United States Off ice of EPA 130/6-81-005
Environmental Protection Federal Activities October 1981
Agency Washington, DC 20460
<&EPA Environmental
Impact Guidelines
For New Source
Canned and Preserved
Seafood Processing Facilities
-------
EPA-130/6-81-005
October 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT GUIDELINES
FOR NEW SOURCE
CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD
PROCESSING FACILITIES
EPA Task Officer:
Frank Rusincovitch
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Preface
This document is one of a series of industry-specific Environmental Impact
Guidelines being developed by the Office of Federal Activities (OFA) for
use in EPA's Environmental Impact Statement preparation program for new
source NPDES permits. It is to be used in conjunction with Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source Industries, an OFA
publication that includes a description of impacts common to most industrial
sources.
The requirement for Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts
of their proposed actions is included in Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The stipulation that
EPA's issuance of a new source NPDES permit as an action subject to NEPA
is in Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. EPA's regulations
for preparation of Environmental Impact Statements are in Part 6 of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; new source requirements are in
Subpart F of that Part.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY 3
1.1 SUBCATEGORIZATION 3
1.1.1 Farm Raised Catfish Processing 10
1.1.2 Conventional Blue Crab Processing 10
1.1.3 Mechanized Blue Crab Processing 10
1.1.4 Non-remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing 10
1.1.5 Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing 11
1.1.6 Non-remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
Processing ; 11
1.1.7 Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
Processing 11
1.1.8 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in the
Contiguous States 11
1.1.9 Non-remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing 11
1.1.10 Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing. 12
1.1.11 Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States 12
1.1.12 Southern Non-breaded Shrimp Processing in the
Contiguous States 12
1.1.13 Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States 12
1.1.14 Tuna Processing 12
1.1.15 Fish Meal Processing 12
1.1.16 Alaskan Hand-butchered Salmon Processing 13
1.1.17 Alaskan Mechanized Salmon Processing 13
1.1.18 West Coast Hand-butchered Salmon Processing 13
1.1.19 West Coast Mechanized Salmon Processing 13
1.1.20 Alaskan Bottomfish Processing 14
1.1.21 Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottomfish Processing 14
1.1.22 Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottomfish Processing 14
1.1.23 Hand-shucked Clam Processing 14
1.1.24 Mechanized Clam Processing 14
1.1.25 Pacific Coast Hand-shucked Oyster Processing 15
1.1.26 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-shucked Oyster Processing 15
1.1.27 Steamed and Canned Oyster Processing 15
1.1.28 Sardine Processing 15
1.1.29 Alaskan Scallop Processing 15
1.1.30 Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing 15
1.1.31 Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing 17
1.1.32 Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing 17
1.1.33 Abalone Processing 17
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
1.2 PROCESSES 17
1.2.1 Major Processes 17
1.2.2 Process Descriptions for the Industry Subcategories 20
1.2.2.1 Farm Raise^i Catfish Processing 20
1.2*.2.2 Conventional Blue Crab Processing 22
1.2.2.3 Mechanized Blue Crab Processing 22
1.2.2.4 Alaskan Crab Meat Processing: Remote and Non-Remote.... 25
1.2.2.5 Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing:
Remote and Non-Remote 29
1.2.2.6 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in Contiguous
States 31
1.2.2.7 Alaskan Shrimp Processing: Remote and Non-Remote 32
1.2.2.8 Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States 36
1.2.2.9 Southern Nonbreaded Shrimp Processing 36
1.2.2.10 Breaded Shrimp Processing ,.... 36
1.2.2.11 Tuna Processing 39
1.2.2.12 Fish Meal Processing. 42
1.2.2.13 Salmon Processing: Alaskan and West Coast
Hand-butchered and Mechanized-butchered 45
1.2.2.14 Alaskan Bottomfish Processing. 50
1.2.2.15 Non-Alaskan Bottomfish Processing 52
1.2.2.16 Clam, Oyster, Scallop, and Abalone Processing 54
1.2.2.17 Sardine Processing 65
1.2.2.18 Herring Filleting: Alaskan and Non-Alaskan 67
1.2.3 Auxiliary Support Systems 67
1.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 69
1.3.1 Location 69
1.3.2 Raw Materials 70
1.3.3 Processes and Pollutants... 71
1.3.4 Pollution Control 74
1.4 TRENDS : 75
1.4.1 Markets and Demands 75
1.4.1.1 Foreign Markets 75
1.4.1.2 Domestic Markets.... 75
1.4.2 Locational Trends 77
1.4.3 Trends in Raw Materials g j
1.4.4 Process Trends gl
1.4.5 Pollution Control 81
1.4.6 'Environmental Impact Trends 83
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED")
Page
1.5 REGULATIONS 85
1.5.1 Water Pollution Control Regulations 85
1.5.2 Air Pollution Control Regulations.. 91
1.5.3 Solid Waste Disposal Regulations 95
1.5.4 Other Regulations 95
2.0 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 98
2.1 PROCESS WASTES 98
2.1.1 Air Emissions 98
2.1.2 Water Discharges 98
2.1.2.1 Catfish Processing 99
2.1.2.2 Blue Crab Processing 103
2.1.2.3 Alaskan Crab Processing.... 103
2.1.2.4 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing.. 103
2.1.2.5 Alaskan and Northern Shrimp Processing.... 109
2.1.2.6 Southern Non-breaded Shrimp Processing 109
2.1.2.7 Breaded Shrimp Processing 109
2.1.2.8 Tuna Processing 113
2.1.2.9 Fish Meal Processing 113
2.1.2.10 Salmon Processing 113
2.1.2.11 Bottomfish Processing 119
2.1.2.12 Herring and Sardine Processing 119
2.1.2.13 Clam, Scallop, and Oyster Processing 124
2.1.2.14 Abalone Processing 124
2.1.3 Solid Waste Generation 124
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDUSTRY WASTES 129
2.2.1 Air Impacts 129
2.2.2 Water Impacts 132
2.2.3 Biological Impacts 136
2.2.3.1 Human Health 136
2.2.3.2 Ecological Impacts 137
2.3 OTHER IMPACTS 139
2.3.1 Aesthetics 139
2.3.2 Noise 140
2.3.3 Energy Supply 141
2.3.4 Socioeconomics 142
2.3.5 Shipping, Storing, and Handling Raw Materials
and Products 145
2.3.6 Special Problems in Site Preparation and Facility
Construction 145
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
gage
3.0 POLLUTION CONTROL 148
3.1 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: AIR EMISSIONS 148
3.2 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 149
3.2.1 In-Process Controls 149
3.2.2 End-of-Process Controls 153
3.3 STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY: SOLID WASTES 156
3.3.1 Secondary Products and By-products. 156
3.3.2 Sludge Handling 157
3.3.3 Disposal Alternatives 158
3.4 STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY: CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION CONTROL.... 159
4.0 EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES 160
4.1 SITE ALTERNATIVES 160
4.2 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES AND DESIGNS 163
4.2.1 Process Alternatives 164
4.2.2 Design Alternatives 165
4.3 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 165
5.0 REFERENCES .,.,.... 167
6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 176
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Basic processing sequence for the seafood industry 17
2. Flow diagram for a typical farm raised catfish processing plant 21
3. Flow diagram for a typical blue crab conventional processing
plant 23
4. Flow diagram for a typical blue crab mechanized processing plant 24
5. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan crab frozeni meat processing
p lant 26
6. Flow diagram for a typical Alaska crab canning processing plant 27
7. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan crab sections processing plant.... 30
8. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan shrimp canning processing plant... 34
9. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan shrimp freezing processing
plant 35
10. Flow diagram for a typical southern non-breaded shrimp canning
processing plant 37
11. Flow diagram for a typical breaded shrimp processing plant 38
12. Flow diagram for a typical tuna processing plant 40
13. Flow diagram for a typical large fish meal production processing
p lant 43
14. Flow diagram for a typical salmon by-product processing plant 47
15. Flow diagram for a typical salmon canning professing plant 48
16. Flow diagram for a typical fresh/frozen salmon processing plant 49
17. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan or northwest halibut
processing plant 51
18. Flow diagram for a typical bottomfish processing plant. 53
19. Flow diagram for a typical fish flesh processing plant 55
20. Flow diagram for a typical hand-shucked surf calm processing
plant 56
21. Flow diagram for a typical mechanized surf clam processing plant 58
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
22. Flow diagram for a typical hand-shucked oyster processing plant 60
23. Flow diagram for a typical steamed or canned oyster processing plant. 61
24. Flow diagram for a typical scallop processing plant 62
25. Flow diagram for a .typical abalone processing plant 64
26. Flow diagram for a typical sardine processing plant 66
27. Flow diagram for a typical herring fillet processing plant 68
28. Value of US exports x>f domestic fishery products for 1969 to 1978 76
29. Vessels constructed for the domestic fishing fleet by area for the
period of 1975 to 1977 80
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Canned and preserved seafoods SIC code designations .................. 4
2. Summary of the general basis for the canned and preserved seafoocl
industry subcategorization ........................................... 7
3. Major characteristics of process raw waste loads for the seafood
process ing indus try .................................................. 72
4. US supply of edible commercial fishery products, 1969-1973
(quantity on round-weight basis) ..................................... 78
5. Processing and wholesale plants in the United States by selected
regions, 1975 to 1977 ................................................ 79
6. Quantities of processed fishery products for the years 1976, 1977,
and 1978 ........................ . ...................... .. . ............ 82
7. Promulgated and proposed Federal new source performance standards
applicable to subcategories of the canned and preserved seafood
processing point source category ..................................... 87
8. National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
(40 CFR Part 50) [[[ 92
9. Baseline waste loads for seafood processing industry subcategories... IQO
10. Catfish process material balance and wastewater characteristics
(Subcategory A) [[[ 102
11. Conventional and mechanical blue crab processes material balances
and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories B,C) ................... 104
12. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat processes (with waste grinding)
and whole crab and crab sections processes material balances, and
wastewater characteristics (Subcategories D, E, F, G) ................
13. Dungeness crab and tanner crab process (without fluming wastes) in
the contiguous United States material balance and wastewater
characteristics (Subcategory H) ................................... , . . 1Q8
14. Alaskan and northern shrimp processes material balances and waste-
water characteristic (Subcategories I, J, K) . . . . ........ .... ......... no
15. Southern non-breaded and breaded shrimp processes material balances
and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories L, M) .................. HI
16. Tuna process material balance and wastewater characteristics
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
17. Fish meal production with solubles plant and without solubles plant
processes material balances (Subcategory 0) 115
18. Salmon processes material balances (hand-butchered, mechanical-
butchered, and fresh/frozen) (Subcategories P, Q, R, S) 117
19 Alaskan bottomfish, non-Alaskan bottomfish, manual and mechanized,
or non-Alaskan bottomfish freezing processes material balances
(Subcategories T, U, V) 120
20. Sardine canning and herring filleting processes material balances
(Subcategories AB, AE, AF) 123
21. Surf clam, hand-shucked clam, steamed oyster, and hand-shucked
oyster processes material balances (Subcategories X, W, AA, Y, and Z.125
22. Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance (Subcategory AG) 128
23. Screened solids generation from seafood industry wastewater streams
(based on retention by 20 mesh screen) 130
24. In-process techniques for wastewater control applicable to sub-
categories of the seafoods processing industry..... 150
25. Expected performance for end-of-pipe treatment systems for seafood
processing industry wastewaters 155
viii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Water Act requires that the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA) establish standards of performance for categories of
new source industrial wastewater dischargers. Before the discharge of any
pollutant to the navigable waters of the United States from a new source in an
industrial category for which performance standards have been proposed, a new
source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be
obtained from either USEPA or the state (whichever is the administering authority
for the state in which the discharge is proposed). The Clean Water Act also
requires that the issuance of a permit by USEPA for a new source discharge be
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which may require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the new source. The
procedure established by USEPA regulations (40 CFR 6 Subpart F) for applying
NEPA to the issuance of new source NPDES permits may require preparation of an
Environmental Information Document (BID) by the permit applicant. Each BID is
submitted to USEPA and reviewed to determine if there are potentially signif-
icant effects on the quality of the human environment resulting from con-
struction and operation of the new source. If there are, USEPA publishes an
EIS on the action of issuing the permit.
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide industry-specific guidance
to USEPA personnel responsible for determining the scope and content of EIS's
and for reviewing them after submission to USEPA. It is to serve as supple-
mentary information to USEPA's previously published document, Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source Industries, which in-
cludes the general format for an EID and those impact assessment considera-
tions common to all or most industries. Both that document and these guide-
lines should be used for development of an EID for a new source canned and
preserved seafoods processing facility.
These guidelines provide the reader with an indication of the nature of
the potential impacts oh the environment and the surrounding region from
construction and operation of canned and preserved seafoods processing facilities.
In this capacity, the volume is intended to assist USEPA personnel in the
identification of these impact areas that should be addressed in an EID. In
-------
addition, the guidelines present (in Chapter 1.0) a description of the in-
dustry; its principal processes; significant environmental problems; and
recent trends in location, raw materials processes, pollution control, and
environmental impacts. This "Overview of the Industry" is included to familiar-
ize USEPA staff with existing conditions in the industry.
Although this document may be transmitted to an applicant for infor-
mational purposes, it should not be construed as representing the procedural
requirements for obtaining an NPDES permit or as representing the applicant's
total responsibilities relating to the new source EIS program. In addition,
the content of an EID for a specific new source application is determined by
USEPA in accordance with Section 6.604(b) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and this document does not supersede any directive received by the
applicant from USEPA's official responsible for implementing that regulation.
The Guideline is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1.0 is the "Over-
view of the Industry," described above. Chapter 2.0, "Impact Identification,"
discusses process-related wastes and the impacts that may occur during con-
struction and operation of the facility. Chapter 3.0, "Pollution Control
Technology," summarizes the technology for controlling environmental impacts.
Chapter 4.0, "Evaluation of Alternatives," summarizes possible alternatives to
the proposed action and discusses their evaluation. Chapter 5.0 is a list of
references which are useful for additional or more detailed information, and
Chapter 6.0 is a glossary of industry-related terms.
-------
1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
Canned and Preserved Seafoods Processing refers to that industry which
converts fresh seafood products into a more stable and therefore more useful
product. These Guidelines deal with seafood processing in the United States,
an integral part of the food processing industry which dates back to the
beginnings of our nation. Because colonial settlements were generally located
along coastal rivers and estuaries, seafoods were an important source of
protein. Their processing has evolved from early methods of salting and
drying to modern canning and freezing. Improved processing technologies have
led to a steady increase in the per capita consumption of fish and shellfish
in the United States. The figure for 1972 was 5.5 kg (12.2 Ibs) per person,
totaling 1,130,000 metric tons (MT) (1,250,000 tons). In 1978 consumption was
6.1 kg (13.4 Ibs) per person or 1,220,000 MT (1,450,000 tons) (USDOC 1979b).
Of this later figure, approximately 47% was imported and 53% domestically
produced. The total retail value of the products was 4.6 billion dollars.
The passage of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 should
further increase domestic production by restricting (or severely limiting)
fishing by foreign vessels within a conservation zone extending 200 miles from
the US coastline. This -legislation should have a significant impact on the
planning and construction of new seafood processing facilities, both shore-
based and floating, by reducing the competition for the harvest of species in
these waters.
1.1 SUBCATEGQRIZATION
The 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual lists four major
classification numbers that include the major sections of the seafood pro-
cessing industry: SIC 2091, Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods; SIC 2092,
Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish and Seafoods; SIC 2077, Animal and Marine Fats
and Oil; and SIC 2048, Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and
Fowls, Not Elsewhere Classified. This last SIC contains industries manufac-
turing kelp meal and pellets, crushed shell for feed, and ground oyster shells
used as feed additives for animals and fowls. Because very little wastewater
is generated by these industries, this SIC is addressed only if the processing
is a part of the seafood processing plant. The specific designations included
in SIC 2091, 2092, and 2077 are included as Table 1.
-------
Table 1. Canned and preserved seafoods SIC code designations.
SIC 2091 Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods
Description:
Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and canning fish, shrimp,
oysters, clams, crabs, and other seafoods, including soups; and those engaged
in smoking, salting, drying or otherwise curing fish for the trade.
Included Industries:
Canned fish, Crustacea, and mollusks
Caviar, canned and preserved
Clam bouillon, broth, chowder, juice: bottled or canned
Codfish: smoked, salted, dried, and pickled
Crab meat, canned and preserved
Finnan haddie (smoked haddock)
Fish: boneless, cured, dried, pickled, salted, and smoked
Fish, canned
Fish egg bait, canned
Herring: smoked, salted, dried, and pickled
Mackerel: smoked, salted, dried, and pickled
Oysters, canned and preserved
Salmon: smoked, salted, dried, canned, and pickled
Sardines, canned
Seafood products, canned
Shellfish, canned
Shrimp, canned
Soup, seafood: canned
Tuna fish, canned
SIC 2092 Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish and Seafoods
Description:
Establishments primarily engaged in preparing fresh and raw or cooked
frozen packaged fish and other seafood, including soups. This industry also
includes establishments primarily engaged in the shucking and packing of fresl
oysters in nonsealed containers.
Included Industries:
#
Crab meat, fresh: packed in nonsealed containers
Crab meat picking
Fish fillets
Fish: fresh, quick frozen, and cold pack (frozen)packaged
Fish sticks
Frozen prepared fish
Oysters, fresh: shucking and packing in nonsealed containers
Seafoods: fresh, quick frozen, and cold pack (frozen)packaged
Shellfish, quick frozen and cold pack (frozen)
vShrimp, quick frozen and cold pack (frozen)
Soups, seafood: frozen
4
-------
Table 1. Canned and'preserved seafoods SIC code designations (cont.)-
SIC 2077 Animal and Marine Fats and Oils
Description:
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing animal oils, including
fish oil and other marine animal oils and fish and animal meal; and those
rende'ring inedible grease and tallow from animal fat, bones, and meat scraps.
Included Industries:
Fish liver oils, crude
Fish meal
Fish oil and fish oil meal
Meat meal and tankage
Oil and meal, fish
Oil, neat's-foot
Oils, animal
Oils, fish and marine animal: herring, menhaden, whale (refined), sardine
Rendering plants, grease and tallow
Stearin, animal: inedible
-------
The industry has been subcategorized for the purpose of establishing
effluent limitations by considering factors that are significant in deter-
mining the untreated wastewater characteristics or the treatability of such
wastes. The factors considered for the purpose of subcategorizing the in-
dustry include (USEPA 1974a, USEPA 1975b):
Variability in raw product supply.
Condition of raw product on delivery to the processing plant.
Variety of the species being processed.
Harvesting method.
Degree of preprocessing.
Manufacturing processes and subprocesses.
Form and quality of finished product.
Location of plant (taking into account factors such as degree of re-
moteness from urban centers, climatic conditions, terrain, soil types).
Age of plant.
Production capacity and normal operating level.
Nature of operation (intermittent versus continuous).
Raw water availability.
Amenability of the waste to treatment.
lach of these factors was considered significant for the characterization of
it least a portion of the industry except for the age of the plant. This was
found not to be significant because of a preponderance of relatively new
facilities and the tendency to use processes in these facilities similar to
those in older plants.
Because of differences in species processed and conditions peculiar to
geographic locations, the seafoods processing industry was classified accord-
ing to 33 subcategories in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1,
Part 408. The basis for these subcategories is included as Table 2 (e.g.,
type of seafood, processing technique, facility locations, facility size). In
reviewing an EID, it is important that the applicant clearly identify the
6
-------
Table 2. Summary of the general basis for the canned and preserved
seafood industry subcategorization (N.S. = not specified).
Subpart Seafood
Facility Location
Process
Size
A
B
C
D
E
F
Catfish
Blue crab
Blue crab
Dungeness
and king
Dungeness
and king
Dungeness
and king
, tanner,
crabs
, tanner,
crabs
, tanner,
crabs
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
Non-remote
Alaska
Remote Alaska
Non-remote
Alaska
Farmed catfish
Conventional
Mechanized
Crab meat
Crab meat
Whole crab
and crab sections
1,362 kg/day
(3,000 Ib)
1,362 kg/day
(3,000 Ib)
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
H
Dungeness, tanner,
and king crabs
Dungeness and
tanner crabs
Remote Alaska
Contiguous U.S.
Whole crab N.S.
and crab sections
N.S. N.S.
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Tuna
Fish meal
(menhaden and
anchovy)
Salmon
Non-remote Alaska
Remote Alaska
Northern con-
tiguous U.S.(WA,
OR, CA, ME, NH, MA)
Southern con-
tiguous states (NC,
SC, GA, FL, AL, MS,
LA, TX)
Contiguous U.S.
N.S.
Gulf and Atlantic
Coast (menhaden);
West Coast (anchovy)
Alaska
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
Non-breaded
Breaded
N.S.
N.S.
Hand-
butchering
N.S.
N.S.
908 kg/day
(2,000 Ib)
908 kg/ day
(2,000 Ib)
908 kg/day
(2,000 Ib)
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
-------
Table 2. Summary of the general basis for the
seafood industry subcategorization (N.S. =
canned and preserved
1 not specified) (cent.)-
Subpart
Q
R
S
T
U
Seafood
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Bottomfish
Bottomfish
Facility Location
Alaska
West Coast
West Coast
(Halibut) Alaska
Non-Alaskan
Process
Mechanized
butchering
Hand-
but cher ing
Mechanized
butchering
N.S.
Manual methods
Size
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
w
(e.g., flounder,
ocean perch, haddock,
cod, sea catfish, sole,
halibut, rockfish)
Bottomfish
(e.g., whiting,
croaker)
Clam
AA Oyster
(steamed and
canned)
AB Sardine
Non-Alaskan
N.S.
X
Y
Z
Clam
Oyster
Oyster
N.S.
Pacific Coas
Atlantic and
Gulf Coast
N.S.
N.S.
(predominately)
Mechanized
Hand-shucked
Mechanized
Hand-shucked
Hand-shucked
Mechanically
(shucked
All except for
cutting machines
used for preparing
fish steaks
N.S.
1,816 kg/day
(4,000 Ib)
N.S.
454 kg/day
(1,000 Ib)
7,454 kg/day
(1,000 Ib)
N.S.
N.S.
AC
AD
AE
Scallops
Scallops
Herring
(fillet)
Alaska
Non-Alaskan
Alaska
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.-
-------
Table 2. Summary of the general basis for the canned and preserved
seafood industry subcategorization (N.S. = not specified) (concluded).
Subpart Seafood Facility Location Process Size
AF Herring Non-Alaskan N.S. N.S.
(fillet)
AG Abalone Contiguous U.S. N.S. N.S.
Notes
1. Subpart refers to the designation in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title
40 - Protection of the Environment, Chapter 1, Environmental Protection Agency,
Subchapter N - Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Part 408 - Canned and Preserved
Seafood Processing Point Source Category.
2. Non-remote Alaska refers to population or processing centers including
but not limited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and
Petersburg.
3. Size limitations only apply to existing seafood processors; all new source
facilities must comply with applicable effluent limits.
Source: Adapted from 40 CFR 408.
-------
species to be processed and the market (or alternative markets) that is planned
for the product. The relationship between the proposed facility and the
appropriate industry subcategory must be described clearly because there is a
potential for not defining this relationship adequately, in particular for
emerging industrial subcategories (e.g., bottomfish or herring). The indi-
vidual subcategories are described briefly in the following sections (USEPA
1974a, USEPA 1975b, B.C. Jordan 1979).
1.1.1 Farm Raised Catfish Processing
Includes those plants that process farm raised catfish. Wild catfish are
not included. The processing techniques of this industry are more homogeneous
than most of the other subcategories.
1.1.2 Conventional Blue Crab Processing
Conventional blue crab processing plants generally are concentrated along
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Most are small operations, utilizing hand-picking
methods for the crab meat. Waste streams exhibit similar characteristics and
are of low volume. The majority of the liquid wastes come from cooker and
cle an-up wa t e rs.
1.1.3 Mechanized Blue Crab Processing
Mechanized blue crab processing utilizes mechanical pickers to separate
the cooked crab meat from the shell. The characteristics and volumes of water
are very different from that of a hand-picking plant (e.g., volumes of water may be
30 times that of a hand-picking plant).
1.1.4 Non-remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing
These plants cook and pick meat from king, dungeness, and tanner crabs
using hand and/or mechanical means. The mechanical pickers use roughly twice
as much water as when hand-picking is practiced. A small number of plants
produce a large volume of product. The floating or fixed-based plants are
located in population or processing centers including, but not limited to,
Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg.
10
-------
1.1.5 Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing
These plants use the same processes as in 1.1.4 but are located outside
the areas listed above. These are identified as a separate subcategory because
of the less stringent grind and discharge requirements.
1.1.6 Non-remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing
These plants process cooked dungeness, whole tanner, and king crabs, or
butcher and cook crab sections. The meat is not separated from the shell.
The major sources of water are from the cookers and from plant cleaning.
These fixed-based or floating plants are located in population or processing
centers including, but not limited to, Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan,
Kodiak, and Petersburg.
1.1.7 Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing
These plants use the same process as those in Section 1.1.6 but are
located outside the population centers listed above. These are identified as
a separate subcategory because of the less stringent grind and discharge
requirements.
1.1.8 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in the Contiguous States
These plants process dungeness and tanner crab in the contiguous states.
This would include whole crabs, sections, or picked meat by any method. Most
plants are smaller than the comparable Alaskan plants. Geographic, climate,
land, and water differences make this a separate subcategory from the Alaskan
crab processors.
1.1.9 Non-remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing
These plants process and can or freeze shrimp in population or processing
centers, including but not limited to, Anchorage, Cordova. Juneau, Ketchikan,
Kodiak, and Petersburg.
11
-------
1.1.10 Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing
These plants process shrimp in areas of Alaska other than those ident-
ified previously in Section 1.1.9-
1.1.11 Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
These shrimp processing plants cover all processing of shrimp except
breading, in Washington, Oregon, California, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts. The solids, grease and oils, and biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) raw waste loadings are much higher for this subcategory than for the
southern non-breaded shrimp industry.
1.1.12 Southern Non-breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
These shrimp processing plants cover all processing of shrimp except
breading, in the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas areas.
1.1.13 Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
These plants process breaded shrimp in the 48 contiguous states. The
breading operation causes significant increases in BOD and total suspended
solids in the raw waste in comparison to shrimp canning and freezing opera-
tions.
1,1.14 Tuna Processing
This covers all plants processing tuna either by canning and/or produc-
tion of by-products. Wastewater characteristics are uniform from region to
region, and are not dependent upon plant size.
1.1.15 Fish Meal Processing
This covers all plants processing menhaden on the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts and the processing of anchovy on the West Coast into fish meal, oil
and soluble wastes.
12
-------
1.1.16 Alaskan Hand-butchered Salmon Processing
These Alaskan plants hand-butcher salmon for canning, freezing, or smoking.
Liquid wastes from these plants are generally from butchering, can washing,
retorting, can cooling, glazing (if freezing is practiced), and from plant
cleanup. A distinction is made within this subcategory between remote and
non-remote areas (Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg
are considered non-remote areas).
1.1.17 Alaskan Mechanized Salmon Processing
These Alaskan plants use mechanical butchering machines (iron chinks) on
salmon. Plant sizes are much larger than for hand-butchering plants. Some of
these large plants may make their own cans. Also, additional operations such
as oil production and roe preservation may be included at these plants. Some
large plants freeze or grind and cook fish heads for pet foods. Generally,
both the quantity of water and waste strength are higher in mechanized plants
as compared to the hand-butchered facility. A distinction is made within this
subcategory between remote and non-remote areas (Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau,
Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg are considered non-remote areas).
1.1.18 West Coast Hand-butchered Salmon Processing
This subcategory applies to all West Coast plants (Washington, Oregon,
and California) that use hand-butchering methods on salmon. Processing methods
are generally the same as for Alaskan facilities, with geographical, climate,
land, and water differences the basis for a separate subcategorization.
1.1.19 West Coast Mechanized Salmon Processing
This covers all salmon processing plants on the West Coast (Washington,
Oregon, and California) with mechanical butchering lines. The rationale for
establishing this subcategory separate from the Alaskan mechanized plants also
is due to differences in geography, climate, land, and water.
13
-------
1.1.20 Alaskan Bottomfish Processing
This subcategory was developed to cover all plants processing bottom-
fish. The industry subcategorization is based on data characteristic of
halibut processing including hand-butchering and freezing. A distinction is
made within this subcategory between processors located in processing or
population centers and remote areas. These population centers include, but
are not limited to, Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Peters-
burg. This subcategory may be subject to revisions to reflect a greater
processing of other bottomfish (Edward C. Jordan 1979).
1.1.21 Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottomfish Processing
These plants process bottomfish outside Alaska using predominately manual
methods. The use of scaling machines and/or skinning machines are considered
normal processes in these plants. The bottomfish subcategory includes pro-
cessing of flounder, ocean perch, haddock, cod, sea catfish, sole, halibut,
and rockfish. The emerging bottomfish industry (non-mechanized) in Alaska
probably is most similar to industries in this subcategory (Edward C. Jordan
1979).
1.1.22 Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottomfish Processing
These plants process bottomfish outside of Alaska in which the unit
operations (particularly the butchering and/or filleting operations) are
carried out through mechanized methods. These plants process bottomfish such
as whiting and croaker.
1.1.23 Hand-shucked Clam Processing
These plants process clams, with the most significant processing aspect
being the hand-shucking of the clams.
1.1.24 Mechanized Clam Processing
These plants process clams with the most significant processing aspect
being the mechanical shuckers.
14
-------
1.1.25 Pacific Coast Hand-shucked Oyster Processing
These are plants located on the west coast that use hand shuckers to
process the oysters.
1.1.26 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-shucked Oyster Processing
This subcategory covers plants located on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
that use hand shuckers to process the oysters.
1.1.27 Steamed and Canned Oyster Processing
This subcategory covers plants that process the oysters using mechanical
equipment, for all locations.
1.1.28 Sardine Processing
This subcategory covers plants that can sardines or sea herring for
sardines. This subcategory as originally proposed did not cover the rela-
tively new steaking operation in which cutting machines are used for preparing
fish steaks (Edward C. Jordan 1979). It is probable that the effluent limits
for this subcategory cannot be attained by mechanized processors using the
technologies evaluated (Edward C. Jordan 1979).
1.1.29 Alaskan Scallop Processing
This subcategory covers plants processing Alaskan scallops. A distinc-
tion is made within this subcategory between plants located in population or
production centers and remote areas. The population centers include, but are
not limited to, Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Cordova, and Petersburg.
1.1.30 Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing
With the exception of land-based processing of calico scallops, this
subcategory covers all scallops processed outside of Alaska.
15
-------
1.1.31 Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing
This covers all Alaskan plants processing herring into fillets. A dis-
tinction is made within the subcategory between remote and non-remote cate-
gories. Non-remote areas include, but are not limited to, Anchorage, Cordova,
Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak and Petersburg; remote areas include all other
locations. This is. an emerging industry and now actually includes other
processes such as roe stripping, freezing in the round, and boxing or .freezing
for use as bait (Edward C. Jordan 1979).
1.1.32 Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing
This covers all plants located outside Alaska which process herring
fillets.
1.1.33 Abalone Processing
This subcategory covers all abalone processing in the contiguous states.
1.2 PROCESSES
There is no .standard design for a seafood processing plant; therefore,
one can expect to find within each subcategory plants with different methods
of production to suit the specific needs of the producer. Several flow
diagrams have been included in this section to show the general steps asso-
ciated with seafood processing and the processes for each subcategory.
1.2.1 Major Processes
The basic processing steps associated with the seafood industry are shown
in Figure 1. These are described below in a brief manner to characterize the
basic nature of the industry (USEPA 1974a, USEPA I975b). In addition, the
industry includes floating processing plants. These differ from land-based
systems in their storage of processed fish, disposal of nonprocess related
solid and domestic wastes, fresh water supplies, and electrical needs (Kawabata
1980). These systems are not described or discussed in this document, which
16
-------
Figure 1. Basic processing sequence for the seafood industry.
HARVEST
1
RECEIVE
PRE-PROCESS
EVISCERATE
PRE-COOK
i
PICKS CLEAN
1
PRESERVE,
CAN,FREEZE
FRESH
BY-PRODUCTS
MARKET
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EFA-440/1-74-0.20, Washington DC,
17
-------
is intended to describe the impacts of land-based systems subject to New
Source Performance Standards.
Harvesting. The technologies employed in harvesting seafoods range
from very old (e.g., sail-driven skipjacks for oyster dredging) to very
new (e.g., high seas tuna clippers with computer-driven navigation
systems). Although harvesting techniques vary according to the sea-
food being sought, fishing vessels generally utilize the latest tech-
nology for locating and harvesting seafoods in the most efficient and
economical manner consistent with local regulations. The techniques
most frequently employed are: netting (use of gill nets for salmon or
trawl nets for cod), trapping (use of pot type traps for shrimp, crab,
or lobster), dredging (use of tongs or dredges for oysters), and line
fishing (long lines for halibut or black cod). Once aboard the vessel,
the catch may be taken directly to the processor or may be iced or
frozen for processing later.
Receiving. The receiving operation usually involves three steps:
unloading the vessel, weighing the catch, and transport to the pro-
cessing or holding area. At some point during the receiving operation
the catch may be sorted, either to facilitate payments to fishermen or
to separate the catch by species before processing (e.g., salmon).
Preprocessing. Preprocessing refers to the initial preparation of
fish or shellfish for the processing sequence. It may include washing,
thawing, sorting out trash fish, or any other processes to prepare the
seafood for butchering.
Evisceration. At this point, organs and other parts of the fish or
shellfish which are not intended for human consumption are removed by
butchering. Wastes from the evisceration process are either screened
from the waste stream or dry captured. The wastes then may be either
processed into a by-product; taken to a landfill; ground and dis-
charged; or barged to deep water and dumped.
Pre-cooking. The pre-cooking process, which facilitates the removal
of skin, bones, shell, and other parts, may be practiced in order to
prepare the product for the picking and cleaning operation (e.g., the
pre-cooking of crab before picking the meat for freezing or canning).
Picking and Cleaning. The fish or shellfish is prepared for the final
processing by the removal of non-edible from edible portions by manual
or mechanical methods, or a combination of both. Wastes generated
during this operation may be saved for by-product recovery or may be
sent through any of several disposal processes.
By-product Recovery. Because by-product recovery from seafood pro-
cessing consists of a wide range of processes, this segment of the
industry will be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3.0 of these
Guidelines. A few examples would be the rendering of fish livers for
oil; burning of shells for lime; and production of fish meal from
viscera. An important segment of the industry includes the manufacture
of industrial fishery products such as fish meal, concentrated protein
solubles, oils, liquid fish fertilizers, fish feed pellets, shell
18
-------
novelties, kelp products, and pearl essence. Fish meals are utilized
as protein supplements in animal feeds. The oil which is exported is
used in margarine and shortenings. In the domestic market, fish oils
are used for protective coatings, lubricants, cosmetics, soaps, and
medicinals. Some fish solubles are used as liquid fertilizer. Oils'
and solubles are also combined with fish meal for animal feed.
The specific processing steps at a facility are selected according to the
desired product and ultimate market. For the fresh seafood market, the product
is packed in a suitable container and held under refrigeration until shipment.
Those products not destined for the fresh seafood market are preserved by
freezing, canning, pickling, salting, drying, smoking, or combinations of
these processes:
t Freezing^. An excellent method for holding some seafoods as the meat
essentially is unchanged. Autolysis, the breakdown of tissue by
self-contained enzymes, still occurs in frozen products but at a
reduced rate. Some seafood must be consumed within 6 months from
freezing, while others may be held for several years. Blanching
before freezing inactivates many enzymes and further reduces the rate
of autolysis.
Canning . Preservation by canning requires special equipment to fill
cans, add seasonings and preservatives, create a partial vacuum, and
seal the can. The partial vacuum is necessary to reduce distortion of
the can during cooking and cooling. After sealing, the cans are
retorted (pressure cooked) at 150°C (240°F) for periods of 30 to 60
minutes. After cooking the cans are cooled with water or air and then
labeled and boxed. The high temperature and long duration time for
retorting is to ensure that spores of the harmful anaerobic bacteria
Clostridium botulinum are totally destroyed.
Pickling. Preservation by pickling is accomplished by adding
seasonings and preservatives to the product and allowing the solution
to penetrate into the product. After the pickling process, the product
be packed in glass or plastic containers and refrigerated.
Salting. In this method liberal quantities of salt are applied to the
product and the liquids allowed to drain from the meat.
Drying . This method uses warm dry air to remove moisture from the
.product until it is dry enough to resist bacterial attack. The dried
or salted products may be packed in a variety of containers such as
metal cans, glass jars, wooden boxes, and plastic containers.
Smoking. Preservation by smoking generally involves pre-treatment by
a dry or wet partial pickling process followed by drying and exposure
to a non-rosinous wood smoke to dry the product and impart a smokey
flavor to the product. After smoking, the product may be packaged in
metal cans or in plastic. Plastic packages are generally refrigerated
or frozen to reduce autolysis and bacterial decomposition.
19
-------
1.2.2 Process Descriptions for the Industry Subcategories
Although there are 33 subcategories identified for the seafood industry,
the unit processes are the same for several subcategories where the basis for
subcategorization lies with other factors (e.g., location). Where this occurs
only one diagram is presented and any substantial differences are noted.
1.2.2.1 Farm Raised Catfish Processing (Figure 2)
Live catfish enter the plant through the receiving area where they are
culled, weighed, and stored either in live tanks or in iced storage pending
processing. When ready for processing, the fish are placed in water tanks or
dewatered cages and are electrocuted. Usually heads are removed with handsaws
or table saws, Tfhe heads, decomposed fish, and culled fish are then dry
captured (i.e., a system that does not use water to transport these materials).
Evisceration is next accomplished by manually opening the body cavity and
removing the viscera by hand or with a vacuum system. Most plants employ a
dry capture method for the viscera. The skins are then removed from the
catfish by either, mechanical or manual means. For manual skinning the catfish
is impaled on a hook over the work area and a tool similar to pliers is used
to pull the skin off the fish. Mechanical skinning involves running the fish
over a machine similar to a planer which abrades and pulls the skin from the
fish. The skins are flumed to the main waste stream or trapped at the skinner
in baskets.
After butchering, the fins and remnant pieces of skin are removed. The
fish are then washed by manual or automatic washers and a rotating brush is
used to clean the body cavity. After a final rinse the fish are graded and
inspected. Those under 0.45 kg (one pound) are packed in ice and refrigerated
or frozen for shipment. Some plants may package these smaller individual fish
in plastic coated, trays for the retail market. The fish over 0.45 kg (one
pound) are either steaked or filleted. The bulk of the product is shipped as
either fresh or frozen whole fish, although a small market exists for fresh or
frozen fillets and for frozen breaded catfish sticks.
20
-------
Figure 2. Flow diagram for a typical farm raised catfish processing plant,
( CULL FISH I
II
ll
][ (HEADS, FINS)
r~
(VISCERA)
(SKINS)
T
LIVE CATFISH FROM
POND OR RACEWAY
1
1
ELECTRICAL
STUNNING
1
BE-HEAD
.,
1
i
CLEAN
a RINSE
1
SORT BY SIZE
1
|
FREEZE
OR
REFRIGERATE
1
SHIPPED TO
CUSTOMER
(FECES.WATER)
n
i
i
i
i
1
i
I
i
i
(BLOOD, WATER) 1
1
1
1
(SLIME, WATER) '
M
1
1
1
(BLOOD, SOLIDS, WATEB^j
!
1
1
1
1
(BLOOD, WATER) 1
1
1
1 |
-
t
PRODUCT FLOW
- - - WASTEWATER FLOW
= = = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
PRETREATMENT PLANT
AND THEN TO
CITY SEWAGE SYSTEM
OR LOCAL STREAM
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020, Washington DC.
21
-------
1.2.2.2 Conventional Blue Crab Processing (Figure 3)
Blue crabs generally are much smaller than crab varieties processed on
the west coast of Alaska. The size ranges from 11-13 cm (4.5 - 5 inches)
measured across the carapace. Mortality is high for transshipped crabs;
therefore most crabs are caught within 50 miles of the processing plant. When
catches are low, crabs may be imported from other areas.
Because dead crabs deteriorate very rapidly, the catch is sorted imme-
diately when received at the processing plant. (If crabs are harvested during
the molting process, the "peelers" are kept in live boxes and checked every
four hours until the shell is discarded. The crab is then packed in wet sea
grass and marketed live as "soft shell crab.") The crabs are then placed in
steamers at 121°C (250°F) for 10 minutes. (On the Gulf Coast crabs are some-
times boiled; this practice is frowned upon in some states because the tem-
perature is too low for effective microbial kill.) After cooking the crabs
are butchered manually, the meat picked or shaken from the shell manually,
cooled, and packed in snap lid cans. For the fresh market the cans are iced,
but most cans are hermetically sealed and then pastuerized in a water bath at
89°C (192°F) for about 110 minutes. A few plants process the crab meat by
canning followed by a retort.
1.2.2.3 Mechanized Blue Crab Processing (Figure 4)
In these plants the receiving, cooking, and cooling processes are the
same as in conventional blue crab processing plants, but differ at the picking
stage where a mechanical claw picker is substituted for hand-picking. This
mechanism breaks the claw with a hammermill and immerses it in a brine tank
where the meat is floated from the shell and removed in the brine overflow.
The shell is then removed from the tank by an inclined belt moving counter-
current to the meat. Although a few plants also use the mechanical picker on
r
body meat, most plants use hand pickers for this purpose. The back or "lump
fin" meat is packed and sold as a premium product by mechanized crab pro-
cessing plants. These processors also can and retort a larger portion of
their crab than do hand pickers, who generally fresh pack or pastuerize the
meat.
22
-------
Figure 3. Flow diagram for a typical blue crab conventional processing plant,
= PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
= WASTE SOLIDS
TO
REDUCTION PLANT
OR LANDFILL;^.
OR CLAWS TO
MECHANICAL PICKER
CLAWS, LEG. SHELL
( WATER)
(ORGANICS, HOT WATER)
1
(SHELL, WATER)
t
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
23
-------
Figure 4. Flow diagram for a typical blue crab mechanized processing plant,
TO
REDUCTION PLANT
OR LANDFILL
- = PRODUCT FLOW
- = WASTEWATER FLOW
'- WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-02Q. Washington DC.
24
-------
1.2.2.4 Alaskan Crab Meat Processing; Remote and Non-Remote (Figures 5 and 6)
Crabs are brailed (i.e., hoisted in a dip net) from the live tanks of the
catch boat; female or dead crabs are discarded, and the remaining catch is
weighed. After weighing, the crabs are placed in holding tanks filled with
seawater in which the dissolved oxygen level is maintained by circulating
fresh seawater from the bay.
When the butchering process begins, the crabs are grasped by the legs on
each side and with a swift downward swing the butcher strikes the crab midline
bottom over a sharpened quarter circle metal blade. The viscera fall into a
container, the carapace is separated as a single piece, and the halved sections
are then sent to be degilled. (If the crab tail is to be processed into crab
steaks it is removed from the carapace at this point.) Degilling is done
either by a rotary wire brush or a paddle wheel which brushes the gills from
the body shell. The paddle wheel may be used to butcher and degill in one
operation. The degilled sections are further processed by removing the legs
from the body (shoulders) with a saw. The butchered crab parts are then
precooked at 6O-65°C (140-150°F) for 4 to 5 minutes. After precooking, these
processors may either collect claws intact and freeze them for marketing or
blow out the claw meat and meat from the larger legs with strong water jets.
The shoulder and remaining leg meat is squeezed from the shell by passing the
parts through rubber rollers very similar to washing machine wringers. The
shells are removed from the rollers by flume and the meat is hand-picked to
remove pieces of broken shell and other detritus.
After butchering the meat is sorted into three categories: claw meat,
leg meat, and shredded meat. The meat is again cooked at 93° to 99°C (200° to
210°F) for 8 to 12 minutes, rinsed, and cooled with fresh water. The meat is
then packed into 6.8 kg (15 Ib) capacity trays. A saline or ascorbic acid
solution may be added to the trays to improve taste and color, but this step
This processing method is essentially the same for plants located in both
remote and non-remote areas.
25
-------
Figure 5. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan crab frozen meat processing
plant.
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
' PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
= = -= = - WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
(5») GRINDER*
*Grinding and outfall pumping
apply only to remote sites.
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish crab Rhri, *
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafoo^? processes
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
26
-------
Figure 6. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan crab canning processing plant.
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
OVERFLOW TO OCEAN
LIVE
TANK
! BUTCHER
I ,
(CARAPACEAflSCERA,
= PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
=~ = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
/SB) - GRINDER*
PRECOOK
(BLOOD, WATER)
(ORGANiCS,WATER)
[ (MEAT, WATER)
|
EFFLUENT
*Grinding and pumping to outfall apply to remote sites only,
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
27
-------
varies from processor to processor. The trays of meat are then frozen, and
the blocks of meat removed for glazing and boxing. The blocks may be cut into
smaller portions for the retail market before glazing and boxing. Figure 5
includes a schematic diagram of the process.
If the crab meat is to be canned, the process is the same as for freezing
through sorting. At that point the meat is packed into cans usually of 184
grams (6.5 oz) capacity. A sodium chloride-citric acid tablet is placed in
each can, a vacuum is drawn, and the lid sealed with an automatic seamer. The
cans are placed in baskets, and retorted at 116°C (240°F) for 50 to 60 minutes,
cooled in water, and allowed to dry before boxing and shipping. Figure 6
shows the process diagram for the king and tanner crab canning process.
Some crab plants employ two cooking periods during the processing opera-
tiona precook as well as final cook. When the precook is used, it is de-
signed to firm the meat, rinse off the residual blood from the butchering
operation, and minimize heat shock of the subsequent cooking step. Precooking
at 60° to 66°C (140° to 150°F) normally lasts from one to five minutes. The
main cook is conducted at about 99°C (210°F) for 10 to 20 minutes. Salt
usually is added to the cooker water in concentrations of 50,000 to 60,000
mg/1 NaCl (as chloride).
The two types of cookers commonly used by the crab processing industry in
Alaska are distinguished by product flow and are termed either batch cookers
or flow-through cookers.
Batch-type Cookers. These range in size from 0.76 to 3.8 m3 (200 to
1,000 gal). Makeup water is added periodically to replace losses from
evaporation, product carryover, and water overflow. Steam normally is
employed to heat the tanks to the desired temperature. These cookers
usually are drained and the cooking water replaced once or twice per
shift.
Flow-through Cookers. Also called "continuous cookers," these range
in size from 1.9 to 9.5 m3 (500 to 2,500 gal). The crabs are conveyed
through the cooker on a stainless steel mesh belt. Nearly all flow-
through cookers in Alaska employ steamheated hot water, although at
least one plant is known to steam cook directly. Like batch cookers
flow-through cookers (other than steam cookers) are drained and re-
filled one to two times per shift. Some variations in the process
exist. For example, the ungilled crab sections are sometimes cooked
28
-------
at a temperature of 93°C (200°F) for 10.5 minutes; degilled; the legs
separated from the shoulders and split by saw; and the meat manually
removed. Other processors hand-shake the meat from the shells.
The major differences in processing the different types of crabs is in
the cooking times and use of rollers for shelling. Because tanner crab shells
are harder than king crab shells, rollers are used almost exclusively. Dunge-
ness crab usually is processed and marketed as whole cooked crab. If pro-
cessed for meat, the system is generally the same as for tanner or king crabs
except cooking time is reduced for the smaller dungeness. Meat separation is
by manual shaking in many plants.
1.2.2.5 Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing: Remote and
Non-Remote (Figure 7)*
Dungeness crabs generally are sold as whole cook crabs (i.e., all legs
and claws are attached). The majority of the king and tanner crabs are sold
as sections or crab meat, although some kings and tanners are sold as whole
cooks for the local retail markets. The whole crabs go directly from the live
tank to the cookers. After cooking at 99°C (210°F) for 18 minutes the crabs
are cooled, packed, and frozen for market. If the crabs are to be sold as
fresh whole cooked crab, the crabs are boxed after cooling and refrigerated
until shipment.
Crabs with missing appendages usually are processed as sections or crab
meat. Crab sections are prepared by the same butchering process as for crabs
going into crab meat (Section 1.2.2.4), except the legs are not cut from the
shoulders. Cracked shells and sections with missing legs are sent to the meat
line for picking. If parasites (sea lice or barnacles) are present, the
shells are cleaned by hard brushing.
The crab halves (or sections) are placed in wire racks and precooked at
60° to 70°C (140° to 160°F) for 2 to 5 minutes. The crabs are then cooked
near boiling for 18 minutes. After cooking the sections are rinsed and
There is no significant difference in remote and non-remote processing. The
subcategories were separated because of the increased effect of processing
plant waste loads in populated areas.
29
-------
Figure 7. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan crab sections processing plant.
CIRCULATING SEAWATER
OVERFLOW TO OCEAN
-=PRODUCT FLOW
-=WASTEWATER FLOW
= = WAST SOLIDS FLOW
) = GRINDER*
DISCHARGE
"THROUGH FLOOR
(BLOOD, WATER)
^G JHELL^MEAiWATER) _J
(ORGANICS.VMTER)
(MEAT.WATER)
(MEAT. WATER)
'I
(WATER)
EFFLUENT
*Note - grinder refers to remote facility only; non-remote
facility requires treatment prior to discharge.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
30
-------
cooled either by a cold water spray or immersion in a dip tank. The cooled
sections either may be separated into individual legs before packing or packed
as half crab sections. Aluminum foil or plastic may be placed over the meat
end of the sections to prevent drying for both the fresh and frozen market.
The sections are then frozen, glazed, and boxed.
1.2.2.6 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in Contiguous States
The dungeness and tanner crab processing industry along the West Coast is
much smaller than that of Alaska. The predominant species processed is the
dungeness crab; tanner crabs, which are not native to the region, are received
from Alaska only during surplus periods. Most crabs are either cooked whole
or cooked and then picked for crab meat. Process lines and processes are
nearly identical to the Alaskan processes (See Figures 5 and 6). Most dunge-
ness harvesters sail daily to tend their pots and return by evening to the
processing plant. The crabs are kept in live tanks so that they remain in ex-
cellent condition, but they are stored dry overnight as this tends to reduce
their aggressiveness and seems not to increase mortality.
Crabs for whole cooking are inspected to ensure that they have all their
legs and claws. They are then boiled 20 to 30 minutes in a solution con-
taining 50,000 to 60,000 mg/1 NaCl (as chloride) for seasoning and 650 to 800
mg/1 citric acid to facilitate shell cleaning. The cooked crabs are cooled in
a coldwater spray or by immersion in a tank filled with cold water. The crab
shells are cleaned to remove external parasites, the legs are tucked tightly
under the crab, and it is frozen in either a brine freezer or a blast freezer.
The frozen crab is glazed and packed for the retail market. If the crab is to
be marketed as fresh crab, the freezing is omitted.
If the crab is to be processed into crab meat, the crab is butchered by
striking the crab across the edge of a sharpened metal plate similar to the
method for king and tanner crabs (See Section 1.2.2.4). The carapace is then
removed and the legs are separated from the shoulder. The crab pieces may be
either spray washed or packed in steel baskets and submerged in circulating
water. The crab parts are then cooked in boiling water for approximately 12
minutes. The cooling process is either by cold water spray or by placing the
31
-------
baskets of cooked parts in circulating cold water. After cooling, the meat is
picked manually with yields ranging from 17 to 27% of live weight. As with
blue crab the shell fragments are removed in a brine tank. The meat is then
rinsed and drained followed by packing for the fresh or frozen meat markets;
for the canned market it is packed in cans along with seasonings. The
filled cans are mechanically seamed and washed, retorted, cooled and dried,
and packed into cartons.
1.2.2.7 Alaskan Shrimp Processing: Remote and Non-Remote (Figures 8 and 9)
The three species of shrimp of commercial importance in Alaska are the
pink shrimp (Pandalus borealis), the side-stripe shrimp (Pandalopsis dispar),
and the coon-stripe shrimp (Pandalus hypsinotus). The Alaskan shrimp industry
depends primarily on trawling, although some fishermen use pots to catch
shrimp, generally in areas where trawling is impractical because of rough
bottom conditions. Pot shrimp usually find their way into the retail market
as whole cooked shrimp or snapped shrimp tails.
The peak shrimp season is from mid-June to mid-September, although pro-
cessing occurs intermittently throughout the year. The bulk of the catch is
processed by using mechanical peelers which can handle from 1,820 to 5,450 kg
(4,000 to 12,000) Ibs) of shrimp per day. Hand processing of shrimp is generally
limited to very small processors who cater directly to the retail market.
Shrimp may be held on ice several days before delivery to the processing
plant. After receipt at the plant, the shrimp may be held several more days
under refrigeration to condition them for mechanical peeling. Fish which are
accidentally caught in the trawls are manually separated and discarded.
(Efforts are being made to utilize these fish or to use fish-proof trawls.)
Most plants have from four to nine machine peelers each of which uses
about 380 1 (100 gal) of process water per minute. The machines used in
Alaska are generally either a Model PCA or a Model A, both manufactured by the
Laitram Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana. The Model PCA peeler employs a
1.5 minute steam precook to condition the shrimp before peeling. This process
facilitates peeling and increases the rate of production of shrimp because the
32
-------
shells are loosened. Shrimp from this peeler almost always are frozen. The
Model A peeler does not use the pre-cook, and the meat from this machine is
either canned or frozen.
The shrimp, whether precooked or raw, are evenly distributed on a broad
belt and passed into the peelers which consist of counter-rotating rollers
which grab the shrimp feelers and roll the shell off the meat. The shrimp are
pressed against these rollers by overhead racks. The heads and shells are
flushed from the peelers with either fresh water or seawater. The Model A
peeler processes approximately 400 kg (900 Ibs) of raw product per hour while
the Model PGA produces 230-270 kg (500-600 Ibs) per hour. Although the pro-
duction rate of the Model A is much higher, the product from the Model PGA is
believed by the industry to be of better quality.
The shrimp move from the peelers to the next washers by either belt or
flume. The types of washers used in Alaska, one for raw shrimp and one for
precooked, account for 20% of the wastewater flows. The Laitram Model C
washer is designed to detach "swimmerettes," gristle, shell, and other waste
material from raw shrimp; the Model A is designed to wash peeled precooked
shrimp by vigorously mixing the meat in a trough to separate any shell not
removed by the peelers. The precooked shrimp from the Model A peelers are
then drained. If the shrimp are to be canned they are blanched in a salt
solution at 96°C (205°F) for 15 to 17 minutes. Some plants then run the
shrimp through an up flow blower which dries the shrimp and removes shell
fragments. Shrimp to be canned pass through an automatic can filler. A
solution of ascorbic acid then is placed in the cans as a color preservative
before the can is seamed. The cans are retorted for 20 to 25 minutes at I16°G
(240°F), then cooled and cased (24 eight-ounce cans per case). Figure 8
presents a typical canning plant flow diagram. Shrimp for freezing are either
rinsed in a salt-ascorbic acid solution before freezing or directly frozen.
Some plants blast freeze and glaze individual shrimp before bagging. Some
plants bag shrimp in 1 to 5 Ib plastic bags or in 5 Ib containers. Figure 9
presents a typical shrimp freezing plant flow diagram.
33
-------
Figure 8. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan shrimp canning processing plant.
WASHERS :
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
= = = = =. WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
Source;
EFFIUENT TO TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020, Washington DC.
34
-------
Figure 9. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan shrimp freezing processing plant,
' - PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
= =,= = == WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
FISH PICKING
AGE
PEELERS
SEPARATORS
(FISH)
JORGANICSJ i
(SHELL, WATER)
WASHERS _L-.i_,.^-jji' /
(SHELL,WATER)
SHAKER
BLOWER
SIZE
J.SHELL, WATER) ^
INSPECTION ii-M-^
(MEAT)
SEAM
FREEZE
BOX
EFFLUENT TO TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-02Q. Washington DC.
35
-------
1.2.2.8 Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
Shrimp processing on the upper Pacific Coast is essentially the same as
in Alaska (See Figures 8 and 9). One difference in the harvesting of shrimp
on the lower Pacific Coast area is the rough sorting on deck to remove trash
fish. The shrimp are then placed in the hold in layers between ice. Rarely
do shrimp remain on board vessel more than 1 to 2 days after being caught.
There are still some trash fish to be removed and these are separated at the
processing plant. Both Model A and Model PCA peelers are used on the West
Coast and processing is the same as in Alaska, except that most plants use
fresh instead of salt water.
In the New England area, shrimp boats unload their harvest daily. At the
dock trash fish and debris are removed before the shrimp are weighed and iced.
The predominate peeler used is the Model PCA type. Shrimp may be processed as
canned or frozen and some shrimp are fresh frozen in shells. Fresh water is
used almost exclusively for processing.
1.2.2.9 Southern Non-breaded Shrimp Processing (Figure 10)
In the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic areas, shrimp processing is
the most important seafood industry. The pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), the
brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), and the white or gray shrimp (Penaeus setiterus)
are the three most important species processed. Shrimp also may be imported
from as far away as North Africa or Indonesia for canning. Gulf Coast fishermen
generally deliver the shrimp to a central buying station where the shrimp are
loaded directly onto trucks. A large quantity of shrimp from the South Atlantic
and Gulf are beheaded at sea, to slow product degradation and allow a longer
time at sea. In a few instances the shrimp are beheaded on dock before being
loaded onto trucks. The processing of southern shrimp for the frozen and
canned market is basically the same as for Alaskan shrimp (See Section 1.2.2.7).
1.2.2.10 Breaded Shrimp Processing (Figure 11)
These shrimp are usually received at the breading plant already beheaded,
due to the reasons discussed previously for southern shrimp (Section 1.2.2.9)
36
-------
Figure 10. Flow diagram for a typical southern non-breaded shrimp canning
processing plant.
« PRODUCT FLOW
= WASTEWATER FLOW
« WASTE SOLOS FLOW
ow
ow
RECEIVING
1
PEELERS
i
WASHERS
1
SEfttRATORS
1
DEVEINERS
(NONCONTINUOUS)
1
INSPECTION
CONVEYOR
i
BLANCHER
1
SIZE GRADER
DRY FINAL
NSPHTION CONVEYOR
FILLER
CLINCHER
1
SEAMER
1
RETORT
i
COOLING TANK
}
PACKED IN '
CARTONS
( FISH8 DEBRIS)
{CARAPACE MATE
HEADS 8 TAILS
(WATER)
(CARAPACE MAT
WATER)
(MEAT, WATER)
(DEBRIS)
RIALj_ _^
.WATER) i
i
ERIAL, J
1
_J
n
(SHRIMP PIECES IN DUMP) _J
(MEAT, WATER)
(HOT WATER)
(WATER)
^i
J
- i
i
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a, Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
37
-------
Figure 11. Flow diagram for a typical breaded shrimp processing plant.
' PRODUCT FLOW
WASTE FLOW
1LS.HEAQSJ
(BATTER OVERFLOW.
BREADING)
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
38
-------
and because machine beheading is difficult. Peeling of the shrimp may be
either by machine or by hand peeling, which produces shrimp that are more
presentable than machine peeled shrimp. Two basic types of peelers are used
in this industry, Johnson (PDI) peelers and Seafood Automatic Peelers. These
machines can peel from 1,800 to 5,500 kg (4,000 to 12,000 Ibs) per day.
Breading may be done by machine or manually by experienced persons. If
hand-breading is employed, the raw peeled shrimp are dipped in batter and then
rolled in bread crumbs until the shrimp are coated. The coated shrimp are
then boxed, weighed, sealed, and frozen. The same general process also is
employed for mechanical breading. Wastes from the mechanical system originate
from holding tanks and from batter mixing tank overflow. Wash water also is
generated by rebreading improperly breaded shrimp.
Breaded shrimp are sold as either "fantail" or "butterfly" shrimp.
"Fantail" shrimp have the uropodal portion of the tail left and are split
partway up the back; "butterfly" shrimp are split whole shrimp with the tail
removed. Some plants sell portions of the processed shrimp as whole shrimp,
in which case they are frozen, glazed, and packaged in either blast freezers
or Individual Quick Frozen (IQF) freezers.
1.2.2.11 Tuna Processing (Figure 12)
The four tuna species of commercial importance are yellow fin (Neothunus
macropterus), blue fin (Thunnus thynnus), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), and
albacore (Thunnus germo)- In the industry, these species are classified as
either white meat (exclusively albacore), or light meat (processed from the
remaining three species).
Tuna processing is divided into nine unit processes (Figure 12):
Receiving. Tuna are received at the processing plant either fresh
(fish harvested locally) or frozen whole in brine (those brought in by
high seas tuna clippers). The tuna are unloaded into one ton bins and
then transported to the scale house for weighing. At this point,
depending on whether the fish is still frozen or production is back-
logged, the catch may be processed directly, sent to frozen storage,
or sent to refrigerated storage. Fish imported from foreign countries
are received and kept frozen until ready for processing.
39
-------
Figure 12. Flow diagram for a typical tuna processing plant.
RAW FROZEN TUNA
FROM BOATS
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
= = = = = = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
*1
r* ~
(BLOOD, JUICES, SMALL PARTICLES)
(OILS .MEAT, BONE, ETC.)
STICKWATER (OILS, SOLUBLE OR6ANICS)
_. . J
(HEAD, FINS,SKIN,BONE)
(VESETABLE OIL, MEAT PARTICLES)
OILS, MEAT PARTICLES, SOAP)
(ORSANICS, DETERSENT)
(SCRUBBER WATER WITH ENTRAINED ORSANICS)
SOLUBLES PLANT
(CONDENSATE WITH ENTRAINED ORGANICS)
CONCENTRATED
SOLUBLES
SCREEN.NG AND OAF.
THEN OCEAN DISCHARGE
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development
document for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood processing
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
40
-------
Thawing. Fish to be thawed are placed in large thaw tanks which hold
8 to 10 one ton bins. The end plates on the tank are removed and the
bins are placed by fork lift. When loaded, the end plates are re-
placed and the tank flooded. Thawing may be with static or circulating
sea and fresh water. Some plants heat the water with steam to speed
up the thaw rate.
Butchering. After thawing, the tanks are drained and the bins of tuna
removed with a forklift and placed in an automatic dumper located at
the head of the processing line. The tuna are then dumped on a shaker
conveyer which spreads them and carries them to a butchering table.
Here the body cavities are opened with a saw and eviscerated. These
saws are continuously washed with small water jets. The saw cuttings
and washings drip onto the floor and then flow into an outer drain
under the butcher table. The tuna is then washed and checked organo-
leptically for freshness. The viscera (10% to 15% of the tuna by
weight) are placed in barrels. Putrescent tuna are discarded and sent
to the reduction process along with the viscera.
Precooking. In order to facilitate processing, the tuna are placed in
trays set into racks for precooking, a process which loosens the tuna
meat from the bone and skin. '(The larger tuna are cut in smaller
pieces and placed on the trays.) Cookers holding 10 tons of fish are
filled with live steam and held at a temperature of 93°C (200°F) for 2
to 4 hours. The stick water (steam condensate, fish oils and liquids)
collects in the cookers and is pumped to the solubles plant for by-product
manufacture.
Cleaning. The racks of precooked fish are cooled for about 12 hours
in a holding or cooling room. The cooled tuna are removed from the
racks and placed on tables that have an elevated stainless steel
conveyer running along the packing machine, and at each of the work
stations, hoppers which lead to a below table conveyer. The head,
fins, skin, tail, and bone are manually removed from the fish and
deposited in the hopper; the belt carries the solids (30 to 40% of the
tuna by weight) to a collection station where they are taken to a fish
meal reduction plant. The red meat (6 to 10% of the tuna) is then
scraped from the fish, placed in containers, and sent to the pet food
production area. The four loins which remain are put on the upper
conveyor belt to the can packing machine.
* Canning. The packing machine shapes the tuna meat and places it in
cans. Chunk style tuna is prepared from broken sections and solid
pack tuna from the loins. A mixture of soybean oil, salt brine, and
monosodium glutamate (MSG) is added to replace lost oils, improve
taste, and aid removal from the can. Any overflows from the additive
line which occur during packing are collected, filtered, and recirculated.
The cans are seamed under vacuum pressure, prerinsed with recirculated
water, soap-washed with recirculated waters, and final-rinsed with
clear water. An antispotting agent is sometimes added in the final
rinse to reduce mineral deposition on the dry cans.
Retorting. The cans are conveyed to the retorts where they are sub-
jected to a temperature of 121°C (250°F) for 90 minutes to sterilize
41
-------
the product, after which the retort pressure is reduced and the cans
cooled with circulating cold water. The cans then are removed for
drying and finish cooling.
Labelling and Casing. After cooling, the cans are labeled and boxed.
Sterilization of the tuna is necessary to ensure that all organisms in
the can are destroyed and especially to prevent botulism caused by the
bacteria Clostridium botulinum. All cans are coded at the time of
steaming and a representative number of cans from each lot are tested.
Each coded lot is sent to a certain market or distributor.
The scraps generated by production of edible canned tuna, screenings from
washdown waters, and meat cleaned up before washdown are ground, cooked, and
pressed in the reduction area to remove oils and liquids (press liquor). The
solids (press cake) are dried, ground, bagged, and marketed as fish meal for
use as animal feeds, fertilizer, and many other products. The press liquor,
stick water, and sometimes a slurry of ground viscera are then concentrated by
heating under vacuum. The oil separated from this liquor is sold as animal
feed additives and for other uses. The red meat is sent to a special pet food
production area where the cans are mechanically filled, sealed, and rinsed
before being conveyed to the retorts. Some plants receive meat and poultry
viscera and parts; these are cooked in vats and processed with the red meat in
the pet food line.
1.2.2.12 Fish Meal Processing (Figure 13) '
This industry segment converts fish to a basic meal product rather than
to a commercial food product. Menhaden and anchovy are the two main raw
materials used for this purpose. The menhaden is a small fish belonging to
the herring family, with two species (Brevoortia tyrannus and Brevoortia
patronus) of commercial importance. Ninety-nine percent of the menhaden
landed in the United States are used for fish meal, oil, and fish solubles.
The meal is used as animal feed, the solubles as liquid fertilizer, and the
oils are either exported for use in shortenings and margarine or used domes-
tically in the manufacture of protective coatings, lubricants, medicinals, and
some soaps. The northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) is a small (6 inch)
pelagic fish whose body content is high in oil. Previously most anchovies
were canned for human consumption or used for bait, but their decline in
popularity as a food has promoted development of an anchovy fish-mealing
industry on the West Coast.
42
-------
Figure 13. Flow diagram for a typical large fish meal production processing
plant.
PROCESS FLOW
_ _ BAILWATER AND
WASHWATER FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
(PUMP)
ROTATING
SCREENS
available surface
water
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/1-75 041a.
43
-------
The fish are delivered in large volumes to the plant in the holds of
large carrier vessels. The water and fish may be conveyed to shore by pumping
with the fish screened out on shore. The bail water can be further screened
to remove scales and small particles and recycled back to the ship or dis-
charged. Some plants vacuum the fish directly to the plant, or they may be
loaded onto trucks for transport after being washed from the hold with large
hoses. At the plant, the fish are weighed and conveyed to large holding bins
from which they are augered into the reduction facility. They first are steam
cooked in equipment resembling a screw conveyer with steam injection ports
along the length. Inlet temperatures in this 9.1 m (30 ft) by 60 to 76 cm (25
to 30 inches) diameter cooker are 110°C (230°F), and outlet temperatures 116°C
(240°F). Cooking time is about 10 to 15 minutes and is critical: if over-
cooked or undercooked, there is excess oil in the meal causing poor oil recovery.
From the cookers the fish are run through a screw press to separate the liquid
and solid portions of the fish. The fish solids (press cake) pass out the end
of the press with a moisture content of 55% and the press liquor passes out
through a screen. Most plants dry the press cake using rotating drums that
have hot air and vapors drawn through the driers. The hot air entrance tempera-
ture is 540°C (1000°F) with the outlet temperature 93°C (250°F), requiring
about 15 minutes to dry the meal. Because the tumbling action of the drier
entrains small particles of meal in the air, a cyclone is used to separate the
meal from the air, and the air is scrubbed to remove organics. The dried meal
is ground and stored for shipment.
The press liquor is put through screens and/or centrifugal decanters to
remove solids, which are sent back to the drying process. The press liquor is
further processed by a three-stage centrifuge, the centrifuged oil is washed
in water, and a final centrifugation removes any remaining protein and solubles
which cause putrefaction. The oil is stored for shipment with the stickwater
sent to large tanks for further processing or discharge. The stickwater is
adjusted with sulfuric acid to pH 4.5 to prevent spoilage during holding or
shipping. Small plants unable to afford a solubles plant may barge stickwater
to sea or discharge it into the waters near the plant. If solubles are to be
marketed for tuna processing (see Section 1.2.2.11), the stickwater is treated
the same as for tuna processing^
44
-------
1.2.2.13 Salmon Processing; Alaskan and West Coast Hand-butchered
and Mechanized-butchered (Figures 14, 15, and 16)*
Salmon may be harvested by trollers, purse seining, or gill nets. Trollers
generally fish for king and silver salmon throughout the year in parts of
Alaska, but the majority of the salmon are caught and processed between June
and September when large schools return to their native streams for spawning.
These troll-caught salmon generally are eviscerated and packed on ice
immediately after being caught to reduce autolysis. Because of this, the
product quality for troll-caught salmon is better than for purse-seined or
gill netted fish which are held on board the vessel longer in an uncleaned
state. Net caught fish also are subject to crushing and net cutting during
/
harvesting. Salmon usually are hand-sorted and weighed as they are sold
either to a processor's tender boat or directly to the plant. A pump and bail
water system may be used at the plant to remove salmon from the tender, with
the fish sorted and weighed before being iced or placed in chilled brine until
processing. Troll-caught salmon may be sent to market as fresh fish, after
being washed and sometimes after freezing.
For mechanical processing, the fish are removed from the holding bins by
elevator or flume and placed on a rotating ring in the mechanical cleaning
machine which, in a single cycle, positions and measures the fish; cuts off
the head; and clamps the fish into a large upright ring-shaped machine. This
machine then opens the belly; cuts off the back and belly fins; eviscerates
the fish; removes the kidneys; brushes the body cavity; and places the fish on
a production conveyer. These machines are capable of cleaning up to 120 fish
per minute. Sometimes a scrubber is used to clean the body cavity of the fish
Salmon processing is now limited to the Pacific Coast states, with the loss
of the Atlantic salmon fishery. The four subcategories of salmon processing
(Alaskan hand butchered, Alaskan mechanized, West Coast hand-butchered, and
West Coast mechanized) are grouped together for the discussion of their
production methods.
45
-------
more thoroughly. Roe and milt from the salmon are manually separated and
taken to a separate area for processing. Some plants collect the red salmon
heads for rendering into oil. Figure 14 includes a flow diagram for by-product
processes.
In those plants which hand-butcher, the salmon are eviscerated, the
kidneys are removed, the fish are slimed (washed), and the heads and fins are
removed. The roe and milt are separated at the evisceration station for
further processing.
Canning is the next step after both hand and mechanical butchering. In
small plants, hand packing may be used to fill cans: the salmon are simply
cut into chunks and placed in the cans until the proper can weight is reached.
In the case of mechanical packing, the fish pass into a filler machine which
cuts up the fish and packs it into cans. As the filled cans move down the
line they are weighed and sent to be "patched" if necessary (hand filled to
the proper weight using small pieces of salmon). Workers also remove any
bones or meat which may interfere with the seaming machine. After being
seamed under vacuum, the cans are washed, placed in trays, and retorted at
120°C (250°F) (four pound cans retorted for four hours; one pound cans for
ninety minutes; and one quarter pound cans for forty minutes). The processed
cans are water-cooled by flooding the retort, immersion in a water bath, or a
cold water spray. The cans are further air cooled and dried before being
cased. Figure 15 presents the flow diagram for these processes.
Salmon for the fresh or frozen market generally are hand-butchered or
semiautomatic beheaders are used/ The process is the same as for the canning
method except that the fish are frozen after being slimed. Sometimes the fish
are frozen "in the round" (i.e., without processing or in the same conditions
as when caught), in which case the fish are washed, frozen at -51°C (-60°F),
glazed, packaged, and stored at -23°C (-10°F). Salmon from the Pacific North-
west are sold fresh in much larger numbers than Alaskan salmon. (See Figure
16 for the fresh or frozen salmon process.)
Excess salmon occasionally are cured in brine, in which case the salmon
are cut from the back to the belly flap and opened (Halifax cut). The bones
46
-------
Figure 14. Flow diagram for a typical salmon by-product processing plant,
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ir=
I TO CAN FILL
OPERATION)
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
47
-------
Figure 15. Flow diagram for a typical salmon canning processing plant,
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
I HEADS . MILT, ROE SEE FIGURE 26)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-Q41a.
48
-------
Figure 16. Flow diagram for a typical fresh/frozen salmon processing plant.
WATER, SLIME
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ROUND FISH
TROLL DRESSED FISH
(WH
SOLIDS
COLLECTED ^
FOR PET FOOD
OPERATION
(WHERE AVAILABLE)
>LE)
i
BUTCHER
(HEAD REMOVAL OPTIONAL)
1
HEADS, ROE, MILT
VISCERA .WATER
1
HEADCUTTER
(OPTIONAL 1
'
WATER, BLOOD..VISCERA
- -H
I
^j
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
* Screens are not required for remote sites.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/1-75-04la.
-------
are removed and alternate layers of fish and salt are placed in a tierce
(barrel) until it is filled. The tierce is closed, filled with salt solution
through the side bung hole, and the bung driven in tightly to make the final
seal.
Salmon milt usually is discarded, but in plants where it is sold the
processing involves washing, packing, and freezing. Salmon roe may be
processed in either of two ways: as cured whole skeins of eggs (sujiko), or
as caviar (ikura). Sujiko is made by washing the egg skeins and then agi-
tating them in a brine solution containing salt, ascorbic acid, citric acid,
and sodium nitrite. The sujiko is then air-dried, placed in plastic-lined
wooden boxes, and cured at room temperature. Ikura is made by washing skeins
of mature eggs in clear water. The eggs are then separated from the skeins by
rolling the skeins over a nylon rack strung very similarly to a tennis racket.
The loose eggs are drained on racks before being placed in a brine solution
very similar to that for sujiko. The eggs are removed and drained for several
hours before being bulk-packed in six gallon poly pails for refrigeration and
transport.
1.2.2.14 Alaskan Bottomfish Processing (Figure 17)
The only bottomfish presently harvested in any quantity in Alaska is
halibut. Because halibut fishing trips last from two to four weeks, the fish
are eviscerated at sea and stored in iced holds. Upon docking, the small
halibut are unloaded from the ship in totes and the larger halibut (50 to 250+
pounds) are lifted off board with winches. The halibut are washed, graded,
and weighed at the receiving station. Small fish (those under 27 kg (60 Ibs)
are washed, beheaded, and ,frozen whole, then glazed and stacked in holding
freezers for shipment. Larger fish are beheaded and cut into large sections
called fletches. The fletches are trimmed, washed, frozen, and then glazed
and boxed for shipment. Small pieces of halibut are bagged and frozen. The
cheeks of the halibut are removed and bagged and frozen for the retail market.
Heads, bones, skin, and fins removed during trimming are discarded.
The bottomfish processing plants being planned and built in Alaska will
be highly automated and will be designed to handle bottom fish other than
\
50
-------
Figure 17. Flow diagram for a typical Alaskan or northwest halibut processing
plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
HEADS
HEADS
CARCASSES
SKIN, TRIMMINGS
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
WATER, SLIME
WATER, OR 6ANICS
FLETCH PROCESS /\ WHOLE PROCESS
ALTERNATE METHOD
OD
i
SPRAY
WASH
1
COELOM
WASH
i
FREEZE
a SHIP
WATER, SLIME
WATER.FLESH
MEAT, WATER
I
1
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
-------
halibut (E.G. Jordan 1979). The unit processes for these plants are more
likely to be similar to the non-Alaskan bottom fish processes (Section 1.2.2.15),
1.2.2.15 Non-Alaskan Bottomfish Processing (Figures 18 and 19)
The bottomfish processing industry is spread along the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts. The type of fish processed may be different between-each
section of the country and even within ports. In fact, the name "bottomfish"
is a misnomer, for some of the fishes processed are midwater species. In some
areas "bottomfish" are called "groundfish" or "white fish." The same fish may
be called by a different name in adjacent regions or one name may include
several species of fish. In general, bottom-dwelling and midwater fish such
as flounder are included in this classification. While there will be varia-
tions due to the fishes processed, the following major processing steps occur
at a typical facility (Figure 18).
Receiving. As in salmon plants (Section 1.2.2.13), there are hand
processing lines, machine processing lines, and various combinations
of each. The smaller bottomfish such as whiting, flounder, perch,
pollock, and sea bass arrive at the plant iced in the round, while
large fish such as cod and haddock are eviscerated at sea and iced to
minimize spoilage. Unloading is accomplished by vacuum lines, pumps,
or by hand depending on the location and species. Some fish are
washed before receiving to remove ice, while others are weighed and
the ice weight subtracted from the catch. Most plants hold the fish
on ice awaiting processing.
Descaling. The fish may be mechanically descaled using water jets or
tumble descalers but many plants descale fish by hand.
Filleting. In a manual butchering plant, a fillet is removed at the
filleting table from each side of the fish using a sharp knife. The
remaining fish is usually discarded to the rendering plant or to a
grinder and discharged. Water is used to keep the fish solid and to
clean the tables. If machinery is used, the fish are fed into one end
and skinned fillets are ejected from the other end. The skins and
scrap fall into bags for disposal. Water is used in filleting machines
to keep the knives clean and for wash up. Hand filleting plants use
either knives or a semi-automatic skinner which removes the skins by
abrasion. The skins are flushed out of the machine and the fillets
pass into a chilled brine for preservation.
Packaging and Freezing. The fillets are removed by hand or elevator
to the packing and freezing stations. Some fillets are breaded before
freezing; this process is very similar to that described for shrimp
breading (See Section 1.2.2.10). Fish to be sold as frozen whole fish
52
-------
Figure 18. Flow diagram for a typical bottorafish processing plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
GRINDER
RECEIVE
i
TANK
WASH
'
SPRAY
WASH
1
SORT
a WEIGH
WATER, SCALES, SLIME
WATER , SLIME , BLOOD
SCALES
HEADS, VISCERA
II CARCASSES
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
53
-------
are eviscerated, beheaded (in some plants), washed, and packed into
trays. The pans are flooded with'water and frozen before boxing.
Some species are boxed and then frozen.
Another technique for bottomfish is the fish flesh process, a relatively
new method which allows better utilization of smaller fish and a lower operating
cost (Figure 19). The fish flesh process is similar to the process described
above through the descaling, beheading, and eviscerating stations. The fish
then are passed onto a belt and are pressed over a plate or drum traveling in
an opposite direction. This pressing separates the flesh from the skin,
bones, and fins. The fish flesh is collected and inspected, and then mixed
with other ingredients to enhance taste and to bind the particles together.
The flesh is formed into blocks by extrusion or forms, and is frozen. These
blocks are sawed into.smaller slabs for fillets or fish steaks. Little water
is used in this operation and solids are either sent to a rendering plant or
ground and discharged. Most solids from the bottomfish processing plants are
suitable for fish meal.
Among the other processes utilized in the bottomfish industry is the
drying and salting of cod. Cod also may be processed into lutefisk, dried,
and then reconstituted in a sodium carborate solution. Generally these other
plants are small and serve an ethnic market, although salted and dried cod is
shipped throughout the world.
1.2.2.16 Clam, Oyster, Scallop, and Abalone Processing
Clams, oysters, and scallops are processed by similar techniques whether
shucked by hand or by machine. Clams and oysters generally are processed as
fresh and frozen seafoods for market. Fresh whole clams and oysters go to the
retail or restaurant markets. The shucked product may be sold fresh, although
a large volume is frozen, breaded and frozen, or canned. Surf clams and ocean
quahogs generally are mechanically shucked while larger percentages of soft-shell
and hardshell clams are manually processed.
Hand-Shucked Clam Processing (Figure 20)
Clams are unloaded from the vessels in large wire baskets, conveyed into
the processing plant, and washed. Hand-shucking is accomplished by using a
54
-------
Figure 19. Flow diagram for a typical fish flesh processing plant,
TRASH FISH
*= = =
HEADS, VISCERA
MUTILATED PISH
I L MEAT PARTICLES,SKIN .CARCASSES
II
CHLORINATED WATER,PARTICLES
ir=
SAW DUST
TO SOLIDS
REDUCTION PLANT
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
55
-------
Figure 20. Flow diagram for a typical hand-shucked surf clam processing
plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
ZTZ =. WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
UNLOAD
' SHELL
FOR ^ ' ~
LANDFILL,
CONSTRUTION.OR
SHELLFISH SUBSTRATA
SHUCK
WASH
BELLIES
TO SEWER, «t ZZZ
DUMPED.OR
USED FOR EEL BAIT
SAND,ORGANICS, WATER
DE-BELLY
WASH
ORGANICS, WATER
FRESH
PACK
FREEZE
BOX
a SHIP
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
56
-------
special knife which is inserted through the shell and severs the Adductor
muscle. The meat is then removed from the shell. The shell is used for
oyster bed substrate, construction fill material, animal food supplement, or
sent to a landfill. The clam meat is butchered to remove the belly, washed
for freezing or fresh packing, and boxed for shipment. Clam bellies are
either used for bait or discarded.
Mechanized Clam Processing (Figure 21)
Mechanical shucking involves heating the clams to cause the adductor
muscles to release. The heat is applied by a propane-fueled furnace, a steam
cooker, or a hot water cooker. In the propane furnace the clams are exposed
to temperatures of 625°C to 815°C (1160°F to 1500°F) for 50 to 100 seconds as
they pass through on a metal chain belt. The steam cooker treats the clams
with 15 psig, 132°C (210°F) steam for one or two minutes. Residual liquid
matter (clam broth) passes to a concentrator. The hot water cooker exposes
the clam for one to two minutes at 82°C (180°F).
The clams are then washed in one or two reel washers, followed by separa-
tion of shell stock from meat in a brine flotation tank. The shells may be
shaken or run through a hammer mill to aid in releasing the meat. Any meat
still adhering to the shell is removed by hand and placed in a reel washer.
Shells are stockpiled for use as road construction materials, shell fish spawn
substrate, or landfilled. The clam meat is flumed or sent by conveyor
to the table where the belly and gonads of the surf clams are manually removed.
(Some plants are installing automated equipment.) The viscera usually are
ground and discharged but may be sold for bait or processed into pet food.
Some hard clams and small clams may be processed as whole meat.
The remaining meat is sent to a washer which agitates the meat and re-
moves any entrained sand. Washers may use air or water jets for agitation or
may use a simple reel washer. The meat is then passed from the washer over a
perforated stainless steel skimmer table for dewatering which readies the
clams for further processing. The clams may be whole, chopped, diced, or
minced before being canned or frozen. Some plants condense the broth from the
first cookers and can it separately (clam nectar) or with the clam meat. The
57
-------
Figure 21. Flow diagram for a typical mechanized surf clam processing plant,
r
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
^ = WASTE SOUIDS FLOW
T
DICE STEAM '
COOK
» 1
* t
WASH ^AND^WA
1
TO SHELLS BR NE BBINE
LANDHLL, 4=n ^-^ SEPARATOR
SHELLFISH MEDIUM SEPARATOR
CONSTRUCTION, ETC I HEAT
ORSANICS
1
SKIMMER W*TER
TABLE
I
SEWER, BELLIES
DUMPED, OR «= = = = = = DE -BELLY
WASH
I
SKIMMER *ATE"
TABLE
ii
II
81
1
CONDENSER MEAT
WATER I *
1 1
_ . !
EVAPORATOR
I BROTH CONCENTRATE
FR
EEZE j
JUICE
SEAM
TER fc.
.WATER ^
~~ I
MINCE
|
WASH
i
SKIMMER ORCANICS, WATER _^_
TABLE
^
FILL AND
OR [
FREEZE *
-:°Tir
BOX
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
58
-------
canned clams or nectar is retorted after the can filling and seaming stations.
Frozen clams are boxed and frozen before shipment.
Hand Shucked Oyster Processing; Gulf Coast, East Coast, and West
Coast (Figure 22)
Oyster processing is generally less complex than clam processing, because
the viscera of the oyster are not removed. Hand shucking of oysters is accom-
plished in the same manner as for clams. The shucked meats are graded and
washed on a skimmer table before the oysters are blow-washed. Shells go to
the shell pile to be used for shell stock, construction, or animal feed addi-
tives. Oysters are blow-washed to remove sand and plump the meat (add water).
The oysters are again dewatered on a skimmer table and sent to the packing
area. There they may be packed in containers and iced for the fresh market,
or breaded and frozen. Some plants take broken oyster pieces and make them
into oyster stew which is then canned and retorted or canned and frozen.
Mechanized Oyster Processing; Steamed and Canned (Figure 23)
Oysters for mechanical shucking are washed in two sequential drum washers.
The first washer cleans the shells and removes broken shell and seaweed; the
second washer has a different pitch and tends to jar the shells enough to
allow a slight opening for steam to enter the shell. The oysters are then
placed in retorts for several minutes to open the shells. The oyster liquids
are collected and condensed for later use in canning the product. The opened
shells are then either fed into a drum washer where the meats are separated or
they may be separated manually. The meat from the mechanical operation is
separated from the shell stock by brine flotation; the meat floats out of the
tank, while the shells sink to the bottom and are mechanically removed. The
meats are blow-washed and then drum-washed before being inspected and canned.
The oysters are fresh packed and either frozen or chilled for the market.
Some oysters are canned with broth and retorted.
Scallop Processing: Alaskan and Non-Alaskan (Figure 24)
Scallops (with the exception of calico scallops) are generally shucked at
sea and are received at the plant in cloth bags. The only meat used in the
59
-------
Figure 22. Flow diagram for a typical hand-shucked oyster processing plant,
SHELL
^[
II
EFFLUENT
TO SHELL PILE
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
60
-------
Figure 23. Flow diagram for a typical steamed or canned oyster processing
plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
DIRT, DEBRIS, WATER
DIRT, DEBRIS,WATER
HOT WATER
WATER
BRINE
WATER
WATER
II
SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
TO SHELL PILE
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
61
-------
Figure 24. Flow diagram for a typical scallop processing plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ALTERNATE
METHOD
WATER, DEBRIS
WATER, ME AT
DEBRIS
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
62
-------
scallop is the adductor muscle and all other meat Is discarded. Upon receipt
at the plant the meats are washed either in a tank wash or in a spray wash
before they are inspected. The inspected meats are then either packed, weighed,
and frozen, or they are frozen by the Individual Quick Freeze (IQF) method,
packed, and weighed before shipping.
Calico scallops are processed in a manner similar to mechanically shucked
clams. Some plants use a thermal shock technique which heats the scallop and
then subjects it to a cold water spray, the shock of which opens the scallop.
The scallop meat is then removed from the shell with a mechanical shucker such
as used for oysters. The meats are separated from the shell by brine flotation
and passed through a grinder-roller which removes the viscera from the adductor
muscle. The muscle then is washed, sorted, and packed and the ground viscera
discharged. The average yield is eight pounds of scallop meat per two bushels
of shell stock.
Abalone Processing (Figure 25)
Abalone is processed exclusively on the West Coast. The abalone are
received at the processing plants in lots segregated according to species and
the diver who harvested them. The meats are punched out of the shell with the
aid of an iron bar. The shell is then sold for jewelry or decorations. The
edible foot muscle is separated from the visceral mass and washed by one of
several types of mechanical washers. The mouth and head sections are cut away
from the foot and the foot is allowed to rest for an hour or more for the
muscle to relax. If the muscle is trimmed too soon after shucking, it is
still excitable and hard to cut. The mantle and lining of the muscle is
removed with a mechanical slicer similar to a meat slicer. The pad is then
cut off the foot muscle and the remainder of the muscle is mechanically trimmed.
The trimmings are collected and canned as abalone pieces or ground and frozen
before being sawed into patties which are then breaded and packaged for freezing.
The foot is sliced into steaks which are breaded and frozen or frozen unbreaded
for shipment. Some abalone are packaged whole after the trimming process and
frozen.
63
-------
Figure 25. Flow diagram for a typical abalone processing plant,
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
VISCERA
HEAD, MOUTH
VISCERAL PARTICIPATES, SAND, SUME, KELP
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/1-75 041a.
64
-------
1.2.2.17 Sardine Processing (Figure 26)
Most sardine canning in the United States occurs along the New England
coast where small immature sea herring are canned as sardines. The fish
arrive at the plant either by boat or truck. If by truck, the fish are
flushed out with water hoses and flumed or conveyed to the receiving area.
Fish are pumped from ships with fish pumps and sent to the receiving area
either by flume or by dry conveyor. The unloading water usually is discharged
back into the tidal waters. If the fish are not processed immediately they
are placed in a refrigerated salt brine solution. The fish are dipped out of
the tanks or flushed out and flumed or conveyed to the cutting and packing
tables. Here the heads and tails are removed by hand. Any fish remaining on
the continuous feed line are returned to the head of the production line. The
heads and tails are transported to storage hoppers or to trucks for sale to
fishmeal plants or to lobster fishermen for bait. After the sardine cans are
packed, they are placed on racks in a steam box for precooking. The fish are
then cooked at 100°C (212°F) for approximately 30 minutes. The cans are
removed from the cooker and any excess liquid is drained off the cans. ' This
mixture of oils and aqueous materials is a wastewater stream. The cans are
sealed by machine and then machine-washed to remove oils and bits of fish from
the can exterior. The washing water also is a wastewater source. The washed
cans are placed in a retort and cooked for 60 minutes at 113°C (235°F) unless
mustard or tomato sauce was added for flavoring. In that case, the time is
reduced to fifty minutes. After cooking, the cans are cooled in a retort by
water flooding and again washed before drying and boxing.
An alternate method of preparing the sardines is now being used to in-
crease the overall yield by using larger herring. A steaking machine is used
to cut the fish in a cross-sectional manner. Waste materials are flumed to
treatment/recovery processes while the steaks are transported to the packing
area. The other processing steps are similar to the hand-cutting system.
However, this process uses a considerably larger quantity of water and has a
greater pollutant generation.
65
-------
Figure 26. Flow diagram for a typical sardine processing plant.
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
JSAILWATER
BLOOD, DEBRIS, FISH
PRE
-COOK
BRINE WATER
~SALT70R6ANICS~
_BELT_WASHER WATER
SLIME, OR6AN1CS
_COOJON6 WATER
STICKWATER
AIR
- COOL
CUSHION WATER
OIL, FISH PIECES
OIL, SOAP, PARTICLES
EFFLUENT
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
66
-------
1.2.2.18 Herring Filleting: Alaskan and Non-Alaskan (Figure 27)
The herring are received at the plants by boat or by bulk truck in a
descaled condition and are then pumped into the plant. From boats they some-
times may be packed into totes for transport to the plant. Processing of the
fish may depend upon the season as well as the current markets. For preparing
fillets, the fish are aligned into grooves in the automatic filleting machine.
The heads and tails are removed and the fish eviscerated and filleted in one
machine. The freshly cut fillets are flumed to a sorting station. Here
faulty fillets are repaired manually. The viscera and other waste parts are
flumed to the reduction plant or to discharge. The fillets are either boxed
and frozen or sent to be pickled. The fish are filleted during the late fall
and winter months as described above. During the spawning season, the fish
may be discarded after the roe is stripped for sale. The herring also might
be frozen in the round for transport to Japan, where the roe can be stripped
and the carcass processed. Another option is to freeze the herring for use as
crab and halibut bait.
1.2.3 Auxiliary Support Systems
Most seafood plants in urban areas need few auxiliary support systems.
Water generally is supplied from municipal systems and electric power is
readily available. Boiler plants may be needed to supply the necessary steam
and hot water for processing the product and for washdown.
At plants where unloading of seafood is by fish pumps, a water supply
system is needed to support unloading. This water may be fresh or salt water
depending upon availability.
In remote areas such as Alaska, most canneries buy their can stock in
rolls and manufacture cans at the plant or the cans are preformed and flattened
before shipment. The cans are then reformed at the plants and the end units
are installed. Finally the can is tested for tightness before going into the
can storage area.
67
-------
Figure 27. Flow diagram for a typical herring fillet processing plant,
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
IN SEASON
WATER,BLOOD,SCALES
WATER , BLOOD, OIL
^BLOOD, V]SCERA I
FAT, HEADS.SCALES, FINS, SKELETONS
WATER.BLOOD,SCRAPS
WATER , BLOOD , SOLIDS
1
FREEZE
a SHIP
TO PRETREATMENT PLANT,
AND
THEN RECEIVING WATER
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Development document
for effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segments of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry point source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
68
-------
In Alaska, there is a high percentage of floating processing plants
(Kawabata 1980). Floating processing plants differ in their requirements and
may need specialized auxiliary support systems such as refueling barges,
sources of fresh water^ electric generators, and a means of landfilling
rubbish generated on-board. Floating processers can create impacts on small
rural communities, which are not able to provide adequate supplies of fuel,
water, or electricity. Special consideration to auxiliary support equipment
should be given in these cases.
Most remote plants have to supply all the electricity and heat needed for
running the plants. Because little housing is available, mess hall and dor-
mitory space is provided for employees. Auxiliary systems for a facility of
this kind would include all life support services necessary for the workers
during the period of employment.
1.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
1.3.1 Location
Most of the larger seafood processing plants in the Pacific Northwest are
expected to be built in remote areas near the fishing grounds, while elsewhere
in the United States plants would be built in coastal fishing villages. The
most effective mitigative measure appears to be siting the plant where the
least number of persons will be impacted by it. Site locations of this sort
occur naturally in some areas where such facilities are located in coves along
the shoreline near good anchorages. An additional important siting considera-
tion is the potential impact which the facility might have on environmentally
sensitive areas including wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas,
habitat for endangered or threatened species, and spawning or nursery grounds
for wildlife and fish. These can be avoided by conducting site screening
studies in which various alternative facility locations are considered.
Nearly all seafood processing plants are located on bodies of water
because of the necessity of being near the fishing boatports and an adequate
supply of processing, cooling, and washdown water. Because of this proximity
to water, most wastewaters ultimately are discharged back into the water
69
-------
course. Compliance with applicable NSPS to be imposed by USEPA or with the
even stricter Section 302 site-specific effluent limitations of P.L, 92-500
should minimize potential impacts on receiving water bodies.
Where new or expanded seafood processing plants are proposed for prim-
itive areas, the facility location could be a significant factor. Although
most seafood processing plants have few air emissions, those generated by
auxiliary facilities (e.g., power generating plants, fish mealing operations,
and solid waste incinerators) could create problems. All proposed facilities
are subject to a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review by
USEPA, and those plants proposed for such areas will be subject to standards
which should serve to minimize degradation of existing air quality. Where a
plant is proposed for an area of air quality nonattainment, emissions would be
controlled so as not to violate ambient air quality standards.
Seafood processing plants, although usually relatively small in size, can
involve a significant change in land use patterns. The magnitude and signif-
icance of secondary or indirect impacts, such as induced growth, infrastructure
changes, and demographic changes will depend largely on the local economy,
existing infrastructure (if any), numbers and characteristics of construction
workers (e.g., local or non-local, size of workers' families), and other
related factors. The long-term secondary impacts for a new processing plant
or group of plants can be significant. A significant increase in area employ-
ment as well as the cash associated with materials purchase can lead to the
creation of a town.
1.3.2 Raw Materials
The raw materials for seafood processing are food grade materials in
general except for spoilage losses due to improper handling or preservation.
Unloading and handling of raw seafoods creates a potential for environmental
degradation from the contaminated unloading water, and contaminated ice and
brines used to preserve fish on the high seas. Fuel oil leaks or spills also
should be considered, and procedures should be established to minimize the
70
-------
Impacts that could result from such discharges. Raw water supplies may
include either fresh water or salt water. Raw material trends and impacts are
further discussed in Section 1.4.3 and Chapter 2.0.
1.3.3 Processes and Pollutants
The major characteristics of raw waste loads for the industry are pre-
sented in Table 3, according to the major processes occurring in a seafood
processing plant. Except where chlorination of wastewaters is required, there
are no toxic or hazardous wastes generated by seafood processing, and most
pollutants (with the exception of shells and bones) are highly biodegradable.
High residual chlorine levels were reported in effluent from seafood processing
plants in Maryland (Brinsfield and Phillips 1977). These levels could pose a
potential threat to aquatic life in receiving waters. Also, in these studies
it was shown that the chlorination method was not always effective in reducing
total fecal coliform counts in the effluent.
The major components of seafood processing wastewater are blood, tissue
liquids, meat, viscera, oils, and greases. The major ecological effects are
depression of the dissolved oxygen in the water column and on the bottom
caused by the rapid decomposition of the wastes and the subsequent distress or
death of organisms. In extreme cases, seafood wastes can cause thick anaerobic
sludge formation which can release hydrogen sulfide and methane into the
water. These gases are particularly toxic to fish and can have a devastating
effect in small bays with little current or flushing action. Nutrients such
The impacts associated with harvesting the seafood may also present environ-
mental problems distinct from those on the plant site. While these impacts
are of concern, they are beyond the scope of this guidance document, it; is
the policy of the Office of Federal Activities (OFA) that its responsibility
for assessing the environmental impacts of new source industries be limited
to those impacts directly caused or induced by site-specific development and
operation activity. Therefore, the applicant's EID must address the impacts
of fishing and vessel servicing only if it is an integral part of the mill
for which application is made. However, loss caused by power failures or
harvest larger than can be processed should be considered in the EID, as this
could create a serious solid waste disposal problem.
71
-------
Table 3. Major characteristics of process raw waste loads for the
seafood processing industry.
Activity
Unloading
Receiving
Butchering
Cooking
Canning
Freezing
Washing
Characteristics
Suspended and dissolved organic
and inorganic matter
Suspended and dissolved organic
and inorganic matter
Suspended and dissolved organic
matter
Suspended and dissolved organic
matter
Suspended and dissolved organic
matter *
None identified
Suspended and dissolved organic
Rendering
matter
Suspended and dissolved
matter
organic
72
-------
as nitrogen and phosphorus released by the digesting sludges can stimulate
algal growth. Seafood processing plants may introduce elevated levels of
chloride and ammonia ions into receiving waters, which could pose potential
toxicity problems. Ammonia is produced by the decomposition of high protein
seafood waste material, whereas chloride arises from processes which employ
saline cooks, brine freezing, brine separation tanks (for separating meat from
shell), or seawater for processing (USEPA 1975d).
The major air pollution problems associated with seafood processing are
generally odors and product dust from mealing operations. The major process-
oriented solid waste problems include:
Shells from oyster, clam, scallop, crab, and shrimp processing.
Bones and skin from butchering, filleting, and fish flesh processing.
Fish heads from beheading operations.
Viscera from butchering of fish and shellfish.
Deformed cans from filling and seaming operations.
Disposal of solid wastes from seafood processing plants presents a poten-
tially significant environmental problem. If not disposed of in the correct
mariner, significant accumulations of organic material can occur, which can
reduce water quality and smother benthic life. Studies in Alaska (Bechtel
1979, NMFS 1979, NMFS 1980) have been conducted which illustrate some of these
problems. The major problems are related to:
Impacts of highly seasonal discharges of large volumes of ground waste
by land-based plants in remote areas.
Choice of suitable disposal sites for disposal of screened and recovered
wastes in non-remote areas and high cost of this method of treatment.
Impacts of disposal of wastes by floating processing plants in remote
areas, which is one of the most common practices in Alaska (Kawabata
1980).
Potential impacts on the marine environment resulting from disposal of seafood
waste may include the following:
73
-------
Large accumulations of seafood process waste may occur if such dis-
charges occur in poorly flushed, low energy protected environments.
These accumulations smother benthic organisms and reduce ambient water
quality due to reductions in dissolved oxygen levels, and may cause
the release of H S as the piles of waste decompose.
Disposal in shallow (25 feet) high energy waters has the advantage
of more rapid dispersion, but can significantly alter the substrate by
burial with heavier,, less easily sorted shell fragments. The poten-
tial impacts of such discharges can be increased greatly if several
discharge pipes are located close to one another (NOAA 1980).
Disposal of the wastes in deeper water (at least 40 feet) in low
energy areas slightly offshore, may result in a substantial accumula-
tion of wastes. Recolonization of such accumulations is reported to
not begin until three years after the pile has decomposed (Bechtel
1979). Disposal in extremely deep ocean areas is an alternative to
this problem, but it is costly.
1.3.4 Pollution Control
Odors generated by pollution control equipment could be a problem with
the industry due to the highly biodegradable nature of the waste products.
However, a properly maintained raw waste screening system should not produce
any odors of public significance. Where dissolved air flotation is used, the
solids and oils entrained with air will not generate significant odors if
removed and processed immediately. A well-designed and operated primary or
secondary aerobic system should not produce obnoxious odors. Odor problems
should be minimal in land application of well-digested or stabilized treatment
plant sludges, but any undigested sludges spread on the land would certainly
create odor and insect problems as well.
Solid wastes not promptly removed from a seafood processing plant would
create odors and insect problems because of the highly putrescible nature of
seafoods. However, a well-operated and maintained solid waste disposal system
will obviate these problems. The air pollution control equipment on rendering
plants should not create any solid waste problems as the product dust from
drying is normally recycled back into the meal. The air scrubbers will remove
organics which will not create a major problem with solids disposal, but the
organics entrained in the water are highly biodegradable and can be treated
properly to avoid water pollution control problems.
74
-------
1.4 TRENDS
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Act (FRCA) has had and continues to
have a major effect on the industry. The industry trends have been patterned
to the increased use of stocks protected by the 200 mile limit, especially new
stocks such as bottomfish. The new stock utilization patterns have been
complemented and encouraged by processing modifications as well as environ-
mental regulations.
1.4.1 Markets and Demands
1.4.1.1 Foreign Markets
The export of edible fisheries products has steadily grown from 140.6
million pounds in 1969 to a record weight of 448.3 million pounds in 1978
(NOAA 1979b). The value of edible fisheries products exports was a record
$831.6 million in 1979, with non-edible exports a record $73.9 million. Of
the edible exports, 47% went to Japan, 15% to Canada and the remaining exports
were scattered throughout the world. ; Japan is the largest buyer of frozen
king crab; fresh and frozen salmon steaks, fillets, and portions; and fresh
and frozen salmon. Figure 28 presents the value of US exports for the years
1969 to 1978. The reduction in quotas for foreign fisheries is expected to
maintain a strong American export market.
1.4.1.2 Domestic Markets
The average per capita consumption of commercial fish and shellfish has
been 11 pounds for the period of 1909 to 1978 (NOAA 1979b). This has been a
fairly constant consumption rate, except for the depression years (1931 to
1939) and during World War II (1942 to 1945). The average consumption since
1972 has been 12.7 pounds, indicating that there is a constant and steadily
increasing market and demand within the US. In 1978, the reported demand for
the average US consumer was 13.4 pounds, including 7.9 pounds of fresh and
frozen'products, 5.0 pounds of canned products, and 0.5 pounds of cured products.
75
-------
Figure 28. Value of US exports of domestic fishery products for 1969 to
1978.
Million dollars
800
600
400
200
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 197S
Source: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1979b.
Fisheries of the United States, 1978. Current Fishery Statis-
tics No. 7800.
76
-------
Through 1977 over 50% of the US supply of edible commercial fisheries
products was imported. In 1978, although imports dropped to 39% of the con-
sumption, a record 4,985,000 pounds were imported. Table 4 shows the US
supply of fishery products for the years 1969 to 1978. It would appear that
the domestic market for fisheries products will continue to grow for the
immediate future.
1.4.2 Locational Trends
The regional distribution of seafood processing plants is presented in
Table 5 for the period from 1975 through 1977 (NOAA 1979b). The major loca-
tional changes in plants are expected to occur in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska and, to a lesser degree, in the Northeast and Gulf regions. Since the
Pacific bottomfish harvests before the passage of F!;CA traditionally went to
foreign fleets, several new plants are expected to be established each year
for the next several years.
Another trend in the Pacific Coast region is toward floating processing
plants instead of shore-based plants. These will allow greater mobility for
the processor who can move closer to the stocks being harvested. The de-
clining harvest of East Coast surf clams also has initiated interest in Alaskan
surf clam stocks. Thus far only limited stock surveys and test harvesting
have occurred, but there are indications that a considerable fishery could be
developed in this region.
The trend in locating seafood processing facilities also is indicated by
the pattern for the construction of fishing vessels. As shown in Figure 29,
there was an increase of 477 vessels constructed in 1977, to a total of 1,183.
The distribution by region of fishing boat construction for the years 1975 to
1977 indicates that the Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast regions should continue
with the fisheries industry expansion, as will the Atlantic Coast.
*The smaller projected impact in the Northeast region is due to existing
bottomfish plants that could be reestablished to handle the increased fishery
made available by FRCA.
77
-------
Table 4. US supply of edible commercial fishery products, 1969-78 (quantity on round-weight basis)
Year
00
Domestic Commercial Landings
Imports (1)
Total
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 (2) ...
1977 (2) ...
1978 (2) ...
Million
pounds
. . 2 321
. . 2 537
. . 2,441
. . 2 435
. . 2,398
. . 2,496
. . 2,465
. . 2,760
. . 2,900
. . 3,177
Percent
40.9
40.8
40.5
35.3
33.7
37.6
38.6
37.4
39.1
60.9
Million
pounds
3,353
3,676
3,582
4,454
4,709
4,142
3,929
4,629
4,514
4,958*
Percent
59.1
59.2
29.5
64.7
66.3
62.4
61.4
62.6
60.9
39.1
Million
pounds
5,674
6,213
6,023
6,889
7,107
6,638
6,394
7,389
7,414
8,135*
(1) Excludes imports of edible fishery products consumed in Puerto Rico, but includes landings of
foreign-caught tuna in American Samoa.
(2) Preliminary.
* Record. Record US landings were 3,307 million Ibs. in 1950.
Source: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1979b. Fisheries of the United States,
1978b. Current Fishery Statistics No. 7800.
-------
Table 5. Processing and wholesale plants In the United States
by selected regions, 1975 to 1977.
Percent change
Region
Atlantic Coast
Gulf Coast
Pacific Coast
Totals
1975
1,776
723
587
3,086
1976
1,793
726
. 587
3,106
1977
1,743
745
621
3,109
1975 - 1977
-2
+3
+6
+0.7
Source: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1978b, 1979b.
Fisheries of the United States. Current Fisheries Statistics Nos.
7500 and 7800.
79
-------
Figure 29. Vessels constructed for the domestic fishing fleet by area for
the period of 1975 to 1977.
VESSELS CONSTRUCTED FOR THE DOMESTIC FISHING FLEET, BY AREA, 1975-77
Total U83_ I
Number
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 I
D Great Lakes, Hawaii,
and Puerto Rico
1975
1976
1977
Source: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1979b.
Fisheries of the United States, 1978. Current Fishery Statis-
tics No. 7800.
80
-------
1.4.3 Trends in Raw Materials
The major industry trend in raw materials is the increased interest in
and utilization of bottomfish for harvesting and processing. There also is a
potential for the processing of trash fish caught with bottomfish and shrimp
into fish protein, but this has not yet occurred. There have been increased
catches in the Pacific salmon and herring stocks, but this may be only normal
biological upswing and not a result of the establishment of the Fisheries
Conservation Zone.
1.4.4 Process Trends
The industry is increasing the use of mechanical butchering and steak
cutting equipment in place of hand operations. This is a particularly important
trend because the mechanized processes tend to have a greater impact due to an
increased raw waste load. There was very little change reported from 1976 to
1978 in the mix of fresh, frozen, canned, and breaded seafoods, as shown in
Table 6. This product mix probably will remain the same for the immediate
future, indicating that a major shift in processing trends is not probable.
1.4.5 Pollution Control
Since the enactment of more stringent laws and regulations governing the
control of pollutants, efforts have been made to develop new and improved
technologies for treatment of seafood wastes. Consequently, relatively rapid
changes in pollution control technology are occurring in the industry, along
with the installation of more sophisticated equipment to handle waste loads.
Improved pollution control methods are expected to focus on the following
areas.
Raw Materials Handling
Vacuum vessel unloading systems are expected to gain wider acceptance
over fish pumps because they reduce water pollution in the plant area. In-
plant controls to reduce water usage are expected to include installation of
better mechanical processing equipment and improved operations within the
81
-------
Table 6. Quantities of processed fishery products for the
years 1976, 1977, and 1978.
Process
1976
Thousand Pounds
Fresh and frozen
fillets and steaks 142,585 9
Fish steaks 94,169 6
Fish portions 344,284 22
Breaded shrimp 95,923 6
Canned shellfish 117,626 7
Canned fish 789,495 50
Tptals 1,584,082 100
1977
Thousand Pounds
160,388 10
87,230 5
355,443 22
97,718 6
133,028 8
790,672 49
1978
Thousand Pounds
161,283 9
93,158 5
386,611 21
107,973 6
118,468 7
951,829 52
1,624,439 100 1,819,322
100
Source: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1978b, 1979b.
Fisheries of the United States. Current Fisheries Statistics Nos.
7500 and 7800.
82
-------
plant. Less water will be used to transport product and wastes, and a greater
effort will be made to dry capture solid wastes from the production process.
This will reduce the amount of water to be processed along with the waste and
should decrease by-product recovery operating costs.
By-product Recovery
New technologies also are being developed to utilize materials which are
now lost or wasted. Increased pressure to reduce the po lutional Load on
water bodies, along with resistance toward landfilling seafood solids, is
expected to increase efforts to manufacture by-products from the viscera,
heads, and unused portions of seafoods. The trend is toward reduction into
meals, oils, and solubles, or to seafood protein concentrates for animal feed
additives, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals.
Wastewater
The use of activated sludge wastewater treatment systems with the sub-
sequent use of the sludge for animal food appears to be one method to reduce
the pollution load while developing a feasible by-product from the wastes, but
this is not close to commercial development. Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
as a method of removing oils and suspended solids from seafood wastes is in
full scale use for tuna, shrimp, and salmon. Recent studies indicate that,
combined with chemical feeding, DAF does an acceptable job.
Odor Control
The industry is controlling odors to a greater extent by improving the
removal and recovery of waste materials.
1.4.6 Environmental Impact Trends
The increased harvesting of seafoods is expected to be met by utilization
of unused capacity, automation of production lines, enlarged plant facilities,
and, in the Pacific Northwest, by construction of new facilities. Although
the modernization of production lines and enlargement of plants can have a
83
-------
strong local aesthetic impact, the trend toward countywide land use planning
should reduce the mistakes of the past when industrial zoning, if it existed,
was confined primarily to municipal communities. Environmental pollution from
new or expanded processing plants may impact local and regional environs to
different degrees depending on site-specific conditions, the type of facility
proposed, and the extent of pollution control and other mitigative measures.
Air Quality
The impact on air quality of new plants constructed in pristine areas
will be minimized by the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regu-
lations discussed in Section 1.5.2. The net impact of the emissions of new or
expanded facilities planned for industrialized areas also should be less than
in the past because of USEPA's offset regulations, also discussed in Section
1.5.2.
Water Quality
While new plants have the advantage of incorporating new or improved
processes to treat liquid effluents, USEPA's background studies to establish
effluent guidelines and standards (USEPA 1974a, USEPA 1975b) found no signif-
icant correlation between age of the plant and raw wasteload. Many older
plants have been upgraded and modernized to remain competitive with new plants,
and as a result have been required to install modern waste treatment facilities.
Many new plants are highly mechanized, and the strengths of wastes vary with
the degree of mechanization, with highly automated plants generally using more
water and producing more pollutants.
The selected discharge location may have a significant impact on the
water quality of the receiving water body. One of the most critical factors
is to locate the discharge in an area with good circulation to avoid the
accumulation of settleable solids. The applicant must be careful to distin-
guish between a high tidal range (i.e., the difference between the high and
low tide elevation) and a high tidal exchange (i.e., the volume of water
exchanged during a tidal cycle). The discharge location also may have a
negative effect on other industrial facilities using the receiving body for
industrial water supply.
84
-------
Geographic Impacts
Treatment problems are associated with climatic variation, with higher
treatment costs in Alaska. In highly populated metropolitan areas there will
be more processing plants, but by-product recovery will be more economically
feasible than in more remote areas. Plants planned for remote areas of the
Pacific Northwest may face the problem of establishing solid waste disposal
sites. In some areas these sites may be on or adjacent to wildlife refuges.
Also, the remoteness of the area makes salvage and recycling of materials and
equipment economically infeasible. These factors can lead to increased solid
waste disposal problems.
1.5 REGULATIONS
1.5.1 Water Pollution Control Regulations
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (EWPCA) Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500) established two major, interrelated procedures for controlling in-
dustrial effluents from new sources, and specifically included seafood pro-
cessing plants in the list of affected categories of sources. The principal
>
mechanism for discharge regulation is the NPDES permit. The other provision
is the new source performance standard. The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-217), which amends P.L. 92-500, made no change in these basic procedures.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, however, did direct USEPA to study the geogra-
phical, hydro logical, and biological characteristics of marine waters to
determine the effects of seafood processes which dispose of untreated wastes
into the waters. Also, it directed that a study of technologies be made to
facilitate the use of the nutrients in seafood wastes or to reduce the dis-
charge.
The NPUES permit, authorized by Section 402 of FWPCA, prescribes the
conditions under which effluents may be discharged to surface waters. The
conditions applicable to new or expanded seafood processing plants will be in
accordance with NSPS, adopted by USEPA pursuant to Section 306, and pretreat-
ment standards promulgated to implement Section 307(b). Different standards
will be applicable depending on the subcategory of the process under consider-
85
-------
ation. Stricter effluent limitations may be applied on a site-specific basis
if required to achieve water quality standards. Effluent NSPS for the 33 sub-
categories of the seafood processing industry are shown in Table 7. These
NSPS are based on kg. of pollutant per 1000 kg. of raw material For facili-
ties that are not .covered by this subcategorization scheme, effluent standards
are established by USEPA on a case-by-case basis.
One of the most important regulatory requirements which a new source
seafood plant will be required to meet involves dredging, filling, or con-
struction activities in navigable waters. This will require obtaining a
"Section 10" and a "Section 404" permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
These permits are required in order to prevent obstructions to navigation and
to avoid potential impacts on sensitive areas. Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (as amended, 33 USC §1344) regulates the discharge
of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including
wetlands. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 concerns permit
requirements for construction of dam, dike, or other structures, or performing
other work in navigable waters of the United States. Permit applications are
reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the USEPA. The US Coast Guard reviews new piers and docking
facilities. The USEPA has ultimate veto power over the Corps decision re-
garding granting of the Section 10 or Section 404 permits, however.
The USEPA has established regulations that control the introduction of
non-domestic wastes into publicly-owned treatment works. The pretreatment
standards for new sources do not employ limitations for the following sub-
categories: farm raised catfish; conventional blue crab; mechanized blue
crab; non-remote Alaskan crab; remote Alaskan crab; non-remote Alaskan whole
crab and crab sections; remote Alaskan whole crab and crab sections; dungeness
and tanner crab; non-remote Alaskan shrimp; remote Alaskan shrimp; northern
shrimp - contiguous states; southern non-breaded shrimp - contiguous states;
breaded shrimp - contiguous states; and tuna processing. Instead, the de-
scriptive pretreatment standards are set forth in 40 CFR Part 403. Subject
to the provisions of Part 403, the wastes from these subcategories may be
introduced into publicly owned treatment works (POTW) except for the
following:
86
-------
Table 7. Promulgated and proposed Federal new source performance standards applicable to subcategories of the
canned and preserved seafood processing point source category.
00
Subcategory
1-day
maximum
BOD5
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb
A. Farmed Raised Catfish
B. Conventional Blue Crab
C. Mechanized Blue Crab
Alaskan Crab Meat
D. Non-Remote*
E. Remote**
Alaskan Whole Crab
and Crab Sections
F. Non-Remote*
G. . Remote**
H. Dungeness and Tanner
Crab-Contiguous States
Alaskan Shrimp
I. Non-Remote*
J . Remote**
K. Northern Shrimp -
Contiguous States
L. Southern Kan-breaded
Shrimp - Contiguous
States
M. Breaded Shrimp -
Contiguous States
of of
seafood seafood
4.6 4.6
0.30 0.30
5.0 5.0
N/A N/A
No pollutants
N/A N/A
No pollutants
10.0 10.0
N/A N/A
No pollutants
155.0 155.0
63.0 63.0
100.0 100.0
of of
seafood seafood
2.3 2.3
0.15 0.15
2.5 2.5
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
4.1 4.1
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
62.0 62.0
25.0 25.0
40.0 40.0
Total suspended solids
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg
of
seafood
11.0
0.90
13.0
16.0
exceed
9.9
exceed
1.7
270.0
exceed
38.0
25.0
55.0
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
Ib/lOOOlb kg/kkg
of
seafood
11.0
0.90
13.0
16.0
1.27 cm
9.9
1.27 cm
1.7
270.0
1.27 cm
38.0
25.0
55.0
of
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood seafood
5.7
0.45
6.3
5.3
(0.5 inch)
3.3
(0.5 inch)
0.69
180.0
(0.5 inch)
15.0
10.0
22.0
5.7
0.45
6.3
5.3
Oil and grease
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg
of
seafood
0.9
0.13
2.6
1.6
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
0.9
0.13
2.6
1.6
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg
of
seafood
0.45
0.065
1.3
0.52
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
0.45
0.065
1.3
0.52
pH
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
3.3
1.1
1.1
0.36
0.36
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
0.69
180.0
0.25
45.0
0.25
45.0
0.10
15.0
0.10
15.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
15.0
10.0
22.0
14.0
4.0
3.8
14.0
4.0
3.8
5.7
1.6
1.5
5.7
1.6
1.5
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
-------
Table 7. Promulgated and proposed Federal new source performance standards applicable to subcategories of the
canned and preserved seafood processing point source category (continued).
00
00
Subcategory
1-day
maximum
BOD.
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb
N . Tuna
0. Fish Meal
P. Alaska Hand-butchered
Salmon
Non-Remote*
Remote**
Q. Alaskan Mechanized
Salmon
Non-Remote*
Remote**
R. West Coast Hand-
butchered Salmon
S. West Coast Mechanized
Butchered Salmon
T. Alaskan Bottomfish
Non-Remote*
Remote**
U. Non-Alaskan
Conventional
Bottomfish
of of
seafood seafood
20.0 20.0
6.7 6.7
N/A N/A
No pollutants
N/A N/A
No pollutants
2.7 2.7
62.0 62.0
N/A N/A
No pollutants
1.2 '1.2
of 'of
seafood seafood
8.1 8.1
3.8 3.8
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
1.7 1.7
38.0 38.0
N/A N/A
may be discharged which
0.71 0.71
Total suspended solids
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg
of
seafood
7.5
3.7
2.3
exceed
42.0
exceed
0.70
13.0
1.9
exceed
1.5
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
Ib/lOOOlb kg/kkg
of
seafood
7.5
3.7
2.3
1.27 cm
42.0
1.27 cm
0.70
13.0
1.9
1.27 cm
1.5
of
seafood
3.0
1.5
1.4
(0.5 inch)
25.0
(0.5 inch)
0.42
7.6
1.1
(0.5 inch)
0.73
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
3.0
1.5
1.4
Oil and grease
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg
of
seafood
1.9
1.4
0.28
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
1.9
1.4
0.28
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg
of
seafood
0.76
0.76
0.17
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
0.76
0.76
0.17
pH
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
25.0
28.0
28.0
10.0
10.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
0.42
7.6
1.1
0.045
4.2
2.6
0.045
4.2
2.6
0.026
1.5
0.34
0.026
1.5
0.34
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
0.73
0.077
0.077
0.042
0.042
6.0-9.0
V. Non-Alaskan Mechanical
Bottomfish
W. Hand-shucked Clam
X. Mechanized Clam
Y. Pacific Coast Hand-
shucked Oyster ***
Z. Atlantic and Gulf
Coast Hand-shucked
Oyster ***
13.0 13.0
N/A N/A
15.0 15.0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
7.5 7.5
N/A N/A
5.7 5.7
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
5.3
55.0
26.0
45.0
23.0
5.3
55.0
26.0
45.0
23.0
2.9
17.0
4.4
36.0
16.0
2.9
17.0
4.4
36.0
16.0
1.2
0.56
0.40
2.2
1.1
1.2
0.56
0.40
2.2
1.1
0.47
0.21
0.092
1.7
0.77
0.47
0.21
0.092
1.7
0.77
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
-------
Table 7. Promulgated and proposed Federal new source performance standards applicable to subcategories of the
canned and preserved seafood processing point source (continued).
COD,- Total suspended solids Oil and grease
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
CO
vO
AF.
AG.
1-day
Subcategory maximum
kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb
of of
seafood seafood
Steamed and Canned ***
Oyster 67.0 67.0
Sardine N/A N/A
Alaskan Scallop***
Non-Remote* N/A N/A
Remote** No pollutants
Non-Alaskan Scallop*** N/A N/A
Alaskan Herring Fillet
Non-Remote* N/A N/A
Remote** No pollutants
Non-Alaskan
Herring Fillet 16.0 16.0
Abalone N/A N/A
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg Ib/lOOOlb kg/kkg
of of
seafood seafood
17.0 17.0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
may be discharged
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
may be discharged
15.0 15.0
N/A N/A
of
seafood
56.0
36.0
6.0
which exceed
5.7
23.0
which exceed
7.0
26.0
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
56.0
36.0
6.0
1.27 cm (0.
5.7
23.0
1.27 cm (0.
7.0
26.0
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg
of
seafood
39.0
10.0
1.4
5 inch)
1.4
18.0
5 inch)
5.2
14.0
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
39.0
10.0
1.4
1-day
maximum
kg/kkg
of
seafood
0.84
1.4
7.7
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
0.84
1.4
7.7
in any dimension.
1.4
18.0
7.3
20.0
7.3
20.0
Maximum average
of daily values
for 30 consecu-
tive days
kg/kkg
of
seafood
0.42
0,57
0.24
0.23
7.3
Ib/lOOOlb
of
seafood
0.42
0.57
0.24
0.23
7.3
pH
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
in any dimension.
5.2
14.0
2.9
2.1
2.9
2.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.3
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
* Any facility located in population centers including but not limited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak and Petersburg
** Any facility located in any area not defined as non-remote.
*** NSPS for oysters and scallops based on product; all other subcategories based on raw seafood.
Source: 44 FR 50740, August 29, 1979.
-------
o Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW.
o Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW,
but in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works
is specifically designed to accomodate such discharges.
o Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which cause obstruction to the
flow in sewers, or other interference with the operation of the POTW.
o Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants, released in a
discharge or such volumne or strength as to cause interference in the
POTW.
o Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW
resulting in interference but in no case heat in such quantities that
the temperature at the treatment works influent exceed 40 C (104 F)
unless the works is designed to accomadate such heat.
For all other subcategories of the seafood processing industry there are
no limitations on 8005, TSS, pH, and Oil and Grease.
In cases where a seafood processing industry is not included in a sub-
category, a Best Engineering Judgement (BEJ) is used to determine effluent
limitations. These are established by an agreement between regional USEPA
personnel and local administrators who incorporate the BEJ into the NPDES
permit.
NPDES permits for new source industries may also impose special con-
ditions beyond the effluent limitations stipulated, such as schedules of
compliance and treatment standards. Once new source plants are constructed in
conformance with all applicable standards of performance, they are relieved by
Section 306(d) from meeting any more stringent standards of performance for 10
years or during the period of depreciation or amortization, whichever ends
first (Section 306(d) applies only to new source NPDES permits, not all NPDES
permits). However, this guarantee does not extend to toxic effluent standards
adopted under Section 307(a), which can be added to the new source processing
plant's NPDES permit when they are promulgated. These toxic effluent standards
will be promulgated if the finding is that an industry's effluents contain
more than trace amounts of the toxic compounds under investigation by USEPA.
P.L. 95-217 also expands Section 307(a) of P.L. 92-500 dealing with toxic
standards or prohibitions on existing sources. Thus, any evaluation of the
impact of new or expanded seafood plants should include a verification on the
status of applicable toxic effluent standards.
90
-------
Many states have qualified, as permitted by P.L. 92-500, to administer
their own NPDES permit programs. The major difference in obtaining an NPDES
permit through approved state programs vis-a-vis the Federal NPDES permit
program is that the Act does not extend the NEPA environmental impact assess-
ment requirements to state programs. Because over half the States have enacted
NEPA-type legislation, it is likely that new plants or major expansions of
existing plants will come under increased environmental review in the future.
Since the scope of the implementing regulations varies considerably, current
information on prevailing requirements should be obtained early in the planning
process from permitting authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.
1.5.2 Air Pollution Control Regulations
The canned and preserved seafoods industry generally is not considered a
major source of air pollutant emissions. Therefore, there are no national air
pollution performance standards which apply to atmospheric emissions from
these facilities. In the absence of Federal emission standards for the in-
dustry, air quality impacts are assessed based on ambient air quality stan-
dards, and applicable state and local standards.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 50) that specify
the ambient air quality that must be maintained in the United States are shown
in Table 8. Standards designated as primary are those necessary to protect
the public health with an adequate margin of safety, and secondary standards
are those necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or antic-
ipated adverse effects of air pollution.
A combined Federal/state regulatory program is designed to achieve the
objectives of the Clean Air Act and NAAQS. Each state must adopt and submit
to USEPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintaining and enforcing
primary and secondary air quality standards in Air Quality Control Regions.
USEPA either approves the state's SIP or proposes and implements an alternate
plan. The SIP's contain emission limits which may vary within a state due to
local factors such as concentrations of industry and population. Because
SIP's have been subject to frequent revision, it is best to verify the status
of the SIP requirements before applying them.
91
-------
Table 8. National primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards (40 CFR Part 50).
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen dioxide
Particulate
matter6
Sulfur dioxide
Lead
Ozone
Type of
Standard
Primary
Primary and
secondary
Primary and
secondary
Pr imary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary and
secondary
Averagini
Time
1 hr
8 hr
3 hr
(6 to 9
a.m. )
1 yr
24 hr
24 hr.
24 hr
24 hr.
24 hr
1 yr
3 hr
90 day
1 hr
z Frequency Concentration
Parameter ug
Daily maximum3 40,
Daily maximum3 10,
Annual maximum"
Arithmetic mean
Annual maximum*3
Annual geometric mean
Annual maximum*5
Annual geometric mean
Annual maximum"
Arithmetic mean
Annual maximum'5 1
Quarterly maximum0
Daily maximum3
ymj
110
310
160
100
260
75
150
60^
365
80
,300
1.5
235
Pprc
35
9
0.24C
0.05
-
-
0.14
0.03
0.5
-
0.12
a. Expected exceedence less than or equal to one per year.
b. Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
c. As a guide in devising implementation plans for achieving oxidant standards.
d. As a guide to be used in assessing implementation plans for achieving the
annual maximum 24-hour standard.
e. Not to be exceed more than once per 90 days.
Source: Adapted from 40 CFR Part 50, and 45 FR 55065.
92
-------
There are two alternate programs requiring preconatruction approval of
industrial air pollution abatement systems. These are the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program which applies to areas in compliance
with NAAQS and the Nonattainment Program for areas which are in violation of
NAAQS. In 1974, USEPA issued regulations for the PSD Program under the 1970
version of the Clean Air Act (P.L. 90-604). These regulations established a
plan for protecting areas that possess air quality which is cleaner than the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The PSD Program components include:
Classification system for areas of the country meeting NAAQS.
Limitations on the increase in concentration of pollutants above
baseline conditions.
Best Available Control Technology requirement for large sources.
Preconstruction review and approval by permit of new source air pollu-
tion facility abatement programs.
Under USEPA's PSD regulatory plan, all areas of the nation are designated
in one of three classes. The plan permits specified numerical increments of
air pollution increases from major stationary sources for each class, up to a
level considered to be significant for that area. Class I provides extra-
ordinary protection from air quality deterioration and permits only minor
increases in air pollution levels. Under this concept, virtually any increase
in air pollution in these pristine areas is considered significant. Class II
increments permit increases in air pollution levels that would accompany
well-controlled growth. Class III increments permit increases in air pollu-
tion levels up to the NAAQS.
Sections 160 - 169 were added to the Act by the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977. These Amendments adopted the basic concept of the above administra-
tively developed procedure of allowing incremental increases in air pollutants
by class. Through these Amendments, Congress also provided a mechanism to
apply a practical adverse impact test which did not exist in the USEPA regula-
tions previously.
The PSD requirements of 1974 apply only to two pollutants: total sus-
pended particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO ). However, Section 166
93
-------
requires USEPA to promulgate PSD regulations which address nitrogen oxides,
hydrocarbons, lead, carbon monoxide, and photochemical oxidants, including
use of increments or other effective control strategies which, if taken as
a whole, accomplish the purposes of PSD policy set forth in Section 160.
The 1977 Amendments designate certain Federal lands as Class I, including
all international parks, national memorial parks, national wilderness areas
which exceed 5,000 acres, and national parks which exceed 6,000 acres. This
constitutes 158 areas which may not be redesignated to another class through
state or administrative action. The remaining areas of the country have been
initially designated Class II. Within this Class II category, certain Federal
lands over 10,000 acres (national primitive areas, national wild and scenic
rivers, national wildlife refuges, national seashores and lakeshores, and new
national park and wilderness areas) established after 7 August 1977 will be
Class II "floor areas" ineligible for redesignation to Class III.
The general redesignation responsibility lies with the states. The
Federal land manager has an advisory role for redesignation to the appropriate
state and to Congress. Redesignation by Congress will require the normal
legislative process of committee hearings, floor debate, and action. In order
for a state to redesignate areas, the detailed process (outlined in Section I64(b)
of the 1977 Amendments) would include an analysis of the health, environmental,
economic, social, and energy effects of the proposed redesignation which would
be discussed at a public hearing.
In theory, all new source canned and preserved seafoods facilities would
be subject to a complete PSD review if they obtain their air quality permits
after March 1, 1978, or have potential (before control) emissions in excess of
250 tons/year of certain pollutants. Full PSD review requires analysis of
effect on air quality increments, application of Best Available Technology,
and a comprehensive monitoring program. In practice, however, small sources
of the designated air pollutants (less than 50 tons/year, 1,000 Ibs/day, or
100 Ibs/hour after abatement) are required only to apply for and obtain a
preconstruction permit unless they would impact a Class I area. Therefore
94
-------
most new source plants should not have to go through the full PSD review. A
similar type of exemption exists for small sources (less than 50 tons/year
after abatement) in non-attainment areas unless the pollutant emitted is the
cause for non-attainment. In that case, a permit would be issued only after
controls (offsets) were obtained by the new source from existing emission
sources sufficient to affect a net reduction of the non-attainment pollutant.
1.5.3 Solid Waste Disposal Regulations
The applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
the seafood processing industry would be minimal as most wastes from a plant
are highly biodegradable. The seafood processing industry itself
is not regulated under Section C of RCRA. However, any wastes
associated with power generation facilities, particularly waste
oils from diesel power generation plants, would be covered. Waste product
solids, ash from power generation, and trash would be subject to the sections
of RCRA dealing with non-hazardous solid wastes. In general, recovery or dis-
posal in a sanitary landfill will be required under a state regulatory program.
New open dumps will be prohibited. Existing state regulatory requirements for
solid waste disposal that do not meet or exceed the new Federal requirements
will be superseded. Types of land disposal that are available to meet the
industry needs are discussed in Chapter 3.0.
1.5:4 Other Regulations
The applicant should be aware that there may be a number of regulations
other than pollution control regulations that have some application to the
siting and operation of seafood processing plants. The applicant should place
special emphasis in the identification of other applicable regulations that
might apply to the proposed new source. Federal statutes and regulations that
may be pertinent to a proposed facility are:
Fisheries Resource Conservation Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265)
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
95
-------
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
USDA Agriculture Conservation Service Watershed Memorandum 198 (1971)
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969
The Flood Control Act of 1944
Federal-Aid Highway Act, as amended (1970)
The Wilderness Act (1964)
Endangered Species Preservation Act, as amended (1966)
The National Historical Preservation Act of 1974
Executive Orders 11593, 11988, and 11990
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
Procedures of the Council on Historic Preservation (1973)
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
In connection with these regulations, the applicant should place particular
emphasis on the possibilities of disturbing an archaeological site, such as an
early Indian settlement or a prehistoric site. The applicant should first
consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the National
Register of Historic Places. If the SHPO states that there is no need for a
survey, no archaeologist needs to be hired, whereas a survey may be required
if archaeological sites might be affected by the proposed plant. The applicant
should also consult the appropriate wildlife agency (state and Federal) to
ascertain that the natural habitat of a threatened or endangered species will
not be adversely affected.
From a health and safety standpoint, all complex industrial operations
involve a variety of potential hazards, and to the extent that these hazards
could affect the health of plant employees they may be characterized as poten-
tial environmental impacts. These hazards exist in seafood processing plants
because of the very nature of the operationfor example, the use of water
under conditions of high temperatures and pressure, or the operation of me-
chanical butchering equipmentand all plant owners should emphasize that no
phase of operation or administration is of greater importance than safety and
accident prevention. Company policy should provide and maintain safe and
healthful conditions for its employees and establish operating practices that
will result in safe working conditions and efficient operation.
The plant must be designed and operated in compliance with the standards
of the US Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion, and the appropriate state statutes relative to industrial safety. The
96
-------
applicant also should coordinate closely with local or regional planning and
zoning commissions to determine possible building or land use limitations.
97
-------
2.0 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
2.1 PROCESS WASTES
This subsection covers the generation of liquid effluents, air emissions,
and solid wastes. These data were developed mainly in support of the effluent
limitations development program for the USEPA. These represent the best
general information on all aspects of the seafood processing industry. The
information is useful in the characterization of the general level of waste
generation expected for such facilities.
2.1.1 Air Emissions
Seafood processing is generally the handling of a wet raw material- that
is processed in the wet condition. With the exception of fish meal produc-
tion, the point source emissions from the industry are very minor. Fish-
mealing may generate air-borne pollutants from the following sources:
o Mealing operation where fish meal dust and volatile oils are entrained
in the drying air.
o Evaporators used to concentrate the solubles.
Odor generation is a problem due to the putrescible nature of the materials
handled. Odor may be associated either with the wastewater streams or the
solid waste streams.
2.1.2 Water Discharges
Water discharges from the seafoods processing industry generally contain
pollutants that are highly biodegradable, reflecting the residue from the
processing of animal bodies. The major parameters of interest are biochemical
.oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and oil and grease.
BOD generally comes from dissolved hlood, body fluids, pieces of meat,
body slimes, and detergents from cleaning operations. TSS generally consist
of shell, bone, skins, scales, meat, and dirt from floors and product. Oil
and grease is generated by animal fats which escape during cooking, rendering,
98
-------
and processing. These natural oils are highly biodegradable. The discharges
may contain ground-up crab shells, which are not highly biodegradable.
The waste loading from the industry has been estimated in several reports
prepared for the USEPA program to establish effluent guidelines (USEPA 1974a,
USEPA 1975c, E.G. Jordan 1979). For a new source industry, the recent emphasis
on wastewater treatment will have an impact on the selection and design of the
process equipment. Therefore, it is likely that data collected even during
the mid-1970's would tend to overestimate the waste generation for a new
seafood processing facility. Such considerations were included in a recent
analysis of the data collected for the original effluent guidelines documents.
The conclusions of that analysis are summarized in Table 9, which shows the
flow and pollutants expected for an average facility in all industry subcate-
gories with three exceptions. These are Subcategory T (Alaskan bottomfish),
Subcategory AC (Alaskan scallop), and Subcategory AD (non-Alaskan scallop),
for which there were insufficient data to perform a detailed reevaluation.
Tables 10 through 23 summarize the reported pollutant and flow estimates for
industry subcategories. The data for Table 9 and for Tables 10 through 23 are
from different references, so there is not an exact agreement between the
averages for each subcategory. However, these estimates are useful in the
identification of a reasonable range for flow and pollutant generation.
The following sections describe the data on pollutant generation for each
subcategory, providing additional information on source and quantity. The
general sources for these data are the original studies by USEPA. The data
were obtained as follows: first, a preliminary segmentation was conducted and
the relative importance of these segments estimated; second, a representative
number of plants in each segment was sampled; and third, the results of the
field work were analyzed and final subcategories established. The data from
typical plants belonging to each subcategory were then averaged to obtain an
estimate of the characteristics of that subcategory (typical raw waste loads).
2.1.2.1 Catfish Processing
Wastes from catfish processing generally include blood, slime, skins, and
particles of flesh and feces from the holding tanks, skinning machines, and
99
-------
o
o
Table 9. Baseline waste loads for seafood processing Industry subcategorles.
Subcategory Flow BOD,. TSS 0 & G Note
A. Farm Raised Catfish
B. Conventional Blue Crab
C. Mechanized Blue Crab
D,E. Alaskan Crab Meat
F,G. Alaskan Whole Crab and
Crab Section
H. Dungeness and Tanner Crab
I,J. Alaskan Shrimp
K. Northern Shrimp
L. Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
M. Breaded Shrimp
N. Tuna
0. Fish Meal (with solubles)
0. Fish Meal (without solubles) 12,900
P,R. Hand-Butchered Salmon
Q,S. Mechanized Salmon
T. Alaskan Bottomfish
(1/kkg)
14,100
1,100
31,400
44,800
20,200
19,900
90,600
51,900
44,500
98,200
11,200
17,400
12,900
3,420
14,200
(gal/ton) (kg/Kkg)
3,380 5.65
264 _
7,530
10,700
4,850
4,770
21,800
12,400
10,700
23,500
2,680
4,160 3.08
3,100 50.2
818
3,400
(kg/kkg)
6.22
0.784
11.6
5.63
1.86
3.47
97.5
41.5
27.3
49.2
7.66
1.16
28.3
0.787
17.1
-
(kg/kkg)
3.55
0.229
4.66
0.798
0.452
0.965
20.0
19.0
6.24
1.84
4.46
0.623
16.2
0.146
5.67*
_
-
-
-
1
1
-
1
-
-
-
2
1
1
-
3
4
-------
Table 9. Baseline waste loads for seafood processing
industry subcategories (cont.).
Subcategory
Flow BOD, TSS 0 & G
Note
(1/kkg) (gal/ton) (kg/Kkg) (kg/kkg) (kg/kkg)
U. Non-Alaskan Bottomfish, Manual 3,980
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC,
AE,
AG.
Non-Alaskan Bottomfish,
Mechanized
Hand-shucked Clam
Mechanized Clam
Pacific Coast Hand-shucked
Oyster
East & Gulf Coast
Hand-Shucked Oyster
Steamed and Canned Oyster
Sardine
AD. Scallop
AF. Herring Fillet
Aba lone
Notes (Waste loads based on raw
12,800
4,840
8,100
34,700
29,000
69,300
6,950
12,500
34,100
seafood
955 - 1.30 0.378
3,080 - 8.77 2.75
1,160 - 4.94 0.104
1,940 - 3.83 0.441
8,340 - 19.4 1.35
6,980 - 12.4 0.603
16,600 - 138 1.29
1,670 - 4.47 2.30
_
2,900 - 13.2 3.77
8,190 - 9.45 0.975
except as noted)
-
1
1
-
5
5
1,5
-
4
1
1. Value adjusted to assure all baseline levels have been achieved by the same plant.
2. Flow ratio is achievable with a thaw recycle system.
3. Waste load is achievable without the use of head cooker or by eliminating
this waste stream from the plant effluent.
4. Insufficient data to characterize subcategory.
5. Waste loads are based on production in terms of finished product.
Source: Edward C. Jordan, Inc. 1979.
-------
Table 10. Catfish process material balance and wastewater
characteristics (Subcategory A).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Catfish (Subcategory A): Average Flow = 116 cu m/day (0.0306 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow(Avg) % Range
a) live holding tanks 59 55 - 64
b) butchering (beheading,
eviscerating)
c) skinning 4 2-7
d) cleaning 14 9-18
e) packing (including sorting) 3 1-5
f) cleanup 7 5-9
g) washdown flows 13 9-16
II. Product - Material Balance Summary
Catfish (Subcategory A): Avg. Raw Product Input = 5.19 kkg/day (5.72 ton/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range %
Food Product 63
By-product 27 0-32
Waste 10 5-37
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategory A
Parameter Mean Ran
Flow, liters /kkg
ga^/ 1,000 Ibs
BOD ^
Total Suspended/ Solids^
Oil and Grease
pH
23,000
2,755
7.9
9.2
4.5
6.3
15,800 to
1,890 to
5.5 to
6.8 to
3.8 to
5.8 to
31,500
3,775
9.2
12.0
5.6
7.0
kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood (or lb/1,000 Ibs)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. I974a. Development document for
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna segment of the canned
and preserved seafood processing point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020.
Washington DC.
102
-------
processing lines. Table 10 shows the process material balance and wastewater
characteristics for this subcategory.
2.1.2.2 Blue Crab Processing
Blue crab processing generates the same pollutants for both mechanized
and manual systems. The waste load per unit of process is much lower for the
conventional process, but the mechanized process uses more water and therefore
has lower strength wastewater (e.g., BOD from hand-picked crab may be 4,410
mg/1 and mechanical, 650 mg/1). BOD is from the blood, body fluids, bits of
meat, shell, and cleaning detergents. Suspended solids are from bits of meat,
shell, and grit from cleaning. Oils and grease generally are released from
crab during the cooking process. Table 11 presents the mass balances and the
wastewater characteristics for these subcategories, where the difference in
pollution generation is evident.
2.1.2.3 Alaskan Crab Processing
Alaskan crab processing waste characteristics are the same at remote and
non-remote plant locations. The BOD is generally from blood, body fluids,
meat, shell, and clean-up detergents. Suspended solids generally come from
bits of meat, shell, and grit from cleanup. Oil and grease are released from
the meat during the cooking process. The wastes (excluding shell) are highly
biodegradable. The waste characteristics for the whole cook and crab section
subcategory are the same. Wastewater flows are much lower in the whole and
section process as the quantities of water needed to remove shell and wash the
meat are much lower. Table 12 presents the mass balances and wastewater
characteristics for these subcategories. The lesser mechanized subcategory,
whole and section crab, has the lower waste flow per unit of production.
2.1.2.4 Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing
Dungeness and tanner crab processing generates a wastewater with charac-
teristics similar to that of Alaskan crab meat processing. Table 13 presents
the mass balance and wastewater characteristics for facilities in this subcate-
gory. Oil and grease were not measured during the study of the wastewater
103
-------
Table 11. Conventional and mechanical blue crab processes material
balances and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories B,C).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Blue crab, conventional (Subcategory B):
Average flow = 2.52 cu m/day (665 gpd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) washdown 23 17 - 26
b) cook 17 13 - 21
c) ice 60
Blue Crab, mechanical (Subcategory C):
Average flow = 176 cu m/day
(0.9465 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) machine picking 90.5 -
b) brine tank 0.5 -
c) washdown 7.7 -
d) cook 0.2
e) ice making 1.1 -
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Blue crab, conventional (Subcategory B):
Avg. Raw Product Input = 2.59 kkg/day (2.85 ton/day)
Blue crab, mechanical (Subcategory C):
Avg. Raw Product Input = 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 ton/day)
Subcategory B Subcategory C
Output % of Raw Product Range % % of Raw Product Range %
Food product 14 9-16 14 9-16
By-product 80 79 - 86 80 79 - 86
Waste 6 - 6 -
104
-------
Table 11. Conventional and mechanical blue crab processes material
balances and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories B,C)
(continued).
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategory B
Parameter
Mean
Flow, 1/kkg 1,190
gaj/1,000 Ibs 143
BOD
TSS* 4
Oil and Grease
PH
5.2
0.74
0.26
7.5
1,060 to 1,310
128 to 158
4.8 to 5.5
0.7 to 0.78
0.21 to 0.30
7.2 to 7.9
Subcategory C
Mean
36,800
4,415
22.0
12.0
5.6
7.0
29,000 to 44,600
3,480 to 5,350
22.0 to 23.0
7.9 to 16.0
4.3 to 6.9
6.9 to 7.2
Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg raw seafood (or lb/1,000 Ibs)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development document
for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new source
performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna
segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point
source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
105
-------
Table 12. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat processes (with waste
grinding) and whole crab and crab sections processes material balances
and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories D,E,F,G).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Alaska crab, frozen and canned (Subcategories D and E):
Average Flow = 440 cu in/day (0.116 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) butcher and grinding 30 25 - 45
b) precook and cook 3 1-5
c) cool 6 2-9
d) meat extraction 34 30 - 40
e) sort, pack, freeze 7 5-10
f) retort 10 5-15
g) cleanup 10 8-15
Alaska crab, whole and sections (Subcategories F and G):
Average Flow = 364 cu m/day (0.096 mgd)
Unit Operation jMTlow (Avg) % Range
a) butcher and grinding 26 15 - 40
b) precook and cook 19 15 - 25
c) wash and cool 36 20 - 50
d) sort, pack, freeze 9 5-12
e) cleanup 10 15 - 20
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Alaska crab, frozen and canned (Subcategories D and E):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 8.40 kkg/day (9.25 tons/day)
Alaska crab, whole and sections (Subcategories F and G):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 13.06 kkg/day (14.40 tons/day)
Subcategories D and E Subcategories F and G
Output % of Raw Product Range % % of Raw Product Range %
Food product 14 10-20 64 57 - 69
By-product 66 50 - 75 21 15 - 30
Waste 20 10 - 30 15 10 - 30
106
-------
Table 12. Alaska crab frozen and canned meat processes (with waste
grinding) and whole crab and crab sections processes material balances
and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories D,E,F,G.) (continued).
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Parameter
Flow, 1/kkg
gal/1,000 Ibs
BOD *
TSS* A
Oil and Grease
pH
Subcategories D and E
Mean
51,700
6,200
22.0
7.0
3.0
7.5
32,800 to 85,500
3,935 to 10,25
8.0
2.0
0.2
7.4
to
to
to
to
28
9
5
7.7
Subcategories F and G
Mean
30,758
3,676
3.4
2.1
0.3
7.6
28,025 to 32,396
3,350 to 3,877
to
to
to
to
2.4
0.6
0.2
7-4
4.8
4.8
0^4
8.2
Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood
(or lb/1,000 Ibs)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development docu-
ment for proposed 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-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
107
-------
Table 13. Dungeness crab and tanner crab process (without fluming wastes)
in the contiguous United States material balance and wastewater
characteristics (Subcategory H).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Dungeness and tanner crab (Subcategory H):
Average Flow = 95 cu in/day (0.025 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) butcher (clean-up) 8 4-11
b) bleed rinse 25 12 - 30
c) cook 3 2-4
d) cool 30 26 - 33
e) pick (clean-up) 7 5-8
f) brine and rinse 27 18 - 34
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Dungetiess and tanner crab (Subcategory H) :
Average Raw Product Input Rate =6.3 kkg/day (7.0 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range %
Food product 22 17 - 27
By-product 63 50 - 66
Waste 15 7-23
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategory H
Parameter Mean Range
Flow, 1/kkg 19,000 14,800 to"21,300
gal/1,000 Ib 2,280 1,780 to 2,550
BOD 8.1 6.6 to 11.0
TSS* ^ 2.7 2.6 to 2.9
Oil and Grease Not measured - -
pH 7.4 7.3 to 7.7
Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood
(or lb/1,000 Ib)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development docu-
ment for proposed 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-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
108
-------
characteristics; however, the ranges probably are similar to the reported data
for Alaskan crab meat processing.
2.1.2.5 Alaskan and Northern Shrimp Processing
Alaskan shrimp and northern shrimp processing wastes are the same for
both remote and non-remote plants. The wastes are biodegradable with the
sources of BOD including the shell, meat, blood, body fluids, and cleaning
agents. The suspended solids come from shell, head, bits of meat, and grit
from cleanup and the shrimp. Oil and grease is released from the shrimp
during pre-cooking and mechanical peeling. Table 14 presents data for facili-
ties in these subcategories.
2.1.2.6 Southern Non-breaded Shrimp Processing
The southern non-breaded shrimp subcategory generates wastewater with
characteristics similar to those for the Alaskan and northern shrimp industry.
Because most southern shrimp are beheaded at sea, the waste quantity per unit
of product is much less than for northern shrimp. Table 15 presents the mass
diagram and wastewater characteristics for facilities in this subcategory.
2.1.2.7 Breaded Shrimp Processing
The majority of the plants which bread shrimp are located in the southern
states. Waste characteristics are generally the same as for non-breaded
shrimp processing, except for higher BOD and suspended solids concentrations
from the breading operation, where overflow water, machine and vat washing,
and reclamation of poorly breaded product greatly increase flows and strengths.
Oil and grease data are not reported from the development document preparation,
but should be in the ranges for the conventional shrimp processing subcate-
gories. Table 15 presents the mass balance and wastewater characteristics for
the breaded shrimp subcategory.
109
-------
Table 14. Alaskan and northern shrimp processes material balances
and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories I,J,K).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Alaskan and northern shrimp (Subcategories I,J,K):
Average Flow = 1,170 cu m/day (0.310 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) fish picking and ageing 4 0-5
b) peelers 45 40 - 50
c) washers and separators 15 10 - 30
d) blanchers 2 1-5
e) meat flume 19 10 - 20
f) retort and cool 5 3-8
g) cleanup 10 5-15
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Alaskan and northern shrimp (Subcategories I,J,K):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 13.9 kkg/day (15.30 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product % Range
Food product 15 13 - 18
By-product 65 50 - 80
Waste 20 15 - 40
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategories I,J,K
Parameter Mean Ran
Flow, 1/kkg 73,400 60,000 to 192,500
gaJ/1,000 Ibs 8,800 7,200 to 23,000
BOD 130.0 27.0 to 182.0
TSS* ^ 210.0 64.0 to 336.0
Oil and Grease 17.0 4.5 to 48.0
pH 7.7 7.4 to 8.5
* Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood
(or lb/1,000 Ib)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development docu-
ment for proposed 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-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
110
-------
Table 15. Southern non-breaded and breaded shrimp processes material
balances and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories L,M).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Southern non-breaded shrimp (Subcategory L):
Average Flow = 787 cu m/day (0.208 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) peelers (Model A) 58 42 - 73
b) washers 9 8-10
c) separators 7 5-9
d) blancher 2 0.006 - 2
e) de-icing 4 0.005 - 7
f) cooling and retort 12 8-20
g) washdown 8 7-10
Breaded southern shrimp (Subcategory M):
Average Flow = 653 cu m/day (0.172 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow(Avg) % Range
a) hand peeling 5 3-7
b) thawing or de-icing 4 2-7
c) breading area 2 1-3
d) washdown 51 29-73
e) automatic peelers 38 34 - 55
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Southern non-breaded shrimp (Subcategory L):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 23.9 kkg/day (26.4 tons/day)
Southern breaded shrimp (Subcategory M):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 6.3 kkg/day (7.0 tons/day)
Subcategory L Subcategory M
Output % of Raw Product % Range % of Raw Product % Range
Food Product 20 15 - 25 80 75 - 85
By-product 65 58 - 71 15 10 - 20
Waste 15 13-18 5 3-6
111
-------
Table 15. Southern non-breaded and breaded shrimp processes material
balances and wastewater characteristics (Subcategories L,M) (continued).
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategory L Sub category M
Parameter Mean Range Mean Ran
Flow, 1/kkg 47,200 33,000 to 58,400 116,000 108,000 to 124,000
ga^/1,000 Ibs 5,600 3,950 to 7,000 13,950 13,000 to 1,490
BOD 46.0 41.0 to 51.0 84.0 81.0 to 87
TSS* ^ 38.0 16.0 to 50.0 93.0 76.0 to 110
Oil and Grease 12.0 5.4 to 36.0
pH 6.7 6.5 to 7.0 7.8 7.7 to 7.9
* Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood
(or lb/1,000 Ibs)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development docu-
ment for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new source
performance standard for the catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna
segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point
source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
112
-------
2.1.2.8 Tuna Processing
Tuna processing wastes are composed of blood, body fluids, skin, slime,
bone, and bits of meats. These are highly biodegradable and the primary
source for BOD, which also includes the demand from cleaning solutions.
Suspended solids are derived from bits of meat, bone, skin, and gut from
cleaning operations. Oil and grease is released during the cooking of the
tuna. Table 16 presents the mass balance and wastewater characteristics for
tuna processing.
2.1.2.9 Fish Meal Processing
Fish meal plant wastes are derived from the stickwater, the bailwater,
the evaporators, air scrubbers, and the plant washdown waters. The wastes are
highly biodegradable and unstable as they are slimes, fish particles, body
fluids, and cleaning agents." Unless the pH is kept low (i.e., acidic), the
stickwater (a broth consisting of body fluids and steam condensate) will
become putrescible within several days. Table 17 presents the mass balance
for a facility with a solubles plant and for a facility without a solubles
plant. Suspended solids in the wastewater are generated from the bits of meat
and scales which pass through the presses or are entrained in the air scrubbers.
Oil and grease is extracted from the body during the cooking and rendering
process.
2.1.2.10 Salmon Processing
Salmon processing wastes mainly are derived from bailing water, the
butchering process, and plant cleanup. During the butchering process (whether
mechanical or manual), the heads, tails, viscera, blood, and fins are removed
and the fish completely cleaned for food processing. The BOD is derived from
all of these wastes plus those added by cleaning materials. The suspended
solids in the waste stream consist of scales and bits of flesh and gut from
plant cleanup and fish washing. Oil and grease is generated from the body
fluids released during the butchering and sliming process. Table 18 presents
the mass balances for hand-butchered, mechanical butchered, and fresh/frozen
round salmon, respectively.
113
-------
Table 16. Tuna process material balance and wastewater
characteristics (Subcategory N).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Tuna (Subcategory N):
Average Flow 3,060 cu m/day (0.81 mgd)
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg) % Range
a) thaw 65 35 - 75
b) butcher 10 5-15
c) pak-shaper 2 1-3
d) 'can washer 2 1-3
e) retort 13 6-19
f) washdown 7 5-10
g) miscellaneous 1 0-2
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Tuna (Subcategory N):
Average Raw Product Input Rate = 167 kkg/day (184 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product . % Range
Food Product 45 40 - 50
By-products
Viscera 12 10 - 15
Head, skin, fins, bond 33 30 - 40
Red meat 9 8-10
Waste 1 0.1-2
III. Wastewater Characteristics
Subcategory N
Parameter Mean Ran
Flow, 1/kkg 18,300 5,590 to 33,000
ga^/1,000 Ibs 2,200 670 to 3,960
BOD 13.0 6.8 to 20.0
TSS* ^ 10.0 3.8 to 17.0
Oil and Grease 5.8 3.2 to 13.0
pH 6.7 6.2 to 7.2
Ratios remain the same for kg of parameter/kkg of raw seafood
(or lb/1,000 Ibs)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. Development docu-
ment for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp and
point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
114
-------
Table 17. Fish meal production with solubles plant and without
solubles plant processes material balances (Subcategory 0).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Fish meal, with soluble (Subcategory 0):
Average Flow = 27,540 cu m/day (7.27 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) air scrubber
% Flow (Avg)
80 - 85
15 - 20
% of Total
BOD
60 - 85
15 - 40
Total effluent average 51,000 1/kkg
3.7 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
60 - 90
10 - 40
1.6 kg/kkg
Fish meal, without solubles (Subcategory 0):
Average Flow = 350 cu m/day (0.092 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) stickwater
b) bailwater
c) washdown
d) air scrubber
% Flow (Avg)
45
39
1
15
% of Total
BOD
93
7
1
1
% of Total
Susp. Solids
94
6
1
1
Total effluent average 1,870 1/kkg
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
71 kg/kkg
59 kg/kkg
Fish meal, with solubles (Subcategory 0):
Average Production Rate = 540 kkg/day (600 tons/day)
Fish meal, without solubles (Subcategory 0) :
Average Production Rate = 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day)
End Products
Products
a) meal
b) oil
Byproducts
a) solubles
Wastes
a) stickwater
b) water vapor
c) water
% of Raw Product
(with solubles) (without solubles)
6-8
20 - 21
15
28
8
35
29
56 - 59
Based on kkg of raw seafood
115
-------
Table 17. Fish meal product ion with solubles plant and without
solubles plant processes material balances (Subcategory 0) (cont.).
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development docu-
ment for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards for the fish meal,
salmon, bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop
and abalone segment of the canned and preserved seafood pro-
cessing point source category phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041.
Washington DC.
116
-------
Table 18. Salmon processes material balances (hand-butchered, mechanical-
butchered, and fresh/frozen) (Subcategories P,Q,R,S,).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Salmon, hand -butchered (Subcategorles P and
Unit Operation
a) butchering line
b) fish cutter
c) can filler
d) can washer
e) washdown
*
Total effluent average
Salmon, mechanical butchered
Unit Operation
a) unloading water
b) iron chink
c) fish scrubber
d) sliming table
e) fish cutter
% Flow (Avg)
20
20
5
22
33
5,400 1/kkg
(Subcategories
% Flow (Avg)
12
27
19
13
7
f) can washer and clincher 2
g) washdown
*
Total effluent average
Salmon, fresh/frozen
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
20
19,800 1/kkg
% Flow (Avg)
88 - 96
4-12
R):
% of Total
BOD
24
16
21
5
34
3.4 kg/kkg
Q and S) :
% of Total
BOD
10
65
5
6
4
1
10
45.5 kg/kkg
% of Total
BOD
76 - 92
8-24
% of Total
Susp. Solids
17
17
30
*5
30
2.0 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
7
56
3
18
5
1
11
24.5 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
74 - 97
3-26
Total effluent average
3,750 1/kkg
2 kg/kkg
0.8 kg/kkg
117
-------
Table 18. Salmon processes material balances (hand-butchered, mechanical-
butchered, and fresh/frozen) (Subcategories P,Q,R,S) (continued).
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Salmon, hand-butchered (Subcategories P and R):
Average Production Rate = 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day)
No data available
Salmon, mechanical-butchered (Subcategories Q and S):
Average Production Rate = 37 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
End Products JLof. Raw Product
Food products 62 - 68
By-product
a) roe 4 - 6
b) milt 2-3
c) oil 1
d) heads 12-14
e) viscera 0 - 5
Wastes 11-16
Salmon, fresh/frozen;
Average Production Rate = 16.4 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
End Products % of Raw Product
Food products
a) salmon 65-80
b) eggs 5
c) milk 3
By-product
a) heads 8
b) viscera 5-7
Waste 1-2
*
Based on kkg of raw seafood
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development docu-
ment for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards for the fish meal,
salmon, bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop
and abalone segment of the canned and preserved seafood pro-
cessing point source category phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041.
Washington DC.
118
-------
2.1.2.11 Bottomfish Processing
Bottomfish processing wastes are very similar in source and biodegrad-
ability to those of the salmon processing industry, regardless of species
processing or plant location. One difference is that some bottomfish are
skinned and filleted, whereas salmon are rarely filleted and skinned at the
plant. The source of BOD includes: slime, blood, body fluids, heads, fins,
bits of meat, and cleaning agents. The components of the suspended solids are
fish scales, viscera, fins, heads, bits of meat, and gut from fish washing and
plant cleanup. Oil and grease is from the oils in the body fluids that are
released during processing. Table 19 presents mass balances for several
process configurations.
2.1.2.12 Herring and Sardine Processing
The waste characteristics of the herring filleting and sardine canning
industry are very nearly the same as for the salmon and bottomfish processing
plants. Because large herring and sardines (small herring) are oily fish,
larger amounts of oil and grease are generated than during bottomfish pro-
cessing. The source of the BOD for sardine processing is from blood and
debris in the bailwater, body liquids from the holding tanks, slime and body
fluids from the packing, stickwater from pre-cooking, and oils and cleaners
from can washing. The suspended solids come from debris, fish pieces, scales,
fins, and heads from the bailing and butchering of the sardines. Oil and
grease generally is from the oils released during the cooking and decanting of
the sardine cans and from can washing. Table 20 presents the material balance
for sardine processing plants.
BOD from herring filleting is from the body fluids, blood, fish portions,
and cleaning materials. The suspended solids are mainly from scales, heads,
fins, bones, and meat scraps from bailing, the holding bins, and processing
lines. If roe and milt are being packed, there are solids from this process
also. Oil and grease are generated during holding and processing. Table 20
also presents the material balance for herring filleting plants.
119
-------
Table 19. Alaskan bottomfish freezing, non-Alaskan bottomfish, manual
and mechanized, and non-Alaskan bottomfish freezing processes
material balances (Subcategories T,U,V).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Alaskan bottomfish, freezing (Subcategory T) :
%
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg)
a) head cutter/grader 3
b) washer 79
c) washdown 18
Total effluent average 8,600 1/kkg 1.
Non-Alaskan bottomfish, manual (Subcategory U) :
%
Unit Operation % Flow (Avg)
a) skinner 13-64
of Total
BOD
11
72
17
5 kg/kkg
of Total
BOD
6-36
b) fillet table 22 - 83 43 - 76
c) pre-rinse or dip tank 1-13
d) washdown 3-21
*
Total effluent average 8,000 1/kkg 2.8
Non-Alaskan bottomfish, mechanized (Subcategory
%
Unit Operation % Flow(Avg)
a) descaler 42 - 66
b) fillet table 21-36
c) pre-wash or dip tank 3-10
d) washdown 7-18
*
Total effluent average 10,000 1/kkg 2.
Non-Alaskan bottomfish, freezing (Subcategory V)
%
Unit Operation % Flow(Avg)
a) process water 70 - 75
b) washdown 3 - 8
c) visceral flume 22
7-26
4-20
kg/kkg
V):
of Total
BOD
56 - 61
16 - 30
4-8
6-19
5 kg/kkg
of Total
BOD
74 - 77
2-5
21
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10
62
28
1.2 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
5-39
39 - 80
5-34
7-21
1.8 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
26 - 70
12 - 19
4-8
7-18
1.6 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
74 - 78
2-6
20
Total effluent average
13,500 1/kkg 14 kg/kkg
U kg/kkg
120
-------
Table 19. Alaskan bottomfish freezing, non-Alaskan bottomfish, manual and
mechanized, and non-Alaskan bottomfish freezing processes material
balances (Subcategories T,U,V) (continued).
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Alaskan bottomfish, freezing (Subcategory T):
Average Production Rate = 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day)
End Products % of Raw Product
Food products 90
By-products
a) heads 10
Wastes minimal
Non-Alaskan bottomfish, manual (Subcategory U):
Average Production Rate = 16.5 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
End Products % of Raw Product
Food products 20 - 40
By-products
a) carcass
(reduction,
animal food) 55 - 75
Non-Alaskan bottomfish, freezing (Subcategory V):
Average Production Rate = 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day)
End Products % of Raw Product
Food Products 50
By-product
a) heads, scales,
viscera (to 48
reduction plant)
Waste 2
Based on kkg of raw seafood
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development docu-
ment for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and
proposed new source performance standards for the fish meal,
salmon, bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop
and abalone segment of the canned and preserved seafood pro-
cessing point source category, phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041.
Washington DC.
121
-------
Table 20. Sardine canning and herring filleting processes
material balances (Subcategories AB, AE, AF).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Sardine canning (Subcategory AB):
Unit Operation
% Flow (Avg)
a) flume (boat to storage) 14 - 46
b) flume (brine tank to
table)
c) pre-cook can dump
d) can wash
e) retort
f) washdown
% of Total
BOD
12 - 28
% of Total
Susp. Solids^
11 - 57
18 -
1 -
3 -
8 -
1
62
4
4
53
10
14 -
28 -
16 -
1 -
1 -
22
67
23
2
6
16 -
14 -
9 -
1 -
1 -
30
51
10
4
12
Total effluent average
7,600 1/kkg
10 kg/kkg
Herring filleting (Subcategories AE,AF):
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) bailwater
c) washdown
*
Total effluent average
% Flow (Avg)
58
37
5
10,200 1/kkg
% of Total
BOD
70
27
3
34 kg/kkg
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Sardine canning (Subcategory AB):
Average Production Rate =31 kkg/day (34 tons/day)
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) heads and tails
(reduction or bait)
b) scales
of Raw Product
30 - 60
35 - 65
1 - 2
7 kg/kkg
I of Total
Susp. Solids
59
38
3
23 kg/kkg
122
-------
Table 20. Sardine canning and herring filleting processes
material balances (Subcategories AB, AE, AF) (continued),
Herring filleting (Subcategories AE and AF):
Average Production Rate = 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day)
End Product % o£ Raw Product
Food products 42-45
By-product
a) heads, viscera 55 - 58
(for reduction)
*
Based on kkg of raw seafood
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development docu-
ment for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards for the fish meal, salmon,
bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop and abalone
segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point
source category, phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041. Washington DC.
123
-------
2.1.2.13 Clam, Scallop, and Oyster Processing
Wastewaters from clam, scallop, and oyster (mollusk) processing plants
are very similar. The major differences in processing occur when the oysters
or clams are mechanically shucked rather than hand-shucked, because mechanical
techniques require considerably more water. The main source of BOD from the
clam and oyster process is the body fluids that are released from the shucking
and meat washing processes. If clams or oysters are cooked before canning,
additional body fluids are released. Cleansing agents for plant cleanup also
add to the BOD. The suspended solids include sand washed from the mollusk
meats. If the clams are minced or debellied, the washing process will add
bits of meat to the wastewaters. Scallop process wastes are generally the
wastes from washing the abductor muscle and preparing it for packing. The BOD
is from tissue fluids, bits of meat, and plant cleaning solutions. Suspended
solids are low and are mainly debris and bits of meat. Oil and grease is from
the washed out tissue fluids. Table 21 shows the material balances for mechanical
surf clam canning, hand-shucked clams, steamed oyster process, and hand-shucked
oyster processing plants.
2.1.2.14 Abalone Processing
Wastes from abalone processing have the same characteristics as do wastes
generated in processing other mollusks. The sources of BOD, TSS, and oil and
grease are also the same. Table 22 shows the material balance for abalone
processing.
2.1.3 Solid Waste Generation
The majority of the solid wastes from seafood processing is flumed to
discharge and appears in the wastewater disposal system. In some plants these
solids are dry captured or screened and sent into the solid waste system.
Process solid wastes also may be sent to a fish meal plant or sent to a by-
product plant for animal feed. Mollusk shells, except for the abalone which
is used for decorative purposes, are generally used as construction fill
material, animal food additives, or put back into the sea for substrate. The
solid wastes generated by the industry have not been declared hazardous.
124
-------
Table 21. Surf clam, hand-shucked clam, steamed oyster,
and hand-shucked oyster processes material balances
(Subcategories X,W,AA,Y, and Z).
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Surf Clam (Sub category X)
Unit Operation %
a) iron man
b) first washer
c) first skimming table
d) second washer
e) second skimming table
f) washdown
*
Total effluent average
Hand-shucked clam (Subcategory
Unit Operation %
a) first and second
washers
b) washdown
*
Total effluent average
Steamed oyster (Subcategory AA)
Unit Operation %
a) belt washer
b) shocker
c) shucker
d) blow tanks
e) washdown
Flow (Avg)
1
35
1
16
15
33
21,000 1/kkg
W):
Flow (Avg)
83 - 92
8-17
5,100 1/kkg
:
Flow (Avg)
11
43
15
7
23
% of Total
BOD
1
31
1
24
31
13
13 kg/kkg
% of Total
BOD
65 - 97
3-34
5.3 kg/kkg
% of Total
BOD
10
9
11
6
64
% of Total
Susp. Solids
1
52
1
25
15
8
5.2 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10 - 96
4-89
12 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
63
26
1
1
10
Total effluent average
**
66,500 1/kkg
30 kg/kkg
137 kg/kkg
125
-------
Table 21. Surf clam, hand-shucked clam, steamed oyster,
and hand-shucked oyster processes material balances
(Subcategories X,W,AA,Y, and Z) (continued).
Hand-shucked oyster (Subcategories Y,Z):
East Coast
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
*S
Total effluent average
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
Total effluent average
% Flow (Avg)
71 - 94
6-29
37,000 1/kkg
West Coast
% Flow (Ayg)
45 - 68
32 - 55
41,000 1/kkg
I of Total
BOD
81 - 94
6-19
14 kg/kkg
% of Total
BOD
83 - 95
5-17
25 kg/kkg
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Surf clam (Subcategory X):
Average Production Rate = 38 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) shell
Wastes
a) belly
% of Raw Product
10 - 15
75 - 80
7-10
Hand-shucked clam (Subcategory W):
Average Production Rate = 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day)
Data on product material balance are not available.
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11-58
42 - 89
11 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
24 - 75
25 - 76
26 kg/kkg
126
-------
Table 21. Surf clam, hand-shucked clam, steamed oyster
and hand-shucked oyster processes material balances
(Subcategories X,W,AA,Y, and Z) (continued).
Steamed oyster (Subcategory AA):
Average Production Rate = 6.8 kkg/day (7.5 tons/day)
(Production measured in terms of final product)
Data on product material balance are not available.
*
^A Based on kkg of raw seafood
Based on kkg of product
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development document
for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and new source
performance standards for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish,
sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop and abalone segment of the
canned and preserved seafood processing point source category, phase II.
EPA-440/1-74-041. Washington DC.
127
-------
Table 22. Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance (Subcategory AG)
I. Wastewater-Material Balance Summary
Abalone fresh/frozen (Subcategory AG):
Unit Operation % Flow(Avg)
a) process water 49
b) wash tank 26
c) washdown 25
of Total
BOD
50
20
30
Total effluent average
47,100 1/kkg 27 kg/kkg
% of Total
Susp. Solids
39
42
19
11 kg/kkg
II. Product-Material Balance Summary
Abalone fresh/frozen (Subcategory AG):
Average Production Rate = 0.34 kkg/day (0.38 tons/day)
Based on kkg of raw seafood
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development docu-
ment for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards for the fish meal, salmon,
bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop and abalone
segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point
source category, phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041. Washington DC.
128
-------
Quantities of solid wastes have not been determined for all of the subcate-
gories. Table 23 presents data on solids generated by the production of
seafoods and retained on a 20 mesh screen. In some cases, the mass of screened
solids exceeds the raw product input. This anomalous occurrence may be attri-
buted to the way in which a representative sample was collected. Samples to
be screened were gathered in proportion to flow and then combined with an
appropriate quantity of batch and intermittent flow wastes. Since the fin-
ished product is a small percentage of the raw seafood, high values of solids
generated are realized (USEPA 1974a). In addition to process scraps, solid
wastes are generated from scrap packing and shipping containers. In remote
areas, old machinery and scrap from can making also may be included. The
material quantities vary with plant and location, but they have an .impact on
the local landfills
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDUSTRY WASTES
2.2.1 Air Impacts
The fate of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere is a highly complex
subject because of the many variables associated with such evaluations:
Wind direction and atmospheric stability effects on the dispersion of
pollutants.
Chemical and physical reactions of emitted pollutants.
Background pollutant contributions.
Hypersensitive groups within the general population.
The air quality impacts from process emissions can be predicted using
simple hand calculation models or highly complex computer mathematical models.
The selection of the appropriate technique is dependent upon the potential
significance of the air quality impacts and regulatory agency requirements
(discussed in Section 1.5).
Based on the potential emissions from the seafood industry processes as
discussed in Section 2.1.1, it is most probable that the typical new source
seafood industry will not be considered a major point source and will not be
129
-------
Table 23. Solids generation from seafood industry wastewater
streams (based on retention by 20 mesh screen).
Process
Farm raised catfish
Alaska crab meat, frozen or .canned:
with screening and by-product
recovery
with grinding
Alaska whole crab and sections:
with screening and by-product
recovery
with grinding
Alaska shrimp, frozen
Alaska shrimp, canned
Tuna
Salmon canning:
with screening and by-product
recovery
with grinding
Fresh/frozen salmon
Bottom/ground fish
Frozen whiting
Croaker fish flesh
Frozen halibut
Fletched halibut
Sardines
Herring fillets
Surf clams
Hand -shucked clams
**
Mechanically shucked oysters
*
Mean
3.2
120
850
22
300
25
760
1.3
25.4
48.3
1.3
3.9
11.2
5.8
8.1
0.8
0.36
6.8
1.92
5.6
200
Range
2.5
79
520 -1
18
28
14
200 -1
0.95
15
11.3 -
0.16 -
0.51 -
2.1
1.9
4.7 -
0.4 -
0.11 -
-
0.75 -
1.5
36
*
3.9
157
,200
25
470
43
,300
1.7
47.7
114
3.58
30.4
21.9
9.6
11.1
1.1
0.8
4.7
11.7
480
kg/kkg of raw seafood, except for oysters (**), kg/kkg of product.
130
-------
Table 23. Solids generation from seafood industry wastewater
streams (based on retention by 2 mesh screen) (continued).
Sources: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a.. Development docu-
ment for proposed 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-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d. Development document
for proposed effluent limitations guidelines and new source
performance standards for the fish meal, salmon, bottomfish,
sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop, and abalone segment
of the canned and preserved seafood processing point source
category, phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041. Washington DC.
131
-------
required to undergo a full PSD review and permit application. However, this
must be determined by USEPA and the state on a case-by-case basis, and the
applicant must address this need in the BID. Also, the applicant must address
each pollutant separately (e.g., total suspended particulates, sulfur oxides,
hydrocarbons). Since a detailed review is not likely, air quality modeling
requirements will be minimal. (If the applicant desires more information on
accepted modeling techniques, a recommended reference is "Guidelines on Air
Quality Modeling," EPA-450/2-78-027 (USEPA 1978)).
The pollutant most likely to have an effect on air quality will be organics
emissions associated with the biodegradation of the raw materials, products,
and waste products. These highly odorous organics will be subject to dis-
persion and dilution in the atmosphere, but such compounds can have extremely
low threshhold limits of detection. The modeling of these organic concentra-
tions in the environment represents research-level efforts in the air quality
field.
2.2.2 Water Impacts
The pollutants generated by the seafood processing industry mainly are
BOD, suspended solids, and oil and grease. The industry wastewaters also may
have a pH (hydrogen ion concentration) that varies significantly from values
that occur in the natural environment. These pollutants may interact with
natural systems to cause a deterioration in the water quality of receiving
streams:
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The organic fraction of seafood
wastes can exert a large BOD on receiving waters. Since the BOD of a
wastewater estimates the dissolved oxygen that will be consumed as the
waste materials are degraded, this pollutant parameter represents the
potential of the waste to reduce the dissolved oxygen resources of a
body of water. It is possible to reach conditions which totally
exhaust the dissolved oxygen in the water resulting in anaerobic
conditions and the production of undesirable gases such as hydrogen
sulfide and methane. The reduction of dissolved oxygen can be detri-
mental to fish populations, fish growth rate, and organisms used as
fish food (USEPA 1976). A total lack of oxygen can result in the
death of all aerobic aquatic inhabitants in the affected area. Water
with a high BOD indicates the presence of decomposing organic matter
and associated increased bacterial concentrations that degrade its .
quality and potential uses (USEPA 1976). Algal blooms can produce
high BOD as a result of decaying organic matter.
132
-------
Total suspended solids (TSS). The TSS in seafood processing waste-
waters will include both organic and inorganic materials. The in-
organic compounds include sand and shell fragments. The organic
fraction includes such materials as grease, oil, and seafood waste
products (USEPA 1974a-c; 1975a-d). Some of the solids generated
within a seafood processing plant are removed readily by fine screen-
ing; other solids settle readily in clarifiers. When not removed,
these solids can foul or plug pipes, pumps, and other mechanical
equipment. These solids may settle out rapidly and bottom deposits
are often a mixture of both organic and inorganic solids. Solids may
be suspended in water for a time and then settle to the bed of the re-
ceiving water. They may be inert, slowly biodegradable materials, or
rapidly decomposable substances. While in suspension they increase
the turbidity of the water, reduce light penetration, and impair the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants (USEPA 1976). Elevated
levels of suspended solids may also increase the chlorine demand
required for adequate disinfection.
Aside from any toxic effect attributable to substances leached out by
water, suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by causing abrasive
injuries, by clogging gills and respiratory passages, screening out
light, and by promoting and maintaining the development of noxious
conditions through oxygen depletion. Suspended solids also reduce the
recreational value of the water (USEPA 1976).
Oil and Grease (0 & G). Oil and grease cause troublesome taste and
odor problems even in small quantities. They produce scum lines on
water treatment basin walls and other containers and adversely affect
fish and waterfowl. Oil emulsions may adhere to the gills of fish,
causing suffocation, and may taint the flesh of fish microorganisms
that were exposed to waste oil. Oil deposits in the bottom sediments
of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic growth. Oil and grease
also exert an oxygen demand in the natural environment (USEPA 1976).
Oil and grease levels which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary greatly,
depending on the type of pollutant and the species susceptibility. In
addition, the presence of oil in water can increase the toxicity of
other substances discharged into the receiving bodies of water (USEPA
1976).
pH (hydrogen ion concentration). The pH of a wastewater stream largely
is significant in that it affects corrosion control, pollution control,
disinfection, and toxicity of other pollutants. Waters with a pH
below 6.0 corrode waterworks structures, distribution lines, and
household plumbing fixtures. This corrosion can add such constituents
to drinking water as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead. Low pH
waters not only tend to dissolve metals from structures and fixtures
but also tend to redissolve or leach metals from sludges and bottom
sediments. The hydrogen ion concentration also can affect the taste
of water; at a low pH, water tastes "sour." Extremes of pH or rapid
pH changes can stress or kill aquatic life. Even moderate changes
from "acceptable" pH limits can harm some species. Changes in water
pH increase the relative toxicity to aquatic life of materials.
Metalocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in toxicity with
133
-------
a drop of 1.5 pH units. The toxicity of ammonia similarly is a function
of pH. The bactericidal effect of chlorine in most cases lessens as
the pH increases, and it is economically advantageous to keep the pH
close to 7 (USEPA 1976).
The prediction of the impacts these pollutants will have on the natural en-
vironment is improved by the use of mathematical modeling of the dispersion
and dissipation water pollutants. Two of the most widely used and accepted
models are:
DOSAG (and its modifications); and
the QUAL series of models developed by the Texas Water Development
Board and modified by Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
These are steady-state, one-dimensional models useful in evaluating stream
impacts. Some of the parameters that these models simulate are:
Dissolved oxygen.
BOD.
Temperature.
pH.
Solids.
The data required for these models include:
DOSAG-I
Flow rates for system inputs and withdrawals.
Information on reaches, junctions, stretches, headwater reaches.
Reaction coefficients.
Concentrations of inflows.
Stream temperature.
QUAL-II
Identification and description of stream reaches.
134
-------
Initial conditions.
Hydraulic coefficients for determining velocity and depth.
Reaction coefficients.
Headwater data.
Waste loadings and runoff conditions.
If temperature is to be modeled, it also would require sky cover, wet
bulb/dry bulb air temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed,
evaporation coefficient, and basin elevation.
Other models are available for non-steady conditions and two dimensions, as
required in modeling estuaries, including:
RECEIV and RECEIV II, developed by Raytheon for the USEPA Water Planning
Division.
These models can evaluate both conservative materials (e.g., dissolved solids,
metals) and non-conservative materials subject to first order reaction kinetics
(e.g., BOD, DO). The data required as input to both of these models include:
Tidal variations.
Water surface elevations, area, and depth.
Bottom roughness coefficients.
Meteorological data, including rainfall, evaporation, and wind velocity
and direction.
Downstream boundary conditions.
Junction and channel data.
Water temperature.
Initial pollutant concentrations.
Inflow data.
Oxygen saturation and reaeration coefficients.
There are many other available water quality models developed for specific
situations or in association with NPDES activity. The applicant should discuss
135
-------
in detail the assumptions used in developing the model for the proposed facility,
other applications of the model that indicate it is applicable to the proposed
situation, and any calibration performed to verify the reasonableness of the
assumed conditions.
2.2.3 Biological Impacts
There may be direct biological effects from the wastes generated by the
canned and preserved seafoods industry (e.g., accumulation of solids near a
wastewater outfall that smothers bottom organisms) but there also may be
important effects due to the air and water impacts described previously (e.g.,
decreased levels of dissolved oxygen in the natural waters).
2.2.3.1 Human Health
The discharge of wastes from seafood processing plants can have direct
and indirect impacts on human health. Where old stickwater or rendered oils
are discharged, there is the possibility of causing unpleasant tastes in
mollusks. Also, some fin fish may feed at the outfalls and acquire an un-
palatable taste from the seafood being processed. Although not a direct
health effect, the seafood from these areas must be avoided by the public.
Where there is an excessive coliform count in the outfall, shellfish beds may
exceed the quality standards.
Vibrio parahemolyticus is a pathogen for both seafood and warm-blooded
animals, and it has been implicated in unconfirmed and confirmed outbreaks of
food-borne illnesses associated with consumption of seafood. It has been
found in moribund crabs, diseased fish, clams, oysters, shrimp, and eels, and
occurs in high densities in marine environments which contain chitinous material
such as crab and shrimp shells. Where bottom sediments are highly putrescible
and anaerobic, it is possible for Clostridium botulinum to grow and to be
brought into the processing system by dirt adhering to fish or to workers' and
fishermen's boots. The bacterium then may enter the processing line and,
unless the fish are properly processed, it can persist in canned or smoked
fishes. These bacteria generate the powerful toxin that causes botulism
poisoning, which frequently results in death.
136
-------
Whenever improperly cooked or dried fish are consumed, there is the
possibility that the consumer will contract fish tapeworm. Gulls feeding on
dead salmon or salmon cannery wastes have been implicated in the life cycle of
this organism. Therefore, the discharge of solid wastes under uncontrolled
conditions, either to the waterways or to land surfaces, may create health
problems for surrounding residents.
2.2.3.2 Ecological Impacts
Pollution resulting from human activities is a form of environmental
stress that can seriously disrupt natural communities. Many organisms cannot
adjust to the changing conditions of their habitat. Natural selection and
evolution have produced species that can cope with many types of naturally
occurring situations, but many organisms may not be able to adjust to man-made
changes to their habitat. For example, a seasonal change in water temperature
may cause some organisms to become dormant or to leave the area; other organisms
capable of functioning in the changed conditions may increase in abundance, if
already present, or may move into the area vacated by the intolerant species.
Man-made pollutional stress may change conditions so radically that no species
can adapt or colonize the vacant habitat. Under such conditions, two major
changes usually occur in community structure: 1) a reduction in the total
number of species present; and 2) an increase in the number of individuals of
those species which can survive the pollutional stress. The resulting de-
crease in the diversity of the community can reduce significantly the sta-
bility of the ecosystem.
i
Seafood processing activities can affect both terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. Terrestrial impacts usually are limited to the construction phase
and the land disposal of solid wastes. Normal processing operations generally
have a minimal effect on terrestrial communities. Operational impacts on
aquatic plants and animals can be significant; the following environmental
components are important factors in aquatic communities and can be affected by
seafood processing activities to some degree:
137
-------
Physical properties of the water. The physical properties of re-
ceiving waters are altered by the addition of large amounts of sus-
pended solids from seafood processing activities. Gas exchange is
impaired when respiratory membranes are coated with particulates, and
filter-feeding organisms may be unable to adjust to the increased
solids concentration. Water temperatures also may be altered. Many
organisms are very sensitive to temperature changes and the effluent
discharged from various processing tasks can result in fluid streams
that differ significantly in temperature from that of receiving waters.
Chemical properties of the water. One of the major impacts of pro-
cessing operations and waste discharge is the change in the chemical
composition of the receiving waters. The addition of large quantities
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) can result in a significant decrease
in dissolved oxygen levels. Increased amounts of anaerobic decomposi-
tion of these organic materials can produce toxic compounds, especially
hydrogen sulfide. Chlorination of processing water may result in
locally significant increases in receiving water concentrations of
chlorine and chlorinated compounds. The elevated levels of these
materials may affect local aquatic populations adversely. Water
movements usually are not affected greatly by processing activities.
Exceptions to this general rule may result from construction of piers,
jetties, and similar structures.
Water movements. Water movements may be altered slightly in the
immediate vicinity of the effluent outfall or from the construction of
piers and jetties.
Light penetration. The addition of large amounts of suspended solids
to local receiving waters can reduce light penetration. The degree of
reduction depends on local currents, amounts of solids discharged, and
ambient levels of suspended solids prior to the dischargers. The
importance of this effect is the lessened productivity of algal popu-
lations, an important component of the aquatic food chain.
Substratum effects. Bottom-dwelling organisms may be buried by wastes
that accumulate, with a high mortality among non-mobile species. The
changed benthic population can result in subsequent changes in other
aquatic assemblages. Soft waste materials can accumulate over large
areas, exceeding the rate that they can be decomposed, with the re-
sulting layer of organic sludge forming a bottom habitat that few
species can occupy. Harder waste materials may form large underwater
mounds that support little aquatic life.
All of the factors noted above can affect the quantity and quality of
food resources. Shifts in these resources caused by pollution will alter
aquatic communities, but the magnitude and overall significance of such changes
will vary according to the specific project. For example, seafood wastes can
provide a food source for many species with a beneficial effect on their
productivity. However, such an increase in productivity is similar to the
138
-------
problems associated with eutrophication in freshwater lakes. Thus, the
alteration of community structure and stability must be evaluated on a case by
case basis.
The effects of pollutional stress may be both immediate and delayed.
Organisms may be killed outright by the altered conditions of their habitat.
For example, fish kills can result when dissolved oxygen levels are reduced
greatly or when respiration is impaired because gill membranes are clogged by
sediment and suspended solids. A more subtle impact results from sub-lethal
stress effects. Weakened organisms may be unable to function efficiently and
may succumb to disease. Their ability to avoid predators may be reduced and
\
reproduction may be decreased. Thus, both the acute and chronic effects of
pollution act to destabilize natural communities.
2.3 OTHER IMPACTS
2.3.1 Aesthetics
The physical features of a seafood processing plant that will impact the
surrounding environment are discussed in Section 1.0. Exterior design will be
determined largely by the type of seafood processed and the processing equip-
ment. Capacity will influence the overall size. New roads, unloading docks,
air strips, vessel servicing facilities, and anchorages must be considered in
planning for a new plant. The magnitude and significance of vehicular or
vessel noises and emissions as well as other mobile emissions must be assessed
in the EID. Locating a processing plant out of view of a major road is a
consideration, but the EID also must consider factors such as safe access for
boats, convenience to seafood sources, and water. The prevailing winds should
be considered also to ensure locating a facility so that odor problems with
the surrounding neighborhood are mitigated. The applicant should consider the
following factors to reduce potential aesthetic impacts:
Existing Nature of the Area. The topography and major land uses in
the area of the candidate sites are important. Topographic conditions
and existing trees and vegetational visual barriers can be used to
screen the operation from view. A lack of topographic relief and
vegetation would require other means of minimizing impact, such as
regrading or the planting of vegetation buffers.
139
-------
Proximity of Parks and Other Areas Where People Congregate for
Recreation and Other Activities. The location of.public use areas
should be mapped and presented in the EID. Representative views of
the plant site from observation points should be described. The
visual effects on these recreational areas should be described in the
EID in order to develop the appropriate mitigative measures.
Transportation System. The visual impact of new access roads, barge
docking, and storage facilities on the landscape and waterfront should
be considered. Locations, construction methods and materials, and
maintenance should be specified.
2.3.2 Noise
The major sources of external noise associated with a seafood processing
plant include:
Vessel unloading.
Power generation.
Transportation equipment.
These may produce significant noise impacts especially during the
processing season when more than one shift per day may be operating the plant.
Sound measurements can be determined from the types of equipment used. The
effects on the surrounding area can be evaluated using standard noise diminu-
tion tables. In addition, a survey of the effect of vegetation buffer strips
in mitigating noise levels will be helpful in planning a new plant.
The means that exist to reduce noise generated by particular sources
include:
Enclosed process machines.
Mufflers on engines.
Sound barriers and isolation.
Vibration insulation.
Noise levels of equipment maintained in good operating condition usually are
considerably lower than if the equipment is neglected. The EID should address
operation and maintenance of the plant equipment to ensure that design noise
levels are maintained.
140
-------
The USEPA has recommended a maximum 75 dBA, 8-hour exposure level to
protect workers from loss of hearing. A maximum 55 dBA background exposure
level is recommended to avoid annoyance during outdoor activity (USEPA 1974d).
A suitable methodology to evaluate noise generated from a proposed new source
facility would require the applicant to:
Identify all noise-sensitive land uses and activities adjoining the
proposed plant site (e.g., schools, parks, hospitals, and businesses
in the urban environment; homes and wildlife sanctuaries in the rural
environment).
Measure the existing ambient noise levels of the areas adjoining the
site.
Identify existing noise sources in the general area, such as traffic,
aircraft flyover, and other industry.
Determine whether there are any state or local noise regulations that
apply to the site.
Calculate the noise level of the seafood facility processes, and
compare that value with the existing area noise levels and the appli-
cable noise regulations.
Assess the impact of the operations's noise and, if required, determine
noise abatement measures to minimize the impact (e.g., quieter equipment,
noise barriers, improved maintenance schedules).
2.3.3 Energy Supply
In planning a new seafood processing plant, all sources of energy available
at a given site must be considered, and their potential impact on the environ-
ment must be carefully determined. A thorough analysis of energy impacts
should, at a minimum, provide the following information:
Total external energy demand for operation of facility.
Total energy available on site.
Energy demands by type.
Proposed measures to reduce energy demand and increase plant efficiency.
Proposed energy sources and alternatives.
Cogeneration should be considered in siting and designing a seafood processing
plant. For example, seafood plants usually need large quantities of hot water
141
-------
for cleanup. The use of waste heat from power generation or freezer plants
compressors for part of this heat is possible and should be evaluated.
2.3.4 Socioeconomics
Seafood processing facilities are usually small complexes, but their
construction may cause land use, economic, and social changes. Therefore, it
is necessary for an applicant to evaluate the types of impacts or changes that
may occur^ The importance of these changes usually depends on the size of the
existing community where the facility is located, with the significance of the
changes normally greater near a small rural community than near a large urban
area. This is due to the fact that a small rural community is more likely to
have a nonmanufacturing economic base and a lower per capita income, fewer
social groups, a more limited socioeconomic infrastructure, and fewer leisure
pursuits than a large urban area. In addition, much of the labor force employed
by a seafood plant may be seasonal and brought in from another region, which
could affect small communities more significantly. There are situations,
however, in which the changes in a small community may not be significant and,
conversely, in which they may be considerable in an urban area. For example,
a small community may have had a manufacturing (or natural resource) economic
base that has declined. As a result, such a community may have a high inci-
dence of unemployment in a skilled labor force and a surplus of housing.
Conversely, a rapidly growing urban area may be severely strained to provide
the labor force and services required for a new seafood processing facility.
The rate at which changes occur (regardless of the circumstances) also is
often an important determinant" of the significance of the changes. The appli-
cant should distinguish clearly between those changes occasioned by the con-
struction of the facility, and those resulting from its operation. The former
changes could be substantial but usually are temporary; the latter may or may
not be substantial, but normally are more permanent in nature. The potential
impacts which should be evaluated include:
Increased land consumption and rate of land development.
Land use pattern and compatibility changes.
142
-------
Economic base multiplier effects.
Population size and composition changes.
Increased labor force participation and lower unemployment rates.
Increased vehicular traffic and congestion.
Loss of prime agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas.
Increased demand for community facilities and services.
Increased demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste
disposal facilities.
During the construction phase, the impact will be greater if the project
requires large numbers of construction workers to be brought in from outside
the community than if local unemployed workers are available. The potential
impacts include:
Creation of social tension.
Short-term expansion of the local economy.
Demand for increased police and fire protection, public utilities,
medical facilities, recreation facilities, and other public services.
Increased demand for housing on a short-term basis.
Strained economic budget in the community where existing infra-
structure becomes inadequate.
' Increased congestion from construction traffic.
Various methods of reducing the strain on the budget of the local community
during the construction phase should be explored. For example, the company
itself may build the housing and recreation facilities and provide the utility
services and medical facilities for its imported construction force; or the
industry may prepay taxes, and the community may agree to a corresponding
reduction in the property taxes paid later. Alternatively, the community may
float a bond issue, taking advantage of its tax-exempt status, and the company
may agree to reimburse the community as payments of principal and interest
be come due.
143
-------
During operation, the more extreme adverse changes of the construction
phase are likely to disappear. Long-term changes may be profound, but less
extreme, because they evolve over a longer period of time and may be both
beneficial and adverse.
The permit applicant should document fully in the EID the range of
potential impacts that are expected and demonstrate how possible adverse
changes will be handled. For example, an increased tax base generally is
regarded as a positive impact. The revenue from it usually is adequate to
support the additional infrastructure required as the operating employees and
their families move into the community. The spending and respending of the
earnings of these employees has a multiplier effect on the local economy, as
do the interindustry linkages created by the seafood processing facilities.
The linkages may be backward (those of the facility's suppliers) or forward
(those of the facility's markets).
Socially, the community may benefit as the increased tax base permits the
provision of more diverse services of a higher quality, and the variety of its
interests increases with growth in population. Conversely, the transformation
of a small community into a larger community may be regarded as an adverse
change by some of the residents who chose to live in the community, as well as
by those who grew up there and stayed, because of its small town amenities.
The applicant also should consider the economic repercussions if, for
example, the quality of the air and water declines as a result of wastes
generated by the seafood processing facility. In some cases, traditional
sectors of economic activity may decline because labor is drawn away from them
into higher paying industrial jobs. Also the tourist sector may decline if
air and water pollution is noticeable or if the landscape is degraded.
Thus, the applicant's framework for analyzing the socioeconomic impacts
of the facility location must be comprehensive. Most of the changes described
can and should be measured to assess fully the potential costs and benefits.
The applicant should distinguish clearly between the short-term (construction)
and long-term (operation) changes, although some changes may be common to both
(e.g., the provision of infrastructure). The significance of the changes
144
-------
depends not only on their absolute magnitude, but on the rate at which they
occur. The applicant should develop and maintain close coordination with
state, regional, and local planning and zoning authorities to ensure full
understanding of all existing and/or proposed land use plans and other related
regulations.
USEPA's Office of Federal Activities is developing a methodology to be
used to forecast the socioeconomic impacts of new source industries and the
environmental residuals associated with those impacts.
2.3.5 Shipping, Storing, and Handling Raw Materials and Products
The raw materials for all subcategories of the seafoods processing in-
dustry are fresh seafoods, which are subject to rapid deterioration in quality
and must be rapidly processed. The applicant should address conditions and
situations that could lead to disposal requirements of the raw materials.
Typical conditions that should be addressed include:
Periodically, a larger catch is made than the processing plants can
handle, especially in the salmon and herring fisheries. When this
occurs, the excess fish may be dumped overboard which creates an undue
stress on the aquatic environment.
A power failure before a process is completed will make the product
unacceptable. The cans of fish or partially processed fish must be
disposed, possibly at a landfill.
Most seafood processing plants use liquid chlorine or hypo chlorite as
the sanitizing agent. If liquid chlorine is handled improperly, the
impact to human health may be immediate, as in cases of leakage or
pipe rupture.
The applicant should identify other situations where materials or their dis-
posal may impact the environment, and demonstrate that facilities are available
and procedures will be followed to mitigate expected adverse impacts.
2.3.6 Special Problems in Site Preparation and Facility Construction
The environmental effects of site preparation and construction of new
seafood processing plants are common to land disturbing activities on con-
145
-------
struction sites in general. Erosion and sometimes sedimentation, dust, noise,
vehicular traffic and emissions, and some loss of wildlife habitat are to be
expected and should be minimized through good construction practices wherever
possible. At present, however, neither the quantities of the various pollutants
resulting from site preparation and construction nor their effects on the
integrity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems have been studied sufficiently
to permit broad generalizations.
The applicant must consider the capacity of the soils and geology to
accommodate production and waste storage. In choosing and preparing the site,
special care should be taken to avoid disturbance of wetland areas. A Section
10/404 permit may be required if wetlands will be potentially impacted. Other
problems which would require special consideration include:
Unstable soils.
» Steep topography.
Location relative to floodplains.
Permeability of soils.
Erosion problems during construction and operation.
Groundwater quality (especially in areas with groUndwater problems).
In addition to the impact assessment framework provided in the USEPA
document, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source
Industries, the permit applicant should tailor the conservation practices to
the site under consideration in order to account for and to protect site-
specific features, including:
Critical habitats.
Archaeological/historical sites.
High quality streams.
Other sensitive areas on the site.
The evaluation of site limitations should not be limited to the immediate
vicinity of the project but should consider areawide restrictions, such as:
146
-------
Proximity to national refuges, parks, and other pristine areas.
Area water resource compatibility with industrial development.
Existing hazardous solid waste disposal facilities for the area.
Potential for developing solid waste disposal systems.
Community attitudes and goals relative to industrial development.
These should be addressed with respect to the mitigative techniques available
to the applicant. (See Section 4.0 for a detailed discussion of site selection
criteria).
147
-------
3.0 POLLUTION CONTROL
New sources must attain discharge levels which are indicated as achiev-
able using technological options which meet the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). They may be the technologies identified by USEPA in the development
of these standards or they may be alternatives which meet these standards by
other techniques. For waste streams not specifically addressed by NSPS,
control applications which represent the state of the art should be described
in the BID. The permit applicant must demonstrate that NSPS will be met. The
sections which follow identify and describe typical Standards of Performance
and state-of-the-art technologies with which NSPS can be met.
3.1 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE^ TECHNOLOGY; AIR MISSIONS
Air emissions from the seafood processing industry are significant only for
the fish meal subcategory, where dust will require control equipment. Other
areas that should be addressed in the EID for their potential emissions are
boiler emissions (where applicable) and odor generation. Available tech-
nologies include:
* Dust Control. Cyclone collectors or bag houses are available to
remove dust. Wet scrubbing is another available technique, but this
generates a wastewater stream for treatment and disposal.
Boiler Equipment. Boiler flue gas may contain several air con-
taminants controlled by PSD and NAAQS (e.g., total suspended partic-
ulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide). However, these are low
volume sources, so that oil and gas-fired units usually require no
pollution control measures to comply with guidelines. If a large
coal-fired boiler were proposed, then wet scrubbers or electrostatic
precipitators to remove fly ash from the stack gas might be required.
These units are capable of 98+% removal of fly ash.
0 Odor. Odor can be associated with the decay of putrescible waste
materials. The control of these materials should be addressed in the
EID. The applicant should specifically identify the control tech-
niques proposed to minimize odor generation such as closed containers
for solid waste materials or daily (or more frequent) removal of
wastes.
148
-------
3.2 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY; WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
Seafood processing plants may elect to achieve the required pollutant
reduction with well-designed and operated external treatment systems or by a
combination of both internal and external controls that may prove to be more
cost-effective.
3.2.1 In-Process Controls
Internal control measures are procedures to reduce pollutant discharges
at their origin, some of which result in recovery of by-products and reduce
energy consumption. As most seafood processing plants include similar pro-
cesses (see Figure 1), the following in-plant controls are available to all
subcategories and should be considered by the applicant where applicable,
Bail water may be reduced by converting to a vacuum or dry unloading
system.
Reduction of flume water by using dry product conveyer systems (dry
belts, containers, or pneumatic ducts).
Reduction of cleanup water by using spring-loaded nozzles on all
washdown hoses.
Use of dry processing methods such as vacuum eviscerators, dry
skinners, and dry filleting machines.
Reduction of product rinse waters by use of high pressure sprays
instead of overflowing wash vats.
Screening of solids from process streams before large quantities of
water are mixed into the waste stream.
Wherever possible, using waste heat from power generation or steam
boilers for heating water or drying solids.
Designing and constructing processing plants for maximum clean-up and
maintenance efficiency.
Recommendations for specific controls in each subcategory have been identified
and are included in Table 24.
149
-------
Table 24. In-process techniques for wastewater control applicable
to subcategories of the seafoods processing industry.
Subcategory
Farm Raised Catfish
Blue Crab
Alaskan Crab
Dungeness and Tanner Crab
Non-Breaded Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Tuna
In-process Techniques
Holding system with a partial recycle to
reduce plant water use for harvested fish
kept in live-holding tanks before processing.
Icing whole fish for transport to the plant
and keeping them properly iced before pro-
cessing to eliminate need for holding tank
water.
Isolation of the cooker water for separate
handling and disposal.
Optimization of water consumption during
picking and product washing for mechanized
plants which have significantly greater flow
ratios.
Gross solids can be dry collected during the
butchering process for subsequent disposal.
Optimization of cooling tank flow to mininize
water use.
Dry capture of waste solids prior to entering
the waste stream.
\
Isolate highly contaminated cooker water
for separate disposal on land.
Optimize water use for cooling and washing
the final product.
Optimize equipment flows to accommodate varying
raw materials and production levels.
Optimize equipment flows for mechanized processes
to reduce water use.
Contain spills of battering and breading mix-
tures to minimize organic loads.
Single pass thawing systems can be adapted to
the recycle mode.
Optimize water use at the tables in the butchering
area and during the rinsing of the product and
be It conveyo rs.
150
-------
Table 24. In-process techniques for wastewater control applicable
to subcategories of the seafood processing industry (continued).
Subcategory
Fish Meal
Hand-butchered Salmon
Mechanized Salmon
Alaskan Bottomfish
Non-Alaskan Bottomfish,
Manual
Non-Alaskan Bottomfish,
Mechanized
Hand-shucked Clam
Mechanized Clam
Hand-shucked Oyster
In-procesS Techniques
Processing facilities without solubles units can
install evaporation units to handle stickwater.
Washdown water can be condensed into solubles
with precautions taken to ensure quality.
Dry collection of the larger solids removed
from the fish.
Utilize an overflow basin to wash the product
following butchering, with fresh water employed
for make-up water to maintain sanitation standards.
Isolate residues from the extraction process for
separate disposal on land.
Use of high pressure/low volume nozzles and
shut-off valves.
Immediate dewatering and collection of solids
generated by butchering operations and at the
areas of the sliming tables and can filling
ma chines.
Optimization of washwater use.
Optimize the product pre-rinse and fillet table
flow for manual processing operations.
Use high pressure/low volume nozzles and shut-off
valves at individual stations.
Immediately dewater and collect gross solids dis-
charged from the butchering machines in appropriate
containers.
Minimize water use for washing operations by proper
.controls and the attention of plant personnel.
Optimize flows required to operate processing
equipment and wash the raw and final product.
Decrease the overall washwater volume generated
by manual shucking plants.
151
-------
Table 24. In-process techniques for wastewater control applicable
to subcategories of the seafood processing industry (continued).
Subcategory
In-process Techniques
Steamed and Canned Oyster
Sardine
Scallop
Herring Fillet
Abalone
Optimize water use associated with each unit
operation.
Contain spills of oil or sauces added to the
canned product.
« Recycle can washwater to conserve water.
Consider batch washing as an alternative to
continuous washing during packaging.
Dewater larger solids rather than flume them
from the machines.
Collect and dewater gross solids with mesh
conveyors or similar means prior to fine
screening the wastewater*
Optimize the washing operations.
Adapted from:
Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. 1979. Reassessment of effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the canned and preserved seafood processing point source
category (draft final report). Portland ME, 287 p.
152
-------
3.2.2 End-of-Process Controls
The external treatment technologies employed by the seafood processing
industry are essentially the same across the range of subcategories. For this
reason the discussion that follows assumes the controls are applicable to all
subcategories except the tuna processing subcategory, which essentially uses
all of the tuna as either human or animal foods. For the seafood processing
industry, the physical and chemical treatment technologies available to meet
the New Source Performance Standards include the following:
Solids separation by screening. The purpose of such devices is to
recover solids prior to subsequent wastewater treatment. The types of
screens found to be most acceptable for the seafood industry have been
found to be the tangential, cylindrical, vibratory, and centrifugal
types. Other types of equipment available include inclined-trough
screens, drilled plates., bar screens, micros trainers, and basket
screens. Often a coarse screen will be used in front of a finer
screen to improve performance. The performance of screening devices
will vary depending upon the wastewater characteristics, the equipment
selected, and the use of chemical additives. It is possible to reduce
suspended solids levels as well as BOD and oil and grease attached or
associated with the solids.
Oil separation. Oil removal can be used prior to solids removal to
facilitate the operation of that equipment. The common techniques
used in the industry include in-line grease traps and gravity sepa-
rators. Other techniques such as dissolved air flotation (DAF) are
available for this operation.
Solids separation by sedimentation. This technology does not have a
wide application in the industry because of the relatively long de-
tention times required to be effective. Conventional equipment in-
cludes grit chambers, clarifiers, and settling basins. Performance of
these systems is dependent on good design (i.e., elimination of short
circuiting and fairly coastant flow rates).
Physical-chemical treatment. Physical-chemical processes for treat-
ment of the seafood industry wastewater are desirable because in many
cases they have a smaller land requirement. Air flotation is a physical-
chemical process that has been used extensively in conjunction with
the food processing industry, often as a preliminary treatment step
prior to biological wastewater treatment. Flotation technology is
capable of removing BOD, suspended solids, and oil and grease, with
chemical coagulants usually required to optimize performance. Varia-
tions of the technology include: vacuum flotation, dissolved air
flotation, dispersed air flotation, and electroflotation. Other
physical-chemical technologies that have been considered include
reverse osmosis, acid activated clay columns, carbon adsorption, and
chemical coagulation/sedimentation systems.
153
-------
High rate aerobic biological systems. The industry wastewater is
highly biodegradable and is treated well by biological systems. The
difficulties with such systems are due to hydraulic surges (e.g., wash
down or tank dumps) and shock loadings (e.g., cleaning operations with
associated viscera and blood). Flow equalization is a common approach
to improve system operation. High rate systems that are available and
effective include activated sludge, rotating biologic contactors, and
trickling filters. Performance is dependent upon process kinetics as
determined by the wastewater and selected system.
Low rate biological systems. These systems are effective in removing
organics from the wastewater stream, but they require longer detention
times than high rate systems and therefore more land. These systems
include aerobic lagoons (naturally aerated or mechanically aerated)
and anaerobic lagoons (possibly followed by an aerobic system). These
systems are reliable for treating the highly variable waste loads that
are characteristic of the industry. Performance is comparable to high
rate systems, but the system must be designed carefully and consider
factors such as temperature.
Land treatment. This technology is dependent on the availability of
sufficient land with the proper soil conditions. This greatly limits
the applicability of this process for the seafood industry. Three
general approaches could be utilized: irrigation of a cover crop or
vegetation, overland flow, or infiltration-percolation. Performance
of these systems is dependent upon the wastewater characteristics
(screening or other preliminary treatment normally is required to
remove solids), the soil characteristics, and climatic factors (e.g.,
annual precipitation). Where these systems can be used, essentially
complete removal of pollutants found in seafood industry wastewater is
possible.
Grind and discharge. Grinding and discharge is the most common end-of-
process control used in Alaska (Kawabata 1980). In this technique,
the seafood waste is ground to at least 1/2" diameter prior to discharge
in order to increase its surface area and hence the rate of decompo-
sition, thereby reducing the potential for buildups of large piles of
solid wastes on the bottom. Grinding and discharge is required for
seafood plants in all remote Alaskan locations (40 CFR 408; as revised
by 44 FR 50740, August 29, 1979).
Table 25 presents technologies and their expected performance in meeting New
Source Performance Standards for the seafood processing industry. [Additional
information on wastewater treatment is included in the references] (USEPA
1970, 1971a, 1971b, 1974a-c, 1975a-d; Edward C. Jordan 1979).
154
-------
Table 25. Expected performance for end-of-pipe treatment systems for seafood processing
industry wastewaters.
Ln
Sub category
Farm Raised Catfish
Mechanized Blue Crab
Northern Shrimp
Southern Non-Breaded
Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Tuna
Mechanized Salmon
Mechanized Bottom-
fish
Mechanized Clam
Steamed and Canned
Oyster
Sardine (4)
Herring Fillet
Applicable
Technology BOD
Aerated Lagoon 400
Air Flotation (2)
Air Flotation(2)
Air Flotation (2)
Air Flotation(2)
Air Flotation(2)
Air Flotation (2)
Air Flotation (2)
Grit Removal
Air Flotation (3)
Grit Removal
Air Flotation (3)
Air Flotation(2)
Air Flo tat ion (2)
Influent (1)
TSS
440
370
800
610
500
680
1,200
680
470
330
1,990
1,400
5,650
1,060
O&G
250
150
370
140
20
400
400
210
50
50
20
20
1,150
300
Effluent
BOD5 TSS
100 250
110
170
150
150
160
250
150
330
150
1,400
200
500
250
O&G
25
25
40
25
15
40
90
30
50
20
20
15
200
90
(1) Influent concentrations were derived from baseline wasteloads developed for the respective
subcategories; reported as mg/1.
(2) Pollutant reductions are based on operation as an optimized chemical system.
(3) Treatment of grit channel effluent (70% of initial TSS concentration) with
an optimized chemical system.
(-4) Treatment of oil skim tank effluent, can washer, and washdown flows only.
Source: Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. 1979. Reassessment of effluent guidelines and new source
performance standards for the canned and preserved seafoods processing point source category
(draft final report). Portland ME, 287 p.
-------
3.3 STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY: SOLID WASTES
The solids from a seafood processing plant can be a valuable resource.
During the plant design, the applicant should address systems available to use
the solids in a by-product.
3.3.1 Secondary Products and By-products
The conversion of solid waste materials into secondary products and
by-products is common practice in the industry at the larger and newer facil-
ities. The detriments to these systems are the seasonal nature of many in-
dustry segments and the capital investment associated with such facilities.
The recovery of solid waste materials can be characterized by the major classifi-
cations of finfish wastes (fish parts) and shellfish wastes (shells and shellfish
wastes).
The recovery of finfish solid wastes can include any or several of the
following (Edward C. Jordon Co., Inc. 1979):
Secondary products. These refer to products recovered for human
consumption. The best example of this technology would be the re-
covery of salmon roe for export to the Japanese market. This requires
an investment to modify conventional processing equipment. Another
potential is for the recovery, deboning, and marketing of discarded
fish parts. This, is practiced to a limited extent in the salmon
processing segment.
Animal food by-products. The collection of tuna wastes for use in
petfood manufacture is well established. The use of finfish wastes in
petfood manufacture generally is associated with the production of
seafood containing other primary ingredients (e.g., beef and chicken
parts).
Bait by-products. Heads and tails can be used as bait in crab traps
or for lobster fishing.
Fish meal and oil. Conventional reduction facilities can be used to
generate oil and meal from fish parts.
Fish silage. Recent investigations indicate fish silage can be readily
manufactured even at small facilities. This can be fed to pigs,
cattle, or chickens.
156
-------
The recovery of shellfish solid wastes includes both the biodegradable
waste products and the shell wastes. The demonstrated and potential tech-
nologies available for finfish wastes are applicable to biodegradable solid
waste products from the shellfish industry. Technologies available for the
shell wastes include:
Chitin separation. This technology involves a caustic extraction to
remove proteins from the shell followed by demineralization with
hydrochloric acid. The products from this two-stage extraction are
proteins and the polysaccaride chitin, with calcium chloride brine a
by-product.
Chitosan production. Chitin is subjected to deacetylization using hot
caustic to produce chitosan. Sodium acetate is recovered as a by-product.
This process may be operated separately or in conjunction with the
chitin separation process.
The end-users of the recovered chitosan may include the papermaking, phar-
maceutical, and agricultural industries. Chitosan also may be used as a
filter aid in dewatering sludge.
3.3.2 Sludge Handling
Solid waste is generated during the treatment of wastewater streams.
These solids can be handled by the following operations singly or in combina-
tion:
Thickening. This operation increases the solids concentration of a
sludge, thereby reducing the volume requiring further treatment.
Equipment includes gravity thickeners and dissolved air flotation
units.
Stabilization. This operation reduces the putrescible and pathogenic
characteristics associated with the sludge. Aerobic and anaerobic
biological systems are available.
Conditioning. This operation normally is selected to improve the
economics of subsequent operations. Alternative technologies include
heat treatment and chemical additions.
Dewatering. This removal of water from the sludge reduces the weight
of the sludge and improves its handling characteristics. The tech-
nology used in the seafood industry includes centrifugation, with
other industries and municipalities often using vacuum filtration,
sludge drying beds, and pressure filtration.
157
-------
Drying. This operation completes the removal of water from sludges.
At high temperatures (e.g., incinerators) the residual from drying may
be an inert material, while at lower temperatures the residual may be
useful as a soil conditioner.
Disposal/utilization. Sludge treatment residuals will require dis-
posal, but also may have value (e.g., as a soil conditioner).
3.3.3 Disposal Alternatives
Land disposal of sludges will be governed by regulations developed under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580). The potential land
disposal of the industry solid wastes includes the following waste streams:
Screened solids. These generally have a relatively low water content
making disposal by conventional sub-surface techniques infeasible.
Land spreading followed by immediate tilling is a potential technology
that avoids the nuisance problem of odor and disease vectors such as
flies.
Dissolved air flotation sludge. The considerations for this stream
include aluminum concentrations (when alum or sodium aluminate is the
coagulant), as well as the sodium and salt content of the material.
The general characteristics of the sludge are important as they reflect
the handling difficulties during disposal.
0 Waste activated sludge. These sludge characteristics are similar to
those for other food processing industries, where land disposal is
widely practiced. Nuisance conditions associated with odors and flies
are prime considerations, with toxicity due to aluminum, sodium, and
salt also an important consideration.
Landfilling of solid wastes is the most common technology, and traditionally
has been the least expensive. The seafood processor may participate in the
joint use of an existing sludge landfill or arrange for the co-disposal of
residual solids at a conventional refuse landfill. If it is necessary to
develop a landfill for the new source industry, the major factors that should
be addressed include:
*
Sludge characteristics (physical, chemical, and biological).
e Acceptable landfill sites available.
Local climatological and hydrogeologic conditions.
Regulatory requirements.
158
-------
Odors and insects can be a problem with landfills, but proper design and
operation should prevent such conditions.
Special solid waste disposal problems are related to the seafood industry
in Alaska because of the large percentage of floaters and the more extensive
use of grinding and discharge in remote areas (Kawabata 1980). Special studies
concerning solid waste disposal are discussed in Section 1.3.3.
3.4 STATR-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY; CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION CONTROL
The applicant also should consider the impact of construction debris on
the solid waste disposal problem. The major pollutant at a construction site
is loosened soil that finds its way into the adjacent waterbodies and becomes
sediment. This potential problem of erosion and sedimentation is not unique
to seafood processing plant construction, but applies widely to all major land
disturbing activities. The applicant should demonstrate proper planning at
all stages of development and application of modern control technology to
minimize the production of high loads of sediment. Specific control measures
include:
Paved channels or pipelines to prevent surface erosion.
Staging or phasing of clearing, grubbing, and excavation activities to
avoid high rainfall periods.
' Storage ponds to serve as sediment traps, where the overflow may be
carefully controlled.
Mulching or seeding immediately following disturbance.
If the applicant chooses to establish temporary or permanent ground
cover, grasses normally are more valuable than shrubs or trees because of
their extensive root systems that entrap soil. Grasses may be seeded by
sodding, plugging, or sprigging. During early growth, grasses should be
supplemented with mulches of wood chips, straw, and jute mats. Wood fiber
mulch also has been used as an anti-erosion technique. The mulch, prepared
commercially from waste wood products, is applied with water in a hydroseeder.
159
-------
4.0 EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives section of the EID should address each reasonable alter-
native available for the new source seafood processing facility. The purpose
of this analysis is to identify and evaluate alternate plans and actions that
may accomplish the desired goals of the project. These alternatives can
include process modifications, site relocations, project phasing, or project
cancellation.
For the alternatives to a proposed project to be identified and evaluated
properly, the impact assessment process should commence early in the planning
phase. In this manner, social, economic, and environmental factors against
which each alternative is to be judged can be established. Cost/benefit
analysis should not be the only means whereby alternatives are compared. The
environmental and social benefits of each alternative also must be considered.
In general, the complexity of the alternative analyses should be a function of
the magnitude and significance of the expected impacts of the proposed pro-
cessing operations. A small processing facility located in an area with an
established seafood industry may have a relatively minimal impact on a region
and generally would require fewer alternatives to be presented in the EID.
The public's attitude toward the proposed operation and its alternatives
also should be evaluated carefully. In this way key factors such as aesthetics,
community values, and land use can be assessed properly.
4.1 SITE ALTERNATIVES
As with all industries, the seafood processing industry locates plants on
the basis of several factors:
Market demand for specific seafood products.
Convenience to raw materials.
Availability of an adequate labor force and water supply.
Proximity to energy supplies and transportation.
160
-------
Minimization of environmental problems.
A variety of sites initially should be considered by the applicant. The EID
should contain an analysis of each one, with the preferred alternative selected
on the basis of satisfying the project objectives with the least adverse
environmental impact.
Consultation with the appropriate resource agencies during the early
stages of site selection is recommended. Key agencies that can provide valu-
able technical assistance include:
State, Regional, County, or Local Zoning or Planning Commission.
These sources can describe land use programs and determine if vari-
ances would be required. Federal lands are under the authority of the
appropriate Federal land management agency (Bureau of Reclamation, US
Forest Service, National Park Service, etc.).
State or Regional Water Resource Agencies. These sources can provide
information relative to water appropriations and water rights.
Air Pollution Control Agencies. These sources can provide assistance
relative to air quality allotments and other air-related standards and
regulations.
The Soil Conservation Service and State Geological Surveys. These
sources can provide data and consultation on soil conditions and
geologic characteristics.
Further consideration should be given to any state siting laws. The appli-
cable regulations should be cited and any applicable constraints described.
The EID should include the potential site locations on maps, charts, or
diagrams that show the relevant site information. (A consistent identifica-
tion system for the alternative sites should be established and retained on
all graphic and text material.) They should display pertinent information
that includes, but is not limited to:
Areas and sites considered by the applicant.
Major centers of population density (urban, high, medium, low density,
or similar scale).
Waterbodies suitable for cooling water or effluent disposal.
161
-------
Railways, highways (existing and planned), and waterways suitable for
the transportation of materials.
Important topographic features (such as mountains).
Dedicated land use areas (e.g., parks, historic sites, wilderness areas,
testing grounds, airports).
Other sensitive environmental areas (e.g., marshes, spawning grounds).
Using the foregoing graphic materials, the applicant should provide a con-
densed description of the major considerations that led to the selection of
the final candidate areas, including:
Proximity to markets and raw materials.
Economic analyses with trade-offs.
Adequacy of transportation systems.
Environmental aspects, including the likelihood of floods.
-»
License or permit problems.
Compatibility with existing land use planning programs.
Current attitudes of interested citizens.
Choice of floating processing plants versus land based plants.
The BID should indicate the steps, factors, and criteria used to select
the proposed site. Quantification, although desirable, may not be possible
for all factors because of lack of adequate data. Under such circumstances,
qualitative and general comparative statements, supported by documentation,
may be used. Where possible, experience derived from operation of other
plants at the same site or at an environmentally similar site may be helpful
in appraising the nature of expected environmental impacts.
The factors considered in selecting each site, and especially those that
influenced a positive or negative decision on its suitability, should be
carefully documented in the permit applicant's BID. Adequate information on
the feasible alternatives to the proposed site is a necessary consideration in
issuing, conditioning, or denying an NPDES permit. Specifically, the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of each alternative site must be catalogued with
162
-------
due regard to preserving natural features such as wetlands and other sensitive
ecosystems and to minimizing significant adverse environmental impacts. The
applicant should ascertain that all impacts are evaluated as to their signif-
icance, magnitude, frequency of occurrence, cumulative effects, reversibility,
secondary or induced effects, and duration. Accidents or spills of hazardous
or toxic substances vis-a-vis site location should be addressed.
A proposed site may be controversial for a number of reasons:
Impact on a unique, recreational, archaeological, or other important
natural or man-made resource area.
Destruction of the rural or pristine character of an area.
Conflict with the planned development for the area.
Opposition by citizen groups.
Unfavorable meteorological and climatological characteristics.
Periodic flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters.
If the proposed site location proves undesirable, then alternative sites from
among those originally considered would be reevaluated, or new sites should be
identified and evaluated. Expansion at an existing site also could be a
possible alternative solution. Therefore, it is critical that a permit appli-
cant systematically identify and assess all feasible alternative site loca-
tions as early in the planning process as possible.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES AND DESIGNS
Typically, when the decision is made to expand processing capacityeither
through a new plant or an addition to an existing onethe type of facility to
be constructed is already fixed. If the existing plant is to be expanded, the
expanded plant would not constitute a new source unless the plant were com-
pletely rebuilt (40 CFR 122.66). However, any alteration which significantly
affects wastewater discharges at an existing source must be reported to
USEPA in advance (40 CFR 122.66). Where the modification would change the
volume or type of pollutants discharged, the existing permit would have to
be changed.
163
-------
In considering alternative processes and designs, the applicant should
evaluate all alternatives in a systematic fashion to ensure that the most
economical and environmentally sound system is used. One alternative in the
design of a plant could be to design multiple use lines. In general, a seafood
processing plant is not operated year-round and some salmon freezing or canning
plants are in operation for only two months per year. Modifying these facil-
ities to handle other products such as shrimp, crab, or clams could be con-
sidered by the applicant. The EID should indicate the methodology used to
identify, evaluate, and select the preferred process alternative.
4.2.1 Process Alternatives
Process alternatives are usually selected on the basis of the following:
Product demand.
Reliability of the process.
Economics.
Availability of required raw materials.
Environmental considerations.
Those alternatives that appear practical should be considered further on the
basis of criteria such as:
Land requirements of the processing facility, fuel storage facilities,
waste storage facilities, and exclusion areas.
Release to air of dust, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other
potential pollutants, subject to Federal, state, or local limitations.
Releases to water of heat and chemicals subject to Federal, state, and
local regulations.
Water consumption rate.
Fuel consumption.
Social impacts of increased traffic as materials are transported to
the site and wastes are transported from the site.
Social effects resulting from the influx of construction, operation,
and maintenance crews.
164
-------
Economics.
Aesthetic considerations for each alternative process.
Reliability and energy efficiency.
A tabular or matrix form of display often is helpful in comparing the
feasible alternatives. The EID should present clearly and systematically the
methodology used to identify, evaluate, and select the preferred process
alternative. Alternative processes which are not feasible should be dismissed
with an objective explanation of the reasons for rejection.
4.2.2 Design Alternatives^
In order to properly present alternative facility designs available for
the project in the EID, the combination of component systems available for
selection should be analyzed and described for the following factors:
» Capital and operating costs.
Environmental considerations.
System reliability and safety.
All of these factors should be documented and quantified wherever possible.
4.3 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
In all proposals for industrial development, the alternative of not
constructing the proposed new source facility must be considered. This
analysis is not unique to the development of seafood processing facilities
(see Chapter IV, Alternatives to the Proposed New Source, in the USEPA docu-
ment , Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Sources
Industries, October 1975). The key aspects of the no-build alternative should
be identified to include:
Market Effect. Not constructing the facility may result in product
shortages.
Industry Effect. Not coastructing the facility may cause dated facil-
ities to be renovated.
165
-------
Technology Effect. Not constructing the facility may delay the need
for expanded capacity, which may allow time for improved technology to
be incorporated into the facility.
Environmental Effect. Not building the facility might avoid adverse
environmental effects at the proposed site, but subsequently may cause
similar effects at a more sensitive site.
Other factors should be considered (e.g., specific environmental issues)
as appropriate for the situation leading to the proposed action.
166
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Abu, M.Y.B. 1973. Clarification of menhaden bail water by reverse osmosis.
Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University.
Allee, W.C., A.E." Emerson, 0. Park, T. Park, and K.P. Schmidt. 1949. Prin-
ciples of animal ecology. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia PA, p.
333-346.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1975. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 14th Edition.
Antonie, R.L., and R.J. Hynek. 1973. Operating experience with bio-surf
process treatment of food processing wastes. In Proceedings of the 28th
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Ashford, N.A. et al. 1977. Industrial prospects for chitin and protein from
shellfish wastes. MIT Sea Grant Report No. MIT-SG-77-3. 106 p.
Atwell, J.S. et al. 1973. Water pollution control problems and programs of
the Maine Sardine Council. In Proceedings of the 1973 Cornell Agricul-
tural Waste Management Conference.
Barnett, H.J., and R.W. Nelson. 1975. A preliminary report on studies to
develop alternative methods of removing pollutants from tuna (albacore)
process wastewaters. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Utili-
zation Research Center.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 1975. Final report on cost of implementation
and capabilities of available technology to comply with P.L. 92-500,
industry category 11: canned and preserved seafoods. Prepared for the
National Commission on Water Quality.
Bechtel, T.J. 1979- Biological and water quality implications of current
crab processing waste disposal practices in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Report
to Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Seattle, Washington. 38 p.
Benkovitch, J.F. 1974. Dewatering screens in pollution control. Pollution
Engineering (May 1974), p. 51-52.
Beyer, D.L., R.E. Nakatani, and C.P. Stasde. 1975. Effects of salmon cannery
wastes on water quality and marine organisms. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation.
Bissonnette, P.A., S.S. Lin, and P.B. Liao. 1977. Salmon processing wastewater
treatment. jta_ Proceedings of the 8th National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes, Held on March 30 - April 1, 1977 in Seattle, WA. EPA-600/2-77-184.
Bough, W.A., C.T. Young, N.L. Stephans, and L.R. Berchat. 1977. Waste from
shrimp and crab processing could be used as microbiological media.
NOAA-77111108. 1 p.
167
-------
Brinsfield, R.B., and D.G. Phillips. 1977. Waste treatment and disposal from
seafood processing plants. EPA-600/2-77-157. Prepared by University of
Maryland for US Environmental Protection Agency, Ada OK, 106 p.
Brinsfield, R.B. et al. 1978. Characterization, treatment, and disposal of
wastewater from Maryland seafood plants. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation 50(8).
Brown and Caldwell. 1980. Crab waste disposal, nearshore outfall status
report. Report to Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Seattle,
Washington. 38 p.
Burgess, G.H.O. et al. 1967. Fish handling and processing. Chemical Pub-
lishing Co., New York NY.
Butler, C. et al. 1963. Handling fresh fish. US Department of the Interior,
Fishery Leaflet 428.
Carver, J.H., and F.H. King. 1971. Fish scrap offers high quality protein.
Food Engineering 43(l):75-76.
Claggett, F.G. 1972. The use of chemical treatment and air flotation for the
clarification of fish processing plant wastewater. In Proceedings of the
Third National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, New Orleans LA.
. 1975. Treatment technology in Canada - chemical treatment
and air flotation. Seminar on Fish Processing Plant Effluent Treatment
and Guidelines, February 1975.
Costa, Bob, and Hugh Gardner. 1978. A new look at old fertilizers - shrimp
and crab processing wastes. Oregon State University Sea Grant Program.
Pub. No. ORE-SU-TL-78-001.
Costa, R.E., Jr. 1977. The fertilizer value of shrimp and crab processing
wastes. Master's Thesis, Oregon State University.
Creter, Robert V., and Joseph P. Lewandowski. 1975. Simple waste treatment
for seafood packers. Pollution Engineering, February.
Duke, Thomas W., and Anatoliy I. Simonov. 1978. First American-Soviet sym-
posium on the biological effects of pollution on marine organisms.
EPA-600/9-78-007. Prepared by US Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze FL, 166 p.
Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. 1976. Summary report on the evaluation of tuna
wastewater treatment facilities at Terminal Island, Calfifornia.
1979. Reassessment of effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards for the canned and preserved seafood
processing point source category (draft final report). Prepared for US
Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C. Portland ME, 287 p.
168
-------
Ertz, D.B., J.S. Atwell, and E.H. Forsht. 1977. Dissolved air flotation
treatment of seafood processing wastes - an assessment. J-n_ Proceedings
of the 8th National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, held on March
30 - April 1, 1977 in Seattle WA. EPA-600/2-184.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1968. Seafood wastewater. Robert S.
Kerr Water Research Center, Westwego LA.
Green, J.H., and J.F. Mattick. 1977- Possible methods for the utilization or
disposal of fishery solid wastes. Journal of Food Quality 1(3):229-251.
Green, J.H. et al. 1973. New methods under investigation for the utilization
of fish solubles, a fishery byproduct, as a means of pollution abatement.
In Proceedings of the 1973 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Con-
ference.
Hallmark, D.E. et al. 1978. Protein recovery from meat packing effluent. In
Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
EPA-600/2-78-188.
Handwerk, R.L. 1977. FDA viewpoint on water reuse in food processing.
Presented at the Seventh Engineering Research Foundation Conference on
Environmental Engineering in the Food Industry at Pacific Grove, Cali-
fornia, February 14, 1977.
Hanover, L.M. et al. 1975. BOD, COD, and TOC values for liquid wastes from
selected blue crab pilot processes. Journal of Milk Food Technology
38(3):155-158.
Hood, L.F. et al. 1976. Conversion of minced clam washwater into clam juice:
waste handling or product development? In Food Product Development.
Horn, C.R., and F.G. Pohland. 1973. Characterization and treatability of
selected shellfish processing wastes. In Proceedings of the 28th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
I
Hudson, J.W., and F.G. Pohland. 1975. Treatment alternatives for shellfish
processing wastewaters. In Proceedings, Purdue University 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, June 6-8, 1975.
Hudson, J.W. et al. 1976. Rotating biological contactor treatment of shell-
fish processing wastewaters. In Proceedings of the 31st Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
Jones, J.L., M.C.T. Kuo, P.E. Kyle, S.B. Redding, K.T. Semrau, and L.P. Somog-
yi. 1979. Overview of the environmental control measures and problems
in the food processing industries. EPA-600/2-79-009- Prepared by SRI
International for US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati OH, 133 p.
Kato, K., and S. Ishikawa. 1969. Fish oil and protein recovered from fish
processing effluent. Water and Sewage Works, October 1969.
169
-------
Kawabata, Sylvia. 1980. Personal communication by letter to Judi Schwartz.
USEPA (date unknown).
Keith, John S. 1978. Treating trout processing wastewater - successful case
history, jn Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes, March 19-31, 1978. EPA 600/2-78-118. Denver CO.
Kelch, W.J., and J.S. Lee. 1978. Modeling techniques for estimating fecal
coliforms in estuaries. Reprinted from JWPCF 1978. Oregon State Sea
Grant Publication ORE-SU-R-78-005.
Kissam, A., H. Barnett, F. Stone, and P. Hunter. 1977. Preliminary evalua-
tion of anaerobic sludge digestion for the tuna processing industry. In
Proceedings of the 8th National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, held
on March 30 - April 1, 1977 in Seattle WA. EPA-600/2-77-184.
Knickle, Harold N. 1974. Treatment of wastewater from fish and shellfish
processing plants. Office of Water Resources Research, Washington DC.
35 p.
Kragg, Rebecca, and F.J. Smith. 1973. Seafood solid waste in Oregon: disposal
or recovery. Oregon State University Sea Grant Special Report 395.
21 p.
Kuji, Y. et al. Treating wastewater of fish processing by electrical flota-
tion. Journal of Water and Waste 17(10):12-20.
Lawler, F.K. 1973. Cuts River pollution - recycling of water for transport-
ing fish from boats to plant permits recovery of solubles. Food Engi-
neering 45(4).
Lin, S.S., and P.B. Liao. 1976. Evaluation of an extended aeration process
for salmon processing wastewater treatment. Presented at the PNPCA
Industrial Waste Conference, Seattle WA, October 28, 1976.
. 1979. Evaluation of an extended aeration process for
Skokomish salmon processing wastewater treatment. EPA-600/2-79-027.
Prepared by Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, Inc. for US Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati OH, 128 p.
Lindsay, G., and N.W. Schmidtke. 1977. Screening demonstration for three
fish processing plant effluents. Technology Development Report EPS
4-WP-77-4. Environmental Protection Service, Fisheries and Environment
Canada.
Lovell, R.T., and G.R. Ammeran, eds. 1974. Processing farm-raised catfish.
Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 193.
McCloskey, William, Jr. 1976. The 200 mile fishing limit - United States
girds for jurisdiction. Oceans, No 5.
McShan, M., N.N. Trieff, and D. Graj-cer. 1974. Biological treatment of
wastewater and artemia. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
46(7), 8 p.
170
-------
Mauldin, A.F., and A.J. Szabo. 1974. Shrimp canning waste treatment study.
EPA-660/2-74-061. Washington DC.
Mendenhall, Vivien. 1971. Utilization and disposal of crab and shrimp wastes.
University of Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 2, 40 p.
Meyers, S.P., and J.E. Rutledge. 1971. Shrimp meal -a new look at an old
product. Feedstuffs, November 27, 1971.
Meyers, S.P., and B.E. Perkins. 1977a. Recovery and applications of by-
products from Louisiana shellfish industries. jCn_ Proceedings of the
Second Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fish Technology Conference of the
Americas.
. 1977b. Recovery and applications of organic wastes from the
Louisiana shrimp canning industry. _In_ Proceeding of the 8th National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, held on March 30 - April 1, 1977 in
Seattle WA. EPA-600/2-77-184.
Miller, T.M., N.O. Webb, and F.B. Thomas. 1975. Seafood processing and
marketing in the coastal plains area. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-75-24.
143 p.
Moody, Michael W. Seafood plant sanitation. LSU-R-77-022, Louisiana State
University Extension Service, 20 p.
Morris, R.E., and D.G. Bzdyl. 1977. Physical/chemical system provides cost
saving pretreatment and by-product recovery. Pollution Engineering.
National Canners Association. 1977. Preproposal: utilization of tuna DAF
sludge. Prepared for Tuna Research Foundation, Terminal Island CA.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1979. Report of field investigations of
Finger Cove, Adah Island, January 15-22, 1979. NWFS Environmental Assess-
ment Division, Juneau AK, 8 p.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1977a. A compre-
hensive review of the commercial clam industries in the United States.
Delaware Sea Grant Program DEL-SG-26-76, 106 p.
. 1977b. A comprehensive review of the commercial oyster
industries in the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOAA - 77092909.
. 1978a. Processors of fishery products in the United States,
1977.NOAA-78121813. 177 p.
. 1978b. Fisheries of the United States, 1977. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 7500. Department of Commerce. 112 p.
^ . 1979a. Wastewater management alternatives for the shellfish
processing industry. PB-282-670. 125 p.
171
-------
1979b. Fisheries of the United States, 1978. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 7800. Department of Commerce. 120 p.
. I979c. Report of field investigations of Finger Cover, Adak
Island, January 15-22, 1979. National Marine Fisheries Service.
. 1980. Seafood waste discharges of Amaknak Island, Alaska:
A report of field investigations. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Department of Commerce. 36 p.
Patton, R.S. et al. 1975. Nutritive value of crab meal for young ruminating
calves. Journal of Dairy Science 58:404-409.
Perkins, B.E., and S.P. Meyers. 1977. Recovery and application of organic
wastes from the Louisiana shrimp canning industry. In Proceedings of the
Eighth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. EPA-600/2-77-184.
Pohland, F.G., and J.W. Hudson. 1975. Aerobic and anaerobic microbial treat-
ment 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.
. 1978. Wastewater management alternatives for the shellfish
processing industry - final report. NOAA-78052403. Georgia Marine
Source Center Sea Grant Program, 125 p.
Potter, D.P. et al. 1978. Fish byproducts - fish meal and fish silage.
Process Biochemistry 13:22-25.
Ramirez, E.R. 1975. Electrocoagulation clarifies food wastewater. In High-
lights, published by the Water Pollution Control Federation.
Ramirez, E.R., and O.A. Clemens. 1976. Electrocoagulation techniques for
running treatment of several different types of wastewater. Presented at
the 49th Annual WPCF Conference, Minneapolia MN.
Ramirez, E.R., D.L. Johnson, and T.E. Elliott. 1977. Removal of suspended
solids and algae from aeration lagoon wastewaters to meet 1983 discharge
standards to streams. In Proceedings of the 8th National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes, held on March 30 - April 1, 1977 in Seattle WA.
EPA-600/2-77-184.
Rao, M.R. et al. 1976. Pilot plant clarification of menhaden bail water with
acid activated clay, jn Digest of Papers, First International Congress
of Engineering and Food, Boston MA, August 9-13, 1976.
Riddle, M.J. et al. 1972. An effluent study of a freshwater fish processing
plant. Water Pollution Control Directorate Reprint EPT G-WP-721, Canada.
Roberts, Morris H., Jr., R.J. Diaz, M.E. Bender, and R.J. Huggett. 1975.
Acute toxicity of chlorine to selected estuarine species. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(12):2525-2528.
172
-------
Smith, B. 1980. Personal communication, B. Smith, to Dr. Steven Bach, WAPORA,
Inc., 12 September 1980.
Snider, I.F. 1974. Dissolved air flotation treatment of seafood wastes. EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar on Upgrading Seafood Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution, New Orleans LA.
Soderquist, M.R. et al. 1970. Current practice in seafood processing waste
treatment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office.
Somoggi, L.P., and P.E. Kyle. 1978. Overview of the fresh pack food indus-
tries. EPA-600/2-78-216. Prepared by SRI International for US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati
OH, 111 p.
Soule, D.F., M. Oguri, and J.D. Soule. 1979. Urban and fish-processing
wastes in the marine environment: Bioenhancement studies at Terminal
Island, CA. Bulletin of the California Water Pollution Control Associa-
tion 15(1).
Szako, A.J., Larry F. LaFleur, and Felon R. Wilson. 1979. Dissolved air
flotation treatment of gulf shrimp cannery wastewater. EPA-600/2-79-061.
Prepared by Domingue, Szako and Associates, Inc. for US Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati OH, 199 p.
Tashiro, H. 1975. Treatment of wastewaters from canneries. PPM 6(3):42-49.
Tatterson, J. 1976. Alternatives to fish meal: Part 1, fish silage. World
Fishing 25:42.
Toma, R.B. and S.P. Meyers. 1975. Isolation and chemical evaluation of
protein from shrimp cannery effluent. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23:4.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1970. Current practice in seafoods
processing waste treatment. EPA 12060 ECF 04/70. Variously paged.
1971a. Pollution abatement and by-product recovery in
shellfish and fisheries processing. EPA 12130 FJQ 06/71.
. 1971b. Pollution abatement and by-product recovery in
shellfish and fisheries processing. EPA 12130 FJO 06/71. 85 p.
. I974a. Development document for proposed effluent limita-
tions guidelines and new source performance standards for the catfish,
crab, shrimp, and tuna segments of the canned and preserved seafood
processing point source category. EPA-440/1-74-020. Washington DC.
1974b. Economic analysis of effluent guidelines for selected
segments of the seafood processing industry (catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna). EPA-230/2-74-025. Washington DC.
. 1974c. Evaluation of waste disposal practices of Alaska
seafood processors. Denver CO.
173
-------
. 1975a. Canned and preserved seafood processing point source
category effluent guidelines and standards (catfish, crab, shrimp, and
tuna processing subcategory).
. 1975b. Canned and preserved seafood processing point source
category, effluent guidelines and standards (fish meal, salmon, bottom-
fish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and abalone processing
subcategory).
. 1975c. Development document for effluent limitations guide-
lines and new source performance standards for the fish meal, salmon,
bottomfish, clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and abalone segments
of the canned and preserved fish and seafood processing industry point
source category. EPA-440/l-75-041a.
. 1975d. Development document for interim final effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the fish
meal, salmon, bottomfish, sardine, herring, clam, oyster, scallop, and
abalone segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point
source category, phase II. EPA-440/1-74-041. Washington DC.
. 1975e. Economic analysis of final effluent guidelines,
seafoods processing industry (fish meal, salmon, bottomfish, clams,
oysters, sardines, scallops, herring, abalone). EPA-230/2-74-047.
Washington DC.
. 1975f. Evaluation of land application systems. EPA-430/
9-85-001.
1976. Quality criteria for water. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 256 p.
. 1977a. Water quality investigation related to seafood
processing wastewater discharges at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, October
1975-October 1976. Working Paper EPA-910-8-77-100. 77 p.
. 1978. Guideline on air quality models. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park NC, 84 p.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished. Results of subtidal survey,
Finger Cover and Thumb Bay, Adak Island, September 24-26, 1979. 14 p.
US Public Health Service. 1965R. Sanitation and processing of shellfish.
Department of Health, Eucation and Welfare.
Veslind, P.A. 1974. Treatment and disposal of wastewater sludges. Ann Arbor
Science, Ann Arbon MI.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1978. Proceedings of
the interstate seafood seminar, October 4-7, 1977. Edited by William R.
Hess. NOAA 78111501.
Wignall, J., and I. Tatterson. 1976. Fish silage. Process Biochemistry
11:17-19.
174
-------
Zall, R.R. et al. 1976. Reclamation and treatment of clam wash water. In_
Proceedings of the Seventh National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
EPA-600/2-76-304.
175
-------
6.0 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 become 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.
176
-------
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.
BODy 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.
brailing: Transfer of seafood from vessel to processing plant in "brail"
baskets.
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 one pound
of water 1°F.
bulking sludge: Activated sludge that settles poorly because of low density
floe.
by-products: (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 .
177
-------
chemical oxygen demand (COD): A measure of the amount of oxygen required to
oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water.
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.
cfaitin: An abundant natural polyssacharide found in the shells of crusta-
ceans, and in insect exoskeletpns, 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.
comminutor (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, -rabs, barnacles, shrimp, wat-^r
fleas, and sow bugs.
4
cyclone: A device used to separate dust or mist from a gas stream by centri-
fugal force.
178
-------
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.
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 of 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.
dry capture: A method of disposal whereby seafood wastes are transferred by
a permeable conveyor belt which allows water to separate from the seafood.
This method is advantageous in that it avoids the need to flush wastes down a
channel, which uses large volumes of water and increases the levels of
pollutants in the discharge.
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 aerobg: An organism that although fundamentally an anaerobe c^n
grow in the presence of free oxygen.
facultative anaerobe: An organism that although fundamentally an aerobe c<*n
grow in the absence of free oxygen.
179
-------
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."
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 by-product resulting from the enzymatic 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 action.
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.
freezing in the round: Freezing of the entire fish without evisceration.
glazing: A method of preserving moisture level in fish during storage by
dipping fish in water and quickly freezing.
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 than 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.
180
-------
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.
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 cropraising 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, equals 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.
micros trainer/microscreen: A mechanical filter consisting of a cylindrical
surface of metal filter fabric with openings of 20-60 micrometers in size.
181
-------
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 NO (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.
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 inorgani.c materials such as calcium carbonate which will lose weight at
temperatures used in de'termining 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 alkalis.
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.
182
-------
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, by-products, 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.
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 o
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.
roe stripping; Removal of reproductive tissue from fish or shellfish prior
to processing.
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
reduction in the waste content.
rotary screen: A revolving cylindrical screen for the separation of solids
from a waste stream.
183
-------
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 and 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 using 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.
seafood: (as defined in 40 CFR 408.lie for purposes of establishing wastewater
discharge criteria) the raw material including freshwater and saltwater fish
and shellfish, to be processed, in the form in which it is received at the
processing plant.
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).
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.
184
-------
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 by-product.
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."
thaw water: Water which is used to thaw frozen fish; thaw water can be heated
and recycled to help conserve water within a seafood processing plant.
total dissolved solids (IDS): The solids content of wastewater that is solu-
ble and is measured as total solids content minus total suspended solids.
total suspended solids (TSS): The wastes that will not sink or settle in
municipal and industrial wastewaters.
trickling filter: A bed of rocks, stones or plastic media. The wastewater is
trickled over the bed so the bacteria can break down the organic wastes. The
bacteria accumulate on the media through repeated applications of wastewater.
vacuum unloading: A method of removing fish from a vessel by use of a large
vacuum device.
viscera: .(Singular viscus) The internal organs of a body, especially those of
the abdominal and thoracic cavities.
waste: Material that is superfluous or rejected; something that can no longer
be used for its originally intended purpose.
185
-------
1. REPORT NO.
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-130/6-81-005
2.
J3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Impact Guidelines for New Source
Canned a"nd Preserved Seafood Processing Facilities
\5 REPORT DATE
1981
|6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Leroy C. Reid Jr., Shermon U. Smith, Wayne D. Lee
and Don R. McCombs
). PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
|9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wapora, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4157
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Federal.Activities
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/100/102
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Task Officer is Frank Rusincovitch, (202)755-9368
16. ABSTRACT
This guideline document has been prepared to augment the information previously
released by the Office of Federal Activities entitled Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source Industries. Its purpose is to
provide guidance for the preparation and/or review of environmental documents
(Environmental Information Document or Environmental Impact Statement) which
EPA may require under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) as part of the new source (NPDES) permit application review process.
This document has been prepared in six sections,- organized in a manner to
facilitate analysis of the various facets of the environmental review process.
The initial section includes a broad overview of the industry intended to
familiarize the audience with the processes, trends, impacts and applicable
pollution regulations commonly encountered in the canned and preserved seafood
processing industry. Succeeding sections provide a comprehensive identification
and analysis of potential environmental impacts, pollution control technologies
available to meet Federal standards, and evaluation of available alternatives.
The document concludes with two sections: a comprehensive listing of references
for further reading, and a glossary of terms common to the industry.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Seafood Processing Plants
Water Pollution
Environmental Impact
Assessment
10A
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (TillsRepOrtf
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
185
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
«J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 341-082/259 1-3
------- |