tatterson, "Fish Silage", Process Biochemistry, Vol.
11, pp.17-19, December 1976.
B-4
-------
257. Windsor, M. et al., "Developments in British Fish Meal Technology",
Fishing News International, August 1975.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
SELECTED FOREIGN ABSTRACTS
Akaraa, A. and T. Terai, "Treatment of Organic Wastewater." Japan Kokai 77
25,451 (1977);
"Organic waste, water is mixed with CaO, Ca(OH)2, MgO, or Mg(OH)2, and C02
is blown into it. Thus, 10 parts CaO was added to 100 parts waste water
(COD 3,370, BOD 9,870, total N 676 ppm) from fish washing followed by CO
blowing and settling. The supernatant liquor contained total N 328, COD
'715, and BOD 2,200 ppm". (Chemical Abstracts, 87, 28620x, 1977).
Emel'yanova, E.A. et al. "Wastewater of a Fish Meal Feed Plant as Complex
Poly-disperse System," Rybn Khoz (USSR), 8, 73 (1976).
"Wastewater from washing fish meal cake with hot water contains C1,P, and
N and has BOD5 8.9 gO/1". (Chemical Abstracts, 86, 47004, 1977).
Emel'yanova, E.A., e_t al. , "Effect of Some Electrolytes on the Coagulation of
Organic Pollutants in Wastewaters." Rybn Khoz (USSR), 4, 76 (1977).
"Wastewaters from the fish processing industry (fish flour factories,
etc.) contain very stable colloid dispersions of fats and proteins.
These dispersions are broken down by addition of electrolytes (HOAc and
HC1). The dimensions of the coagulated floes are maximum at pH 4.8 (with
HOAc). The filtration time of the sediment is minimum at 0.07 ml concen-
trated HC1 or 0.2 ml glacial HOAc/100 ml effluent. Al(OH)., did not give
positive results. Polyacrylamide (1% of 0.5% solution) was tested as
coagulant without noticeable effect. Colloidial 1.5% solution of SiO.,
activated with concentrated H-SO, after electrolyte treatment, increased
the stability of the floes and improved the filtration rate of the
sludge." (Chemical Abstracts, 87, 43693s, 1977).
Fujita, T. et al., "Studies on the Utilization of Crab Shell Waste-Chitosan as
a Coagulating Agent," Nippon Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha Chuo Kenkyusho Hokoku
(Japan), 11, 49 (1976).
"HCHO was sprayed on powdered chitin prepared from king crab shell to
obtain chitosan salt containing H»0 10% and HCHO 18%, which was used for
coagulation of clay suspension, wastewater from processing of ground fish
meat, and activated sludge. In the coagulation test of clay suspension
with 0.1 20 ppm chitosan, the coagulation and settling of clay particles
were accelerated with increasing chitosan salt. The chitosan salt also
had good coagulation effect for wastewater from ground fish meat proces-
sing and activated sludge." ( Chemical Abstracts, 87, 172265c, 1977).
Fukuda, et al. , "Coagulation Treatment of Waste Water from the Manufacture of
Marine Products," Mizu Shori Gijutsu (Japan), 18, 5 (1977).
"Polyacrylate (300 ppm) or 800 ppm Al^SO/L added to pollack meat water
extraction or without pH adjustment, 83 an3 56% of the proteins were pre-
cipitated, respectively. The coagulants were effective at pH 3-6. The
C-l
-------
optimum pH to coagulate the protein was 4.5-5.0. The optimum pH de-
creased and the coagulation was accelerated by increasing the concentra-
tion of NaCl from 0.05 M to 0.5 M. Sucrose did not affect the coagula-
tion." (Chemical Abstracts, 87, 106458s 1977).
Kato, T. and M. Maeda, "Electroflotation Treatment of Waste Water from the
Processing of Marine Products," Mitsubishi Denki Giho (Japan), 50, 9 (1976).
"A review with 3 references on the effectiveness of electroflotation in
the treatment of wastewater from fish processing and equipment installa-
tion." (Chemical Abstracts, 86, 110726z, 1977).
Kuji,'Y. e_t al., "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Products Processing by
Electroflotation" Yosui To Huisui (Japan), 17, 10 (1975).
"Waste water from fish processing containing proteins, lipids, and ex-
tractives was treated by the electroflotation method for removal of
proteins on coagulant floe at the isoelectric point. The treatment
depended on type and sex of fish and aging of waste water." (Chemical
Abstracts, 84, 184488d, 1976).
Kurosaki, B. "Treating Seafood Wastewaters with Mycelia" Japan Kokai 76, 20,
249 (1976).
"A seafood waste water at pH 6.0-6.5 and containing BOD 15,000-200,000
ppm is contacted in a contacting tank with mycelia containing mainly
Pseudomonas for protein decomposition and yellow mycelia for hydrocarbon
decomposition, cultivated in a mycelia cultivation tank, to increase the
pH to 8.0-10.0 and to decrease the BOD to 5,000-30,000 ppm. An alkaline
compound, e.g., CatOH),.,, is added to the mixed solution while it is being
pumped to a sedimentation tank to increase the pH to 10.2-10.5. Oils,
soluble proteins, and mycelia are deposited from the solutionin the
sedimentation tank. A portion of the precipitate deposited is circulated
to the mycelia cultivation tank for re-use. Fish oils and mineral oils
are flocculated rapidly; soluble proteins are flocculated to solids.
Thus, a seafood waste water containing BOD 13,000 ppm was treated by
mycelia cultivation, alkali addition and H^SO, neutralization. The
capacity was 5-15 kg BOD/m day, as compared to 0.5-1.0 kg BOD/m day by
using conventional aeration." (Chemical Abstracts, 84, 18464ly, 1976).
Leoni, C. et al. , "The Depuration of Waste Waters from Food-Preserving Facto-
ries; Effect of Sodium Chloride Concentration on the Depuration Yield of an
Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Plant," Ind. Conserve (Italy), 51, 30
(1976).
"Effluents from the fish canning industries contain NaCl 11-12 g/1. The
concentration should be kept under 10 g/1, and, if possible, under 5 g/1
for biological purification. An artifical solution contained less than 1
g/1 of peptone and fish homogenates, plus minimum concentrations of
MgSO,, CaCl-, and K~ HPO,. This artificial effluent was used to prepare
tests solutions containing 5-100 g NaCl/1. Analytical determinations
were performed with the solutions before and after treatment in the
oxidation chamber. BOD and COD values were measured. These values were
obtained in the effluent before and after filtration. At 5-10 g NaCl/1
C-2
-------
the biological activity started to decrease and sludge was difficult to
separate. An excess of NaCl not only inhibits the biological action, but
also corrodes." (Chemical Abstracts, 86, 19450k, 1977).
Maeda, M. e_t al. , "Treatment of Protein-Containing Waste Waters by Electro-
deposition," Japan Kokai, 75, 141, 582 (1975).
"During the treatment of protein-containing waste waters by electro-
deposition, the protein-removal efficiency is markedly improved when the
initial and final pH values of the waste waters are adjusted from
slightly acidic to slightly alkaline in relation to the isoelectric point
of the protein, respectively. The proteins are deposited on metal hy-
droxide floes at the solute electrode during the electrolysis. Thus, a
waste water (COD 925 ppm, containing proteins with isoelectric pH of
4.25) discharged from a fish-processing plant was electrolyzed at a
initial and final pH of 3.4 and 5.2, respectively. The COD-removal
efficiency was 87%; however, the efficiency was decreased to 50% if the
initial and final pH was 5.2 and 6.11, respectively." (Chemical Abstracts
84, 111365b, 1976).
Maeda, M. et al. , "Removal of Proteins from Waste Waters by Electrodeposi-
tion," Japan Kokai, 75, 141, 855 (1975).
"Waste waters containing proteins are treated by a double electrodeposi-
tion process, each at different pH, using solute electrodes. The 1st
electrolysis is performed at an initial pH such that at the end of the
electrolysis the pH is similar to that of the isoelectric point of the
protein in the wastewater. The 2nd electrolysis is performed at an
initial pH such that at the end of the electrolysis the pH has reached a
value at which the solubility of the metal hydroxide floes formed is
minimum. Thus, a waste water (COD 1,250 ppm) discharged from a fish
processing plant was 1st electrolyzed at an initial pH 5, using an Al
electrode at 20 A/min/1. The pH value at the end of electrolysis was
7.57 and the COD of the resulting water was decreased to 362 ppm. The pH
of the resulting water was readjusted to 6.5 and electrolyzed at the same
conditions. The COD of th resulting water was 176 ppm." (Chemical
Abstracts, 84, 155326u, 1976).
Maeda, M. et al. , "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Product Processing,"
Japan Kokai, 76, 131, 163 (1976).
"Waste water from marine product processing is treated with acidic clay
or active clay, and the pollutant adsorbed clay is heated at 250 600° and
reused. Thus, 2 1 of a solution (COD 450 ppm) containing 2,000 ppm
bonito extract was agitated with 5% granular active clay at 15° for 1
hour and filtered to decrease the COD to 130 ppm. The used active clay
was heated at 250° for 30 minutes and used again. The COD decreased to
178 from 450 ppm." (Chemical Abstracts, 87, 7296lh, 1977).
Maeda, M. and T. Ozawa, "Treatment of Waste Water Containing Protein," Japan
Kokai, 75, 159, 150 (1975).
"Protein in waste water from fish processing was floated by foaming with
air at isoelectric point. For example, waste water (isoelectric point pH
C-3
-------
4.9) from fish descaling was bubbled at pH 4.9 with air (air/water = 50).
The COD removal was 75%, compared with 34% at pH 3.3. ( Chemical
Abstracts, 84, 155364e, 1976).
Maeda, M., "The Treatment Waste Water by Electrical Flotation Separation,"
Nenrgo Oyobi Nensho, (Japan) 43, 10, 901 (1976).
"A review of the process for the treatment of waste water based on an
electrode reaction. The appropriate and the practical applications are
described for waste waters from the processing of marine products, re-
covery of vegetable proteins and paper pulp production." ( Chemical
Abstracts, 86, 110724x, 1977).
Matsuura, R. et a 1., "Electrolysis of Marine Product Processing Waste Water"
Japan, Kokai, 76, 36, 764 (1976).
"The ' waste water from marine product processing is treated with a Ca
compound and H«PO, alkali metal phosphate, alkali metal acid phosphate,
or Na tripolyphosphate to precipitate proteins, peptides, and amino acids
with Ca phosphate and by electrolysis to reduce COD and BOD. Thus, a
primary-treated waste water containing COD 150 and BOD 190 ppm was elec-
trolyzed 2 minutes at 0.5 A/dm and 10 V, CaCl2 and Na HP04 [7558-79-4]
were added, the water was electrolyzed 8 minutes at p!T6.5, stirred 30
minutes, and then Na polyacrylate [9003-04-7] was added. The treated
water contained COD 67 and BOD 70 ppm, compared to 135 and 170 by simple
electrolysis. (Chemical Abstracts, 85, I4588y, 1976).
Matsuura, R. et al. , "Treatment of Waste Water Discharged from Seafood Pro-
cessing" Japan, Kokai. 75, 150, 267 (1975).
"Waste waters discharged from seafood processing are first oxidized or
reduced by d.c. electrolysis in the anodal or cathodal chambers of an
electrolysis apparatus. The waters are then treated by electrophoresis
and the proteins, peptides, and amino acids in the anodal or cathodal
solutions of the electrophoresis chamber are removed by passing the
solutions through an ion exchange resin column. The COD causing mate-
rials, esp. proteins, peptides, and amino acids are thus effectively
removed. Thus, & waste water (COD 1000 ppm) discharged from a seafood
processing plant was placed in the cathode chamber of an electrolysis
apparatus separated by a polyester fiber diaphragm, and electrolyzed at
an electrical potential of 5-10 V and electrical current d. of 2 A/dm .
The COD in the resulting waters was decreased to 250 ppm. The resulting
waters were placed in the cathodal chamber of an electrophoresis device
and treated at electrical potential of 10 V and electrical current d. of
2 mA/cra . The waters from the 1st electrophoresis were again placed in
the anodal chamber and treated under similar conditions. The final COD
of the resulting water after the 1st and the 2nd electrophoresis was
decreased to 220 and 170 ppm respectively" ( Chemical Abstracts, 84,
184623u, 1976).
C-4
-------
Matsuura, R. e_t al. , "Treatment of Waste Water from Manufacture of Marine
Products", Japan Kokai, 76, 41, 257 (1976).
"Waste water from manufacture of marine products is mixed with H_PO, to
adjust to pH to 2.0-6.0, at which proteins, peptides, and amino acids in
the waste water exist in the zwitterion state (isoelectric point). The-
Ca(OH)2 or CaCl^ is added to the waste water and the pH is adjusted to
6.0-12.0 with HrPO, to form Ca phosphates, which adsorb and precipitate
the proteins, peptides, and amino acids. Thus, 1 liter of a waste water
(COD 850, BOD 2,550 ppm) from marine product manufacture was mixed with
H~PO, to adjust its pH to 4.5, and then polyacrylic acid Na salt 40 ppm
•was added. After removing the resulting floes by flotation, Ca(OH)2
slurry was added and the pH was adjusted to 6.8 with H^PO,. The waste
water was treated with polyacrylic acid Na salt (20 ppm), followed by
floe removal. The treated waste water had COD 82 and BOD 90 ppm."
(Chemical Abstracts, 85, I48571n, 1976).
Matsuura, R. et al., "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Product Processing
for Recycling," Japan Kokai, 76, 66, 158 (1976).
"A waste water from marine product processing is treated with H,PO, and
proteins, peptides, and amino acids in the wastewater are subjected to an
isoelectric treatment under acidic conditions. CaO or Ca(OH)2 is then
added to the waste water and the pH of the waste water is adjusted to
6-12 with H,PO,. The proteins, peptides, and amino acids are compounded
as Ca salts of H.PO,. The precipitates are removed, and the treated
water is filtered through an adsorption bed or a filter medium and then
recycled to the washing step in the marine product processing. Thus, a
wastewater (5 1, COD 838 ppm) was adjusted to pH 4.5 with H_PO,, sub-
jected to an isoelectric treatment, and mixed with aqueous 0.1& Na poly-
acrylate (200 ml). The floe was removed, the treated solution was mixed
with 200 ppm Ca(OH) , and the pH was adjusted 6.8 with 20% H2PO,.
Aqueous 0.. 1% Na polyacrylate (100 ml) was added and the precipitate was
removed. The treated solution was passed through a bed of anthracite and
sand to yield a colorless, transparent, odorless solution for recycling.
The COD contents were 82 and 640 ppm after recycling 1 and 30 times,
respectively" (Chemical Abstracts, 87, I40749x, 1977).
Matsuura, R. and K. Akaike, "Treatment of Waste Waters from Seafood Processing
Plants by Electrolysis" Japan Kokai, 75, 120, 160 (1974).
"Seafood processing waste water is treated by a flocculation or a floccu-
lation activated sludge process to decrease its COD to less than 610
ppm; the treated wastewater is electrolyzed altering the polarity of
electrodes and simultaneous application of a.c.; and the electrolyzed
wastewater is treated with activated carbon. Thus, 1 liter of an acti-
vated sludge treated wastewater (COD 600 ppra) from a fish-processing
plant was electrolyzed by using Ti-cathode and Pb-anode plates at elec-
trode distance 2.0 cm, 10-32 V, 2.5 A/dm , and 5 A. The polarity of the
electrodes was altered every 2 minutes and simultaneously a.c. (0.5 A)
was applied. The COD of electrolyzed wastewater decreased to less
than 150 ppm at 0.67 A-hr/1. The electrolyzed wastewater (COD 150 ppm)
was passed through a column (3 cm diameter x 1.5 m height) containing 1
C-5
-------
liter of actvated carbon at 4 I/hour. The effluent had COD less than 49
ppm." (Chemical Abstracts, 94, 65080e, 1976).
Naroisa, M. "Recovering Protein from Waste Water Containing Crude Protein,"
Japan Kokai, 75, 33, 142 (1975).
"Proteins were recovered from wastewater containing crude protein by
adjusting pH of the waste water to 5-6, blowing air in the inlet of the
pump, and adding polyacrylic salt at the outlet of the pump during the
transfer of waste water containing crude protein from the adjusting tank
to the stationary tank. Thus, waste water (100 kg) (dry matter = 1.43%)
obtained by washing mackerel was adjusted to pH 5, and aerated in the
presence of 250 ppm sodium polyacrylate [9003-04-7] (av. d.p. 50,000).
The recovery of proteins was 92.31%. The BOD of the waste water after
removal of the protein was 163 ppm. The protein was used as the raw
material of feed." (Chemical Abstracts, 85, 1006lq, 1976).
Nishide, E. "Coagulation of Fishery Waste Water with Organic Coagulants,"
Ninon Daogaku No Inigakubu Gakinyutsu Kenkyu Hokoku (Japan), 34, 291 (1977).
"The coagulation of fish wastewater produced in the processing of pollack
meat paste, Na alginate [9005-38-3], Na (carboxymethyl) cellulose
[9004-32-4] and Na polyacrylate (I) [9003-04-7] was studied by deter-
mining residual COD. I_ was the most effective, and the effect was en-
hanced by acidifying the wastewater to pH 6.0 with H?SO,. The protein
concentration of the wastewater influenced coagulation with I".
(Chemical Abstracts, 87,106395u, 1977).
Ohtake, S. "Treatment of Waste Water from Marine Paste Products Processing
Plants Electrolysis-Flocculation Method," Japan Food Science, 14, 7, 58
(1975).
"The use of electrolysis in wastewater treatment of marine fish paste
plant is discussed. The use of semipermeable membranes in electrolysis,
and various flocculents, e.g. AL-(SO,)» and Fed- is described."
(Chemical Abstracts, 86, 1266l7a, 1977).
Shiraoda, Y. et al. , "Analysis of Waste Water Discharged from a Mackerel Pro-
cessing Plant", Shizouka Ken Suisan Shikenjo Jigvo Hokoku (Japan), 78, 80
"Wastewater from mackerel cooking and pressing was analyzed for evap-
oration residue, fats, total N, COD, BOD, NaCl, and pH. Cooking water
contained fats 23 and residue 186 kg/ton fish and water 7.3 m /ton fish.
Water from pressing was 3.4 m and fats 293 kg. (Chemical Abstracts, 87,
90247J, 1977).
Shimoda, Y. et al. , "Waste Water Treatment after Processing of Marine Pro-
ducts. IV; Waste Water Treatment after Processing of Mackerel" Shizouka Ken
Suisan Shikenjo Jigyo Hokoku (Japan), 61, (1974). .,
"Mackerel processing wastewater with BOD less than 4 kg/m day was.suc-
cessfully treated by activated sludge, but at greater than 4.9 kg/m day
the treatment was incomplete. In a multistage process wastes having COD
200-700 approximately 200, and less than 200 ppm were treated for 71. 59,
and 0% removal. A combination of activated sludge and trickling filter
C-6
-------
processes gave the best COD removal." (Chemical Abstracts, 87,1064l4z
1977).
Tagawa, S. e_t al. , "Removal of Constituents from the Waste Water Discharged
from "Kamaboko" Processing Plants by a pH Shifting Method," Suisan Daigakko
Kenkyu Hokoku, (Japan) 24, 1, 37 (1975).
"The wastewater was adjusted to pH 2 with 3N HCL and neutralized for
coagulation of protein substances. By this simple treatment n-hexane
extractable matter was removed greater than 95 and suspended solids
greater than 85%. The removal efficiency of COD was 60-70, protein N
70-80, and non-protein N less than 10%. There was an approximate linear
relationship between COD and total, protein, and non protein N."
(Chemical Abstracts, 87, 172326y, 1977).
Tagawa, S. e_t al., "Removal of Constituents from Waste Water Discharged from
Mackerel Canning Plants by the pH Shifting Method," Suisan Daigakko Kenkyu
Hokoku (Japan), 25, 1, 75 (1976).
"Waste water from mackerel canning plants was treated by adjustment of
pH. The waste water was collected from cutting, filling, and steaming
processes and a combined effluent from other sources in the plant. The
removal efficiencies were n-hexane extractable matter and suspended
solids greater than 95 and COD 50-60%. A close relation existed between
COD and N concentrations in the waste water before and after the pH
adjustment. After treatment greater than 90% of the total N in the
wastewater was non-protein." (Chemical Abstracts, 87, 172325x, 1977).
Takagi, M. e_t al. , "Comparatve Studies on the Effect of Coagulants on Acti-
vated Sludges from Fish Meat Processing Plants, I," Aichi-Ken Shokuhin Kogyo
Shikensho Nempo (Japan), 14, 93, 1973.
"The testing coagulants included inorganic and organic polymers. The
dehydration was tested .by vacuum filtration. The inorganic coagulants
showed the lowest water content in cake with lime 57.4% addition. The
water content was 87-88% if lime and Fe was added 17.2 and 2.9%, res-
pectively. Alum was the most effective among inorganic coagulants. The
addition of lime decreased the dehydration effect due to increased visco-
sity of sludge." (Chemical Abstracts, 85, 9915q, 1976).
Tanaka, Y. ejt al., "Purification of Waste Water from Marine Product Processing
Plant," Japan Patent Disclosure No. 49-84048 (1974).
"Waste water from marine product processing plants is effectively puri-
fied by adding 50 ppm of an inorganic coagulant, adjusting the pH to
4.5-8.0, adding 5 ppm polyacrylamide-system coagulant, and then removing
the resulting floes. Thus, 0.5 kg of an A1_(SO,), solution containing 8
g Al^O./lOO ml was mixed with 200 kg waste water (suspended substances
4,82CT, COD 1,400, BOD 6450 ppm) from a fish processing plant. After
adjusting the pH to 6.5, 2 kg 0.1% aqueous polyacrylamide (molecular wt.
8,000,000) solution was added to the waste water to form floes, which
were removed by flotation. The waste water thus treated had suspended
substances 337, COD 210, and BOD 710 ppm". ( Chemical Abstracts, 82,
34855r, 1975).
C-7
-------
Tashiro, H. "Treatment of Waste Water from Canneries." (Shizuoka Paper Exp.
Stn., Shizuoka, Japan), PPM, 6, 3, 42 (1975).
"The composition, quantity, and treatment of waste water from canneries
of fish, peaches, and oranges are described." (Chemical Abstracts, 83,
65l44h, 1975).
Wada, T. e_t al. , "Waste Water Treatment after Processing of Marine Products
III; Waste Water after Processing of Skipjack," Shizouka Ken Suisan Shikenjo
Jigyo Hokoku (Japan), 60 (1974).
"Steamed skipjack was drained. The drained wastewater was 33.6% fish wt.
and contained crude protein 4.75, crude fats 0.34% and COD 12,000 ppm."
"(Chemical Abstracts. 87, 90246h, 1977).
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
activated sludge process: Removes organic matter from wastewater by intro-
ducing air (oxygen) into a vessel containing biologically active microorga-
nisms.
aeration tank: A chamber for injecting air or oxygen into water.
aerobic organism: An organism that thrives in the presence of oxygen.
algae (alga): Simple plants, many microscopic, containing chlorophyll. Most
algae are aquatic and may produce a nuisance when conditions are suitable for
prolific growth.
ammonia stripping: Ammonia removal.from a liquid, usually by intimate contact
with an ammonia-free gas, such as air.
anaerobic: Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
anionic: Characterized by an active and especially surface-active anion, or
negatively changed ion.
aquaculture: The cultivation and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals.
average: An arithmetic mean obtained by adding quantities and dividing the
sum by the number of quantities.
bacteria: The smallest living organisms which comprise, along with fungi, the
decomposer category of the food chain.
bailwater: Water used to facilitate unloading of fish from fishing vessel
holds.
batter: A flowing mixture of flour, milk, cooking oil, eggs, etc. for product
coating.
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): 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.
biological oxidation: The process whereby, through the activity of living
organisms in an aerobic environment, organic matter is converted to more
biologically stable matter.
biological stabilization: Reduction in the net energy level or organic matter
as a result of the metabolic activity of organisms, so that further biodegra-
dation is very slow.
biological treatment: Organic waste treatment in which bacteria and/or bio-
chemical action are intensified under controlled conditions.
D-l
-------
biomass: Mass or body of activated sludge microorganisms involved in the
decomposition of wastes.
blow tank: Water-filled tank used to wash oyster or clam meats by agitating
with air injected at the bottom.
BOD_: 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 bio-
logically degradable material present in organic wastes contained in a waste
stream.
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.
brine: Concentrated salt solution which is used to cool or freeze fish.
BTU: British thermal unit, the quantity of heat required to raise on pound of
water 1°F.
bulking sludge: Activated sludge that settles poorly because of low density
floe.
byproducts: (As used in this report). Commodities which are produced as a
secondary or incidental product of fish processing, but which are not suitable
for human consumption (e.g., petfood, fish meal, fertilizer, etc.).
canned fishery product: Fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals packed
singly or in combination with other items in hermetically sealed, heat ster-
ilized cans, jars, or other suitable containers. Most, but not all canned
fishery products can. be stored at room temperature for an indefinite period of
time without spoiling.
carbon adsorption: The separation of small waste particles and molecular
species, including color and odor contaminants, by attachment to the surface
and open pore structure or carbon granules or powder. The carbon is "acti-
vated," or made more adsorbent by treatment and processing.
catalyst: A chemical element or compound which, although not directly in-
volved in a chemical reaction, speeds up that reaction.
cation: Characterized by an active and especially surface-active cation, or
positively changed ion.
cellulose: A polysaccharide, or complex carbohydrate, found in plant cell
walls and naturally occurring in such fibrous products as cotton and kapok;
used as raw material in many manufactured goods including paper.
centrifuge: A mechanical device which subjects material to a centrifugal
force to achieve phase separation and then discharges the separated compo-
nents .
chemical oxygen demand (COD): A measure of the amount of oxygen required to
oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water.
D-2
-------
chemical precipitation: A waste treatment process whereby substances dis-
solved in the wastewater stream are rendered insoluble and form a solid phase
that settles out or can be removed by flotation techniques.
chitin: An abundant natural polyssacharide found in the shells of crusta-
ceans, and in insect exoskeletons, fungi and certain other plants and animals.
chitosan: A deacetylized form of chitin, manufactured from chitin, and used
in a variety of applications ranging from coagulation and ion-exchange waste-
water treatments to adhesives and wound-healing sutures.
clarification: Process of removing undissolved materials from a liquid.
Specifically, removal of solids either by settling, flotation, or filtration.
clarifier:- A settling basin for separating settleable solids from wastewater.
coagulant: A material, which, when added to liquid wastes or water, creates a
reaction which forms insoluble floe particles that adsorb and precipitate
colloidal and suspended solids. The floe particles can be removed by sedi-
mentation. 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
wastewater faster. Coagulation of solids is brought about with the use of
certain chemicals such as lime, alum, or polyelectrolytes.
commimitor (grinder): A device for the catching and shredding of heavy solid
matter in the primary stage of waste treatment.
concentration: The total mass (usually in micrograms) of the suspended part-
icles contained in a unit volume (usually one cubic meter) at a given temper-
ature and pressure; sometimes, the concentration may be expressed in terms of
total number of particles in a unit volume (e.g., parts per million); concen-
tration may also be called the "loading" or the "level" of a substance; con-
centration may also pertain to the strength of a solution.
condensate: Liquid residue resulting from the cooling of a gaseous vapor.
contamination: A general term signifying the introduction into water of
microorganisms, chemical, organic, or inorganic wastes, or sewage, which
renders the water unfit for its intended use.
Crustacea: Mostly aquatic animals with rigid outer coverings, jointed ap-
pendages, and gills. Examples are crayfish, crabs, barnacles, shrimp, water
fleas, and sow bugs.
cyclone: A device used to separate dust or mist from a gas stream by centri-
fugal force.
DAF sludge: Also called float; the semi-liquid skimmings, containing solids,
grease, oil and other contaminants, collected from the surface of a dissolved
air flotation unit.
D-3
-------
decomposition: Reduction of the net energy level and change in chemical
composition or organic matter because of actions of aerobic or anaerobic
microorganisms.
denitrification: The process involving the facultative conversion by anae-
robic 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 devi-
ations 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. Or-
ganic matter may be decomposed to soluble organic acids or alcohols, and
subsequently converted to such gases as methane and carbon dioxide. Complete
destruction or organic solid materials by bacterial action alone is never
accomplished.
dissolved air flotation (DAF): 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.
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.
electrodialysis: A process by which electricity attracts or draws the mineral
salts through a selective semi-permeable membrane.
end-of-pipe treatment: Treatment of wastewater after it has entered a sewer
system and is no longer subject to recycle within a production process.
enzymatic digestion: Decomposition process which is assisted by the presence
of naturally occurring organic catalysts called enzymes.
eviscerate: To remove the viscera, or entrails from the body cavity.
extruded: Shaped by passing through a die or mold such as fish sticks made
from deboned fish flesh.
facultative aerobe: An organism that although fundamentally an anaerobe can
grow in the presence of free oxygen.
facultative anaerobe: An organism that although fundamentally an aerobe can
grow in the absence of free oxygen.
facultative- decomposition: Decomposition of organic matter by facultative
microorganisms.
fish 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."
D-4
-------
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 derived.
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 silage: Proteinaceous byproduct resulting from the enzmatic digestion of
fish wastes.
fish solubles: A product extracted from the residual press liquor (called
"stickwater") after the solids are removed for drying (fish meal) and the oil
extracted by centrifuging. This residue is generally condensed to 50 percent
solids and marketed as "condensed fish solubles."
filtration: The process of passing a liquid through a porous medium for the
removal of suspended material by a physical straining acton.
float: (Also called floating sludge) Solid material resulting from dissolved
air flotation treatment which remains on the surface of a liquid or is sus-
pended near the surface.
floe: Something occurring in indefinite masses or aggregates. A clump of
solids formed in sewage when certain chemicals are added.
flocculation: The process by which certain chemicals form clumps of solids in
wastewater.
floe skimmings: The flocculent mass formed on a quiescent liquid surface and
removed for use, treatment, or disposal.
flume: An artificial channel for conveyance of a stream of water.
grease traps: A hydraulic device which removes grease from a waste stream.
grit chamber: A hydraulic device which removes sand, grit and other large,
heavy particles from a waste stream.
groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the earth's surface in an aqui-
fier or soil that forms the natural reservoir for man's use.
incineration: (As used in this report) The process of burning sludge to
reduce the volume of material to an inert ash residue.
influent: A liquid which flows into a containing space or process unit.
in-plant controls: Technologies or management strategies which reduce the
strength or volume of wastes discharged to end-of-pipe treatment systems.
ion: A free electron or other charged subatomic particle.
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.
D-5
-------
isoelectric point: Point at which the net electrical charge of particles is
zero, thus causing destabilization which facilitates processes such as coagu-
lation and flocculation.
kg: Kilogram or 1,000 grams, metric unit of weight.
kkg: Kilo-kilogram or 1,000,000 grams, metric unit of weight.
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 second-
ary treatment plant.
land disposal: (Also called land treatment) Disposal of wastewater into land
with crop raising being incidental; the primary purpose is to cause further
degradation by assimilation of organics and/or nutrients into the soil struc-
ture or the plants covering the disposal site.
landings, commercial: Quantities of fish, shellfish and other aquatic plants
and animals brought ashore and sold. Landings of fish may be in terms of
round (live) weight or dressed weight. Landings of crustaceans are generally
on a live weight basis except for shrimp which may be on a heads-on or heads-
off basis. Mollusks are generally landed with the shell on but in some cases
only the meats are landed (such as scallops).
live tank: Metal, wood or plastic vessel with circulating seawater for the
purpose of keeping fish or shellfish 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.
mgd: Million gallons per day.
microstrainer/microscreen: A mechanical filter consisting of a cylindrical
surface of metal filter fabric with openings of 20-60 micrometers in size.
milt: Reproductive organ (testes) of male fish.
municipal treatment: A city or community-owned waste treatment plant for
municipal and, possibly, industrial waste treatment.
nitrate, nitrite: Chemical compounds that include the N0_ (nitrate) and
NO (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.
D-6
-------
offal: A term for the waste portion of a fish, including head, tail, viscera,
etc.
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.
organic matter: The waste from homes or industry of plant or animal origin.
oxidation pond: A man-made lake or body of water in which wastes are consumed
by bacteria. It is used most frequently with other waste treatment processes.
An oxidation pond is basically the same as a wastewater lagoon.
pH: The pH value indicates the relative intensity of acidity or alkalinity of
water, with the neutral point at 7.0. Values lower than 7.0 indicate the
presence of acids; above 7.0 the presence of alkalies.
physical-chemical treatment: A wastewater treatment process which relies on
physical and chemical reactions, such as coagulation, settling, filtration and
other non-biological processes, to remove pollutants.
polishing: Final treatment stage before discharge of effluent to a water
course, carried out in a shallow, aerobic lagoon or pond, mainly to remove
fine suspended solids that settle very slowly. Some aerobic microbiological
activity also occurs.
ponding: A waste treatment technique involving the actual holdup of all
wastewaters in a confined space with evaporation and percolation the primary
mechanisms operating to dispose of the water.
ppm: Parts per million, also referred to as milligrams per liter (mg/1).
This is a unit for expressing the concentration of any substance by weight,
usually as grams of substance per million grams of solution. Since a liter of
water weighs one kilogram at a specific gravity of 1.0, one part per million
is equivalent to one milligram per liter.
press cake: In the wet reduction process for industrial fishes, the solid
fraction which results when cooked fish (and fish wastes) are passed through
the screw presses.
press liquor: Stickwater resulting from the pressing of fish solids.
primary treatment: Removes .the material that floats or will settle in waste-
water. It is accomplished by using screens to catch the floating objects and
tanks for the heavy matter to settle in.
process water: All water that comes into direct contact with the raw mate-
rials, intermediate products, final products, byproducts, or contaminated
waters and air.
processed fishery product: Plants and animals, and products thereof, pre-
served by canning, freezing, cooking, dehydrating, drying, fermenting, pas-
teurizing, adding salt or other chemical substances, and other- commercial
processes. Also, changing the form of fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants
and animals from their original state into a form in which they are not readily
identifiable, such as fillets, steaks, or shrimp logs.
D-7
-------
pyrolysis: Physical and chemical decomposition of organic matter brought
about by heat in the absence of oxygen.
receiving waters: Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water courses that receive
treated or untreated wastewaters.
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 wastewater for several plant uses.
rendering: A reduction process involving the cooking, pressing and drying of
animal waste materials to produce a dry protein meal.
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.
reverse osmosis: The physical separation of substances from a water stream by
reversal of the normal osmotic process, i.e., high pressure, forcing water
through a semi-permeable membrane to the pure water side leaving behind more
concentrated waste streams.
roe: Fish eggs, especially when still massed in the ovarian membrane, taken
and packaged as a delicacy for human consumption.
rotating biological contactor(RBC): A waste treatment device involving closely
spaced light-weight disks which are rotated through the wastewater allowing
aerobic microflora to accumulate on each disk and thereby achieving a reduc-
tion in the waste content.
rotary screen: A revolving cylindrical screen for the separation of solids
from a waste stream.
sand filter: Removes the organic wastes from sewage. The wastewater is
trickled over a bed of sand. Air and bacteria decompose the wastes filtering
through the sand. The clean water flows out through drains in the bottom of
the bed. The sludge accumulating at the surface must be removed from the bed
periodically.
sanitary landfill: A site for solid waste disposal during techniques which
prevent sector breeching, and controls air pollution nuisances, fire hazards
and surface or groundwater pollution.
screen: (As used in this report) A device with openings, generally of uni-
form size, used to retain or remove suspended or floating solids in flowing
water or wastewater and to prevent them from entering an intake or passing a
given point in a conduit. The screening element may consist of parallel bars,
rods, wires, grating, wire mesh, or perforated plate, and the openings may be
of any shape, although they are usually circular or rectangular.
secondary products: (as used in this report) fish processing products which,
although not the primary product, are still suitable for human consumption
(e.g., fish sticks).
D-8
-------
secondary treatment: The second step in most waste treatment systems in which
bacteria consume the organic parts of the wastes. It is accomplished by
bringing the sewage and bacteria together in trickling filters or in the
activated sludge process.
sedimentation tanks: Help remove solids from wastewater. The wastewater is
pumped to the tanks where the solids settle to the bottom or float on top as
scum. The scum is skimmed off the top, and solids on the bottom are pumped
out for subsequent processing or disposal.
settleable matter (solids): Determined in the Imhoff cone test and will show
the quantitative settling characteristics of the waste sample.
settling tank: Synonymous with "Sedimentation Tank".
sewers: A system of pipes that collect and deliver wastewater to treatment
plants or receiving streams.
shock load: A quantity of wastewater or pollutant that greatly exceeds the
normal discharged into a treatment system, usually occurring over a limited
period of time.
shuck: A process used to remove the shells from oysters and clams.
sludge: The solid matter that settles to the bottom of sedimentation tanks
and must be handled by digestion or other methods to complete the waste treat-
ment process.
sludge dewatering: The process of removing a portion of the water in sludge
by any method such as draining, evaporation, pressing, vacuum filtration,
centrifuging, exhausting, passing between rollers, acid flotation, or dis-
solved-air flotation with or without heat. It involves reducing from a liquid
to a spadable condition rather than merely changing the density of the liquid
(concentration) or drying (as in a kiln).
solubles: The material which results after processing that was dissolved or
able to pass into solution in the stickwater. This residue can be incorpor-
ated into fish meal or sold separately as a byproduct.
species (both singular and plural): A natural population or group of popula-
tions that transmit specific characteristics from parent to offspring. They
are reproductively isolated from other populations with which they might
breed. Populations usually exhibit a loss of fertility when hybridizing.
stickwater: Water and entrained organics that originate from the draining or
pressing of steam cooked fish products.
sump: A depression or tank that serves as a drain or receptacle for liquids
for salvage or disposal.
tertiary waste treatment: Waste treatment systems used to treat secondary
treatment effluent and typically using physical-chemical technologies to
effect waste reduction of specific pollutants. Synonymous with "Advanced
Waste Treatment."
D-9
-------
Improving the Economics
of
Crustacean-waste Disposal
Peter M. Perceval and W.E. Nelson
CHI-AM International, Inc.
16. E. Southampton Ave.
Hampton, Virginia 23669
The highly valuable segment of the U.S. fishing industry
which processes crustaceans - shrimp, crab, lobster and cray-
fish - has always been plagued with the problem of disposing
of the tremendous quantities of solid wastes it generates.
The problem has become more serious in recent years with the
increase in demand for these species, the development of new
fisheries, and the necessary implementation of water, air and
solid waste pollution control regulations. Various solutions
have been suggested but few, if any of them, meet the necess-
ary requirements of being environmentally sound, economically
viable and applicable year-round in areas which range in temp-
erature from the highs of the Gulf Coast to the lows of Alaska,
and in locations as different as metropolitan complexes at one
extreme and remote fishing communities at the other.
The two major inputs to solving the problem have usually
come from either the industry itself or from those institutions
concerned with marine resources.
Under the circumstances it is quite understandable that
the industry's approach has generally been one of seeking the
least expensive means of getting rid of the troublesome mat-
erials. In many locations the dehydration plants that have
-------
-2-
resulted from this approach are now unable to achieve suffi-
cient revenues for their relatively crude product to compen-
sate for rapidly increasing costs - as is the case in the
crab meal industry. The problems that are now being faced
by these plants, some of which have already gone out of
business, naturally discourage other locations from attempt-
ing this particular solution to the problem.
The institutional approach has generally been to seek
the highest possible value that could be achieved from crus-
tacean wastes - through the chemical extraction of chitin,
chitosan and by-products. However, after some forty years
of attempts at commercialization, this solution has yet to
be proven economically viable and the history of repeated
pilot-plant failures discourages many potentially-interested
chemical process industries from further ventures in this
direction.
A Different Approach
A careful study of the conventional disposal practises
and meal plant operations together with an understanding of
some of the unique properties of chitin suggests that there is
considerable merit in adopting an approach which should gene-
rate more revenue than currently received for crustacean meals;
which benefits from some of the valuable features of the chitin
contained in the wastes; and which lends itself to implemen-
tation by the fishing industry itself - as opposed to requir-
ing manufacturing participation from the chemical process
industry as is the case with chitin and chitosan extraction.
-------
-3-
Basically this approach can be divided into two comple-
mentary segments: (a) increasing the profitability of existing
dehydration plants, especially those which handle wastes with
a high proportion of inorganic material such as result from
crab processing, (b) improving crustacean waste processing to
provide an economically viable method for areas where no
such option exists currently.
Problems of Conventional Dehydration
Three undesirable features of existing crustacean meal
processing suggest the need for change. First, in almost all
locations which currently practise this means of disposal,
crude dehydration methods are employed which usually involve
direct flame drying of the ground, or frequently unground,
waste materials. Such drying methods are not conducive to
attainment of highest market values for the resulting products.
Any potential increase in value from pigmentation, such as
is the case with shrimp waste, is considerably reduced by
such crude drying. Second, in the case of those wastes with
a high inorganic content, such as crab waste,the loss in meal
value due to crude drying is compounded by a very unfavorable
calcium to phosphorous ratio which markedly restricts levels of
incorporation in feedstuffs.Third, because of the crude dehy-
dration methods that are generally employed, air pollution
problems are almost inevitable. In order to overcome these
problems considerable additional expense is now being incurred
for major control equipment such as proper scrubbers. Imple-
mentation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 requires a
mandatory assessment of "non-compliance penalties" against
nearly every violating source of air pollution after August
7. 1979.
-------
-4-
In summary then, avoidance of air pollution penalties,
the requirement for effective disposal techniques and the
necessity for increased by-product revenues all combine to
suggest the need for a change in methods of dehydrating crus-
tacean wastes.
Improved Dehydration Methods
Various alternative dehydration systems have been avail-
able for some time but few, if any, appear to have been
adopted for drying crustacean wastes probably because of
higher initial cost, A good example of such an improved
system was announced in NATIONAL FISHERMAN, May, 1979 (1).
This report concerns the availability from within the fish-
meal industry, of an indirect-heat, continous vacuum dryer
which, because of its gentler drying characteristics, should
permit marketing of much more valuable shrimp meal or crab
meal than is the case with the higher temperature direct
heat, flame dryers. Shrimp meal produced by this process
has brought offers of prices more than double those received
for conventionally dried meal and the process does not result
in air pollution according to the manufacturers (2). One of
the new units capable of producing .8 tons per hour of dried
crustacean meal at 8-10/6 moisture is quoted as costing appro-
ximately $100,000.
Decalcification
In the case of meals produced from species of crab, lob-
ster and crayfish, it is generally recognized that if most of
-------
-5-
the shell fraction could be removed inexpensively a con-
siderably higher price could be attained for the protein
fraction. A method of such "decalcification" was proposed
by Rutledge of L.S.U. (3) in 1971.
Rutledge's pioneering work involved decalcifying Blue
Crab and Freshwater Crayfish meals by drying to a moisture
level of 6% or less, grinding through a Wiley mill with a
V1 screen, and sieving through a No. 12 U.S. standard mesh
screen. Table I from Rutledge's work shows proximate analy-
ses of crab and freshwater crayfish waste before and after
separation. Table II from the same source, lists separation
processing efficiency.
Protein content of the meals was almost doubled by such
processing and calcium levels were reduced by as much as
68%. Rutledge pointed out that, "such processing will tend
to reduce the imbalance between calcium and phosphorus, as
well as increase the protein content" - both of which factors
would raise the value of such crustacean meals. He concluded
that, "if it is feasible to dry such materials, additional
cost of milling and screening should be nominal." Figure
III demonstrates what would be the combined value attainable
from such a separation process as described by Rutledge,
assuming that each fraction is worth the price in cents per
pound indicated at the top and side of the table. It does not
seem unreasonable to expect values in excess of 15 cents per
pound for such an improved meal product with 58.4% protein.
The protein value and amino acid balance approximate those
of fish meal which is currently valued at around $400 per ton.
Admittedly, an attempt to displace fish meal in some
-------
From James E.Rutledge 1971 (3).
Table I Proximate Analyses of Crab and Freshwater Crayfish
Waste Before and After Processing (a)
Constituent
Moisture
Protein (b)
Fat
Chitin
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Before Pro
Blue Crab
Percen
4.5
24.0
2.0
12.9
56.0
17.0
1.7
cessing
Crayfish
tages
5.7
28.1
4.4
12.5
44.0
18.0
1.2
After Pr
Blue Crab
Perce
8.2
58.4
2.7
2.6
20.5
7.5
1.4
ocessing
Crayfish
ntages
6.4
58.5
6.0
2.1
16.8
5.7
0.9
(a) Average of 20 analyses (b) Corrected for chitin
Table II Processing Efficiency (a)
Determination
Skeletal material in
waste prior to
processing (b)
Skeletal material in
meal after process-
ing (b)
Processing efficiency
Blue Crab
Crayfish
Percentage
80.2
21.6
73.0
75.4
15.8
79.0
(a) Average of 20 analyses (b) Percent of total dry material
Note: 60 to 65 % of total waste material is separated as shell
in the course of processing.
-------
1250 POUNDS SHELL FRACTION = 62.5%
pei
Ib
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
125
132.5
140
147.5
155
162.5
170
177.5
185
192.5
200
2
137.5
145
152.5
160
167.5
175
182.5
190
197.5
205
212.5
3
150
157.5
165
172.5
180
187.5
195
202.5
210
217.5
225
4
162.5
170
177.5
185
192.5
200
207.5
215
222.5
230
237.5
5
175
182.5
190
197.5
205
212.5
220
227.5
235
242.5
250
6
187.5
195
202.5
210
217.5
225
232.5
240
247.5
255
262.5
7
200
207.5
215
222.5
230
237.5
245
252.5
260
267.5
275
8
212.5
220
227.5
235
242.5
250
257.5
265
272.5
280
287.5
9
225
232.5
240
247.5
255
262.5
270
277.5
285
292.5
300
10
237.5
245
252.5
260
267.5
275
282.5
290
297.5
305
312.5
11
250
257.5
265
272.5
280
287.5
295
302.5
310
317.5
325
12
262.5
270
277.5
285
292.5
300
307.5
315
322.5
330
337.5
13
275
282.5
290
297.5
305
312.5
320
327.5
335
342.5
350
14
287.5
295
302.5
310
317.5
325
332.5
340
347.5
355
362.5
15
300
307.5
315
322.5
330
337.5
345
352.5
360
367.5
375
750 Ibs
IMPROVED
PROTEIN
= 37.5%
Figure III
COMBINED VALUE IN DOLLARS PER TON SEPARATED, BASED UPON 37.5%
IMPROVED PROTEIN FRACTION AND 62.5% SHELL RESIDUAL FRACTION.
-------
-6-
markets might run into the problem of insufficient quantity
of the improved crustacean meal to meet the high-volume re-
quirements of major pet food producers. Never-the-less there
are some other lower volume markets, such as aquaculture,
wherein the supply and demand factors should be in better
balance, and the special properties of a marine-source protein
are in great demand.
Processing in Isolated Locations
In certain isolated locations where even an improved dehy-
dration plant might be considered a doubtful economic pro-
position, either because of fuel costs or added transportation-
to-market costs for the products, utilization of either a
Paoli or Baader type meat-bone separator has been found to
be highly effective for extracting the proteinaceous portion
of crustacean wastes which could then be block frozen for
distant markets (4). It has been demonstrated (5) that a
Paoli machine can obtain 32% of the total weight of moist,ground blue
crab waste as a protein fraction with an analysis of 56.72%
protein and 16.93% ash (dry basis). If the market justifies
it the shell fraction resulting from such a separation system
would be considerably cheaper to dry after most of the adven-
titious protein has been removed. Furthermore the particle
size would already have been reduced during the grinding which,
with most species of waste, is required prior to separation
by this type of machine.
In summary there is a considerable body of evidence to
demonstrate that crustacean wastes could be better processed
in a variety of methods any one of which should result in a
-------
-7-
pricing structure for the resultant protein product that
approximates that of fish meal.
The Residual Shell Fraction
The shell fraction that would result from perfect mech-
anical separation consists of the cuticle with its associated
chitin, calcium, and bound proteins. Much is already known
about crustacean cuticles partly as a result of the research
that has been done in connection with chitin and chitosan ex-
traction, and also from another body of the literature which
is involved with the cuticle for purely scientific reasons.
In arriving at some minimum attainable values for this
shell fraction the approach taken was to consider: (a) its
basic structure; (b) those properties of chitin itself which
have suggested market potential; (c) chitin manufacturing
procedures. In the isolation and purification of chitin,
accompanying calcium and proteins are dissolved away by dilute
acid and alkali respectively. What is left is the chitin
which is insoluble in dilute acids, and cold alkalis of any
concentration (16). It has been noted frequently that when
demineralization precedes deproteination a considerable portion
of the bound protein is removed along with the calcium (11).
All of these factors are then considered in the context of
possible market areas wherein a pollution application might
benefit from utilization of the dried shell fraction, at its
original grind size, or further pulverized.
Referring again to Figure III, for example, it is obvious
-------
-8-
that a price of even 10 cents per pound for the shell fraction
radically affects the economics of a dehydration plant if one
can attain 15 cents per pound for the protein fraction. In
fact the combined revenue per ton of meal separated almost
doubles, increasing from approximately $120 under the present
drying and marketing system to $237.50 in the new concept.
Such added revenue potential for existing meal plants should
improve the economics sufficiently to justify installation
of needed air pollution control equipment. It should also
justify establishment of newer, and more efficient, environ-
mentally acceptable plants at locations which currently have
no disposal method.
The Cuticle
B.S. Welinder (6) reported that crab cuticle (Cancer
pagurus) consists of three layers: a combined epi - and
exocuticle, an endocuticle, and a membranous layer (Figure
IV). The weight distribution between the layers showed that
the dominating layer is the endocuticle. Chitin distribution
was as follows:
Epicuticle/Exocuticle 9%
Endocuticle 84%
Membranous layer 1%
Lockwood (7), and others have established the fact that the
membranous layer of crustacean cuticle is uncalcified. It
has also been determined that the protein associated with this
layer is arthropodin - not the tanned protein, sclerotin (8 and
9). Thus the protein in this layer is more readily solubilized
-------
FIGURE IV
Decalcified Cancer pagurus cuticle
From B.S.Welinder 1975 (4)
Combined epicuticle/exocuticle 17'(
percentage of weight of cuticle
Endocuticle
percentage of weight of cuticle
76.0
Membranous layer
percentage of weight of cuticle 6.4
100
33.9* Chi tin 66.1* Lipop
73*
Chi tin
73.9* Chitin
*- Jf0* 10
rotein
27*
Protein
f~26* Pro.
FIGURE IV a
Solubility of layers of previously decalcified Cancer cuticle
(Numbers in brackets represent weight loss expressed as
percentage of the protein present in the various layers)
Combined epicuticle/exocuticle
Endocuticle
Membranous layer
100* HCOOH
36.1* (58.1*)
28.2* (104.4*)
30.9* (118.0*)
1M CH^COOH
21.7* (34.9*)
15.7* (58.1*)
20.1* (76.9*)
Note: Numbers exceeding 100 indicate some "chitin was brought into solution,
-------
-9-
or caused to dissociate from the chitin without having to
resort to harsh chemical treatment. While the middle layer
(endocuticle) is heavily impregnated with calcium salts, the
protein associated with the chitin is also arthropodin. The
outer layer (combined epi- and exocuticle) is also calcified
but seems to contain the tanned protein, sclerotin, in asso-
ciation with its chitin. According to Neville (10) and
others,the epicuticle itself is non-chitinous. Thus the 9%
of total chitin that Welinder (6) reports in the combined
epi- and exocuticle must lie on one side of this layer - the
exocuticle. In summary then, the crab cuticle usually
contains:
(a) no chitin in its outermost layer
(b) no calcium in its innermost layer
(c) approximately 90% of its total chitin
in the middle and innermost layers
Recent work by Perceval (11) has confirmed that, as might be
expected, the cuticle of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is
layered in much the same manner as in the species (Cancer
pagurus) studied by Welinder. Therefore it seems reasonable
to expect that chitin distribution between the three layers
will also be somewhat similar.
Whether or not the arthropodin of the membranous layer
and endocuticle is as easy to solubilize in water, or after
heat treatment, as has been suggested by Kent (12) remains to
be determined. However, Welinder (6) states that much, if not
all, of this protein is soluble is acid (see also Figure IVa).
Moreover the techniques of chitin extraction prove that cuti-
cular proteins are solubilized by weak alkali solutions,
-------
-10-
and the associated calcium is solubilized by dilute acid.
The Effect of Pulverization
If the dried cuticle (shell fraction) is now pulverized
and the resulting material is used as a liquid-phase adsorbent
it seems highly probable that certain inherent properties will
become available. The vastly increased surface area should
encourage some adsorption, the presence of the proteins might
be expected to bring about some chelation of heavy metals (13),
and the calcium would reduce the acidity of a low pH effluent
solution. Furthermore, as solubilization and dissociation of
the calcium in the upper layers and the arthropodin of the
middle and innermost layers, continues in an acidic effluent
a maximum of 90% of the total available chitin could become
available for chelation and/or ion exchange.
Powdered Shell Compared to Chitin and Chitosan
Many, if not all, of these assumptions are borne out by
work that was performed recently at the National Taiwan Uni-
versity (14). At that institution Tsu-Chang Hung and Sharon
Li-Ming Han tested commercially extracted chitin and chitosan
against powders they prepared from shellfish-shell as adsorbents
for heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. They found that
the adsorbent capacity and selectivity for metal ions on shrimp-
shell powder was almost the same as for extracted chitin and
chitosan. They also found that there was no significant differ-
ence between powders prepared from the shells of different
species of shrimp and crabs. The degree of metal ion adsorption
varied with pH value and was also a function of time. Significantly,
-------
-11-
they report that at pH 3, after one hour of stirring, the
degree of adsorption on the powder was higher than either
chitin or chitosan for mercuric ions, cuperic ions, zinc ions,
lead ions and cadmium ions. Another interesting finding was
that the powder itself, the same material subjected to acid-
treatment with 13.5% HC1, the powder alkali-treated with 5%
NaOH, the powder with combined acid and alkali treatments as
above, and the commercially extracted chitin and chitosan
all adsorbed in excess of 85% mercuric ions regardless of
changing pH and with only a slight difference in effectiveness.
The Taiwanese scientists experimented with a species of crab
(Portunidae tribercultatus) which comes from the same over-all
family as the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Assuming the
adsorbent capacity and selectivity of powdered shrimp and crab
shell from waste products of the United States fisheries appro-
ximates the levels obtained in the Taiwan experiments, suggests
a potential marketability in such industrial effluent situations
as mining and metallurgy, paints and dyes, pesticides, electrical
and electronic, and battery manufacture.
This potential has already been the subject of preliminary
investigation by one of the major U.S. companies involved in
water pollution control. Initial testing performed at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University (15) also has pro-
duced encouraging results in adsorption of lead.
Other Areas with Utilization Potential
The preferential affinity of chitin for Chromium (VI) at
pH 2.5 discussed by Muzzarelli (16) also suggests the wisdom
of testing the material in other industrial settings such as
electro-plating.
-------
-12-
The affinity of chitin for actinide series elements such
as Uranium and Plutonium reported by Muzzarelli (16) and
Silver (17) respectively, offers another fertile field
for testing the powdered shell fraction on nuclear industry
effluent streams which, in many instances, are acidic. In a
neutral or alkaline nuclear industry effluent situation the
know affinity of calcium for strontium might also prove
beneficial.
Richards and Cutkomp (18) discussed the correlation between
possession of a chitinous cuticle and sensitivity to DDT.
Lord (19) reported on the sorption of DDT and its analogues,
and there have been other publications on the general subject
of an affinity between chitinous cuticle and chlorinated hy-
drocarbons. A very recent paper by Hiraizuma, Takashi and
Nishimura (20) examines adsorption of Polychlorinated Biphenyl
onto sea bed sediment, marine plankton and other adsorbing agents,
Those authors found that dehydrated zooplankton adsorbed PCB
with nearly the same concentration factor as Amberlite XAD-4
and considerably more than aged granular activated carbon.
They state that the effect of organic content upon the magni-
tude of the concentration factor cannot be denied. Copepods
possessing chitinous exoskeleton are the dominant grouping in
most samples of zooplankton and it is interesting to speculate
whether possession of a chitinous cuticle might not be the main,
or at least a major contributor to the results obtained in the
Japanese work. A preliminary investigation of this possibility
is also getting underway and the results might help define
yet another promising market potential for powdered crustacean
shell.
-------
-13-
Benefiting from Nature's Processes
Subramanian (21) and Martin (22) discuss the role of chitin
contained in moulted exoskeletons as a means of transport of
metals to the world's oceans and their sediments. One might
reasonably expect that adsorption of the metals they examined,
and others, would be enhanced on powdered crustacean shell due
to the fact that the moulted exoskeletons often contain less
chitin than the cuticle possesses at other stages in the crus-
tacean life cycle (23).
Puquegnat, Fowler, and Small (24) reported that the maxi-
mum Zn requirements for marine organisms is 2.7^g Zn/g wet
weight. They thus attributed the higher stable-zinc concen-
trations of Euphausia pacifica to adsorption-exchange, since
14 times as much was found in just-moulted exoskeletons as in
the muscle tissue of the same individuals. Fowler, Small,
and Dean (25) reported that Zn uptake by dead and living
euphausids was statistically similar and thus, neither directly
nor indirectly related to metabolism; the largest Zn fraction
was always associated with the exoskeleton.
Martin (22) lists concentration factors for the zooplankton
samples he analyzed as:
Element Concentration Factor
Pb 197,000
Fe 14,400
Cd 6,000
Zn 5,100
Co 3,200
Ni 2,500
Mn 1,650
Cu 1,630
-------
-14-
Biodeterioration
An important point that is made by Subramanian and Martin
(21 and 22), and discussed in a different context by Berkeley
(26) and others has to do with the biodeterioration of chitin -
and therefore crustacean shell. In some pollution control
applications that have been proposed for pulverized shell it
is obvious that prolonged immersion in the presence of chitin-
olytic microorganisms will result in complete degradation of
the particles whereupon the entrapped pollutant would again
be released to the environment. Hood and Meyers (27) found,
as would be expected, that the rate of decomposition of cuticle
increased as particle size decreased. They suggest that the
protein content of the untreated chitin (cuticle) may provide
an attractant, allowing the substrate to be more rapidly
colonized and degraded after 4 days of the in situ studies
they conducted. Essentially all of the substrate had been
degraded by the end of the 23rd day. While this biodeterior-
ation factor must be considered in many applications for chitin -
and therefore powdered shell fraction - it should not prove
to be an insuperable problem because the content of some of the
effluent streams under consideration would make it rather
unlikely that microbial activity would be high. Particle size
and duration of its exposure to the sources of biodeterioration
can be controlled to allow sufficient time for maximum removal
of pollutant and minimum degradation by microorganisms.
Possible Pricing Structure for Pulverized Shell Fraction
If powdered crustacean shell fraction, produced in some
manner as suggested herein, could approximate the cost-effect-
iveness of activated carbon as an adsorbent, or that of Amberlite
-------
-15-
XAD-4 with its affinity for chlorinated pesticides (28), the
price to the user would be somewhere around 40 cents per pound
in the former case and 80 cents per pound in the latter. How-
ever both of the materials used for this comparison are usually
capable of being regenerated - a cost-saving feature which is
also possible for chitin but might prove impractical for the
powdered shell. It would seem therefore that once-through
situations would be the best targets for decontamination
applications with the proposed new product. Even in this
setting, with a necessarily lowered market price, it is not
unlikely that worthwhile markets will develop which could
consume all the powdered shell that might be produced from
current and future crustacean wastes in the United States
especially when the product is perfected as to particle size
and quality control. The optimum markets and pricing struc-
tures remain to be determined, but, referring to Figure III
it can readily be seen how a given value for the shell fraction
significantly affects the overall economics of crustacean waste
disposal in this scheme of operation.
A Minimum-Investment Process
Simplicity of the separation process, the prospect of
some profitability for the crustacean-processing industry,
and the interest already generated all suggest that this type
of disposal technique may one day become the method of choice
for this industry. Other obvious separation techniques should
no doubt be considered. However, some of these more sophis-
ticated methods may result in elevating production costs to
the point where the shell fraction might not compete with
-------
-16-
possible alternative materials or processes. The problem that
has to be solved is waste disposal in an extremely valuable
segment of the fishery industry - in some instances located
at great distance from major urban centers. The solution
should be one that requires minimum investment in production
equipment and systems necessary to maintain quality control
of the ultimate products.
Finally, other possible market areas will likely occur
to those familiar with the unique properties of chitin - some
potentially more valuable than discussed here, and some less -
however the suggestions herein are not intended to be all-
inclusive. The purpose of this paper is to point out that
there appears to be a viable alternative disposal scheme for
the crustacean industry and that it will likely be one that
is well-worth exploring. In fact it is the subject of con-
siderable work that is either ongoing or was performed many
years ago.
-------
Literature cited
(1) NATIONAL FISHERMAN, May 1979. pg 52.
(2) Wilson, Donald G., Steel-Pro Inc., P.O. Box 669, Rock-
land, Maine 04841. Private communication.
(3) Rutledge, J.E., J. AGR. FOOD CHEM., 19 (2), 236-7 (1971).
(4) Simpson, K.L., In PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON CHITIN AND CHITOSAN, Boston, Massachusetts
(1977), R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Eds. MITSG
78-7, pp 253-62.
(5) Perceval, P.M., (1976) Unpublished.
(6) Welinder, B.S., COMP. BIOCHEM. PHYSIOL. 52A, 659-63 (1975).
(7) Lockwood, A.P.M., ASPECTS OF THE PHYSIOLOGY OF CRUSTACEA,
W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (1967).
(8) Richards, A.G., THE INTEGUMENT OF ARTHROPODS, University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1951).
(9) Welinder, B.S., COMP. BIOCHEM. PHYSIOL., 47A, 779-87 (1974).
(10) Neville, A.C., BIOLOGY OF THE ARTHROPOD CUTICLE, Springer-
Verlag, New York (1975).
(11) Perceval, P.M., (1979) Unpublished.
(12) Kent, P.W., In COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY VOL. VII, M. Florkin
and H.S. Mason, Eds. Academic Press, New York (1964).
(13) McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 3,
p 20, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1977).
(14) Hung, Tsu-Chang & Han, Sharon Li-Ming, ACTA OCEANOGRAPHICA
TAIWANICA, No. 7, 56-63 (1977).
(15) Wightman, J.P., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Va. (1979). Private Communication.
(16) Muzzarelli, R.A.A., NATURAL CHELATING POLYMERS, Pergamon
Press, Oxford (1973).
(17) Silver, G.L., U.S. Patent No. 4,120,933 (1978).
-------
Literature cited (cont.)
(18) Richards, G.A., Cutkomp, L.K., BIOL. BULL., Woods Hole, 90,
97-107 (1946).
(19) Lord, K.A., BIOCHEM. J., 43, 72-8 (1948).
(20) "Hiraizumi, Y., Takahashi, M., Nishimura, H. ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13 (5), 580-3 (1979).
(21) Subraraanian, V., In PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON CHITIN AND CHITOSAN, Boston, Massachusetts (1977),
R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Eds., MITSG 78-7, pp
288-94.
(22) Martin, J.H., LIMNOL. OCEANOGR. 15, 756-71 (1970).
(23) Brine, C.J., in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON CHITIN AND CHITOSAN, Boston, Massachusetts,
(1977), R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, Eds., MITSG
78-7, pp 509-16.
(24) Pequegnat, J.E., Fowler, S.W., Small, K.F., J. FISH. RES.
BD. CAN. 26, 145-50 (1969).
(25) Fowler, S.W., Small, L.F., Dean, J.M., In PROC. SECOND
NAT. RADIOECOL. SYMP. (1969), D.J. Nelson and F.C. Evans,
Eds. pp 399-411. USAEC Publ. Conf. 670503. TID-4500.
(26) Berkeley, R.C.W., CHITIN, CHITOSAN AND THEIR DEGRADATIVE
ENZYMES, In press.
(27) Hood, M.A., Myers, S.P., In PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CHITIN AND CHITOSAN, Boston,
Massachusetts (1977), R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser,
Eds., MITSG 78-7, pp 563-9.
(28) Kennedy, D.C., ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
7 (2), 138-41 (1973).
-------
Processors Association Aflrleultural and
1133 Twentieth Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone 202/331-5900 Senior Vice President
202/331-5967
Jack L. Cooper
Director,
Environmental Affairs
•April 17, 1979 202/331-5969
Raymond F. Altevogt, Ph.D.
Assistant Director,
Agricultural Affairs
Mr. Calvin J. Dysinger 202/331-5968
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)
U. S. Environmental Prot ection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Regarding: Comments on the February 1979 report titled Technology for
Seafood Procesaing Waste Treatment and Utilization, Section 74
Seafood Processing Study, prepared for EPA by the E. C. Jordan
Company, Portland, Maine, under contract No. 68-01-4931.
Dear Mr. Dysinger:
The National Food Processors Association, formerly the National Canners
Association, is a nonprofit trade association with approximately 650 members
who pack about 90 percent of the total United States production of canned food for
human consumption. The seafood processing members of our Association
appreciate this opportunity to comment on the above report.
The only comments submitted at this time are our specific comments
on individual parts of the report. Our overall general comments on the scope
of the report, assumptions made, and other factors will be provided to you as
soon as they can be prepared, and reviewed by the industry and counsel.
The attached specific comments are presented by page, paragraph, and
sentence number.
Sincerely,
Jack L. Cooper
enclosure
cc: Effluent Guidelines Subcommittee for Seafoods
Brian Leamy
Vince Evich
Dave Ballands
Tony Nizetich
-------
April 17, 1979
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
by the
NATIONAL FOOD PROCESSOGS ASSOCIATION
on the Report titled
TECHNOLOGY FOR SEAFOOD PROCESSING WASTE
TREATMENT AND UTILIZATION
dated
FEBRUARY 1979
Prepared by the
E. C. JORDAN COMPANY, PORTLAND, MAINE
for the
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
under EPA Contract No. 68-01-4931
Our comments are presented by page, paragraph, and sentence number:
ii, 1, 1, The last word of the first sentence should be "waters" instead.
of the term "wastes. "
ii, 2, 2, This sentence should be rewritten to read as follows:
For most of the industry, existing waste management practices are in
compliance with EPA's nationally promulgated effluent guidelines and
additional more stringent requirements necessary to achieve locally
derived water quality standards.
The industry does not regard its existing waste management practices as
"poor"; nor does the industry regard its existing waste management practices as
resulting in the wasting of significant portions of the raw material brought to shore,
The industry currently-utilizes as much"material from the incoming raw fish or
shellfish as is possible. Since there are no existing markets for unutilized parts
of the incoming raw material, these residuals must be handled as waste.
ii, 2, 3, We disagree with the statement that improved handling of the
waste materials can result in more complete utilization, the production of salable
by-products, or reduced waste volumes and reduced associated environmental
control costs. Just because you are able to handle a waste better is no assurance
that more of that material can be utilized or that it can be sold for a reasonable
return of or on the investment. Improved handling is also no guarantee that the
volume of waste generated or the costs associated with its disposal can be reduced.
Accordingly, this sentence should be deleted.
ii, 3, We recommend that this paragraph be rewritten to read as follows:
Large year-round seafood processors, such as large tuna canneries
and major fish meal plants,, practice waste management and environ-
mental control methods, which include effective controls on water use,
water recycling techniques, and recovery and use of raw materials not
-------
- 2 -
incorporated as part of a human food product line, such as for the
production of pet food and meat by-products. Portions of the incoming
raw material which cannot be converted into human food or by-products,
must be disposed of as waste.
iii, 2, 2, We disagree with the statement that improved waste treatment
and disposal methods are required to reduce the impact of these wastes on the
environment. This is a generalized statement implying that the disposal of seafood
processing wastes adversely impact the environment and thus must be removed
from the environment at all locations. This implication is improper particularly
since the focus of the Section 74 Seafood Processing Study is to assess and deter-
mine the effects of seafood waste discharges into marine waters. The contractor
has prejudged the conclusion of the report that seafood processing wastes adversely
impact marine waters. We strong disagree with this implication and recommend
that this sentence be deleted. In fact, in at least one area, Terminal Island,
California, a recent study by the Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies of the
Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, California, has concluded that controlled
discharges of cannery waste may be beneficial to marine life by providing nutrients
for the food web. We understand that the complete report is at the printers and
will be submitted to EPA soon.
We recommend that thia paragraph be rewritten to read as follows:
The most applicable technology for seafood processing plants located
in remote parts of Alaska is grinding followed by direct discharge.
For seasonal seafood processing plants in the contiguous states the
most applicable technology is screening. For the tuna and fish meal
processing plants, the highest level of treatment that should be required
is dissolved air flotation. Other, more advanced technologies are avail-
able but are not applicable to the industry. Where the achievement of
locally derived water quality standards require treatment beyond the
levels indicated above, seafood processing plants could investigate a
number of more complex wastewater treatments. Where more complex
alternatives are being considered, seafood processing plants should
examine in-plant modifications for opportunities to reduce the quantities
and volumes of wastes generated.
iii, 3, 1, This paragraph begins with the statement "To reduce its environ-
mental impact, the seafood industry should ..." Again, the contractor has
concluded that there is an adverse environmental impact due to the discharge of
seafood, processing wastes into marine waters. If this sentence is to be left in,
we recommend that it be rewritten to read as follows:
At those specific sites where adverse impacts due to the discharge of
seafood processing waste need to be mitigated, affected, seafood proc-
essing plants should investigate improvements to their water and waste
management practices, which may include efforts in the area of by-
• product manufacturing, and wastewater treatment and solids disposal
technologies.
-------
- 3 -
1, 1, 1, The scope of effort states that the contractor was to identify
and evaluate certain technologies. We concur that the report does indeed identify
many technologies; however, we disagree that the report "evaluates" any of them.
Accordingly, we recommend that the words "and evaluate" between the words
"identify" and "technologies" be stricken from this sentence.
The major purpose of the Section 74 Seafood Processing Study was to
evaluate the effects of seafood processes which discharge into marine waters.
Consequently, the scope of effort on page 1 should include an evaluation of the
technologies necessary for the proper disposal of seafood processing wastes into
marine waters. However, the report is completely void of any such evaluation.
2, 1, 1, In the scope of effort, the contractor states that costs were to be
developed for programs to achieve waste reductions through in-house management
and end-of-pipe treatment techniques. While some costs are shown, no source
or reference is cited for many of them. For example, see Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Without specific reference citations as to how these costs were developed, it is
impossible to comment on their validity.
2, 1, 2, The report does emphasize the utilization of seafood processing
wastes for human consumption; however, little or no discussion is presented on
the problems of obtaining FDA approval for the marketing of by-products made
from seafood processing wastes for human or animal consumption. Problems in
obtaining FDA approval should be investigated and included in the report. Also,
this sentence lumps demonstrated technologies such as the production of fish meal
and fish oil with speculative and unestablished markets for new human consumption
and chitin/chitosan products. Throughout the report, reference to the production
of new products for human consumption and other theoretically producable products
such as chitin/chitosan should be clearly identified and presented as possible
alternatives that may be available sometime in the future but that they are not
presently available. A reader of the paragraph as written could conclude that
the production of by-products for human consumption and chitin/chitosan are just
as available as by-products such as fish meal and fish oil. This simply is not
true and should not be implied in the report.
While the seafood processing industry looks forward to the development
of new by-products from seafood wastes, we caution the contractor to keep in
mind the following economic and regulatory facts: (1) fish and shell meal plants
not processing a primary fish meal product such as menhaden are net loss opera-
tions; (2) the chitin/chitosan plant in Brownsville, Texas, went into financial
backruptcy; (3) uses of protein by-products derived from seafood wastes, i.e.
DAF sludges, by the use of polymers and chemicals will be stringently regulated
by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration; and (4) neither chitosan nor any
other polymeric agent currently used in DAF systems has FDA approval.
Considering the economic and regulatory constraints on the use of chitcsan
and any by-products recovered with its aid, caution is urged in promoting chitosan
as a solution to seafood waste disposal. This concern has apparently been recog-
nized by the economic contractor (DPRA) who concludes that chitosan is not
economically feasible under present conditions.
-------
- 4 -
If the contractor is predisposed to urge recovery of protein materials
from seafood wastes to serve as feed, and food supplies, we fail to see why the
contractor has failed to recognize the nutritional value of feeding these materials
to marine organisms.
2, 1, 3, The statement is made that an economic study is being "undertaken
by another contractor. " The other contractor should be identified.
2, 2, The report does not address technologies for discharging or
dispersing seafood processing wastes to marine waters. We strongly recommend
that the report be revised to address the various methods for returning seafood
processing wastes to the marine environment. The contractor should not rule
out this low-cost, environmentally acceptable, disposal alternative.
2, 2, 1, The report does not, but should, address disposal alternatives
and potential uses of wastes in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, and American Samoa.
The contractor should either include these areas in the report or explain why they
were omitted.
2, 3, 3, As we noted at 2, 2, "the major areas of interest," should
have included an assessment of technologies to ". . . facilitate the use of the
nutrients in these wastes ..." when discharged". . . into the marine environment. "
(See Section 74 of the Clean Water Act. )
4, 1, 1, This sentence should be rewritten to read as follows:
This report addresses three of the major topic areas relating to the
Section 74 Seafood Processing Study:
1. Return of seafood, processing wastes to the marine environment;
2. Waste control technology and the coats associated, with reducing
seafood waste discharges; and
3. Utilization and disposal of materials accumulated through the
application of waste control technologies.
4, 3, 1, The statement is made that the tuna processing segment and modern
fish meal plants (with solubles) should be assed separately from the rest of the
seafood processing-industry with respect to waste control and utilization because
they "best demonstrate the philosophy of total utilization of raw materials. " We
concur that the tuna processing industry has installed the highest level of waste-
water treatment employed by the seafood processing industry and that they do
indeed utilize as much of the raw material as possible. However, the contractor's
emphasis should be placed not on the philosophy of total utilization but on the
differences between the tuna processing industry and the other subcategories,
such as length of season, volume of raw product processed, plant size, ability
to hire professional environmental staff, potential of waste materials for manu-
facture of by-products, proximity of processing plants to by-product (reduction)
-------
- 5 -
plants, processing equipment employed, and degree of treatment required on
a case-by-case basis in order to protect receiving water quality. In other words,
we concur that the tuna and fish meal processing industries should be assessed
separately from the rest of the seafood processing industry but we do not agree
that it should be based upon a philosophy of total utilization; rather, it should be
based upon the fundamentally different characteristics of the industries. We
recommend the report be rewritten to differentiate clearly between these two
vastly different segments of the seafood processing industry.
5, 2, We recommend that this paragraph be rewritten as follows:
/
Seafood processors comprising the remaining segments of the industry
are generally small, seasonal operations, often family owned, which
have complied with the existing EPA effluent guidelines.
We strongly disagree with the statement that most of these plants operate
antiquated processing equipment and demonstrate limited and unsophisticated
waste management techniques. The equipment is not antiquated. If a new plant
were to be constructed today, equipment similar to that currently employed
would be installed. We strongly believe that the waste management techniques
currently employed are adequate to prevent degradation of marine wasters at
most locations.
5, 3, We recommend that this paragraph be deleted from the report. The
first sentence states that the significance of waste loads generated by the seafood
processors has been recognized by EPA during its previous investigations; however,
the "significance" is not identified, nor are the previous investigations referenced
which have been "recognized" by EPA. The second sentence states that the impact
of waste discharges from this industry has been documented at several sites;
however, no references are cited and the word "impact" is not explained. Waste
discharges can have both beneficial and adverse impacts. References should be
provided showing both types of impact. The third sentence of this paragraph
could remain.
6, 1, 5, The applicability of this sentence to the report is questioned.
The barometric condenser water and condensate are not wastewaters, do not
require treatment, and are discharged directly to the receiving wasters. It is
not comingled with processing wastewaters. The statement is made that unloading
water is usually combined with "another concentrated waste stream. " This other
concentrated waste stream should be identified.
6, 1, 3, The sentence beginning with the words "fish meal" should begin
a new paragraph.
6, 2, 1, The term "at less progressive canneries" should be deleted,
6, 2, 3, The seafood processing industry disagrees with the statement
that biological treatment systems should be considered. Just because the tuna
industry processes essentially the year around is no basis to imply that biological
treatment is an appropriate treatment alternative. In our view a Federal require-
ment for application of biological treatment for any segment of the seafood processing
industry would result in "treatment for treatment's sake. "
-------
- 6 -
6, 3, 1, The term "minor improvements, such as ..." should be
deleted. The sentence would then read: Containing spills and reducing water
use during washdown are pertinent to modern fish meal facilities.
6, 3, 3, The sentence beginning with the word facilities should begin a
new paragraph. Also, the period at the end of this sentence should be changed
to a semicolon and we recommend that the following be added: however, the
feasibility of installing solubles plants must be evaluated on a plant-by-plant
basis.
7, 1, This paragraph should be rewritten. The contractor should
recognize the discharge of seafood processing wastes into the marine environment
as a waste disposal alternative. Instead, the paragraph implies that all seafood
processors should undertake extensive in-plant modification programs to control
waster use and minimize contact of processing water with the raw material and
wastes. Such in-plant modifications should only be considered where local
water quality conditions indicate that complex wastewater treatment technologies
may be required. We disagree with the implication of this paragraph that improved
in-plant operations to control water use will result in reduced waste loadings and
also provide improved potential for more complete raw material utilization. The
manufacturing of secondary products for human consumption and by-products for
animal feed, and other purposes such as production of chitin/chitosan are business
ventures in themselves. Just because a seafood processor upgrades in-plant
operations, does a "better" job of controlling water use, and handles the raw
material and resulting wastes in a "better" manner does not mean that acceptable
markets can be found for by-products made from these wastes. We recommend
that this paragraph be rewritten in the following manner:
Processing activities vary among the remaining segments of the seafood
processing industry. Those segments able to utilize grinding or
screening need not concern themselves with capital intensive in-plant
changes to reduce-the quantities of waste generated or the amounts of
water used. However, for those plants where more complex treatment
may be required, individual plants should investigate in-plant modifi-
cations to control water use and minimize water contact with the raw
material and wastes. Reduced water consumption could result in a
reduction in the size of the wastewater treatment system ultimately
constructed or in the size of barges needed. It is important to recognize
that reduced water consumption usually does not result in reduced waste
loadings. Rather, when water is recycled and used only where necessary,
the waste materials become concentrated in the liquid waste streams.
7, 2, 1, We concur that there is a concern for environmental protection
on the part of the seafood processing industry. However, we do not agree that
there is a growing concern for improved environmental protection. On the contrary,
the seafood processing industry believes that the environment is generally adequately
protected by the wastewater treatment technologies current in place. Consequently,
we do not agree that there are current economic incentives for more effective
in-plant waste management on the part of the industry.
-------
- 7 -
7, Z, Z, This sentence should be rewritten as follows:
Seasonal food processors generally have only screening technology
in place. This technology is adequate at most locations in order to
protect receiving water quality.
The phrase "with the exception of the major tuna processors and modern
fish meal plants, " should be deleted from this sentence because it is redundant.
This part of the report refers only to "other industry segments. "
7, Z, 3, This sentence should be deleted. We do not agree that physical-
chemical treatment methods (such as DAF) should be considered or emphasized
for seasonal seafood processing plants.
8, 1, 1, We disagree with the statement that most seasonal seafood
processing plants can economically afford to upgrade their wastewater practices.
The contractor has assumed that seasonal seafood processing plants in the contiguous
states will be able to install, maintain, and operate the complex wastewater treat-
ment system, dissolved air flotation and remain in business. We disagree. The
imposition of controls requiring technology greater than screening will result in
widespread plant closures and industry dislocations. Even the EPA Economic
Impact Documents predict that many plant closures would result from the applica-
tion of this technology (see Tables VI-7 and VI-8 of EPA Economic Impact
Documents Nos. 230/2-74-025 and 230/2-75-047, respectively).
8, 2, 1, The manual operations discussed in this sentence should be
identified. Are they hand-filleting of bottom fish, butchering of salmon, or crab
picking?
8, 2, 2, The word "can" is inappropriate. This sentence should be
modified to read as follows:
Some plants may be able to afford higher levels of treatment where
necessary to achieve locally derived water quality standards.
8, 2, 3, The catfish sentence should begin a new paragraph.
8, 3, 1, We disagree that all of the waste management concepts and
treatment technologies discussed in this report have been proven by model plants.
Many of the technologies may have been tried by pilot plants but they certainly
have not been proven or demonstrated to be widely applicable to the entire industry.
Particularly, technologies such as biological treatment and reverse osmosis have
not been proven applicable to the seafood processing industry. This sentence
should be rewritten to read as follows:
Some of the waste management concepts and wastewater treatment
technologies discussed herein have already been tried by model
plants within various segments of the seafood industry.
-------
- 8 -
8, 3, 2, We concur that many of the technologies considered in this
report have been applied successfully by other food industries; however, this
does not mean that these technologies should be considered applicable to the
seafood processing industry.
8, 3, 3, The contractor states that the levels of technology included in
the report are "proposed" for the various industry segments. We were not
aware that this report was intended to propose levels of technology.
8, 3, 4, We disagree that the levels of technology "proposed" by the
contractor reflect the special nature of the seafood processing industry. This
sentence contradicts the sentence at 8, 3, 2, which states that the technologies
considered applicable have been applied successfully by "related food industry
in the United States and abroad. " We concur that the contractor has applied
technologies utilized by other food industries to the seafood processing industry;
however, the technologies applied by other food industries do not "reflect the
special nature of the seafood industry," particularly its processing operations
and most importantly, its geographic location. If the contractor did take into
consideration the geographical location, the report would contain a discussion
of means of dispersing seafood processing wastes into marine waters.
8, 3, 3, The industry disagrees that the contractor has adequately
examined the effectiveness and associated costs of the "proposed" technologies.
In order to do this, the contractor would have to examine the costs of achieving
particular pollutant reductions against the economic impact that such costs would
have on processing plants, and the contractor would have to examine the effect
of pollutant reduction discharges on receiving wasters. The contractor has taken
neither of these steps.
9 and 10, Table 1, No references are provided for the sources of the
costs presented. Accordingly, we cannot comment on their validity; however,
the biological systems for tuna apparently do not include the additional cost of
DAF construction, operation and maintenance. DAF would probably be required
for efficient operation.
11, 1, 1, We question the statement that wastes generated by seafood
processors have "some value. " Those residuals that are already utilized to
manufacture by-product are not wastes. The residuals that remain after by-
product manufacture are wastes and have "no value. "
11, 1, 5, The contractor has concluded that existing wastewater treatment
techniques will not be allowed in the future. Also, the contractor has concluded
that the discharge of seafood processing wastes adversely impact water quality.
Both of these conclusions are improper as well as incorrect. Accordingly, this
sentence should be deleted from the report.
11, 2, 1, The word "sophisticated" should be replaced with the word
"complex. "
-------
- 9 -
Pages 11 through 15 discuss seafood waste utilization and disposal
techniques. We recommend that this section be divided into two sections as
was done in the section on Waste Control and Treatment, pages 5 through 10.
The first section would be on Tuna and Modern Fish Meal Processing plants,
and the second section would be on Other Industry Segments. The rationale for
this recommendation is that the seafood waste utilization and disposal alternatives
are different for these two segments of the industry.
11, 3, 2, The word "modern" should be replaced with the word "some. "
11, 3, 3, We disagree with the statement that the addition of solubles to
fish meal improves the quality of the product. Also, the words "as with the tuna
canners1 approach," should be deleted, because the addition of solubles to fish
meal is not unique to the tuna processing industry.
IE, 1, 3, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
Investigations are required to establish the feasibility of producing
an animal feed additive, fertilizer from float, or disposal at sea.
12, 2, 1, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
For the remaining segments of the industry, where waste utilization
is desirable, improved in-plant waste management may be necessary.
We disagree with the tone of this sentence which implies that existing waste
management techniques are not "enlightened. "
' 12, 2, 2, The words "and utilized" should be deleted from this sentence.
Just because you are able to collect the solids does not mean that you will be able
to utilize them. Also, the words "and the solids generated by biological waste-
water treatment systems" should be deleted. There is no current nationally
approved method by which these solids can be utilized for the production of any
by-product use,
12, 2, 3, This sentence should be rewritten as follows:
Once collected, these solids have potential for reuse as animal feed,
fertilizers, and other useful materials, depending on the species
processed, processing steps employed, chemicals used, and the
granting of approval for such use by the Food and Drug Administration^-
14, 1, 1, The phrase "a more interesting" should be replaced with the
word "another. "
14, 1, 2, We recommend that the first part of this sentence be revised to
read as follows: "These natural polymers have potential for a wide range of
applications, "
15, 1, 1, The other study participants should be identified.
-------
- 10 -
15, 1, 3, We recommend that the first part of this sentence be revised
to read as follows: Other theoretical by-product alternatives which have yet to
be demonstrated feasible include ...
15, 2, 2, We recommend that a period be placed at the end of the word
"accomplish" and the remainder of the sentence deleted. Most food processors do
not consider barging costs to be "reasonable" and they do not believe that their
current discharges adversely impact near-shore waters.
15, 3, 2, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
By-product production may be a solution for disposal of gross and
screened solids at some locations.
The contractor has utilized the term "by-product recovery. " By-products are
produced, wastes are recovered. Generally, by-product production results in
a negative cash flow and therefore is not an "attractive solution. "
17, 1, 1, The word "contaminated" should be replaced by the words
"process contact."
17, 2, 1, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
Concern for the environmental effects of wastewaters discharged to
receiving waters by municipal and industrial point sources has led the
United States Congress to provide EPA with the authority to issue
guidelines for the cleanup and regulation of the discharges.
The contractor has erroneously charged the nation's seafood processing
industry with being the reason for enactment of the 1972 amendments to the Water
Pollution Control Act. This statement may reflect the attitude of the contractor
toward the industry; however, the House passed version of the 1972 amendments
exempted seafood processing wastes from the definition of "pollutant"
(see Committee Print, Serial Number 92-1, Legislative History of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Volume I, January, 1973, page 1068).
17, 2, 2, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
Federal regulations, referred to.as secondary treatment and effluent
limitations guidelines, have specified the maximum amount of waste
materials for pollutants which can be discharged by municipalities and
industrial point sources,
17, 2, 1, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
The seafood processing industry has made a considerable effort and
has generally achieved compliance with applicable federal and local
waster pollution control requirements.
-------
- 11 -
It is inappropriate to compare wastewater treatment techniques employed in other
food processing industries to seasonal seafood processing plants. While it is a
fact that other food processing industries do employ more complex wastewater
treatment methods than seasonal seafood processors do, there are valid reasons
for the implementation of different technologies. For instance, most other food
processing industries are operated year round, discharge into inland waters,
have greater economic stability, are usually larger in size, and have control over
their raw material supply. If the contractor wishes to compare the wastewater
treatment techniques of the seafood processing industry with other food processing
industries, the inherent differences between the two industries should be clearly
noted.
17, 3, 2, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
While the Agency has required other food processors such as meat
packers and poultry processors to adopt more complex and costly
technology than those implemented by the seafood processing industry,
there are valid reasons for the different technologies. Among these
differences are year-round operations, point of discharge (ocean vs.
inland waters), economic capability, plant size, and control over raw
material supply.
17, 4, 4, The term "often antiquated" should be deleted and replaced with
the following: "Adequate to comply with existing federal and state requirements. "
17, 4, 5, The remaining sentences of this paragraph should be deleted
or placed in a separate section discussing the tuna and fish meal processing
industries.
18, 1, 3, The words "or no" should be inserted between the words "limited1
and "land. "
18, 2, 1, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
Technologies for reducing the discharge of solid and liquid waste
from seafood processing plants can be segregated into two categories.
18, 3, 3, While the statement is correct, the contractor should emphasize
that decreased water usage is only useful in the design stage of the consideration
of wastewater treatment alternatives. Once the treatment facility has been
constructed there may not be any tangible results of water conservation practices,, -
For example, the operation and maintenance costs for dissolved air flotation of
tuna processing waste is about 80% for the suspended solids loading and 20% for
water. Consequently, even if the amount of water were to be cut in half, little
savings in the operation and maintenance costs would be achieved.
19, 1, 1, The words "foreign matter or pollutant" should be replaced with
the words "volumes of wastes. "
-------
- 12 -
19, 2, 3, This sentence states that the "model" plant represents "existing
plants. " After having made an extensive analysis of information contained in the
development document, we question the contrator's statement. The sentence provides
no source for its reference to these existing plants. We are of the view that the
contractor has erred and that these "existing plants" do not in fact exist.
19, 3, 1, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
The model plants generate less wastewater than other plants which
have not installed equivalent in-plant management practices, reflecting
the use of intensive water saving techniques of most model plants.
The contractor has improperly concluded that plants using more water than the
model plants have "poor" in-plant management practices.
19, 4, 1, This sentence should be deleted. Where are the references to
show that comprehensive water and waste management programs can produce
"economic benefits" particularly for plants which already have adequate waste
disposal facilities in place to protect receiving waters. Also, what are the
"traditional practices" that seafood processors must break away from?
21, 2, 1, The word "principal" should be deleted from this sentence.
21, 2, 3, The word "simple" should be deleted from this sentence.
21, 4, 1, The word "pollutants" should be replaced with the word "wastes. "
21, 4, 2, The words "extremely contaminated" should be replaced with
the words "heavily leaded. "
22, 1, 1, The words "more sophisticated" should be replaced with the
word "other. "
22, 1, 2, The word "contaminated" should be replaced with the word
"concentrated. "
24, 1, 5, The contractor should identify the specific solid wastes that are
believed to be utilizable and the "valuable commodities" that can be made from
these wastes should also be identified.
24, 3, 1, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
Based on existing wastewater treatment requirements, currently
employed in-plant control measures are effective in managing seafood
processing wastes.
The contractor has erroneously concluded that existing in-plant control measures
in seafood processing plants are "lacking. "
-------
- 13 -
24, 3, 2, We recommend that this statement be revised to read as follows:
The seafood processing industry is reluctant to adopt complex waste
management techniques for two reasons: (1) the maintenance of traditional
practices and conceptions which are based upon the rationale of "returning
to the sea what came from the sea;" and (2) the end-of-pipe technology
currently required by state and federal governments is adequate to protect
receiving waters at most locations.
Consequently, there is no need for the seafood processing industry to emphasize
complex procedures or technologies for reducing raw waste loads.
27, 2, 1, The contractor is implying that EPA should increase the level
of control imposed on seafood processing plants and that no segment of the industry
will have any problem with compliance. We disagree strongly with the tone of this
sentence and recommend that it be deleted. The contractor has made no economic
impact analysis to determine if in fact all segments of the industry can adopt more
effective in-plant water and waste management practices,
27, 2, 2, Again, the contractor has prejudged the report and has concluded
that discharges to the marine environment should be eliminated. We recommend .
that this sentence also be deleted from the report.
27, 2, 2, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
Once a plant determines that in-plant modifications are necessary,
the elimination of flumes for raw material, finished product, and
waste conveyance can be installed where economically justified.
27, 2, 4, This, sentence is repetitive and can be deleted.
27, 2, 5, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
In-plant measures and process modifications can play an important
role in minimizing economic impacts on plants which decide to implement
costly end-of-pipe treatment technology.
28, 2, 1, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
The levels of treatment employed by seafood processors are adequate
to comply with existing federal and state requirements.
28, 2, 2, We recommend that the word "sophisticated" be replaced with
the word "complex. "
28, 2, 3, We recommend the following new sentence be added at the end
of the sentence ending in the words "marine environment! "
However, the application of such technology is unnecessary in most
cases for the protection of receiving waters.
-------
- 14 -
28, 2, 4, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
End-of-pipe treatment approaches available to the seafood processing
industry are described in the Development Documents. The only
information presented here is new information that was not discussed
in the Development Documents.
We do not believe that there is a need to repeat in this report information that is
already available in the Development Documents. Only that information that is
new or updated should be presented here.
28, As noted previously, the contractor has made no reference to techniques
for disposing of seafood processing wastes in the marine environment. Such
techniques should be discussed at this point in the report.
36, 2, 1, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
Biological processes do not comprise a common technology for the
treatment of effluents generated by the seafood processing industry;
however, these processes are common for treatment of municipal
wastewaters and effluents by some other segments of the food processing
industry.
38, 1, 5, We question the statement that the extended aeration process has
been demonstrated on seafood processing wastes. Rather, we are of the view
that it has been attempted on pilot plants but not full scale levels.
39, 1, 8, We recommend that the word "demonstrated" be replaced with
the word "attempted. "
42, 3, 5, We disagree with the implication that just because tuna canneries
are continuously operated that biological treatment systems are applicable for them.
42, 3, 6, This sentence should be deleted. The fact that vessels travel
thousands of miles has no effect on this report.
43, 2, A section should be added to the discussion of physical-chemical
treatment techniques on operator training requirements. How many people are
required, what should be their qualifications, and how much should they be paid?
The contractor notes at 57, 2, 2, that skilled labor is restrictive in Alaska.
Why isn't it also restrictive to seasonal processing plants in the contiguous states?
47, 2, 3, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
A full scale application has been limited to a trout processing plant
in Idaho.
The unit at Treminal Island, California, has not been operated at full-scale.
47, 2, 4, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
-------
- 1 5 -
In Russia, a flotation cell with mechanically induced air has been
treating fish processing effluent.
48, 1, 2, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
Some private testing has been performed on tuna cannery effluents.
48, 2, 2, We recommend that the words "need to combine" be replaced
with the words "possibility of combining. "
48, 2, 4, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
However, an advantage noted for the hybrid system is the possible
concentration of the floated material within the unit to a higher than
normal level.
48, 3, 1, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
It is apparent that electroflotation has not been demonstrated
sufficiently to gain acceptance by the seafood processing industry.
48, 4, 2, We recommend that the word "pollutant" be replaced with
the word "waste. "
49, 2, 2, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
However, these advanced, systems are seldom applicable to
seafood processing.
49, 3, 5, We recommend that the word "can" be replaced with the word
"may. "
52, 2, 3 and 4, We recommend that these two sentences be deleted.
52, 2, We recommended that the following sentence be added at the end
of this paragraph:
Several of the noted methods have been tried by the tuna industry
and have not been proven feasible.
53, 2, 1, In item 3, we recommend that the words "seep" and "into" be
deleted.
53, 3, 3, We recommend that the word "would" be replaced by the
word "can".
54, 3, 3, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
The most basic and prevalent end-of-pipe treatments have been
grinding with direct discharge and solid separation by screening.
-------
-16-
55, Table 5, references for the data shown in this table should be provided.
56, Table 6, references for the data in this table should be provided.
56, 2, 2, We recommend that this sentence be rewritten as follows:
The usefulness of dissolved air flotation systems for removal of
suspended solids and oil and grease has been demonstrated on a full-
scale level at several tuna canneries within the United States and its
territories.
56, 2, 3, We recommend that this sentence be deleted and replaced with
the following sentence:
However, attainment of higher removal efficiencies has been proved
economically unsound.
56, 3, 4, The term "optimized DAF systems" should be defined. Also,
we recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
For the other segments of the seafood processing industry, the
capabilities of optimized DAF systems have been demonstrated in
limited tests conducted in the United States and Canada utilizing
federal grants.
57, 3, A new sentence is recommended to be added between the words
"industry" and "Table 7" to read as follows:
However, practical and economically feasible application of this
technology to commercial processors in the United States has not
been demonstrated for most species listed.
57, Table 7, references should be provided for the data in this table.
Also, the industry representative from the Maine Sardine Council suggests that
the plant size for sardine and herring fillet plants be increased to 60 and 120
tons per day, respectively; the total daily flow for these plants should be increased
to 0. 1 and 0. 2 million gallons per day, respectively, and the capital and O&M costs
for each of these should be increased by at least 50%. Also, the American Shrimp
Canners Association reports that "there is a discrepancy in the Southern, non-
breaded shrimp category. The plant size and total daily flow do not conform to the
experience and studies made by ASCA for DAF systems operations." Accordingly,
the projected costs are in error. For additional information contact Mr. A. J.
Szabo (318/232-5182) or see the following report: Dissolved Air Flotation Treat-
ment of Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater, June 1978, EPA Project No. SS03338-01-1«
59, 1, 1, The words "are allowed to': should be deleted.
59, 1, 3, The words "then allowed to escape into" should be, replaced with
the word "entered. "
-------
- 17 -
59, 1, 5, The words "the more" should be deleted.
59, 2, 2, This sentence should be rewritten as follows:
Historically, comprehensive in-plant water and waste management
practices have not been needed generally in this industry.
60, 1, 3, This sentence should be rewritten as follows:
Relatively simple management practices are available to approach
recovery of the raw material; however, these practices are not
widely employed by the industry due to economic considerations,
market limitations, and regulatory constraints.
It is generally "simple" to recover raw material; however, utilization of
recovered materials is not "simple" as implied by the contractor.
60, 3, 1, The word "sophisticated" should be replaced with the word
"complex. "
60, 3, 2, The beginning of this sentence should be revised to read as follows:
Most common are grinding and direct discharge, or simple solids
separation systems . . .
60, 3, 4, The word "manufacturing" should be substituted for the word
"manufacture. "
61, 1, 1, The word "pollutant" should be replaced with the word "waste. "
62, 1, 1, The word "care" should be replaced with the word "caution. "
62, 2, 2 and 3, The contractor should include a discussion of the likely
impact of EPA's Solid Waste Disposal Criteria (February 6, 1978 Federal Register),
and EPA's proposed Hazardous Substances Regulations (December 18, 1978
Federal Register) on the disposal of DAF sludges containing "salt" and "significant
concentrations of aluminum." Will disposal sites continue to be available for
deposit of these wastes?
62, 3, Throughout Section B, the contractor in discussing the current
secondary and by-product production methods suggests that the industry does not
look for innovative ways to produce and market waste materials. On the contrary,
the industry has tried a number of techniques which have not proven feasible.
The contractor has reported on two of these attempts at 68, 3 and 74, 3, 2. Yet,
these trial methods which have failed continue to appear in the report as methods
which are practical and the industry is criticized for not implementing them.
We recommend that the by-product production and utilization methods
presented in Section B be discussed in the following categories:
-------
- 18 -
1. Successful commercial ventures;
2. Attempted commercial ventures;
3. Pilot projects; and
4. Theoretical considerations.
Such categorization is essential to full understanding and discussion of by-product
production and marketing.
63, 2, 6, The words "can also be" should be substituted with the words
"hold the possibility of being. "
65, 2, 5, It is a fact, not an "indication" that additional investigations
are necessary to gain FDA approval for the use of chitosan as a food (or feed)
additive. The contractor should provide in the report a thorough analysis of the
requirements and costs for obtaining FDA clearance.
65, 3, 2, The word "readily" should be deleted.
67, 1, 4, The words "less than one tenth" should be replaced with the
words "approximately 3% of. "
67, 2, 1, The word "than" should be replaced with the word "from. "
68, 2, 3, This sentence should be deleted. Water quality considerations
were not part of the Administrator's procedures for designating these non-remote
areas. The Clean Water Act does not currently provide for consideration of water
quality factors in the establishment of effluent guidelines. The purpose of the
Section 74 Seafood Study was for EPA to prepare a report for Congress' considera-
tion so it could consider -whether or not to amend the law to allow water quality
factors to be considered in the determination of effluent limitations for seafood
processing plants.
68, 2, 4, The words "people demanding lower wages" should be substituted
with the word "workers. "
68, 3, 1, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
Two non-remote areas --Kodiak and Petersburg -- have reduction
facilities which convert fish processing wastes to by-products.
Seward is not a remote area.
68, 3, 3, The following new sentence should be inserted after the words
"immediate area":
It was constructed to serve as a waste disposal facility for the
processors and is subsidized as such by the processors.
-------
- 19 -
68, 3, 4, This sentence should be revised to read as follows:
The facility in Petersburg was intended to be economically self-
sufficient in producing fish meal and oil from whole fish and
processing wastes generated in its geographical area.
69, 1, The remainder of this paragraph after the words "geographical area"
should be revised to read as follows:
However, the facility has not been operated at full capacity on an
annual basis due to the limited availability of raw materials. This
limited availability does not result from the waste management
practices of the area plants. It results from the lack of a continuous
processing season. Because the Petersburg reduction plant has excess
capacity, it will generally accept processing wastes transported from
outside the immediate area. This plant has received and processed
wastes from processors located more than 100 miles away on a trial
basis, but this did not prove economically feasible and has been
discontinued.
69, 2, 2, The remainder of this paragraph after the word "procedure"
should be revised to read as follows:
Alaskan salmon canneries, on a trial basis, have collected, packaged,
and frozen salmon heads for shipment to Seattle pet food operations.
This practice did not prove economically feasible and it has been
discontinued.
69, 2, 3 and 4, These sentences should be deleted.
70, 2, This paragraph should be revised to read as follows:
Solids handling and disposal practices which have been adopted by
most segments of the seafood processing industry are practical but
unsophisticated. With the exception of the tuna and fish meal processing
segments, there has been limited implementation of in-plant waste
management practices or secondary by-product manufacturing. Most
changes in-plant water and waste management have resulted from either
a serious pollution problem or normal economic advantages derived
from more complete raw material utilization.
70, 3, 1, This sentence should be deleted. The contractor has improperly
concluded that the existing wastewater practices employed by the seafood processing
industry are inadequate in order to protect receiving waters.
70, 3, 2, The words "The most economical" should be replaced by the
words "If necessary. "
70, 3, 4, The words "readily yield" should be replaced by the words
"result in. "
-------
- 20 -
71, 1, 1, The words "create the need" should be replaced by the words
"create a need. " The word "identifying" should be deleted; and the words
"options for" should be replaced by the words "options in. "
71, 1, 2, The words "a number of" should be replaced by the word "some. "
71, 1, item 4, the term "ultimate disposal methods" should be replaced by
the term "other disposal methods. "
72, 2, 4, The word "readily" should be deleted.
72, 3, 3, This sentence should be deleted because the production of meal is
not a "secondary product" intended for human consumption.
73, 3,1, In item 2, the word "can" should be substituted by the word "may. "
74, 2, 3, The words "37 to 60%" should be deleted.
74, 2, 4, This sentence should be deleted. Conventional filleting techniques
do not yield secondary products. They yield primary product.
74, 2, 7, The word "can" should be substituted by the word "may. "
74, 3, 2 and 3, These sentences should be deleted or at least modified to
accurately reflect that this facility is no longer producing this product because of
economics.
74, 3, 4, The word "bottom fish" should be replaced by the words "only
fin fish. "
74, 3, 5, The word "can" should be replaced with the word "may. "
76, 2, 2, The word "scraps" should be replaced by the words "blood
meats" and the words "less appealing" should be replaced by the words "off-color, "
76, 3, A new sentence should be added at the end of this paragraph as follows:
This has proved feasible in only a limited number of non-Alaskan plants,
80, 1, The contractor should discuss the additional costs involved in handling,
shipping, and storing the liquid fish silage in comparison to dried meal. Also,
what are the economics of drying silage compared to the normal fish meal process?
What benefits would result from drying fish silage? Why not make fish meal in
the first place?
81, 1, In the first item, the contractor should identify the aquaculture
operations and should identify which species would be utilized to achieve the
desired pigmentation.
-------
- 21 -
83, 1, 2, The beginning of this sentence should be modified to read as
follows: "Suspended solids, oil and grease which are attached to . . . "
83, 2, 2, We believe the 20% figure to be in error; shouldn't this figure
be 10% as shown on page 61.
83, 3, 1, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
The removal of colloidal constituents at times can be aided by adjusting
the pH to the isoelectric point of fish protein (pH 4. 5 to 5. 0); however,
pH adjustment to this low level requires that the equipment be designed
for resistence to acid corrosion. Also, the pH must be readjusted to
between 6. 0 and 9. 0 prior to discharge to receiving water.
84, 1, The following qualifier should be added at the end of the last sentence
of this paragraph: "float; however, FDA has not approved any such chemicals for
food or feed use as of the date of this report. " The contractor should explore
with FDA if any companies have submitted petitions for food or feed additive
tolerances for any of the chemicals used in DAF treatment. The results of this
exploration should be included in this report.
85, 3, 4, The meat packer should be identified with a reference.
85, 3, 5, A reference should also be provided for the production of methane
from the DAF float.
86, 1, 1, A reference should be provided for the Colorado brewery which
utilizes chemical treatment and DAF to thicken sludge from a secondary waste -
water treatment plant.
86, 1, 2, The following qualifier should be added at the end of this sentence:
"; but only in the State of Colorado because FDA has not approved it
for use in interstate commerce. "
The contractor has left the reader with the impression that the marketing of such
a product is a very simple procedure. As stated previously in these comments,
the contractor should provide a full discussion of the problems involved in obtaining
FDA clearance for the production and marketing of such materials.
86, 3, 1, We recommend that this sentence be deleted. The contractor
provides no references for his conclusion on foreign seafood processors.
86, 3, 2, We recommend that this sentence be revised to read as follows:
In the United States, continuous research is being conducted by the
tuna canners on the use of DAF float; however, at the present time,
there are no approved markets for DAF float. Consequently, the
domestic processors which employ DAF treatment generally dispose
of it in land fills.
-------
- 22 -
86, 4, 1, References should be provided.
87, 1, 2, The word "might" should be inserted between the words "methods"
and "include", at both places in this sentence.
88, 1, 3, The words "is no greater than the total plant uptake" should be
substituted by the words "is not in excess of the system's ability to assimilate it. "
89, 2, 1, This sentence should be deleted. The contractor has improperly
concluded that seafood processing plants must install dissolved air flotation
facilities to comply with future wastewater treatment requirements.
89, 2, 2, The words "by EPA" should be inserted between the words
"identified" and "as."
89, 2, 3, The word "hopefully" should be deleted.
90, 1, This paragraph should be deleted as the potential worldwide protein
shortage has no impact on wastewater treatment requirements for seafood processing
plants. The entire paragraph is based on conclusions of the contractor without any
reference to the volumes of food needed to solve the world's protein shortage or
how much of this need seafood processing wastes could help alleviate, if they could
miraculously be converted from a waste to a food.
90, 1, 3, If the contractor wishes to discuss overseas operations, references
should be provided and the geographic, climatic, size of plant, length of season,
government assistance programs, and other differences between the U. S. and the
others should be included in the discussion.
92, 2, This paragraph is repetitive of previous information and should
be deleted.
92, 2, 2, Does the "approved water treatment polymer" have approval
from FDA as a food or feed additive?
93, 2, 3, The word "much" should be replaced by the word "some" and
a period should be added after the word "environment". The term "as waste
material" should be deleted.
94, 2, 4, A comma should be added after the word "waste disposal" and
the term "high-prof it" should be deleted.
114, 1, 4, The words "some of" should be inserted between the word
"At" and the word "the. " Also, the words "highly contaminated" should be deleted.
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
National Food Processo* Association Economics and SIall3llc,
1133 Twentieth Slrool M.W., Wachinci'.on. D.G. ?003!i l> Lav.-rencc Van Meir
Telephone 202/331-5900 Director
202/331-5997
April 16, 1979
Sammy K. Ng
Office of Analysis and Evaluation (WH-586)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Regarding: Comments on the March 1979 Draft Report titled Market ing Fcas ibili _ty
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in Alaska, prepared for EPA by
the Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., Manhattan,
Kansas.
I pear Mr. Ng:
The National Food Processors Association, formerly the National Canners
Association, is a nonprofit trade association representing approximately 650
companies who pack about 90 percent of the total United States production of
canned foods for human consumption. The seafood processing members of NFPA
are pleased to have an opportunity to provide comments on the above draft
contractor report to EPA on the Section 74 Seafood Study. Our comments are
provided on an individual page, paragraph and sentence number basis.
Page 1-5, 3, 1, The statement is made that crab and shrimp meal are
"low value." What is meant by the term "low value"? What is the value in
relation to salmon meal?
Page 1-5, 3, 3, The statement is made that "if all of the wastes
available were processed as presented in Chapter II, Alaska could account
for nearly 10 percent of the U.S. production." The part of the statement
"all of the waste available" should be explained, Are these the wastes found
in Petersburg, Seward and Kodiak; or are they all of the wastes that may be
available in Alaska?
Page 1-5, 1, 5, It is implied that the low capacity of utilization of
reduction plants, other than at Kodiak, is due to seafood processing plants not
collecting their wastes for the reduction plants. If it were economically
feasible to collect these wastes for processing, would not the seafood processing
plants already be doing it?. This study has left out this most important point,
i.e., it is not economically feasible to collect wastes from other plants
to process. Unfortunately, the contractor has not included a consideration
of such costs in its analyses. Another reason for the low percentage utilization
is that the reduction plants are large in relation to the available recoverable
wastes. This will always be a problem at most Alaskan points, In order to
handle peak seasonal flows, the plant will have substantial excess capacity
for the balance of the year.
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility Page 2.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska.
Page 1-10, 2, 1, The report does not analyze the supply and demand
factors underlying price elasticity of demand for fish and shellfish by-
products. The revenue estimates for the model meal plants in Alaska are
based on assumed prices of $360 per ton for salmon meal and $100 per ton
shellfish meal, the actual prices at Seattle in September of 1978
(Page I-15, 3). However, fish and shellfish meal was only available in
extremely limited quantities when these prices were obtained. Is it
reasonable to expect this price to hold if production of meal in Alaska
jumps to 13.4 million tons of salmon meal and 31.8 million tons of shellfish
meal? What would be the economic effect on the NPV of the plants if the
price were to drop considerably?
Page 1-13, 3,1, Although historical data on prices for Alaskan fish
lineal and oil are not available in published form, good factual data on
price and volume could have been obtained from Pacific Northwest fish meal
dealers or from Bio-Dry in Kodiak.
Page 1-15, 1,1, Reference is made to "... a regression technique
analysis utilizing supply and demand factors show that current prices are
fairly representative of normal conditions; ,..",No information is given
on the variables and source of data used in_ the analysis. At a minimum
the regression equation and identification of the variables along with
"t" values should be included in the text.
Page 1-15, 3, Table, A market analysis should be conducted to determine
an estimate of the price elasticity of demand for meal and oil products.
To what price levels would these products fall if production in Alaska were
to be increased by 50%? 100%? 200%?
Page 1-15, 4, 1, What part of potential production of shellfish meal
would the entire livestock industry of Alaska (or Washington) use? Does
Alaska have available sufficient quantities of other feeds (corn, barley)
to utilize significant quantities of shell meal? What percent of the feed
requirements can fish meal comprise?
Page II-l, 2, 2, The justification for use of limited and secondary
data was, "improbable total cooperation of all processors," and the need
to collect data over several years to arrive at complete and accurate data.
However, no attempt was made to contact the processors or their associations
for available data we would have cooperated fully to assist the contractor
had we been contacted. We believe that most of the data sought is already
public knowledge and that the contractor should be familiar with the sources
(See "Draft Report Industry Structure and Pricing Patterns in Alaskan Seafood
Industry" EPA Contract No. 68-01-4630, October 1978).
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility Page 3.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska
Page II-2, Table at bottom of page, The recoverable waste as percent
of live weight is statdd at 35 percent and 20 percent respectively for canned
salmon and fresh and frozen salmon. Industry experience is a recoverable
waste of 20-25 percent for canned salmon and 12-13 percent for fresh and
frozen salmon. Just on the basis of this overestimation of waste, assumed
production of salmon meal appears to be overestimated by about 60 percent.
Due to the price of salmon meal relative to shellfish meal, the use of more
realistic output of salmon meal for the model plants would result in a much
lower revenue for the model plants.
A factor that further reduces recoverable waste relative to total waste
is the physical removal of water clinging to seafood waste. The water is
physically removed to decrease fuel cost in the reduction process. However,
in the water removal process fish material is lost.
I'. Similarly for shrimp, recoverable waste falls significantly short of
total waste due to loss of body fluids and fine particulate material too
fine for screening.
Page II-6, 2, 3, The study points out that in 1976 the three existing
plants at Petersburg, Seward and Kodiak had a combined production of less
than 20 percent of the pro forma estimates for these plants. In view of this
fact, is it not unrealistic to base the analysis on the pro forma data?
Page 11-10, 1, 3, The projection of 300 thousand tons of potential
fish meal production in Alaska by the year 2000 is absolute speculation and of
no meaning to this study.
Page 11-14, Table II-7, In an earlier comment it was pointed out that
the assumed yield of recoverable waste for salmon was almost 60 percent above
industry experience. The total revenues in Table II-7 reflect this upward
bias in assumed yield of waste. For example, if industry experience is used
as a basis for recoverable waste, the total revenue for Kitchikan would be
$245,000 (471 tons of meal and 189 tons of oil). Revenues for the other
locations are also overstated.
Page 11-14, Table II-7, The revenue projected from crab waste should
be decreased to account for the 80 pounds of oil that must be added per
ton of crab meal necessary to reduce the dust sufficiently to permit handling,
shipping and use of crab meal.
Page II-14, Table II-7, In order to obtain seafood wastes of the
magnitude shown in Table 7 for Bristol Bay, it would be necessary to collect
wastes from a triangular area 50 miles at the base and approximately 75 miles
at the sides. It does not appear that the cost of collecting and transporting
this waste to Bristol Bay is included in the cost of operating the reduction
plant at Bristol Bay.
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility \ Page 4.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska
Page III-4, 1,3, The sizes of plants provided by the B.C. Jordan Company
should be provided in the footnote or in an Appendix.
Page III-4, 5,1, Because of errors in the estimation of recoverable
wastes available in Chapter II, these revenues appear to be overstated by
60 percent or more (See our comment about Page II-2, table at bottom of page).
Page III-5, Table III-l, The utilization of capacity for the existing
plant at Seward is given as 13 percent. The actual experience of this plant
has been a utilization rate of 5-6 percent of capacity. The inability of
the plant to operate at a higher rate of utilization is due to the unavailability
of an adequate supply of raw waste.
Page III-6, Table III-2, As stated earlier, these revenues are grossly
overstated due to overestimation of recoverable waste available.
|| Page III-7, 4, 1, The investment costs provided by the E.G. Jordan
Company should be provided in an Appendix.
Page III-7, 6, 2, The study admits that at some locations, a "floater"
type of reduction plant would have to be used due to lack of available land.
The study does not identify these sites but assumes for all plants a land
cost equal to 10 percent of total investment. Applying this methodology to
those sites that would have to resortto floaters results in an overstatement
of Net Product Value (which means if net product value is negative it would
be negative by a larger amount if more realistic data were used).
A floater type reduction plant is a capital investment —i.e. a case
of substituting capital for land. Generally, the initial cost is greater.
Secondly, maintenance costs are encountered in connection with the floating
platform that would not be incurred in the case with a land based operation.
Finally, the cost of land is considered recoverable and therefore has a
significant impact on the NPV computed by the formula used in Chapter IV.
Page 111-10, 5, The total investment cost for the reduction plants
should be compared to the investment represented by the processing plant.
Even a general magnitude, i.e., percentage less than, same as, or percentage
greater than would suffice.
Page III'-ll, Table III-5, Has the energy required to remove process
water been considered? This greatly understates the energy required per
ton of meal processed. For example, the data available would imply that
the plant at Dutch Harbor was expected tooperate at 100 percent efficiency.
Since drying equipment is considered to be operating optimally at 66 percent
of efficiency, it is likely that fuel costs (at 50c a gallon) would be two
to three times greater than assumed in this study.
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility Page 5.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska
Page 111-12, 2, The waste material being sent to the reduction
facility is considered "to have a zero value (neither a cost nor a credit
to the model waste reduction plant), We believe that this assumption is
invalid. Expenses are incurred in collecting (screening) and storing
the waste and in transporting it to reduction plants. These costs should
be estimated and utilized in the analysis. While the collection and storage
costs may cancel out when comparing waste reduction and barging disposal
alternatives, the costs should be included in order to place in perspective
the TOTAL cost for waste disposal that must be incurred by affected seafood
processing plants. Transportation costs will not cancel out and should
be included.
Page 111-13, Table III-6, The labor requirement for the existing
plant at Seward is stated as one skilled employee and two unskilled
• employees per shift. The actual operation of this plant employs three
skilled employees and two semiskilled employees per shift in addition
to plant management input. This underestimation of labor requirements at
the existing Seward plant suggests that labor requirements; and therefore,.
labor costs for all the model plant sizes in Table II1-5 are wrong. Since
labor costs for the model plants .are seriously understated, the entire
analysis of Net Product Values is in serious error.
Page 111-15, 5, This paragraph infers, that E.G. Jordan has reviewed
weather and operating conditions at various processing sites and has concluded
that there is only a potential problem at Dutch Harbor for the "relatively
small barges that could be towed by power skiffs." Have they gathered port-
by-port evidence to support this conclusion? If B.C. Jordan does not have
data to support these statements, then they should withdraw their conclusions
regarding such barging alternatives. Moreover, because barging operations
may have to be carried out several times a day, data on tidal fluctuations
is necessary to evaluate this alternative.
Page III-17, Item 1, The distances between plants at the Bristol Bay
"location" would preclude operating a barge on a cooperative basis. Consequently
costs for barging from Bristol Bay (Table III-8) likely are significantly
understated.
Page 111-17, Item 2, We are unaware of any company that is willing to
build a 25 ton barge capable of containing and dumping seafood wastes for
$30,000. The contractor should cite a source for this information.
Page 111-17, Item 3, Used seine skiffs might be available for $16,000.
New, they cost considerably more.
Page 111-17, Item 4, It is assumed that one skilled and one unskilled
plant employee would be required for two hours per barging trip with an
estimated total labor cost of $70.00 per trip. First, it is not probable
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility ' Page 6.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska
that.plant employees could-be utilized to operate the barges. Barge operators
belong to a different union than cannery employees. Accordingly, the costs
of operators is greatly underestimated. Additionally, ocean barging of
waste can be life-risking during certain weather conditions. Second, we
do not believe that any employees could be found who will be willing to
operate such barges even in good weather conditions for this sum.
Page 111-17, Table at bottom of page, The algebraic signs in table
are reversed.
Page 111-18, 3, The calculation of costs for Dutch Harbor is based on
an erroneous assumption that a tug boat and crew can be hired on a daily basis
as needed. It is unrealistic to assume that a tug and crew will be idly
standing by for a call when needed. More realistically, the tug and crew
would have to be retained on an annual base fee. Consequently, actual costs
11 likely will be significantly greater than assigned to this operation.
Page 111-19, Table III-8, Because of the various points made on the
preceding pages on barging analysis, these costs are grossly understated
in our view.
Page IV-2, 3, 2, This paragraph states that there are only two options
available for the disposal of. screened solid waste; however, a third
alternative which is the central focus of the Section 74 Seafood Study,
should be included. This option is discharge of the solid waste directly
to receiving waters with minimal treatement. The major policy question that
should be under consideration is not whether the industry will barge or go
to reduction plants if forced to turn from present procedures to one of these,
'/.but rather, what are the consequences and benefits of forcing the industry
to depart from present practices. Either barging or reduction will add
considerably to the cost of processing fish in Alaska. The data on
Dutch Harbor shows that revenue from a reduction plant would not even cover
the direct costs let al'one any yield on investment. If more realistic data
were used for recoverable wastes and costs, all model reduction plants
exhibit the same situation i.e., they can only operate a continuing deficit
on operating costs.
Page IV-3, 5, 2, It may be true that screening and collection costs
will cancel themselves out for either fish meal reduction processes or
barging; however, trasportation costs would not be cancelled. There would
be an extra cost of transportation from the seafood processing plant to the
reduction facility. This cost should be factored into Item 3 on this page.
Item 3 should have a new litle Screening, Collection and Transportation
Costs.
-------
Comments on Marketing Feasibility Page 7.
Study of Seafood Waste Reduction in
Alaska
Page IV-5, 5, A company that has costs sunk in capital equipment will
tend to use that capital as long as it can cover variable costs and recover
anything towards the fixed costs. However, it is entirely a different
situation to force the company to use the facility at an output which would
greatly increase its total loss, A more realistic analysis of the existing
plants would be their NPV'-s at different levels of output within the existing
plant. Adjusting the revenue and labor cost for the data given indicates the
existing plant at Seward would have an annual revenue of $140,000 less than
direct costs. The more processed the greater the loss under this situation.
Page IV-6, Table IV-1, An equity cost of 15 percent is used for the
base case analysis. It is naive to believe that equity costs are 157., given
the nature of the investment, the existing investment climate, and interest
rates between 10 and 14%. At best, that would provide debt coverage of
only 2 to 3 times, Such coverage would not be acceptable.
Page IV-7, Table IV-2, This table presents sensitivity analyses for
6 variables that will impact the Net Present Value of the model plants.
However, the sensitivity analyses ignores several important variations to
the assumptio.ns underlying the "base case," namely,
1. A decrease in the price of .fish and shellfish meals as
output increase.
2. A reduction in raw wastes to be processed because the
present study has grossly overestimated recoverable raw
waste quantities.
3. An increase in costs due to various under estimates of
costs.
4. A cost of equity greater than 15 percent particularly in
view of industry experience and inherent risks in Alaska.
Page VI-1, Wherever possible, the specific variances noted in
Chapter VI should be incorporated into the other chapters at the appropriate
point either as an explanatory sentence or a footnote. It is unfortunate
but true that many reviewers and users of technical reports do not read
past the text and often overlook the "Limits of the Analysis"
We appreciate this opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of
our seafood processing members.
Sincerely,
^^fc**/T-*^»t<.
Lawrence W. Van Meir
cc: Cal Dysinger, EPA
Dave Jordening, DPRA
Effluent Guidelines Subcommittee for Seafoods
------- |