REASSESSMENT OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR TilE CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PREPARED FOR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
BY
EDWARD C. JORI)AN CO., INC.
P.O. BOX 7050
PORTLAND, MAINE
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-3287
December 1978

-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO .
III INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Scope of Study 2
General Approach 4
IV INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 7
BACKGROUND 7
SUBCATEGORIZATION RATIONALE 10
General 10
Bottom Fish Processing 12
Sardine Processing 15
Herring Fillet Processing 16
Scallop Processing 19
Other Subcategories 19
V ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR CHARACTERIZING PROCESS
WASTEWATER 22
GENERAL 22
DEVELOPt 1ENT OF DATA BASE 24
Historical Data 25
New Sources of Data 28
DATA ANALYSIS 33
Farm Raised Catfish... . 36
Conventional Blue Crab. 36
l 1echanized Blue Crab.. . 36
Alaskan Crab Neat 40
Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab
Section 40
Dungeness and Tanner Crab in the
Contiguous States 43
Alaskan Shrimp 43
Northern Shrimp in the Contiguous
States 45
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp 45
Breaded Shrimp 48
Tuna 48
Fish Neal 52

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE NO .
Hand-Butchered Salmon . 52
Mechanized Salmon 56
Alaskan Halibut 59
Conventional Bottom Fish 59
Mechanized Bottom Fish 63
Hand-Shucked Clam 65
Mechanized Clam 65
Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster. . 68
East and Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked
Oyster 68
Steamed and Canned Oyster 71
Sardine 73
Scallop 75
Herring Fillet 75
Abalone 78
Baseline Waste Loads 80
VI WASTE CONTROL AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT
TEC} [ NOLOGY 86
GENERAL 86
TN-PLANT MANAGEMENT 88
Background 88
Recovery of Secondary Products and
Byproducts 89
Waste Management 93
Water Management 94
Application of In-Plant Measures... 99
END-OF-PIPE-TREATMENT 105
Background 105
Solids Separation by Screening ... . 106
Oil Separation 121
Solids Separation by Sedimentation. 124
Physical-Chemical Treatment 126
Air Flotation 127
Advanced Technologies 149
Biological Treatment 152
High Rate Aerobic Systems 152
Lagoon Treatment 155
Land Treatment 159
Treatment for Multi-Product
Operations 161

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE NO .
RATIONALE FOR SELECTING SUBCATEGORY
TECHNOLOGY BASE 162
Farm Raised Catfish 165
Conventional Blue Crab 165
Mechanized Blue Crab 166
Alaskan Crab 167
Dungeness and Tanner Crab 167
Alaskan Shrimp 168
Northern Shrimp 168
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp 169
Breaded Shrimp 169
Tuna 172
Fish Meal 173
Hand-Butchered Salmon 176
Alaskan Mechanized Salmon 176
Mechanized Salmon 177
Alaskan Halibut 180
Conventional Bottom Fish 180
Mechanized Bottom Fish 180
Hand-Shucked Clam 181
Mechanized Clam 182
Hand-Shucked Oyster 182
Steamed and Canned Oysters 185
Sardine 186
Alaskan Herring Fillet 187
Herring Fillet 187
Abalone 188
VII SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 189
GENERAL 189
MANUFACTURING OF SECONDARY PRODUCTS AND
BYPRODUCTS 191
Background 191
Finfish Wastes 192
Secondary Products 193
Byproducts 194
Shellfish Wastes 199
DEWATERING OF DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
SLUDGE 210
Background 210
Thickening 213
Stabilization 214
Conditioning 214
Dewatering 215
Drying 216
Disposal/Utilization 216

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE NO .
SLUDGE HANDLING PRACTICES OF RELATED
FOOD INDUSTRIES 217
DAF SLUDGE DEWATERING FOR THE SEAFOOD
PROCESSING INDUSTRY 221
Current Methods 221
Prospective Methods 223
LAND APPLICATION 226
Background 226
Screened Solids 235
DAF Sludge 237
Waste Activated Sludge 239
LANDFILLING 241
SOLIDS DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR ALASKAN
PROCESSORS 245
Background 245
Barging 249
Byproduct Manufacturing 252
General 252
Approach and Methodology 252
Cost Development 257
City of Cordova 262
City of Juneau 267
Kenai Peninsula Area 269
City of Ketchikan 276
City of Kodiak 281
City of Petersburg 287
VIII COST AND ENERGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 294
GENERAL 294
IN-PLANT MANAGEMENT 297
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT 307
Background 307
Screening 307
Grit Removal 313
Dissolved Air Flotation 316
Aerated Lagoon(s) 322
COST DEVELOPMENT 322
Capital Costs 322
Operation & Maintenance Costs 337
Solids Handling and Disposal 337
Subcategory Costs 353
Other Considerations 384
REFERENCES 388

-------
NuMBER PAGE NO .
1 ORIGINAL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION-CANNED
AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSING
2 PEF:CENTAGES ATTRIBUTED TO PLANT WASRDOWN
3 IDENTIFIED SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL DATA
4 DATA AVAILABLE FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES
- FARM RAISED CATFISH..
5
SUBCATEGORY A
6
SUBCATEGORY B -
CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAB
7
SUBCATEGORY C -
MECHANIZED BLUE CRAB
8
SUBCATEGORIES D
& E - ALSKAN CRAB MEAT
9
SUBCATEGORIES F
& G - ALASKAN WHOLE CRAB AND
CRAB SECTION
42
10
SUBCATEGORIES I
& J - ALASKAN SHRIMP
44
11.
SUI3CATEGORY K -
NORTHERN SHRIMP
46
12.
SU]3CATEGORY L -
SOUTHERN NON-BREADED SHRIMP.
.
47
13.
SU]3CATEGORY M -
BREADED SHRIMP
49
14.
SU]3CATEGORY N -
TUNA
50
15. SUBCATEGORY 0 - FISH HEAL WITH SOLUBLES
UNET
16. SUBCATEGORY 0 - FISH HEAL WITHOUT SOLUBLES
UN IT
17. SUBCATEGORIES P & R - HAND-BUTCHERED SALMON..
18. SUBCATEGORIES Q & S - MECHANIZED SALMON
19. SUBCATEGORY T - ALASKAN HALIBUT
20. SUBCATEGORY U - CONVENTIONAL BOTTOM FISH
21. ASSESSMENT OF MECHANICAL SCALER USE FOR CONVEN-
TIONAL BOTTOM FISH WASTE CHARACTERIZATION.
TABLES
9
28
31
32
37
38
39
41
53
54
55
57
60
61
63

-------
TABLES (Continued)
N1JNBER PAGE NO .
22 SUBCATEGORY V - MECHANIZED BOTTOM FISH 64
23. SUBCATEGORY W - HAND-SHuCKED CLANS 66
24. SUBCATEGORY X - MECHANIZED CLANS 67
25. SUBCATEGORY Y - PACIFIC COAST HAND-SHUCKED
OYSTER 69
26. SUBCATEGORY Z - EAST AND GULF COAST HAND-
SHUCKED OYSTER 70
27. SIJBCATEGORY AA - STEAMED/CANNED OYSTERS 72
28. SUBCATEGORY AB - SARDINES 74
29. SUBCATEGORIES AC & AD - SCALLOPS 76
30. SUBCATEGORIES AE & AF - HERRING FILLETS 77
31. SUBCATEGORY AG - ABALONE 79
32. PHASE I SUBCATEGORY BASELINE WASTE LOADS 84
33. PHASE II SUBCATEGORY BASELINE WASTE LOADS.... 85
34. FINE SCREEN PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO VARIOUS
PROCESS WASTEWATERS 111
35. EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE SCREENING ON SALMON PROCESS
WASTEWATERS 114
36. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON FOR 165-MESH CSC
TREATING SALMON CANNERY WASTES WITH AND
WITHOUT CHEMICALS 115
37. CSC PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO VARIOUS PROCESS
WASTEWATERS 115
38. TANGENTIAL SCREEN PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS 117
39. PERFORMANCE OF FINE SCREENS AND OIL SEPARATION
EQUIPMENT RELATIVE TO BPCTCA LIMITATIONS FOR
SARDINE PROCESSING 119

-------
TABLES (Continued)
N1JNBER PAGE NO .
40. SU]3CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION REGARDING THE
RELATIVE DIFFICULTY FOR WASTEWATER SCREENING. 120
41. PERFORMANCE OF A SETTLING BASIN FOR SOLIDS
REMOVAL FROM OYSTER WASH WATERS 126
42. NON-TUNA PETFOOD CONTRIBUTION TO TilE DAF
INFLUENT WASTE LOADS 131
43. DAF PERFORMANCE FOR THE TERMINAL ISLAND
(CALIFORNIA) TUNA CANNERIES 132
44. DAF PERFORMANCE FOR TUNA WASTEWATER BASED ON
INDUSTRIAL SELF-MONITORING DATA AT T.I. NO. 1 134
45. DAF PERFORMANCE FOR TUNA WASTEWATER BASED ON
1N1)USTRIAL SELF-MONITORING DATA AT A PUERTO
RICO FACILITY 136
46. DAF PERFORMANCE FOR THE AMERICAN SAMOA TUNA
CANNERIES 138
47. PERFORMANCE OF DAF DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM AT A
GUi F COAST CANNERY 140
48. PILOT PLANT PERFORMANCE FOR CSC - FLOTATION
SYSTEM 145
49. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FROM CSC - FLOTATION
SYSTEM 146
50. PERFORMANCE OF FULL-SCALE CSC - FLOTATION
SYSTEM 147
51. PW(SICAL-CREMICAL TREATMENT OF AIR FLOTATION
EFFLUENT FOR THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 151
52. TREATMENT OF CRAB PROCESSING WASTEWATER WITH
CHEMICAL ADDITION AND DAF 166
53. EFFECTS OF EVAPORATION PLANT OPERATION ON WASTE
LOADS GENERATED BY THE FISH MEAL INDUSTRY.... 176
54. TREATMENT OF BOTTOM FISH FILLETING WASTEWATER
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION AND DAF 181

-------
TABLES (Continued)
N1JHBER PAGE NO .
55. TRJ ATMENT OF SARDINE PROCESSING WASTEWATER
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION AND DAF 186
56. DAE EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR HERRING FILLET
WA;STEWATER 188
57. DAT FLOAT HANDLING AND DISPOSAL FOR RELATED
INDUSTRIES 218
58. NuTRIENT UPTAKE RATES FOR SELECTED CROPS 230
59. NUTRIENT VALUES OF ONE TON OF FRESH SHELLFISH
WASTES 236
60. DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS -
CORDOVA FISH MEAL FACILITY 265
61. CITY OF CORDOVA ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SWINARY.... 267
62. DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS-KENAI
PE INSULA AREA FISH MEAL FACILITY 273
63. KE IAI PENINSULA AREA ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SU1INARY 274
64. DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS -
KETCHIKAN FISH MEAL FACILITY 279
65. CITY OF KETCHIKAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY.. 280
66. DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS-KODIAK FISH
MEAL FACILITY 285
67. CITY OF KODIAK ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY 286
68. DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS-PETERSBURG
FISH MEAL FACILITY 291
69. CITY OF PETERSBURG ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY. 292
70. COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING IN-PLANT MEASURES 302
71. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SCREENING SYSTEM 309
72. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SIMPLE GREASE TRAPS 313
73. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GRIT REMOVAL 315

-------
TABLES (Continued)
NuMBER PAGE NO .
74. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION.. 31]
75. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WHARF CONSTRUCTION 321
76. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR AERATED LAGOONS 323
77. CONSTRUCTION COST FACTORS FOR SELECTED
ALASKAN AREAS 336
78. ELECTRICAL POWER COSTS FOR SELECTED ALASKtiJi
AREAS 346
79. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SOLIDS HANDLING AND
DISPOSAL 347
80. COST TABLE CODES FOR WASTE CONTROL 354
81-109 SU]3CATEGORY IN-PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS 355-383

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NuMBER PAGE NO .
1. SCMENATIC DIAGRAM OF A SWECO CENTRIFUGAL SCREEN
CONCENTRATOR (CSC) 113
2. PERFORMANCE OF FULL SCALE OIL SEPARATION EQUIPMENT
FOR TIlE SARDINE INDUSTRY 123
3. PERCENT BOD REMOVAL AS A FUNCTION OF TIlE SOLUBLE
PORTION OF } [ E INFLUENT BOD 5 133
4. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CSC - FLOTATION PROC1 SS WITII
C1{EMICAL AI)DITION 144
5. DAF’ EFFLUENT QUALITY (TSS) FOR TREATMENT OF S} [ RIMP
PROCESSING WASTEWATEB 170
6. DAF’ EFFLUENT QUALITY (O&G) FOR TREATMENT OF SIIRINIP
PROCESSING WASTEWATER 171
7. DAF EFFLUENT QUALITY (TSS) FOR TREATMENT OF TUNA
PROCESSING WASTEWATER 174
8. DAF EFFLUENT QUALITY (O&G) FOR TREATMENT OF TUNA
PROCESSING WASTEWATER 175
9. EFFLUENT QUALITY (TSS) RELATIVE TO INFLIJENT CON-
CENTRATION FOR DAF TREATMENT OF SALMON PROCESSING
WASTEWATER 178
10. EFFLUENT QUALITY (O&G) RELATIVE TO INFLUENT CON-
CENTRATION FOR DAF TREATMENT OF SALMON PROCESSING
Wi STEWATER 179
11. EFFLUENT QUALITY (TSS) RELATIVE TO INFLUENT CON-
CENTRATION FOR DAF TREATMENT OF OYSTER PROCESSING
WASTE WATER 183
12. EFFLUENT QUALITY (O&G) RELATIVE TO INFLUENT CON-
CE:NTRATION FOR DAF TREATMENT OF OYSTER PROCESSING
WASTEWATER 184
13. PROCESS SCI [ EtIATIC OF A CONVENTIONAL FISH MEAL 197
14. PROCESS SCITEtIATIC FOR CHITIN PRODUCTION FROM
SHELLFISH WASTES 203

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
NUMBER PAGE NO .
15. PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR CHITOSAN PRODUCTION FROM
CH [ TIN
16. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HANDLING
ANi) DISPOSAL/UTILIZATION OF SLUDGE 212
17. ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR LANDFILLING SLUDGE 246
18. MONTHLY GENERATION OF SEAFOOD WASTES FOR THE
cyry OF CORDOVA 264
19. MONTHLY GENERATION OF SEAFOOD WASTES FOR THE
KENAI PENINSULA AREA 272
20. MONTHLY GENERATION OF SEAFOOD WASTES FOR THE
CITY OF KETCHIKAN 278
21. MONTHLY GENERATION OF SEAFOOD WASTES FOR TIlE
CITY OF KODIAK 284
22. MONTHLY GENERATION OF SEAFOOD WASTES FOR THE
CITY OF PETERSBURG 290
23. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TUNA THAW WATER RECYCLE
SYSTEM 299
24. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR STICKI4ATER EVAPORATION
SYSTEM 300
25. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR WASTEWATER SCREENING
SYSTEM 308
26. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR SIMPLE GREASE TRAP 312
27. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR MECHANICALLY CLEANED
GRJT CHANNEL 314
28. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR CHEMICALLY OPTIMIZED
DAF TREATMENT SYSTEM 318
29. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR AERATED LAGOON (THREE-CELL)
SYSTEM 324
30. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR SCREENING NON-OILY WASTE-
WATER IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES 327

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
N1JtIBER PAGE NO .
31. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR SCREENING OIL WASTEWATER
IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES 328
32. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR ALASKAN SCREEN INSTALLA-
TION 329
33. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR SINPLE GREASE TRAPS 330
34. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR ftkNIJALLY CLEANED AND
NECHANICALLY CLEANED GRIT CHA?’IBERS 331
35. CAPITAL COST CURVES FOR DAF TREATNENT AND SLUDGE
DEWATERING 332
36. CAPITAL COST CURVE FOR HOUSING DAF SYSTEMS IN THE
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES 333
37. CAPITAL COST CURVE FOR PROVIDING WHARF AREA FOR
DAT’ SYSTEMS IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES 334
38. CAPITAL COST CURVE FOR AERATED LAGOON(s) 335
39. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR
SCREENING NON-OILY WASTEWATER IN THE
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES 338
40. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR
SCREENING OILY WASTEWATER IN THE CONTIGUOUS
UN]TED STATES 339
41. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR
SCREENING NON-OILY WASTEWATER IN ALASKA 340
42. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR
SCREENING OILY WASTEWATER IN ALASKA 341
43. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR SIMPLE
GREASE TRAPS 342
44. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR MANUALLY
CLEANED AND MECHANICALLY CLEANED GRIT CHAMBERS.... 343
45. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR DAF
TREATMENT AND SLUDGE DEWATERING 344

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
‘1UHBER PAGE NO .
46. OPERATION AND HAINTENANCE COST CURVES FOR
AERATED LAGOON(s) 345
47. COST CURVES FOR HAULING RESIDUALS OVER VARIOUS
ROIJNDTRIP DISTANCES 349
48. COST CURVE FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT AN ACCEPTABLE
LANDFILL SITE 352

-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (the Act),
effluent limitations guidelines for the Canned and Preserved
Seafood Processing Industry Point Source Category were promul-
gated. The achievement of effluent limitations sed on Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) was
required by no later than July 1, 1977. The Act also required the
achievement of effluent limitations based on Best Available Tech-
nology Economically Achievable (BATEA) by no later than July 1,
1983.
The regulatcry process for this industry was conducted in two
phases. Guidelines were set forth for the Phase I subcategories
which include catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna on June 26, 1974 and
later amended on January 30, 1975. Promulgation of regulations
for the remaining subcategories (Phase II) was accomplished on
December 1, 1975.
The Association of Pacific Fisheries and others filed a petition
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
obtain a judicial review of the BPCTCA and BATEA effluent limita-
tions guidelines for the salmon, bottom fish, scallop and herring
processing segments of the industry. As a result of petitioners’
objections and EPA ’s examination of the record, the BATEA regula-

-------
tions were withdrawn for Alaskan mechanized salmon, Alaskan hand-
butchered salmon, Alaskan bottom fish, Alaskan scallop, and Alas-
kan herring Fillet processing subcategories.
With adoption of the Clean Water Act of 1977, discharge of con-
ventional pollutants will no longer be controlled by BATEA guide-
lines. Conventional pollutants currently include BOD 5 , total
suspended solids, fecal coliform and pH. Additions to this list
have been pioposed by EPA which include COD, oil and grease and
total phosphorous. Control of these pollutants will be based on
the implementation of Best Conventional Pollutant Control Tech-
nology (BCT) which is required by no later than July 1, 1984.
Final BCT limitations can be no more stringent than promulgated
BATEA guidehnes, nor less stringent than BPCTCA regulations. The
reasonablene ;s of the relationship between the cost of obtaining
conventional pollutant reductions and the benefits derived must be
considered.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Since the publishing of the Development Documents (1,2), addi-
tional data relative to waste control technology for the seafood
processing industry has become available. Recent information has
resulted from the implementation of the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) and an increased awareness on
the part of 5.pecific processing facilities regarding water use and
waste management practices.

-------
An assessment of the effluent guidelines for the seafood pro-
cessing industry and their basis was initiated in October 1975.
The study W IS directed towards collecting additional information
which is pertinent to in-plant modifications and end-of-pipe
treatment technology. Emphasis was to be placed on primary treat-
ment alternatives, including sedimentation and air flotation,
while identifying facilities with consistent treatment per-
formance. Based on the available data, sampling requirements
would then be identified to verify or update the original assess-
ment of the Lndustry.
Utilizing the newly acquired information along with the historical
data base, the work program was directed towards the following
tasks:
1. Review the subcategorization of the industry and identify
appropriate factors to be employed in designating remote and
non-remote areas of Alaska.
2. Analyze raw wastewater data which characterizes the industry
using the appropriate statistical methods.
3. Identify in-plant changes for the purpose of reducing water
consun pcion and waste loads within specific segments of the
industry.
3

-------
4. Evaluate applicable end-of-pipe technologies relative to
their effectiveness for treating specific wastewaters gener-
ated by the industry.
5. Identify and evaluate specific problems related to the hand-
ling arid disposal of solids wastes generated through the
application of wastewater treatment technology.
6. Evaluate the unique Alaskan climatic and geo rapi cal con-
ditions with respect to waste control technology which is
being considered for establishing effluent limitations.
7. Develop costs associated with the implementation of in-plant
control and end—of-pipe treatment technology over the range,
of size, age and other factors relating to specific segments
of the Lndustry.
8. Consider and evaluate the pollutants present in process waste
streams with respect to their compatability with publicly
owned treatment works.
GENERAL APPROACH
Initial efforts were directed towards supplementing the historical
data base with more recent information and determining the effec-
tiveness of appropriate waste control technology. In addition to
domestic and foreign literature, sources of information for both
4

-------
study areas included processing facilities, trade associations,
educational institutions, the Sea Grant Program, and state and
Federal agencies. A field sampling program which involved several
segments of the industry was then undertaken for the purpose of
evaluating waste management programs adopted at specific plants.
Although determining the performance of treatment options such as
air flotation and sedimentation was emphasized, the effectiveness
of in-plant measures and alternative screening systems have been
addressed. When possible, raw waste streams were characterized as
part of the sampling effort.
In accordance with the tasks outlined previously, the available
information 1as been considered and evaluated for summarization in
this report. Preparation of this document has been accomplished
to facilitate its use as a supplement to the Development Documents
for Phases I and II. The major report topics are as follows:
1. Industry subcategorization
2. Analysis of data for characterizing process wastewater
3. Waste control and effluent treatment technology
4. Solids handling and disposal
5-

-------
5. Costs and energy for waste management program
Unlike the original documents, a complete section has been devoted
to addressing the handling and disposal of residuals incurred
through the application of effluent treatment technology. Section
VII also summarizes the unique conditions which exist in Alaska
and their relationship with the implementation of wastewater
treatment facilities. These and other considerations are iden-
tified for use in designating remote and non-remote areas ot
Alaska.

-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
BACKGROUND
During the original investigations to develop effluent limitations
for the seafood industry, an objective was to segment the industry
into relatively homogeneous groups. The first level of subcate-
gorization employed was based on commodity which accounted for
such factors as: 1) type and variability of raw material util-
ized; 2) general manufacturing processes employed; 3) production
levels; 4) plant locations and geographic regionalization; 5)
wastewater characteristics; and 6) in some cases economic stature.
Field investigations were organized based on this rationale, in
addition to the input received from industry representatives and
experts closely associated with the industry.
Nonitoring priorities were originally established utilizing a
relative importance matrix which considered the pollutant load,
flow, number of plants and seasonality associated with the pro-
duction of the particular commodity. The extent of the charac-
terization effort for each commodity was a result of its estimated
pollutional significance. Adjustments were then made to the
sampling efforts as more information was obtained.
-7

-------
Following the collection and review of all data, a final sub-
categorization scheme was developed for the industry based on the
principle criteria which included: 1) form and quality of fin-
ished produc:; 2) manufacturing processes and unit operations; 3)
geographical location with emphasis on Alaska; and 4) wastewater
characterist].cs (flow, BOD 5 total suspended solids and oil and
grease). Other factors such as harvesting method, variability in
raw material supply and production, condition of raw product as
received by the processing facility, variety of species processed,
degree of preprocessing, age of plant, process water availability,
and amenability of wastewater to treatment were also considered.
Correlations between these factors and one or more of the major
considerations were found to exist, and examples were cited as
support.
In developing the subcategorization rationale, attention was given
to other eLements which included production capabilities and
normal operating levels. The capabilities of a particular facil-
ity are determined by the functional processing equipment and the
number of employees available. Historical data which was devel-
oped during the initial monitoring program indicates that ratios
for flow and waste loads are independent of plant size or oper-
ating level.(l,2) Based on the criteria set forth, the canned and
preserved seafood processing industry was subcategorized to estab-
lish appropriate waste control technologies and associated costs,
as shown in Table 1.

-------
Phase I
Farm R&Lsed Catfish
Conventional Blue Crab
Nechani; ed Crab
Non-Remote Alaskan Crab Neat
Remote Alaskan Crab Neat
Non-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab
and Crab Section
Remote Alaskan Whole Crab
and Crab Section
Dungene ;s and Tanner Crab
in the Contiguous States
Non-Remote Alaskan Shrimp
Remote Alaskan Shrimp
Northern Shrimp in the
Contiguous States
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Tuna
} and-Shucked Clam
Mechanized Clam
Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster
East and Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked
Oyster
Steamed and Canned Oyster
Sardine
Alaskan Scallop
Non-Alaskan Scallop
Alaskan Herring Fillet
Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet
Abalone
TABLE 1
ORIGINAL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATJON
CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSING
Phase II
Fish Meal
Alaskan Hand—Butchered Salmon
Alaskan Mechanized Salmon
West Coast Hand-Butchered Salmon
West Coast Mechanized Salmon
Alaskan Bottom Fish
Non-Alaskan Conventional
Bottom Fish
Non-Alaskan Mechanized
Bottom Fish
9

-------
Since the costs incurred through the implementation of waste
management practices are directly related to plant production,
economics are a major consideration in the regulatory process
Proceeding on this basis, proposed effluent limitations guidelines
for the established subcategories were then subjected to an econ-
omic impact analysis. The required study of the proposed Phase I
guidelines determined that a disproportionate economic burden
would be placed on very small plants within the following sub-
categories, farm-raised catfish, conventional blue crab, Northern
shrimp, Southern non-breaded shrimp and breaded shrimp. Results
of a similat analysis for Phase II commodities exempted smaller
processors from promulgated regulations in several subcategories
which included: non-Alaskan conventional bottom fish, hand-
shucked clams, Pacific Coast hand-shucked oysters, and East and
Gulf Coast hand-shucked oysters. The plant sizes for the respec-
tive subcategories are specified in the Federal Register dated
December 1, 1975.
SIJBCATEGORIZATION RATIONALE
General
As part of the current assessment, sampling efforts have been
recently performed at a number of processing facilities to update
the historical data base. Plant profiles, which include opera-
tional modes and wastewater characteristics, have been developed
10

-------
for the procuction of various commodities. In addition, on-site
visits have been conducted at plants located in a variety of
geographical locations with some emphasis placed on Alaskan pro-
cessors. Although plants representing every commodity and pro-
duction level could not be investigated, sufficient information
has been obtained to supplement the Record and to enable the
evaluation of the original subcategorization rationale.
In general, the rationale employed during the original effluent
guidelines development was consistent with the criteria set forth
under the Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972 (Public
Law 92-500). Subcategorization was based on the major criteria
and other factors which have been outlined previously in this
report section and reflect the conditions existing at that time.
However, specific areas of the industry have evolved or have
become more significant during the past several years. The prim-
ary cause of the industry’s redirection is the adoption of the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law
94—265), commonly referred to as the “200-mile limit.”
In addition to implementing policies regarding the conservation
and management of the fishery resources found off the coasts of
the United States, a specific purpose of Public Law 94-265 is “to
encourage the development of fisheries which are currently under-
utilized or not utilized by United States fishermen, including
bottom fish off Alaska.”(3) With the law placed into effect on
March 1, 1977, efforts have been initiated to develop the bottom
II

-------
fish processing segment in Alaska Investigations are continuing
to identify markets for other marine life which are not harvested
by United St.3tes fishermen. The impact of Public Law 94-265, in
addition to other developments within the seafood industry, will
be addressed, as they relate to the specific subcategories.
Bottom Fish Processing
Production oriented towards underutilized bottom fish species
represents the best example of an evolving area of the industry.
In the past, halibut has been the most prominent species of bottom
fish processed at Alaskan ports and current effluent limitations
were based solely on the production characteristics of this com-
modity. The freezing of rockfish, black cod and red snapper was
previously conducted on a relatively minor scale at a small number
of plants. With halibut harvests declining and the enforcement of
the 200-mile fishing limit, a significant increase in the pro-
duction of other bottom fish species is anticipated. This premise
is supported by the following examples.
In 1977, a facility at Petersburg, Alaska incorporated a bottom
fish operation which handled 750,000 pounds (340 kkg) of sole,
flounder and pollack into its traditional activities of salmon,
crab, halibut and herring processing. The pilot scale operation
essentially utilized manual processing techniques; however, the
use of filleting machines on a full scale basis was anticipated
for the 1978 processing season. Another plant, located on Kodiak

-------
Island, investigated the feasibility of bottom fish processing by
installing a pilot line for the 1978 season. A portion of this
line was de’ oted to a mechanized filleting operation while some
fish were processed by hand. The two major species handled were
pollack and cod. Successful operation will dictate facility
expansion to accommodate a significantly larger annual volume of
bottom fish.
Other Alaskan facilities have contemplated plant expansions to
implement large bottom fish operations. The company which took
the initiative to process this commodity in Kodiak has explored
the establishment of similar facilities in Sand Point and Dutch
Harbor.(4) rhe chartering of a factory ship has been considered
for the Sand Point location. The major thrust of expansion ef-
forts on the part of this company and others is directed towards
the underutilized species, such as pollack and hake. It has been
estimated th3t the Alaskan bottom fish industry could potentially
generate $2 billion annually. (5)
The Alaskan bottom fish subcategory, as originally defined, em-
ployed the characteristics of halibut processing to establish
effluent limitations. Halibut are eviscerated on-board the fish-
ing vessel and in some cases, they are beheaded. This practice
allows the vessels to remain at sea for longer periods of time.
Since the delivery of eviscerated halibut is a common practice in
Alaska, the waste loads generated by the processing plants are
relatively low. The Phase II Development Document presents the
13

-------
wastewater characterization for Alaskan halibut operations and
conventional bottom fish plants in the contiguous United States.
Updated information for these commodities is summarized in Section
V of this report. Although the flow ratios (1/kkg) are compar-
able, the mass emission rates (kg/kkg) for BOD 5 total suspended
solids, and oil and grease attributable to halibut processing are
significantly lower than observed values for conventional bottom
fish operations. Therefore, the wastewater characteristics for
Alaskan bottom fish, or Subcategory T, as defined in the Phase II
Development ])ocument, should not serve as an effluent guideline
basis for the developing bottom fish industry in Alaska.
To delineate between halibut processing and bottom fish operations
in Alaska, Subcategory T (Alaskan bottom fish) should be desig-
nated as “Alaskan halibut.” The existence of facilities in Alaska
which receive and manually process groundfish such as pollack and
hake (whiting) and the prospect of new operations require consid-
eration for developing a distinct subcategory to establish appro-
priate effluent limitations. The same philosophy applies to
mechanized bottom fish plants which are based in Alaska.
Waste loads generated by mechanized operations are significantly
higher than :hose documented at conventional plants. Each method
of producing bottom fish commodities in Alaska should be compar-
able to the processes characterized in the contiguous United
States. It is, therefore, practical to employ the data base
established for non-Alaskan operations to serve as the regulatory
14

-------
basis for tl-e evolving Alaskan bottom fish industry. A similar
approach has been employed for the hand-butchered salmon and
mechanized salmon segments of the industry. It is apparent that
the establishment of individual subcategories for conventional and
mechanized facilities in Alaska is in order.
Sardine Processing
During the criginal effluent guidelines development for the sea-
food industry, the sardine segment adopted an innovative approach
to processing and marketing larger Atlantic herring which signif-
icantly increases the product yield. Equipment has been purchased
by a majoril:y of Name sardine plants to produce steaks from
larger fish for subsequent canning. Similar to conventional
sardine packing operations, the fish arrive by boat or truck and
are transported to storage bins by flumes or belt conveyors. A
concentrated brine solution which has been refrigerated is added
to the bins for preservation over significant lengths of time,
when required. Commonly, the raw material is flushed out of the
storage tanks with hoses and conveyed to the steaking machines
rather than the packing tables. The herring are introduced into
the machines where gang knives cut the fish in a cross-sectional
manner. The steaks and waste materials (heads, tails, etc.) are
flumed to mesh conveyors or a wastewater sump for subsequent
separation. While the fish steaks are transported to the packing
tables, the .eparated waste solids are conveyed to a chum truck or
storage hopper. The wastes are generally processed into fish meal

-------
or sold to lobstermen for bait. After packing, the open cans of
fish steaks are precooked and handled in a manner which is iden-
tical to the traditional sardine operations.
Because a considerable amount of water is used in the steaking
machines, the flow ratios (l/kkg) for these operations are sig-
nificantly greater than those generated by conventional packing.
tloreover, the increased solids—water contact time, which is in-
herent with fish steaking, contributes to the significantly higher
waste loads. The larger herring also have a higher oil content.
it is estimated that the average flow ratio and mass emission
rates may be as much as an order of magnitude greater than those
documented for conventional packing operations. However, suffi-
cient raw waste data which specifically characterize the waste-
waters generated by herring steaking is unavailable at this time.
Consideration should be given to undertaking a sampling effort
designed to establish a data base for this growing industrial
segment thus, enabling the development of a new subcategory with
applicable effluent guidelines. It is readily apparent that a
facility which produces fish steaks cannot meet effluent limita-
tions for conventional sardine packing while employing the recom-
mended technology base for this subcategory.
Herring Fillet Processing
During recent years, the herring fillet industry has been in a
dynamic state. The Phase II Development Document portrays this

-------
industry as being less significant than the canning segment (sar-
dine processing). At that time, very few filleting operations
existed in the United States with only two facilities being char-
acterized. Fhstorical data for a Canadian plant was employed to
supplement the field work conducted for this subcategory.
The fish are generally stored upon receipt and conveyed to the
filleting equipment for butchering. The machines remove the
heads, tails and viscera and produce fillets for inspection,
packaging and preservation. Waste solids and the fillets are
flumed from the mechanism.
In Alaska, h rring are harvested at various times of the year to
produce diff rent commodities. The fish are filleted during the
late fall and winter months as described above. For herring
delivered to the processing facility in the spring or spawning
season, several options are available. The roe can be stripped
for sale with the remaining portion of the fish discarded. An
alternative practice of increasing importance, the spawning herr-
ing are frozen in the round for shipment to Japan. Roe is then
extracted by the Japanese and the carcass is salvaged for human
consumption. The final option is the boxing and freezing of whole
herring for use as crab and halibut bait. The actual volume of
each commodity produced is dependent upon the market conditions
and the capacity of the processing facilities. For example, the
lack of sufficient freezer capacity may dictate increased produc-
tion of roe which is cured and packaged for export.
‘ -7

-------
Waste generation is a function of the operations employed to
produce a herring commodity. It is obvious that the processing of
herring for fillets or roe will yield greater waste loads than the
freezing of fish in the round which is preceded by a minor washing
operation. As mentioned previously, the herring fillet waste-
waters have been characterized to formulate the current data base.
Roe extraction which is centered in Alaska has not been profiled
to date. W,3stewaters generated during the packing of frozen,
whole herring also requires characterization.
Due to the lack of data pertinent to the waste streams emanating
from plants which produce herring roe and frozen herring in the
round, further subcategorization is not possible. Subcategoriza-
tion for herring commodities other than sardines should be based
strictly on geographical location as described in the Phase II
Development Document. Thus, segments of this industry should
remain as Alaskan herring fillet and non-Alaskan herring fillet.
Other processing operations for herring have gained significance
and require consideration when developing permits under the NPDES
program.
It is noteworthy that production of herring fillets has increased
in relative importance within the seafood processing industry,
particularly on the East coast. Filleting operations have been
established at several facilities to accommodate greater catches
of larger herring. For the most part, these consist of existing

-------
plants which have been modified to strictly handle herring or have
incorporated a herring line into their traditional processing
activities. The expansion of this segment of the industry is
partially the result of the ‘200-mile limit.” Another significant
factor appears to be the improved market conditions for herring
fillets abroad.
Scallop Processing
During the original industry subcategorization, the processing of
scallops was determined to be relatively unimportant when compared
to other shellfish operations, such as clams or oysters. The
waste loads realized were determined to be lower and there were
only a smalJ number of operations existing in Alaska and the
contiguous United States. Calico scallop processing, which dif-
fers significantly from the production of bay, sea and Alaskan
scallops, was not characterized. Since the bay, sea and Alaskan
species are manually shucked at sea, the major source of waste-
water at the plant is washwate -. The washing process may be
either a batch or continuous operation which is reflected in the
flow ratios. The vast majority of the product is frozen while a
small percentage is prepared for the fresh market.
It appears t iat there is no justification for further subcategor—
ization of scallop processing. Data which profile calico scallop
production has not been developed to date. Additional information

-------
regarding the processing of the remaining scallop species has not
been identified. Generally, scallop production is accomplished
concurrently with the processing of other seafood commodities.
This practice creates some difficulty in quantifying the flows and
waste loads directly associated with scallop production. Another
factor is the de-emphasis of this commodity in Alaska. Recent
inquiries in(licate that the majority of the Alaskan-based scallop
fleets have relocated to the Pacific Northwest where their catch
is processed In view of the relative unimportance of this com-
modity in terms of pollutant loads, and the lack of new informa-
tion, subcategorization for the scallop processing segment should
remain as a lunction of geographical location; Alaskan scallop and
non-Alaskan scallop.
Other Subcategories
Conditions relative to the remaining segments of the industry have
not indicated any potential for modifying the subcategorization
rationale employed during the original development of the effluent
guidelines. For the most part, recent information has confirmed
the background established for each segment addressed in the
Development I)ocuinents for Phases I and II.
The impact of the “200-mile limit! on the harvesting and pro-
cessing of seafood has not been fully realized at this time.
Historically seafood processing is a dynamic industry and should
-__; ,_\

-------
be regarded as such. As the direction of the specific segments is
modified, the rationale currently employed for subcategorization
should be reviewed to identify areas where changes are necessary.
The area of greatest potential appears to be the harvesting and
processing of non-utilized species such as squid, which lack the
background data required to develop effluent guidelines at this
time. Although the development of new industry segments appears
to be promis]ng, incorporating provisions for future subcategories
into the current rationale is not feasible at present.

-------
SECTION V
ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR CHARACTERIZING PROCESS WASTEWATERS
GENERAL
Prior to 1972, very little information relative to the character
and volume of wastewaters was generated by the seafood processing
industry. major effort in the original development of the
effluent limitations guidelines (1973 through 1974) involved the
determination of flows and waste loads emanating from processing
plants. Resdits of the industry characterization are summarized
in the Phase I and Phase II Development Documents.(l,2)
This report 5ection presents the results of the most recent asses-
sment of the existing data base for the industry. The evaluation
procedure was designed to verify that all individual plant data
utilized to generate representative flows and waste loads have
been acquired and handled according to proper procedures. Sub-
sequently, appropriate information generated following the pub-
lishing of i:he Development Documents was incorporated into the
historical data base to formulate baseline waste loads for each
subcategory. These baseline values can then provide a means for
establishing effluent limitations guidelines for the industry.
Originally, the industry was segmented based on several factors
which have been outlined in Section IV (Industry Subcategoriza-

-------
tion) of this report. Data accumulated for typical plants have
been summarized for each industrial subcategory as presented in
the Development Documents. A number of the subcategory summaries
have been modified as a consequence of the recent data assessment.
Each modification is the result of at least one of the following
procedures.
1. AdjustmEnt of statistical methods to assure consistent data
handling and analysis;
2. Elimination of information which did not meet established
criteria; and
3. Incorporation of new data which complies with established
standards.
To maintain an accurate and consistent data base for each sub-
category, both historical and new data were required to meet
specified criteria. Information which could not meet the require-
ments was omitted; however, it was employed as a basis for com-
parison where possible. Data comprising the subcategory summaries
have met the criteria listed below.
1. Samples which were analyzed for BOD 5 and total suspended
solids were composited using flow as a basis;

-------
2. Oil and grease determinations were performed on flow propor-
tioned, composite samples or a minimum of three individual
grab samples;
3. Waste streams attributed to intermittent and final washdown
procedures were included in the end-of-pipe sample or quant-
ified separately;
4. All samples were passed through a fine screening device which
approximates a 20-mesh equivalent;
5. Accurate flow and production data for each sampling day was
acquired; and
6. Sample handling and analysis were performed in accordance
with EPA approved methods, as defined in the Federal Register
dated October 16, 1973.
DEVELOPMENT OF T}{E DATA BASE
As mentioned previously, the available information can be clas-
sified into two major categories which are: 1) original data
utilized in the preparation of the Phase I and Phase II Develop-
ment Documents; and 2) appropriate data which has been generated
since the Development Documents were published.
cL4

-------
Data which comprises the Phase I subcategory summaries were lo-
cated in EPA files; however, information for Dungeness and Tanner
crab, and Ncrthern shrimp subcategories was not available. Raw
data utilized in the preparation of the Phase II Development
Document is contained in the Public Record (pp 2015—2141) estab-
lished by EPA for the canned and preserved seafood processing
industry.
Historical Data
The utilization of different statistical methods for the two
phases of the Development Document was noted during the recent
assessment. For all subcategories, unweighted arithmetic averages
were calculated for each plant which ultimately became the basis
of the subcategory distributions. The approach employed for Phase
I assumed an arithmetic distribution for the plant averages while
the Phase II study adopted a log norrna1 transform to develop
subcategory summaries. Each method usually yields different mean
and standard deviation values for the same data.
In reviewing the original data base for the seafood processing
industry, procedures employed to handle the raw data have been
evaluated. The recalculation of flow ratios and mass emission
rates (kg/kkg) for each sampling period was incorporated into this
review process. In addition, historical information for each
25

-------
plant has be n scrutinized to assure that the values were reason-
able and consistent with the remainder of facilities comprising
the subcategory data base. If data for a specific plant or a
specific parcimeter were not comparable with the other facilities,
attempts wer were made to establish the cause(s). In instances
where a specLfic waste load was not considered to be representa-
tive of the subcategory for an identifiable reason, it has been
eliminated from the data base. These occurrences will be ad-
dressed for the pertinent subcategories in the latter part of this
section.
During the original effort to characterize individual waste
streams at each processing plant, limited information relative to
final washdocin was developed for a major portion of the subcate-
gories. To assure that washdown data are handled in a consistent
manner for each subcategory, the procedure described below has
been employec for the reassessment.
Mass emission rates available for specific sampling days have been
added to the loadings attributed to other waste streams quantified
on the same day. If washdown data was lacking, average values,
which were obtained from the same facility or a similar plant,
have been added to formulate a total end-of-pipe waste load.
However, three Alaskan subcategories (crab meat, whole crab and
crab section, and shrimp) do not have historical washdown data
available. During the original data analysis, percentages of the

-------
total process water discharges were computed to represent washdown
waste loads These values were then added to the mass emission
rates develoDed for the total process discharge to formulate total
plant effluent characteristics. In implementing this procedure,
identical percentages were utilized for the two Alaskan crab
subcategories, while the values for shrimp wastewaters were dif-
ferentiated based on engineering judgment. Incorporation of the
washdown percentages resulted in a minor impact on the subcategory
wastewater ciaracteristics.
To quantify representative impacts of washdown procedures, an
updated review of wastewater characteristics available for indi-
vidual plants and subcategories has been conducted. It has been
determined t iat the portion of the total waste loads attributed to
washdown varies considerably among the different processing oper-
ations and Lhe parameters considered. To develop representative
washdown percentages for the Alaskan crab meat and Alaskan whole
crab and crab section subcategories, actual loadings for other
conventional shellfish processors (i.e. oysters, clams, etc.) have
been assessed. Available information far shrimp processing in the
contiguous United States has been employed to generate washdown
values for the Alaskan shrimp plants monitored. Since Northern
shrimp processing is very similar to Alaskan operations, per-
centages computed for two West Coast plants have been employed for
this assessment. The calculated values were then compared to the
washdown percentages determined for a non-breaded shrimp cannery

-------
operating along the Gulf Coast. Based on the washdown analysis
described above, the values shown in Table 2 have been developed.
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGES ATTRIBUTED TO PLANT WASKDOWN
Percent of Total Plant Effluent
BOD5 TSS Oil& Grease
10 15 15
New Sources of Data
During the search for additional data to supplement the waste
characterization presented in the Development Docwnents, the major
sources were found to be EPA funded projects, NPDES monitoring
program, and industrial self—monitoring. It was anticipated that
NPDES program would provide considerable data for those subcate-
gories which require the equivalent of screening to meet current
effluent guidelines.
Based on the criteria which have been outlined, only selected
NPDES data erierated by the sardine industry was deemed accept-
Subcategory
Flow
Alaskan
Crab Neat
20
Alaskan
Whole Crab
and Crab
Section
20
10
15
15
Alaskan
Shrinip
15
10
10
10
Note: Percentages were calculated by dividing washdown
value ; by the total end-of-pipe characteristics over
a normal shift.
2

-------
able The flow data provided have been incorporated into the data
base. However, operation of oil separation equipment by sardine
processors r su1ted in pollutant loads lower than those supported
by historical data. NPDES data for the remaining subcategories
could not be utilized because of major deficiencies in collection
or the occurrence of multi-product processing. In general, the
information available does not enable daily mass emission rates to
be computed. Furthermore, sampling and analytical procedures were
often inconsistent with approved methods. Nany deficiencies are
products of the monitoring requirements and reporting procedures
of the current NPDES permit program. Specific difficulties which
are associated with the submittal of discharge monitoring reports
(DrIR) are listed below.
1. The requirements for submitting a D 1R vary among the regula-
tory a encies which are involved on the state or federal
level.
2. Procedures utilized to collect and analyze effluent samples
differ among plants. For example, several alternative pro-
cedures are currently utilized to measure oil and grease
concentcations in the seafood industry. The use of different
techniques for the analysis of either grab or composite
samples is a major cause of significant variations in re-
ported oil and grease levels.

-------
3. A number of regulatory agencies require only the reporting of
pollutant concentrations (mg/i) or total pounds discharged
per day. These values are often compared with the maximum
allowable levels which are specified in the permit, regard-
less of production. Information of this nature makes the
derivation of daily mass emission rates impossible.
To generate useful data and determine compliance with the effluent
guidelines, modifications to the permit system for seafood pro-
cessors are required for some agencies. When new permits are
issued, the following guidelines will achieve these objectives.
1. EPA regional offices and state regulatory agencies should
adopt consistent monitoring requirements for the submittal of
DNR’s by seafood processors.
2. Sample collection and analytical procedures should be stan-
dardized in accordance with EPA approved methods and speci-
fied in the permit. If a testing procedure which differs
from the approved method is required, the new procedure
should be adopted for the entire industry.
3. 1ore al)propriate information could be obtained from the
reporting of actual mass emission rates (kg of pollutant per
kkg of production). Information regarding pollutant concert-
trations, total pounds discharged, and actual production

-------
could be required, if necessary, to meet other objectives.
The reporting of mass emission rates or a comparison of
actual discharges to allowable levels based on production are
the acceptable methods to determine compliance with effluent
guidelines for the seafood industry.
Employing the established criteria, information to supplement the
historical data base has been identified for several subcate-
gories. The sources and corresponding subcategories are suminar-
ized in Table 3.
TABLE 3
IDENTIFIED SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL DATA
Subcategory
Source
No
. of Plants
Field Investigations
Tuna
1
Funded by EPA
Hechanized Salmon
Conventional Bottom Fish
Steamed/Canned Oyster
3
1
1
Industrial
Tuna
3
Self- 1onitor:.ng
Other
Herring Fillet
1
Although field investigations have been conducted at three tuna
processing f. cilities, data generated specifically for tuna oper-
ations could be isolated at just one plant. Non-tuna petfood
production ocurs at all three facilities and the resulting waste-
waters are generally combined with the tuna cannery effluents for
treatment.
31

-------
In addition to NPDES monitoring reports, research projects rep-
resent an informational source which has received attention.
Generally, i:he emphasis of these projects is directed towards
wastewater treatability therefore, pollutant loadings are not
usually reported in terms of production. Available data regarding
raw wastewater characteristics, however, can serve as a basis for
developing comparisons with historical information. Subcategories
for which data has been collected, but is not adequate for incor-
poration lnt the industry data base, are listed in Table 4. The
nature of this information makes it suitable for comparative
evaluations only.
TABLE 4
DATA AVAILABLE FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES
Source Subcategory
NPDES Dischaxge Alaskan Crab Meat
Monitoring Rcports Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
Dungeness and Tanner Crab
Alaskan Shrimp
Northern Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Tuna
Alaskan Mechanized Salmon
Sardine
Research Projects Steamed/Canned Oysters
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
Hand-Shucked Clams

-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Data which were found acceptable relative to the established
criteria were then subjected to further assessment. The initial
step consisted of ensuring the compatability of the historical raw
data with the summaries presented in the Development Documents.
Generally, the raw data was accumulated for specific unit pro-
cesses employed at each plant. Mass emission rates were computed
from the raw data for the individual sampling stations. To obtain
average total plant waste loads, the average mass emission rates
for each unit process were summed. In applying this methodology,
the actual date of sample collection and corresponding production
were assumed to be independent of waste loads. While this assump-
tion is theoretically correct, a different approach which corre-
lates daily information has been found to be more appropriate.
For each sampling day, total end-of-pipe mass emission rates have
been developed from the available data. The amount of unit pro-
cess data collected varies for individual plants within each
subcategory. Where data is lacking for a unit process on a par-
ticular day, the average value calculated from the available data
for that process has been used. However, the absence of washdown
information was found to be more extensive. In this case, waste-
water characteristics from similar plants have been employed or
the subcategory averages have been added to comprise a representa-
tive total haste load.
33

-------
Waste loads or flows, which were determined not to be representa-
tive of the Darticular subcategory, have been eliminated on a case
by case basis. For such occurrences, these values exhibited
extreme influence upon the plant or subcategory characterization.
Elimination of specific values has been based on scientific evalu-
ation or observations documented during the sampling program.
Specific cases will be identified during the discussion of the
individual subcategories.
In some instances, new data has been obtained for plants which
were characterized during the preparation of the two Development
Documents. To accomodate this occurrence, a one-way analysis of
variance has been performed to determine if the two sets of data
originated from the same population. This statistical method
analyzes the means of the sample sets to determine whether the
differences are random or due to separate populations from which
the sample sets were drawn. For example, in—plant modifications
can signific3ntly impact wastewater characteristics and the vari-
ance analysis serves as a basis to incorporate the reduced waste
loads with the historical data to yield one set of plant averages.
Where data fail the test, the most recent information generally
has been used to generate the plant averages. Exceptions to these
procedures here warranted, in some instances, and they will be
addressed in the discussion relating to the specific subcate-
gories.
34

-------
Following selection of the information to be incorporated into the
data base, pertinent plant data have been listed for each subcate-
gory on a daily basis. This information is contained in Appendix
A.
The procedure employed to establish subcategory summaries from the
available data is described as follows.
1. Arithmetic plant averages have been obtained for each para-
meter utilizing the daily mass emission rates and flow
ratios.
2. From the plant averages, unweighted arithmetic means and
standar1 deviations have been developed for each subcategory.
The subcategory summaries are presented in Tables 5 through 31.
Accompanying each table is a discussion of the variations from the
general methodology which has been previously described for evalu-
ating and analyzing the available data. For Phase I subcategor-
ies, the summaries differ from the original presentation for a
variety of reasons. The plant averages assessed during the Phase
II study have been confirmed and differences generally result from
the incorporation of new information. However, the subcategory
summaries displayed in these tables are significantly different
than those presented in the Development Document. Originally, a
log normal transform was employed to generate summary information
35

-------
from the plant averages while the current methodology has utilized
the unweighted arithmetic approach.
Farm Raised Catfish
Wastewater characterization for this subcategory is summarized in
Table 5. The process water discharges and washdown were obtained
from EPA files in reduced (lbs/ton) form for the five plants
listed. Flow ratios computed for Plant 2 were considered to be
atypical of the industry because the holding tanks were completely
drained each time fish were removed for processing. The informa-
tion presented in Table 5 differs from the summary published in
the Development Document. This variance is mainly attributed to
the reconstruction of the information available in the EPA files.
Conventional Blue Crab
For conventional blue crab, flows and waste loads are summarized
in Table 6 for the facilities monitored. Wastewater characteris-
tics for two plants, which are associated with process water
discharges nd washdown, were obtained from EPA files in reduced
(lbs/ton) form. The summary information as shown in Table 6 is
consistent with that published in the Development Document.
tlechanized Blue Crab
Presented in Table 7 is the waste characterization summary for the
mechanized segment of the blue crab industry. Daily wastewater
3’

-------
TA1 LE 5
SLECATEGC Y — F k1l— AISCL CtTHS-
SU ’ Y DAE.
. vE 3ES
PL .NT FLCr 1 BCC—5 TSS + (
L/r Y G KG/KKG KG/KKG cG/KKG
(GAL S/T0
LT1 1 13O 16.2 12.2 7.2C
3bSC
PLT2 5.95 7. ’ 1 3.23
PLT3 118CC 3.3 , 2.SC
(2b30)
PLI ’, 1’ 9CC 6.05 5.22 3,2 ’ ,
357C
PLT5 23500 12.9 6.1C
( 6’iC)
SueCATE(.,CRY
MC N 16603 8.29 6.31 4,53
(397 ‘3)
TA DARD LEfl TICN 49 O 5.29 ‘ ,.19 1.c7
(1 L9( )
- :7

-------
T rLL 6
SLic T1GCRY B— cONv NtIO’ AL bLLE
SU ’ ’AP Y DAT \
L\n I tTEU t VErf.jES
FLCW BCC.—5 TSS 0
L/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG
(Gt LS/ TON)
PLI1 1310 4.77 0.784
315)
LT2 1C 0 5.51 J.1c 4 C.217
2 5
SuBCA1EC Y
N EAN 11 3 5.14 0.784 C.25
(2 35)
ST NDA L) LEV1 TILr\ 177 3.522
(42.3)
3 f

-------
T E L 7
SLir CLTE. .,Cr Y C— ‘EC iAriIZEL FLUE C A
SU fr. 
-------
characteristics for two plants, comprising unit process discharges
arid washdown, were obtained from EPA files in reduced (lbs/ton)
form. The subcategory summary corresponds to the historical
information •is presented in the Development Document.
Alaskan Crab Heat
Wastewater characterization for Alaskan facilities which produce
crab meat is summarized in Table 8. The process water discharges
for the two plants listed were obtained from EPA files in reduced
form (lbs/ton). Specific data for washdown characteristics were
not collected for this subcategory. Therefore, the washdown
percentages presented in Table 2 were utilized to generate total
end-of-pipe waste loads for the two crab meat plants monitored. A
similar approach was employed to develop the wastewater character-
istics as published in the Development Document; however, the
values differ. This aspect accounts for the slight variations
which are apparent for the revised plant summaries.
Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
In developing the subcategory summary as shown in Table 9, an
approach identical to the one described for Alaskan crab meat was
utilized. Characteristics of the process water discharges were
extracted from EPA files and summed with the percentages attri-
buted to pl.rnt washdown (Table 2) to formulate the plant sum-
maries. The information presented in Table 9 varies from the
zfQ
-------
TAELE 8
SUBCLTEC,C ItS C A C E— . LA Ar CR. AT
SL A Y [ jAT.\
ur:n 1 I-T C
‘LANT FLCn eL [ —5 TSS U G
L/KKG KCI KG KG/KKG
(GALS! TG
KE 4C CC 9.1
( 31 )
Kb ‘,-.3GO 10.2 5.2’s J.7 2
1 7 0}
SLb C. 41 EGG?Y
9.70 6.56 C. 21
1030C)
TA 0A [ ) LEV!AT1L 277G 0.712
(66Z,)
-------
TLELE 9
SU CATE(JCkILS F A L G AL.,SKA\ r,HL ‘ .NL Cr j SECTiij’ S
SU t ’Y UAT
L\r IChTE AV ..C [ S
FLC i EC’C—5 1 5 5 0 + C
L/KKG KC/ KG
(G. LS/1L’ )
KI 21700 5.33 1.18
(52CC)
22100 8.77 3.78
, .,.,-
‘ i
KU 19300 4.33 1.b6 C.31
(‘sôLC)
SUECA tEGC V
IEAN fl 00 0 6.14 3. 4 (i.5E1
504U
STANWARD LEfl TION 1550 .33 U.259
(372)
-------
summary published in the Development Document due to the differ-
ences in the washdown values used.
Dungeness and Tanner Crab in the Contiguous States
The characterization of effluents discharged by West Coast crab
processors as accomplished during a study conducted by Oregon
State University. The results of the study were not published and
the daily mass emissions for the plants monitored could not be
located. The summarized waste characteristics for each facility,
as published in the Development Document, represent the only
available information generated during the study. Hence, an
analysis could not be performed and the subcategory summary is
absent from this report. To establish a data base for this sub-
category, a sampling program which is directed toward character-
izing a minimum of two plants is required.
Alaskan Shrii p
Specific data pertaining to washdown procedures at the two facil-
ities monitored were not obtained during the original effort to
characterize seafood processing wastewaters. In absence of this
information, the washdown values given in Table 2 were employed to
generate the waste characterization presented in Table 10. This
was accomplished by incorporating the washdown percentages into
the process water data obtained from EPA files in reduced form
(lbs/ton). The differences between the plant summaries presented
-------
T LE 10
SUBCAtEGORIES I ANP J— AL KA J SH, IMP
SU A1Y [ ATA
LN ..IEIGhITED AVE t S
PLANT FL0 800—5 TSS C + C
L/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
SI 1620CC 154. 81.8 13.4
(3880C)
K2 78600 IC’.. 97.5 20.0
I8RCO)
S U6 C AT E GORY
MEAN 1200CC 129. 8.6 16.7
(28800)
STANDARD CEVIATION 58800 35.3 11.1 4. ’ .
I.41C0)
-------
in the Development Document arid those shown in Table 10 are attri-
buted to the handling of the washdown waste loads.
Northern ShrLmp in the Contiguous States
Since wastewaters generated by this subcategory were characterized
during the same Oregon State Study conducted for crab processing,
daily values for mass emission rates were not available for the
individual plants. However, a sampling program has been completed
which characterized two Oregon facilities during the 1978 shrimp
season. Waste loads attributed to washdown have been determined
separately cr included in the total end-of-pipe samples. The
results of this effort are summarized in Table 11.
Southern Non Breaded Shrimp
For the Southern non-breaded shrimp subcategory, flows arid waste
loads for the facilities monitored are summarized in Table 12.
Wastewater characteristics for three plants, which are associated
with process water discharges and washdown, have been obtained
from EPA files in reduced (lbs/ton) form. Originally, information
was developed for Plants 1A and lB which represented two sets of
data generated by different sources for the same facility. In
developing Table 12, the sets were combined to formulate one plant
summary identified as Plant 1. This information in conjunction
with determirations made at the other processing facilities estab-
lishes the basis for the subcategory summary.
45
-------
TAi3L 1]
SUBCATE(,ORY K— NURThERN Sri IMP
SUfrr ARY DATA
W\ iEIGHT D AVbRAES
PLANT FLCW 600—5 TSS 0 + G
L/KKG KG/KKG KGIKIcG KG/r .KG
(GALS/TON)
NS1 71700 115. 51.’. 2 3.9
17200)
NS2 48400 75.7 39.9 17.3
(11630)
SLBCATEGORY
MEAN 601CC 95.2 45.6 23.1
(14400)
STANDARD LEVIAT ION 1 16500 27.5 8.13 6.23
(3(353)
-------
TA LE 12
SUBCATEGCRY L— SCUTHE N NCJN—EREACED $ r IP ’P
SuP MA Y DATA
UNb EIGI-TEC AVERAGES
PLANT FLOW OD—5 TSS 0 • G
L/KKG I C-/KKG KGIKKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
43000 “.9 10.1 5.t2
(103CC)
45500 —— 50.0 6.7
(1090C)
3 57300 —— ‘.2.0 a.5i
(13700)
SUBCATEGORY
EAN ‘ ,6b00 ‘.‘..9 36.1
116CC)
STANDARD CEVIATIOt 7660 17.7 1.46
( 18’.0)
-------
Breaded Shrin 2
Wastewater characterization for this subcategory is summarized in
Table 13. The data pertaining to the process water discharges and
washdown, were obtained from EPA files in reduced (lbs/ton) form
for the two plants monitored. Mass emission rates for oil and
grease were not available for either plant. In the historical
data base, oil and grease loadings associated with the breaded
shrimp process were assumed to approximate mass emission rates for
the Southern non-breaded shrimp subcategory. This approach did
not appear to be acceptable in view of the BOD5 and total sus-
pended solids loadings observed for each subcategory. Therefore,
an average mass emission rate for oil and grease is lacking for
the breaded shrimp subcategory. When comparing the subcategory
summary shown in Table 13 with the information published in the
Phase I Development Document, differences can be noted as a result
of: 1) several computational errors which occurred when the
original wasl:e loads were determined and, 2) the absence of actual
oil and grease data for the subcategory.
Tuna
As presented in Table 14, vastewater characterization for tuna
processors has been developed. Daily flows and waste loads for
Plants 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been extracted from EPA files in
reduced (lbs/ton) form. Data relative to Plants 8 and 9 have been
obtained from the calculation sheets prepared during the unpub-
lished Oregon State University study of West Coast seafood pro-
-------
TA [ LE 13
SU C TEGCRY ?4— E,REt [ EC SHRIMP
SU MA Y DATA
UM EIG -TED AVERAGES
PLANT FLOW BOC—5 TSS C + C
L/KKG KC/KKG I(G/KKG KC/KKG
(GALS/TON)
127000 86.5 1C ,. ——
(3 5CC)
2 107003 - 81.2 89.4 ——
(2550C)
SL CATEGO
MEAN 117000 83.9
(280CC)
STANDARD CEV1ATIOt 167C0 3.77 10.3
(353C)
-------
TA LE 14
SLBCATEGC Y N— TUNA
SUt”I”ARY DATA
U’ E1G -TED AvE A ES
PLANT FLOW OC—5 TSS C + G
L/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
2 15000 22.9 16.0
(4550)
3 14600 16.1 13.4 11.5
(35CC)
4 16200 8.64 7.46 3.34
(3870)
33000 13.9 5.49 4.32
(7910)
7480 20.7 16.6 8.25
(1790)
8 10700 6.19 3.41
(2560)
9 177C0 7.03 7.68
(425C)
27 5310 14.5 10.2 2.e7
(1270
SLECATE GORY
frEAN 15500 13.7 10.1 6.12
(3710)
STANDARD CEVIATIOt\ 8593 6.16 4.b9 3.32
(2060)
5r)
-------
cessors. Additional raw waste data have been collected at Plant 6
during recent field investigations. Information also has been
generated for Plants 2, 5, 6 and 7 through industrial self-mon-
itoring. The wastewater characteristics provided by each proces-
sing facility are associated with process discharges and plant
washdown following fine screening.
Based on the one-way analysis of variance, historical data and new
information or Plants 2 and 6 has been found to originate from
the same popUlation and then combined to produce one plant summary
for each facility. The same statistical analysis concluded that
recent self-monitoring information for Plant 5 was not compatible
with the original data relative to the flow ratios. The new data
represented only two days of useful information while the hist r-
ical informal:ion consisted of eight sampling days. Further as-
sessment was deemed necessary for the two data sources. Subse-
quently, it was found that the recycling of thaw water at this
facility has resulted hi a reduction of the flow ratio by approx-
imately 50 percent. Although the new information is preferred for
establishing the data base, mass emission rates calculated from
the original data were employed to develop the plant summary. The
waste loads were monitored over 8 days and are considered to be
more representative of the industry.
Waste loads presented for Plant 7 represent information developed
through an industrial self-monitoring program. In the Development
Document, historical data for this facility was summarized. The
51
-------
two groups of wastewater characteristics have been found to orig-
inate from different populations through the variance analysis.
In this case, the more recent data has been employed to establish
the summary br Plant 7.
Fish Meal
During the field investigations originally conducted to charac-
terize seafood processing effluents, the fish meal industry was
segmented based on the operation of a solubles plant for stick-
water and bailwater evaporation. Facilities which operate solu-
bles plants are profiled in Table 15. With the exception of Plant
A20 representing recently available information, the plant aver-
ages are consistent with those published in the Phase II Develop-
ment Docwnent.
Wastewaters which are discharged by fish meal facilities without
solubles plants were quantified during prior investigations. The
characterization summary for this segment of the industry is
presented in Table 16. The average flow ratio and mass emission
rates developed for each facility are comparable to those orig-
inally presented in the Development Document.
Hand-Butchered Salmon
Wastewater characterization for manual salmon butchering opera-
tions is presented in Table 17. Plants located in Alaska and the
-------
TA! LE 15
uecATEGL y C— F1 H ‘LAL nih - SLILLLLES udi
SUfrt’ARY DATA
U h1 t1ED AVEr .A,LS
PLANT FLrTh BCO—5 155 0 + G
L/KKG KCfKI G KG/KKG KG/K C
(GALS/TON)
M2 225CC 1.69 i. 77 u.5i2
(5’.’)))
3 OOJ 3.08 0.980
(830)
17400 3.08 0.382
K 160)
A2 5700 9.12 11.2 2.36
(13 70)
1410 5. 1 3.c
(33 fl
SuECATEGO Y
1 ’sC0 4.46 3. ,3 1 .C2
593J)
ST4 D4RD GEVIATION 13500 2.Y1 4.54 0.794
I 3220)
5.3
-------
TAr LE 16
SU8CATEGO Y C— FISH M:AL w/O S0LU 1 3LE UNIT
SU P i Y CATA
UNWEIGHIEC AVERAGES
PLA’ T FLOW 600—5 155 0 + G
L/K cG KG/ (KG KG/XKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
129CC “6.6 23.1 12.5
(31CC)
A3 187C 70.8 58.5 37.5
(448)
SUBCATE GORY
MEAN 7400 58.7 40.8 25.C
(1770)
STANDARD DEVIATION 782C 17.1 25.0 17.6
167C)
-------
T LE 17
SUBC. 1E L’ ILS P A\.D HA L—BLTLIi kED AL ur
SUfrtA Y DAT
U u- r1 ,HtLD . vE- ES
FLU BUD—S ISS 0 + 6
L/KKG /KKG K /KKG KG/KKG
(G L S / TO N)
7440 3.b3
1783)
CSoM 1780 2.74 3.7’.5
(427)
FS I 11500 2.96 1.33 C .2 9
(275))
FS2 3400 2.54 0. 21 0.139
Cd 14)
S3 4330 1.75 ).6 5 0.17 3
1040)
FS4 2930 1.57 3.689 U.12d
(701)
SUuC TEGOSY
MEAN 5220 2.52 1.15 0.185
(1250)
STA4OARD L EV!A1IL 3610 0.761 0.726 O.C78
(ö6’ )
5 -s
-------
contiguous United States were monitored in developing the histor-
ical data base. More recent information has not identified for
this subcategory.
Daily waste discharges for all plants listed, including process
waste streams and washdown, were obtained from the Record. Varia-
tions in the waste loads are partially attributed to whether the
fish are predressed or processed in the round. Historical and
updated averages for Plant CSN5 are dissimilar due to the differ-
ent computational approaches employed to summarize the data.
During the criginal work, a zero value was assumed for two unit
processes on days where samples were lacking. Available data for
these specific processes have been averaged and substituted for
the omitted information.
Mechanized Salmon
For the mechanized salmon processors monitored, summarized waste-
water characteristics are presented in Table 18. Facilities
operating in Alaska and the contiguous United States were investi-
gated to formulate the historical data base. Data for Plants
CSN2, CSN3, and CSN4 have been obtained from the Record to calcu-
late the plant characteristics which are consistent with the
Development Document. Mass emission rates for Plants MSO6, MSO8,
and HSO9 have been determined during field investigations under-
taken in 197S. Plant MSO8 corresponds to Plant CSN8 in the De-
velopment Document. Data associated with Plant CSN8 have been
-------
IALE 18
SUBCATEGL I S A .1) S— frcCrit.N1Z L) S..L M Ji
S P J A Y DAT.
L’ h ELhT U Av . :s
PLANT FLtJv BUD—S TSS 0 + G
L/KKG KG/KKG KC,/KKG KG/KKG
(3 LS/T(JN)
CSN2 1 300 24.2 3.1
( 38U)
CSN3 19000 81.8 40.8 6.49
(457Q)
CSN4 20500 53.3 29.3
(4900)
MSO6 709J 18.2 11.7
1700)
mO) 1,7•7 1.7 13.1
(42 u)
i S09 16700 ld.3 12.6 5.65
(4C.1O)
S U BC 4 1 E L,OP V
MEAN 16600 40.6 23.3 7.31
3( 73)
TA. DA D L.E IILTILN 4810 25.2 12.4 3.29
115U)
57
-------
excluded because of incoinpatability with the more recent data.
During this analysis, it has been verified that the daily waste
loads for all facilities include process water discharges and
washdown.
Significant variations in the average flow ratios and mass emis-
sion rates among the plants listed are partially due to the imple-
mentation of in-plant measures for handling the product and waste
materials at certain facilicies. For example, Plant MSO6 has been
found to incorporate good in-plant management and byproduct re-
covery into its daily activities which has resulted in consider-
ably lower flows and waste loads. However, the oil and grease
emission rates observed at this facility appear to be high and can
be attributed to the head cooker discharge. The rendering of
salmon heads for oil extraction is an optional practice for this
industry segment. Certain plants will utilize a head cooker for
species with a high oil content (i.e. Sockeye salmon). Hence, the
oil and grease values documented at Plant MSO6 are considered to
be atypical for the mechanized salmon industry.
One oil and grease data point (62.9 kg/kkg) for Plant CSN4 has
been excluded because it was approximately eight times greater
than the average values for the plant and the entire subcategory.
This value is insupportable by a mass balance and increased the
subcategory mean by more than 2 kg/kkg. Therefore, it cannot be
considered representative of the actual discharge.
-------
Alaskan Halibut
Summary information for the Alaskan halibut subcategory is pre-
sented in Table 19. The average mass emission rates and flow
ratios include process water discharges and washdown which have
been computed from data contained in the Record. This subcategory
is represented by just two plants which exhibited diverse waste-
water characteristics during the original sampling program. The
plant averages for each plant correspond to those presented in the
Phase II Development Document under the heading of Alaskan bottom
fish.
Conventional Bottom Fish
Average waste characteristics for ten conventional bottom fish
plants are ]isted in Table 20. The waste streams characterized
include process waters and washdown. With the exception of Plant
B20, all data have been extracted from the Record. Recent field
investigations provided the information presented for Plant B20.
In reviewing the historical data base, several observations rela-
tive to plant flows were originally made resulting in the exclu-
sion of flow data developed for four processing facilities.
Discussions pertinent to the specific plants are as follows. At
Plant B2, excessively high water usage relative to other facili-
ties was measured for the filleting tables. Flow data collected
at Plant B9 included water used to service an adjacent restaurant.
5
-------
TA !LE 19
SUBCAT GO Y I— A A A hALU3UT
SuI .AtY DATA
UIJv.-JGHTEO AVERA S
PLANT FLO 4 BUD—5 TSS 0 + G
L/KKG KG/KKG K(,/KKG KG/KKG
(GAL S/TON)
FFHL 2380 1.c 2 O.Cdu
Si
FRH I 8570 1.54 1.18 0.514
205u)
SLEjCATEGO Y
SEAN 5480 1.80 1. O O.2 7
1310)
TANDA D LE TAT1 Jf 4380 3.3 31 0.456 0.307
1050)
-------
TAE LE 20
SUBCATEGCRY U— co v:NTInN4L BCTTO? FISH
SU IARY
UNWEIGHTED
DATA
AVERAGES
PLANT
(
FLOW
L/KKG
AL S/TON)
ÔGD—5
KG/KKG
TSS
KG/KKG
0 + G
KG/KKG
t l
1760
(422)
1.78
1.30
C.07 1
82
——
2.71
2.56
0.347
b4
2620
(627)
1.01
0.595
0.171
85
48C0
( 115C)
1.77
0.867
0.304
b7
100CC
(24CC)
1.98
0.960
0.222
E8
1550
(1S1C)
4.48
2.27
0.654
59
——
4.74
2.86
0.681
510
——
3.54
1.88
1.65
bli
5640
(1350)
2.15
1.64
0.786
b12
469C
(1 12C)
2.80
1.51
——
FNF I
4380
(1050)
4.52
2.17
1.24
FNF2
6790
163C)
5.86
2.73
0.806
FNF4
17500
(4200)
5.57
1.86
0.626
h20
2510
(603)
1.53
0.503
0.295
SUBCATEGOiu,’
? LAN
6210
14 C)
3.17
1.69
C.604
STANCARO CEVIATION
4460
( 107C)
1.60
0.777
0.452
(0/
-------
The average flow ratio documented at Plant 10 was judged to be
excessive when compared with the remainder of the subcategory.
The use of a high velocity washing jet was identified as the
origin of excessive water use at this processing facility. Since
documented observations were lacking to support the omission of
flow data for Plant FNF4, the average flow ratio was incorporated
into the subcategory summary presented in Table 20.
The production of specific types of bottom fish, such as ocean
perch, require a scaling process. Some facilities employ a mech-
anical device to accomplish this step. Hechanical scalers are
usually opeiated on an intermittent basis throughout the day
depending on the species of fish processed. The use of this
device can have a considerable impact on the water use and waste-
water characteristics associated with a conventional bottom fish
operation.
To quantify the impact of a mechanical scaling operation, an
assessment of a West Coast bottom fish plant has been conducted
over a period of 9 days. The sampling effort included three days
when the scaler was utilized full time and four days during which
the mechanical device was idle. Intermittent operation charac-
terizes the remaining days. Substantial increases in the flow
ratios and pollutant loadings have been observed during the scaler
operation. The results of this effort are summarized in Table 21.
-------
TABLE 21
ASSESS 1ENT OF MECHANICAL SCALER USE
FOR CONVENTIONAL BOTTOM FISH WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Mode of Flow Ratio BOD5 TSS 0 & G
Operation 1/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg
Scaler Utilized 8,300 5.2 1.8 0.80
Scaler Idle 2,500 1.5 0.50 0.30
Plant averages based on historical information are essentially the
same as those presented in the Phase II Development Document.
However, the approach to computing daily waste loads has created
some variation for specific plants. The subcategory swmnary, as
displayed in Table 20, represents conventional bottom fish pro-
cessing without the use of a mechanical scaler. The adjustment of
average flow:; and waste loads employing the information presented
in Table 21 is required to establish baseline quantities for
facilities which incorporate the scaling process into their normal
activities. Based on the data collected at one plant, it appears
that the scaler operation increases the mass emission rates for a
conventional processor by a factor of three.
Mechanized Bottom Fish
Information pertinent to the mechanized bottom fish processors
monitored is suimiiarized in Table 22. The subcategory summary
consists of data collected at three plants, as documented in the
Record. The flows and waste loads originally quantified for Plant
CFC1 did nct include washdown characteristics. However, the
subcategory averages for the flow ratio and mass emission rates
-------
TAPL 22
SUbC.4T GORY v— MECI t’ IZEL) E JTTCjM FISH
SUMt’.Ar(Y L ATA
Ur EI )-TEC AvEk .,ES
PLANT FLO i BCL—5 TSS 0 + G
L/KKG G/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
LFC I 17500 11.9 4.6 1.76
(6200)
W i 10200 1i.d 8.77 2.75
(26 5 0)
16900 16.9 13.1 5. 4
(4050)
S U B C AT EGO R Y
MEAN 14903 13.6 8.86 3.32
(35 10)
STANDARD UEVI TIUN 4050 2.92 4.23 1.90
(971)
(/ 4
-------
attributed to this waste stream have been incorporated into the
wastewater characteristics for Plant CFC1. Averages developed for
Plants Wi and W2 are the same as those presented in the Develop-
ment Document.
Hand-Shucked Clam
Wastewater characterizations for three facilities which manually
shuck clams are presented in Table 23. As part of the updated
analysis of the historical data, the daily waste loads for Plants
JICL1 and HCL2 have been developed. The plant averages remain
consistent with the original data presentations. Information
listed in the Record for Plant HCL3 did not characterize washdown
flows. The original analysis utilized the total discharge
(kg/day) for Plant HCL2 and the production data from Plant HCL3 to
calculate the average flow ratio arid total mass emission rates for
this processing facility. The summary information for Plant HCL3,
as shown in Table 23, represents the summation of the process
water discharges from that facility and the washdown characteris-
tics observed at Plant HCL2.
Mechanized C]am
The subcategory summary for plants which mechanically shucked
clams is displayed in Table 24. Data for the development of daily
waste loads for the two plants have been extracted from the Rec-
ord. Although the flow ratios measured at both facilities are
-------
TA LE 23
SUbCATE .,Ur Y W— I L —ShUCJ\ED CLA S
SUiA Y DATA
Ur I -TED AVErs. 3ES
PLANT FLOW BOD—5 TSS 0 ‘ C
L/KKG KG/KKG K /KKG
(GAL S/ TON)
‘CL1 7430 4.32 (j. 7c
1730)
HCL2 2283 6.11 15.2 0.119
5 4 )
hCL3 4840 2.56 4.61 0.C74
11o’J)
SUBCATEGORY
MEAN 6b5 0 8.03 0.157
(1160)
STANDARD UEVIATIGN 2573 2.10 6.18 0.107
(617)
-------
TA LE 24
SuLCI.TEGURY x— M [ CH IZ D CLM S
SU frb Y L) TA
L . . EI hTED v:4 ES
PLAIT FLO E0U—5 TSS 0 + G
L/KKG KG/KcG KG/KKG (G/KK3
(GALS/TO J)
FCL2 7183 4.5 1.,’ .
1720)
FCL3 40003 25.7 14.2 0.90’.
( #58J)
S ubC A I GORY
P’EA 23600 16.6 8.07 0.535
(5650)
STANDARD DEVIATION 23200 17.0 8.t T fl.522
(5560)
7—?
-------
comparable, the mass emission rates for Plant FCL3 are signifi-
cantly greater. This occurrence is attributed to the steam cook-
ing of the clams and the subsequent condensation for clam juice
which can produce the higher waste loads. Averages developed for
the flow ratio and mass emission rates are for the most part,
consistent ith the plant sununary presented in the Development
Document. A difference which can be noted for Plant FCL2 is the
result of the modified approach for handling raw data.
Pacific Coast Hand—Shucked Oyster
For the Pacific Coast hand-shucked oyster subcategory, four plants
were monitored to develop the summary information shown in Table
25. Waste loads have been quantified utilizing process water
discharges and washdown information which was obtained from the
Record. The plant averages developed during this analysis corres-
pond to those presented in the Development Document for the Phase
II subcategories.
East and Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster
The characterization of effluents discharged from East and Gulf
Coast hand-shucked oysters plants is summarized in Table 26.
Information regarding process water discharges and washdown flows
was available in the Record. Flow data collected for Plants HSO4
and HSO6 have been excluded from this summary since excessive
overflows from the oyster blow tanks were noted. Consequently,
-------
TA LE 25
SLbC, TE’Or(Y V PACIFiC C T hA .LSHiC ’ EL) LYSTERS
SU ’MA- V DATA
U EIGHTED .\vE C S
PLANT FLO 600—5 15 5 0 G
L/Ki ’ G KG/KKG KS/KKG
( ALS/ TON)
HSO8 5b500 22.9 . ‘.9 1.70
13503)
HS09 E70J 29.7 14.1 1.08
‘8 4 )
HS IO 371 J0 23.0 1 .5 1.59
L 890)
,-IS1L 40200 24.6 3d.e 1.58
( ô2J)
SUBOATEGORY
MEAN ‘ .0600 25.0 25. 1.49
(9730)
STA’ U D LEVIATIUN 11 33 12.e 0.279
(279U)
/
-------
T LLE 26
Su 3CATEG0 Y Z— EAST + OLJLF C0..ST H o— HuC EL J STERS
SUH A Y CATA
UNnEI’HTED .- V(,cS
PLANT FLOW 80C—5 ISS 0 + 0
L/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG KC,/KK(
(Gt LS/T0:N)
HS O2 367C3 11.0 11. 0.552
( 760)
hS03 24500 8.46 10.7
5670)
HSL)4 28.8 2.7 1.71
HSO5 36900 13.7 11.3 0.605
8940)
HS06 17.9 21.4
SUISCATEGORY
MEAN 32703 16.0 15.4 0.857
(7633)
ST ND RD LEV1ATION 7093 7.9c b. 02 0.508
1700)
70
-------
the respective flow ratios are not representative and should not
be used to generate baseline levels for this subcategory. All
plant averages are identical to those presented in the original
data summary.
Steamed and Canned Oyster
As shown in Table 27, wastewater characteristics for plants which
process steamed and canned oysters are summarized. The informa-
tion displayed is comprised of monitoring data representing two
processing facilities. Wastewater characteristics pertaining to
Plants SOl and S02 were extracted from the Record.
During recent field investigations, additional data has been
collected for Plant SOl over a nine day period. However, this
information has been found to be incompatible with the historical
data based cn the one-way analysis of variance. Further support
for eliminating the more recent data from the subcategory summary
is gained through a comparison with wastewater characteristics
monitored during a research program at a Gulf Coast oyster cannery
in 1977. Although the process waters were passed through an
in-place screen with openings larger than 20-mesh, the average
flow ratio and waste loads have been found to be consistent with
those developed from the historical data base. The screening
device which was utilized for solids separation prior to analysis
of the raw wastewater varied from the criteria established for
incorporating new information into the data base. Therefore, the
7/
-------
TM LE 27
SUBCATEGORY 4 — ST . ED/CANNEU CYSTERS
SUM? ARY DATA
UtJ EIGH1EC AvERAES
PLANT FLOh 800—5 TSS 0 + 0
L/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG KG/KKG
(GALS/TON)
SO’
85 SC 0
(20 5CC)
66500
159CC)
38.2
132.
1
.35
46.7 127. 1.44
SC2
SUBCATE GORY
MEAN
STANDARD CEVIATION
760CC
(182CC)
13400
322C)
7c
-------
waste characi:erization for the Gulf Coast facility is absent from
the subcategory summary.
Sardine
To characterize wastewaters generated during the processing of
sardines, nine canneries were monitored with the results presented
in Table 28. Historical information consisting of process waste
streams and ‘ashdown was available in the Record for Plants SAl,
SA2, SA3 and SA4. Additional flow data generated through NPDES
monitoring has been incorporated into the data base for Plant SA4.
The eliminat ton of the flow ratios associated with Plant SAl has
been based on the premise that the method utilized to handle the
raw material is atypical for this industry segment. The flow
ratios for Plants SA5, SA6, SA7, SA8 and SA1O, have also been
provided through the NPDES monitoring program. Information avail-
able for the other parameters at Plants SA5 through SA8 and SA1O,
has not been incorporated into the subcategory data base due to
the reduced waste loads realized from the installation of oil
separation equipment. Hence, the mass emission rates are not
representative since the most concentrated waste stream has under-
gone treatment prior to monitoring.
Plant summaries developed for Plants SAl, SA2, SA3, and SA4 differ
from those published in the Development Document. The revised
approach for computing the total plant effluent characteristics
has adjusted the summaries slightly. Retort water, representing a
- 7-3
-------
T LE 28
SUBCATEGORY [ — S LI ES
Su ’fr. - Y DATA
u E1 -1Lu .\ ER.’ GES
PLANT FLOn BUC—5 TSS 0 + ,
L/KK3 KG/KKG KG/KKG G/KKG
(Gs L S/TON)
(\1 —— U -‘
J.IJ
SA 540u 6.33 2.19 2. 5
(1290)
Ss 3 785J 9.87 10.7 ——
( 18 0)
S44 8510 11.1 9.7 3 ——
(2040)
78u’J —— —— ——
(1870)
SA6 11603 —— —— ——
(2790)
S.5.7 723 —— —— ——
(2330)
S 8 3970 —— —— ——
(952)
SUO 1260’J —— —— ——
3033)
SUBCATE OORY
M s J 4’s0 .94 6.o O
(2023)
STANDARD Ev!ArIO . 2923 2.57 4.27 0.209
(699)
-------
non-contact waste stream, is generally isolated for direct dis-
charge; however, it was included in the original waste character-
ization. During this analysis, retort water characteristics have
been eliminated from the subcategory data base.
Scallop
For the scalLop processing subcategory, Table 29 presents summar-
ized informazion for two plants. Flows and mass emission rates,
which were obtained from the Record, include process water dis-
charges as w€ll as washdown characteristics. During the original
monitoring program, it was noted that the two plants utilized
different methods to wash the product, i.e., batch versus contin-
uous. The wastewater characteristics for the two facilities
reflect the diverse operational modes. The averages developed for
both faclllt]es are consistent with those presented in the Devel-
opment Document.
Herring Fillet
The wastewater characterizations for three facilities which repre-
sent the herring fillet subcategory are displayed in Table 30.
Data utilized in developing the daily waste loads for Plants HF1
and HF2 has been obtained from the Record. The original monitor-
ing program included a third facility, Plant 1113 which has been
eliminated fcom the subcategory summary. The rationale for this
decision is provided below. The flow ratios and mass emission
75
-------
TAiLL 29
SL LCATEGU? iES C ANC AL— SCALLUPS
SUt frA Y DAT.
UJ 4E I riTEL) VEr AjLS
PLM’.T FLG GD—5 ISS 0 + G
L/KK. KG/KKG KG/r kG
(GA L S / TO N)
SPI 1 0u 2.72 U.3 9 0.207
(3270)
SP2 338 3.61 1.34 0.009
(d l.U)
SUbCATEGOkY
MEAN 3.L6 0.834 0.108
1 7O)
STANDARD DEVIATION 941J
(225u)
-------
r: LE 30
Su C iEGLRjES . E A .r) F— HE 1’ G F1LL t
su Y u.&i
uN tflC,bFE1 VE GES
PLANT FLOW BOD— TSS 0 0
L/KK3 KG/KKG KG/r KG KG/, KG
(G/ L S/TON)
NFL 1O20 J 34.1 22.o b.11
(2450)
HF2 5270 31.3
12 3)
iiF 4 125uu 11.0 .94 3.37
(299J)
SU8CATEGO y
9330 25.5
(22’sO)
ST ND RD EV1ATION 360 12.6 .b3
(865)
-7-7
-------
rates associated with Plant IfF24 have been determined from data
made availab e by the processing facility.
Characteristics for each plant consist of process water discharges
and washdown flows. Originally, the average values for Plant HF2
did not include washdown waste loads. During the updated analy-
sis, subcategory washdown averages have been incorporated to
generate total plant effluent values. For Plant HF3, the high
flow ratio and the average oil and grease mass emission rate of
21.3 kg/kkg were determined at extremely low production levels for
one day. Consequently, the Plant HF3 summary has been excluded
because it was not considered to be representative of typical
processing conditions. Averages shown in Table 30 for Plant HF1
are the same as those presented in the Phase II Development Docu-
ment
Aba lone
As presented in Table 31, the wastewater discharges for the aba-
lone subcategory have been characterized based on data collected
at three phnts. Plant effluent data, which consists of process
water disch rges and washdown information, have been extracted
from the Record. Arithmetic averages developed for these plants
during the updated analysis are consistent with those displayed in
the Development Document.
-------
T L 31
SUeCATEGJ Y a G— AL LONE
SU t.kY DATA
U AEIJHTED . VE A , [ S
PLANT FLOW B’JD—S ISS 0 + 5
L/ KG KG/i KG KG/KY G
(SAL S/ tO’ )
AB1 4U0U 27.3 11.2 1.0
(11 30 J)
51000 22.0 lo.1 1.50
12200)
2OJ 7.52 U.853
(o050)
SUBC4TEGO Y
AN ‘1100 20.4 11.b 1.14
(95 O)
S1ANDA D DEVIATION 13900 7.33 ‘ .i1 0.330
(3330)
-------
Baseline Was:e Loads
Programs for comprehensive in-plant water and waste management are
generally la:king throughout the industry Consequently, refined
estimates of their relative impacts cannot be prepared for each
subcategory. To provide a basis for establishing effluent limita-
tions, baselLne mass emission rates have been developed for indi-
vidual subcategories. Concurrently, baseline flow ratios have
been adopted as the mechanism for developing costs associated with
the implemertation of end-of-pipe treatment technologies which
have process water flow rates as the controlling parameter.
In-plant management is an effective means to reduce end-of-pipe
treatment co .ts. The baseline levels for a particular subcategory
reflect a wastewater discharge which can be achieved by plants
through the implementation of in-plant measures as described in
Section VI. Horeover, the baseline values should represent waste-
water c iaracteristics which have been achieved by at least one
plant within the subcategory. The capabilities of end-of-pipe
treatment technologies beyond screening can then be applied to the
baseline waste loads to establish effluent guidelines.
A number of statistical approaches have been investigated to adopt
a workable standard methodology for data analysis. Because of the
limited data available for the majority of subcategories, conven-
tional statu;tical analyses have not been found applicable. An
-------
approach wa needed, however, to establish baseline levels for
subcategories which have sufficient data An acceptable approach
for data analysis must be amenable to small sample sizes and
consider the basic nature of the seafood processing industry.
With respect to water and waste conservation practices, the in-
dustry is relatively unsophisticated. Therefore, straight sub-
categorli averages which do not generally reflect the implementa-
tion of in-plant measures are inappropriate for baseline values.
The establishment of incentives for in-plant management was felt
to be a nece:;sity for any methodology selected.
Methods employed during the characterization of other industrial
categories have been reviewed. From the information gathered
during this review, an approach for determining baseline levels
from t1e subcategory summaries has been developed as outlined
below.
1. To achieve a starting point for conducting further evalua—
tions, baseline levels were determined by subtracting one-
half of the standard deviation from the subcategory mean
(X-a/2) This procedure produced values which could be used
as a basis of comparison and to determine which plants, if
any, can achieve the levels established by this initial
coniputat.ion.
2. In developing baseline flows and waste loads, the proposed
le els should be achieved by at least one processing plant
-------
within each subcategory The parameters which are considered
to be significant for the application of screening technology
and dissolved air flotation systems are flow, total suspended
sol.ids, and oil and grease. For subcategories which biolog-
ical tceatment represents a viable treatment alternative,
BOr 5 has also been identified as a significant parameter.
The initial baseline levels are compared to the plant
averages to assure that these values have been achieved by at
least one facility within the subcacegory. If one or more of
the parameters are lower than the plant averages employed as
a basis for comparison, then the value(s) is increased to a
le,el which has been demonstrated as being achievable.
3. Baseline levels for all significant parameters must be a-
chLeved at the same plant. The only exception to this con-
ceDt occurred during the analysis of the tuna subcategory.
The pLint which was observed to generate the lowest mass
emission rates did not have a thaw water recycle system
in-place during the original monitoring program. More recent
information indicates that implementation of a thaw water
recycle system, as outlined in Section VI, would allow this
processor to achieve the baseline flow ratio of 11,200 l/kkg.
Two plants which have adopted the thaw water recycle concept
have achieved average flow ratios of 5,310 and 7,480 l/kkg
Employing the procedures outlined above, subcategory baseline
levels have been established arid are presented in Tables 32 and
-------
33. Piocessing plants within each subcategory can meet these
levels through the implementation of in-plant waste management
procedures which are generally lacking throughout the various
industry segments. In-plant measures necessary to achieve the
baseline levels for the particular processing operations are
identified in Sections VT and VIII of this report.
Baseline flow ratios and mass emission rates have not been es-
tablished for several subcategories because: 1) raw waste data
for the entire subcategory was unavailable, or 2) the existence of
a data base vhich consists of only two plants exhibiting extremely
diverse wastewater characteristics. The subcategories for which
baseline values could not be established at this time include: 1)
DungeneE.s and Tanner crab in the contiguous states, 2) Alaskan
halibut, 3) mechanized clams, and 4) scallops.
-------
Subcategory
Farm Raised Catfish
Convent Lonal Blue Crab
Mechanized B ue Crab
Alaskan Crab Meat
Alaskan Whole Crab & Crab Section
Dungness and Tanner Crab
Alaskan Shrimp
Northern Shrimp
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
Breaded Shrimp
Tuna
97.5
41.5
27.3
91.5
7.66
TSS
kg/kkg
6.22
0.784
11.6
5.63
1.86
TABLE 32
PFL\SE I SUBCATEGORY BASELINE WASTE LOADS
Flow
1/kkg BODç
( gal/ton) kg/k g
14,100 5.65
(3,380)
1,100 -
(264)
31,400 -
(7,530)
44,500 -
(10,700)
20,200 -
(4,850)
90,600 -
(21,800)
51,900 -
(12,400)
44,500 -
(10,700)
109,000 —
(26,200)
11,100 -
O&G
kg/kkg
3.55
0.229
4.66
0.798
0.452
20 0
19.0
6 24
4.46
-------
TABLE 33
PHASE II SUBCATEGORY BASELINE
Flow
1/kkg
____________ (gal/ton)
17,400
(4,160)
3,490
(835)
3,420
(818)
14,200
(3,400)
3,980
(955)
12,800
(3,080)
4,830
(1, 160)
34,700
(8,340)
29,000
(6,980)
69,300
(16,600)
Sardine 6,950
(1,670)
Scallop -
Herring Fillet 12,500
(2,990)
Abalone 34,100
(8, 190)
Waste loads are based on production in terms of
WASTE LOADS
BOD
kg/k g
3.08
50.2
Subcategory
Fish 1eal (wLth solubles)
Fish r1e i1 (without solubles)
Hand-Bu1:cher d Salmon
Hechani. ed S lmon
Alaskan Halibut
Convent Lonal Bottom Fish
Nechani ed Bottom Fish
Hand-Shucked Clam
Nechanized Clam
Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked
Oys ters*
East & Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked
0ysters
Steamed & Canned 0ysters
TSS
kg/kkg
1.16
28.3
0.786
17.1
1.30
8.77
4.94
19 4
12.4
138
4.47
O& G
kg/kkg
0.623
16.2
0.146
5.67
0.378
2.75
0.104
1.35
0.603
1.29
2.30
3.3]
0.975
- 13.2
- 9.45
finished product.
-------
SECTION VI
WASTE CONTROL AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 re-
quired the achievement of effluent limitations which are based on
the application of the best practicable control Lechnology cur-
rently available (BPCTCA) for industrial point sources by no later
than July 1, 1977. In addition, compliance with effluent limita-
tions based on the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA) by no later than July 1, 1983
would result in further progress towards the established goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants.
On December 27, 1977, the Clean Water Act of 1977 was adopted to
amend several provisions of the 1972 Act. Industrial point
sources which discharge only conventional pollutants (BODS, total
suspended solids) no longer are required to achieve BATEA under
the new Act. For these pollutants, best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCPCT) must be established for point sources
other then publicly owned treatment works. The reasonableness of
the relationship between the cost of obtaining conventional pollu-
tant reductions and the benefits derived must be considered.
Seafood processing facilities are dischargers of conventional
-------
pollutants and must achieve effluent limitations based on BCPCT by
no later than July 1, 1984. Assuming BPCTCA requirements have
been met by the industry, applicable water pollution control
technologies will be established for consideration as BCPCT.
In recent years, the seafood processing industry has become more
aware of in-plant water and waste management and its relationship
to plant effluent characteristics. There are a number of benefits
which can be derived from implementing in-plant waste controls and
through optimizing water use. The benefits which can be realized
include decreased end-of-pipe treatment costs or reduced user
charges for POTW’s, decreased waste loads, improved raw material
utilization, saleable secondary products and byproducts, and cost
savings from reduced process water use.
Improvement cf raw product utilization has been the subject for a
number of research activities. A variety of approaches have been
investigated to yield marketable byproducts from materials which
are currently considered wastes. Conscientious efforts on the
part of plant management to develop in-house programs have been
made, as noted during visits at several facilities. Although the
approaches adopted were relatively rudimentary, they proved to be
effective in meeting the outlined objectives. Detailed dis-
cussions relative to the techniques available for greater raw
material utilization and the concurrent reduction in waste loads
at seafood plants will follow.
-------
With the promulgation of BPCTCA effluent limitations guidelines
for the entire industry, some processors have adopted waste man-
agement programs which emphasize in-plant measures in conjunction
with end-of-pipe treatment technologies. The practices of the
California tuna canneries exemplify this concept on a large scale.
In addition to recovering byproducts, these facilities operate
screening equipment followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) to
remove pollutants from their process wastewaters. Non-contact
water has been isolated for separate discharge without treatment.
Successful mplernentation has allowed some processors to meet
BPCTCA limitations.
In contrast, there are individual plants throughout the numerous
subcategories which employ minimal treatment, such as screens, and
make no effDrt to control wastewater generation at its source.
Other end-of-pipe treatment technologies have been applied by
various processors on a limited basis. However, investigations
are continuing on the bench scale and pilot plant levels to de-
velop effluent treatment technologies which are applicable to
selected segments of the industry.
IN-PLANT HANAGEHENT
Background
Despite the incentives available to the seafood industry, pro-
gression towards total in-plant water and waste management pro-
-------
grams has been generally lacking. Specific practices and concepts
which are applicable to the entire industry have been documented
in the literature and during plant visits.
Recovery of Secondary Products and Byproducts
Total utilization of the raw material, as a workable concept, is
exhibited through the practices of the modern fish meal and tuna
industries. At some larger facilities, a fish meal plant is
operated in conjunction with the tuna cannery to yield byproducts
such as tuna meal, fish oil and fish solubles. The general prin-
ciples of recovering secondary products and byproducts have been
applied with].rl other segments, although it. has been on a smaller
scale. Reco ery methods which have been observed include fish roe
curing, petfood production and gross solids separation for animal
feed supplements. With these methods, volumes of solid wastes
requiring transportation and disposal are significantly decreased.
Research activities are continuing to establish practical uses for
solids which have been collected from various waste streams. Raw
waste materials as well as processed fish and shellfish solids
have been studied for use as byproducts.
The principle studies conducted for utilization of unprocessed
wastes include production of fish feeds and fertilizer. Fresh or
frozen fish solids (including catfish offal) have been incorpor-
-------
ated into the diets of farm-raised catfish and found to be accept-
able. (6,7) In addition, shrimp wastes as a feed supplement in
aquaculture have found application for pigmentation purpose. (8)
Shellfi .h processing wastes have also received attention with
regard to the inherent fertilizer value. Where a nitrogen-phos-
phorus Eertilizer is required, the solids generated during shrimp
and crab processing operations have significant value. (9)
Several techniques have been employed to yield byproducts which
can be marketed. Traditionally, fish scraps have been converted
to meal which generally serves as an animal feed supplement. In
addition, fish oil and, at some facilities, fish solubles are
produced. The potential of fish oil and solubles as a nutrient
supplement for mushroom production has been explored. Economic
advantages here outlined for the fishing industry and mushroom
growers. (10) Supplemental nitrogen for composting agricultural
manures can ilso be provided by the solubles product. (11)
High protein meals produced from whole menhaden, herring and other
fish scraps have been readily marketed. In view of recent high
costs for animal protein feeds, catfish processing wastes, which
were formerl’p considered to be of little value, now warrant drying
in sufficient quantities. Larger catfish plants can possibly
justify drying offal and other waste solids, while others gener-
ally require a cooperative effort to achieve economic feasibility.
(12)
-------
As an alternative to dry meal production, catfish wastes can be
successfully converted to petfood. The nutrient value of this
materia] indLcates that it would be a valuable ingredient for the
diets of dogs and cats. Proceeding on this basis, experiments
have shown that catfish derived petfood products are highly ac-
ceptable to these domestic animals. (13) It has been suggested
by this inve ;tigator that equipment for converting waste materials
to petfood 5hould be considered for larger plants which process
essentially year round. A cooperative effort on the part of
several processors which are concentrated in a relatively small
area is also a possible approach.
On-site petfood operations have not been readily adopted within
the seafood industry. The larger tuna processors have ongoing
productLon of red meat tuna petfood while one salmon cannery was
observed to incorporate waste fish solids into petfood containing
other ingredients. For the most part, non-edible fish parts which
are retained by plants have been transported off-site for incor-
poration into petfood products.
Recently, chitin which can be isolated from protein in shellfish
wastes has received increased attention. As documented in Section
VII, applications of chitin and its derivative chitosan include
uses a coagulants, emulsifying and thickening agents and for
medicinal purposes. Investigations have also been directed
towards the use of chitinous materials as animal feed additives.
Although further efforts are warranted, its digestability and
C /f
-------
potential nul:rient value for ruminates has been established. (14,
15)
Other experiments have been conducted for utilizing the solids
generated during fish and shellfish processing operations. On a
laboratory scale, extraction processes and the use of the re-
sulting byproducts have been evaluated. A peptone derived by
autolytic digestion was found to compare favorably with commercial
peptone available for microbiological growth media. (16) Enzy-
matic digestion of fish scrap to produce a high quality protein
product was also investigated. The manufacturing scheme studied
generated a product which is capable of being marketed for animal
or human consumption with promising economic feasibility. (17)
The approaches to generating secondary products for human con-
sumption have been the subject of previous documents and include
deboning, pressing and cleaving, extruding, and battering and
breading. A significant capital investment is required to imple-
ment these processes; however, the greatest potential for cost
saving exists through marketing a larger portion of the raw
materia] and concurrently reducing waste loads and costs associ-
ated with treatment. Individual processing facilities are util-
izing one or more of the approaches outlined above to increase
profitability. However, a detailed economic assessment on the
part of specific plants is necessary to establish the feasibility
of selected processes.
-------
Recent stud ies have explored nun erous conversions of specific
wastes and waste streams into secondary products. A variety of
potential uses for deboned, comminuted fish flesh, including
frankfurters, fish cakes and fish loaf, were proven to be accept-
able for human consumption. (18) Similarly, fabricated shrimp
product ; wece the subject of another investigation. Several
potential applications were identified for neat fragments and
shrimp protein which require further study. (8)
Production cf clam juice from minced clam washwater provides a
good example of isolating a waste stream for concentration and
recovery as a secondary product. Under the Sea Grant Program,
factors relating to product handling and development were inves-
tigated and found to be beneficial with regard to economics and
water pollution control. A significant reduction in the BOD 5 load
of the plant effluent was achieved. (19)
Waste_Nanagerrient
In addition to greater profitability, the principle objective of
increasing product utilization is the reduction of waste loads
requiring treatment. Relatively unsophisticated methods for
achieving this objective are available and can be applied to the
majority of seafood subcategories. The philosophy of minimizing
solids/water contact is important when scrutinizing in-plant
management Practices. Investigations conducted on fresh water
q )
-------
fish emphasized the need to eliminate prolonged contact time. (20)
Acceptable solids handling practices can be adopted through man-
agement cognizance and personnel education. Integrating house-
keeping practices into the daily plant activities requires tho-
rough planning, strict implementation, and a continuing effort.
Moreover, minor modifications can be made to existing processing
equipment to enable dry capture and collection of gross solids
prior to then entering the total waste stream. Dry clean-up prior
to washdown s helpful in achieving lower waste loads.
During plant visits, it was noted that several Alaskan processing
facilities grind waste solids prior to screening. Apparently,
this procedure is an adaptation of solids handling procedures
which were employed before screening requirements were mandated.
It is desirable to remove grinders or replace grinder pumps with
standard was:ewater pumps to allow gross solids collection and
improve screen performance through reduced solids loading. In
addition, solids/water contact will be minimized and where grind-
ers require water for lubrication, water consumption can be re-
duced. This effort is a major step in achieving good in-plant
management at Alaskan plants.
Water Management
Efforts :3hould be directed towards reducing plant water use which
is a significant parameter for seafood processors contemplating
c 4
-------
the installation of effluent treatment facilities. Awareness on
the part of plant employees of the costs associated with water
supply and vastewater treatment is a basic step in achieving an
overall water management program. Housekeeping techniques should
include items such as automatic shut-off nozzles on all hoses,
eliminating flows through equipment when idle, and dry clean up
prior to washdown.
To achieve a higher degree of water management, individual unit
processes require evaluation. Significant flows are usually
generated during raw material unloading. For one fish meal facil-
ity, the use of positive displacement pwnps for unloading greatly
improved the condition of the menhaden while reducing bailwater by
97 percent over centrifugal pumps. (21) Waste streams which are
highly contaminated should be isolated for separate treatment
and/or disposal. Manual butchering and cleaning tables should
have provisions for controlling water flow at individual stations.
Flows associated with processing equipment require optimization
and should be adjusted, where possible, to accommodate variable
raw material quality and production levels. In addition, in-
stallation of high pressure nozzles on spray washers is useful in
approaching the primary objective of process water reduction. A
water supply system which employs the high pressure-low volume
concept will also have a significant impact. Raw and final pro-
duct handling through fiwning should be eliminated, where possi-
ble, in favor of belt or pneumatic conveying.
-------
The burden remains on the plant management to make a thorough
survey cf hater flows relative to specific unit processes and then
provide a means of optimization. Large variation in water con-
sumptiort for similar operations among different plants indicate
that large quantities of water are not required to produce a
quality product. Consequently, a decrease in water usage may have
a proportional effect on the waste loads per unit of production.
Nore extensive measures for reducing water usagc pc: unit produc-
tion include recycling and reuse. In regards to this subject, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has indicated that there is “no
conflict between good sanitation, or control of food contaminants,
and water conservation”. (22) Water recycle, employing condi-
tioned water in the same application for which it was previously
used, has gained broader acceptance than the concept of reuse.
Renovation of process waters for reuse in a different unit process
has a nuinber of implications within the food processing industry.
Considerable effort is required to demonstrate the safety and
practicability of renovated water use. Initially, investigations
should be directed towards modifying selected unit operations to
incorporate the recycle mode and ultimately, the treatment of
wastewater for in-plant use.
California tuna processors have reduced water use by recycling and
heating water which is employed to thaw raw material for subse-
quent processing. Since once-through thaw water represents a
significant portion of the waste stream requiring treatment,
-------
economics of water savings and pollution control have supported
this practice. To a lesser extent, tuna canneries have adopted
the recycle concept for can wash systems.
Other general areas should be evaluated to determine the potential
for recycle or reuse. For example, consideration should be given
to using wa hwater with low contamination levels for pre-rinsing
the incoming raw product.
Throughout niost of the industry, water is required for raw
material unloading from boats. Pneumatic systems which require
significantly less water have been installed at a variety of
plants including fish meal, salmon and bottom fish. Oysters can
be pnewnatically unloaded without seal water. In lieu of this
equipment, some modern fish meal plants recycle bailwater which is
subsequently processed for solubles. Because other subcatgories
produce commodities for human consumption, the recycle approach
has not been widely accepted by the seafood industry.
Isolation of selected waste streams for conversion to byproducts
or separate treatment and/or disposal has received some attention.
The findings of laboratory studies involving wastewaters from
cooking, rinsing, and brine dipping operations for blue crab
processing have been published. High losses of organic material
resulted dunng these operations with the most concentrated solu-
tion generated by the cooking. (23, 24) It was also found that
rinsing and dipping procedures result in substantial protein
-------
losses. Representing a relatively small volume, it appears cooker
water isolation for separate handling warrants consideration.
Future research may develop modified procedures for rinsing and
dipping with the objective of minimizing protein losses and thus,
reduce waste loads.
A simil3r program was conducted at an East Coast surf clam pro-
cessing plant; however, emphasis was placed on developing a mar-
ketable secondary product from a selected, highly contaminated
waste stream. The washwater from the mincing operation which
represents a small flow rate (0.32 1/sec), was converted to an
acceptable cLam juice product. Eliminating this waste stream with
a BUD 5 value of 2,340 mg/l or 37 percent of the total BOD 5 load
generated by product washing operations, substantially reduces
end-of-pipe treatment requirements. Moreover, washwater flows
were reduced by approximately one-half following the implementa-
tion of water conservation measures. (25)
To illustrate the effects of eliminating flumes for product hand-
ling as well as other conservation measures, an improved water
management program implemented at a southern shrimp cannery can be
cited. Standard water reduction measures such as dry clean up,
high pressure - low volume washdown, and hoses with shut-off
nozzles were employed. In addition, solids/water contact was
minimized as a result of eliminating or reducing the extent of
water transport systems following peeling operations. Another
measure was the optimization of machine flows by installing high
-------
pressure - low volume nozzles, where possible. A 42 percent
reduction in water use (1/kkg of raw product) was achieved through
implementation of these basic approaches. Management techniques
regarding water use and waste reduction decreased the pollutant
waste loads by 60 percent for BUD 5 , 13 percent total suspended
solids and 40 percent oil and grease (26).
Application of In—Plant Measures
Impacts on water use and waste loads resulting from several in-
plant measures as documented during numerous investigations have
been outlined above. Although these measures addressed selected
process]ng operations, the concepts can be applied to other unit
processes and to different commodities. The in—plant measures
which have general application throughout the seafood processing
industry are as follows:
1. eliminate flumes utilized for product handling and waste
conveyance, and install belt conveyors, pneumatic equipment
or implement other dry handling procedures;
2. provide the means for dry capturing waste solids prior to
them entering the wastewater stream; and
3. modify plant clean-up procedures to allow dry sweeping of
solids from floors followed by high pressure - low volume
washdown.
-------
In addition to the general concepts identified, other techniques
for in-plant waste management and water conservation have been
documented in the literature and during plant visits. These
methods have application to specific processing operations within
selected subcategories. A discussion of in—plant measures rela-
tive to specific commodities and processing operations is pre-
sented below. The intent of this discussion is to outline appli-
cabLe water and waste management procedures which can be imple-
mented to assist in approaching the baseline flows and waste loads
presented in Section V.
1. Farm RaLsed Catfish : Harvested fish are generally kept in
live-hoLding tanks to await processing. A holding system
with a partial recycle would significantly reduce plant water
use. A feasible alternative is icing whole fish for trans-
port to the plant and keeping them properly iced before
processing, thus eliminating the need for holding tank water.
2. Blue Crib: Conventional and mechanized processes generate
cooker water which represents a small volume of highly con-
taminat d wastes. Isolation of this waste stream for separ-
ate handling and disposal is recommended. For mechanized
plants which have significantly greater flow ratios, optimi-
zation of water consumption during picking and product wash-
ing can be achieved.
100
-------
3. Alaskan Crab Shells and viscera are generally ground at the
butcher ng area or flumed to grinding equipment. To reduce
water use and waste loads, gross solids should be dry col-
lected during the butchering process for subsequent disposal.
This will eliminate the need for grinders or grinder pumps.
4. Dungeness and Tanner Crab : Following butchering and/or meat
extractLon, waste solids should be dry captured prior to
entering the waste stream. Highly contamindled cooker water
can be isolated for separate disposal. Water used for cool-
ing thc final product can be optimized to further reduce
flows requiring end-of-pipe treatment.
5. Non-Breaded Shrimp : Peeling machines and other production
equipment are responsible for the major portion of the pro-
cess wastewater. Optimizing equipment flows to accommodate
varying raw materials and production levels is a significant
step towards good in-plant management.
6. Breaded Shrimp : Both manual and mechanized operations are
used in the production of this commodity. For mechanized
process s, equipment flows should undergo optimization to
reduce water use. Organic loads can be minimized through
containing spills of battering and breading mixtures.
7. Tuna: In general, tuna canners have been the forerunner of
in-plant management to reduce water use and waste loads.
‘of
-------
However, varying degrees of in-plant management have been
implemented by individual plants. Thaw water recycle systems
are operative at various processing facilities and have been
effective in reducing water use without detriment to the
final product. Single pass thawing systems which require
substantial volumes of water can be adapted to the recycle
mode. ]n the butchering area, water use can be optimized at
the tab es and during the rinsing of the product and belt
conveyor s.
8. Fish_Me l: Plants which produce high protein meals from
whole fish fall into two distinct classifications: 1) with
so1ub1e production from the liquid waste streams; and 2)
without salubles production. Stickwater is handled by evap-
oration units at most modern facilities. Efforts should be
diiected towards containing leaks which develop within these
units, :hereby maintaining low levels of contaminants in the
noricontact water. In lieu of end-of-pipe treatment, it is
recommended that processing facilities without solubles units
install evaporation units to handle stickwater. Low volumes
of washdown water which should result from the implementation
of general procedures outlined for all plants, can also be
condensed into solubles.
9. Harid-Bui:chered Salmon : Provisions should be made for dry
cotlectLon of the larger solids removed from the fish.
Washing of the product following butchering can be accom-
Ic
-------
pushed by utilizing an overflow basin Fresh water is
employed for make-up water to maintain sanitation standards.
10. tiechani ed Salmon : At some facilities, salmon heads are
rendered to extract oil which is added to the canned product
or packaged separately. Residues from the extraction process
represent a high pollution load and should be isolated from
the was:e stream for separate disposal. As with most mech-
anized operations, equipment flows can be optimized with the
use of high pressure - low volume nozzles and shut-off
valves. Solids generated by butchering operations and at the
areas of the sliming tables and can filling machines should
be immediately dewatered and collected. Thus, a significant
pollutant. load is eliminated from the wastewater prior to
end-of-pipe treatment.
11. Alaskan Halibut : Since halibut processing is relatively
simple, optimization of washwater use is the primary in-plant
waste management technique.
12. Convent]onal Bottom Fish : Water consumption can be minimized
for an essentially manual processing operation through optim-
izing the product pre-rinse and fillet table flow. The
concept of high pressure - low volume nozzles and shut-off
valves at individual stations can be applied to achieve
optimization. For plants employing mechanical descalers,
consideration should be given to modifications which will
reduce water use and waste loads.
/03
-------
13. Nec:hani ed Bottom Fish . In-plant measured should be directed
towards optimizing equipment flows. Gross solids discharged
from the butchering machines should be dewatered immediately
and collected in totes.
14. Hand—Shucked Clam : Water use for washing operations can be
minimized by proper controls and the attention of plant
personnel.
15. Mechanized Clam: Flows required to operate processing equip-
rnent and wash the raw and final product generally require
optimization.
16. Hand-Shucked Oyster : Washwater represents the largest single
source of wastewater generated by manual shucking plants.
Therefore, efforts should be directed towards decreasing the
overall washwater volume.
17. Steamed and Canned OysterS A relatively high degree of
mechanization is employed to wash and shuck the raw material
entering the processing plant. Measures for optimizing water
use as;ociated with each unit operation is recommended.
18. Sacdine: Prior to sealing, oil or sauces are added to the
canned product. Spills of these additives should be con-
taLned, thus preventing them from entering the waste stream.
Recycling can washwater is a practical measure for conserving
water
1o4
-------
19. Scallop Washing the product for subsequent packaging is the
major source of wastewater generated. Alternatives such as
batch washing operations for reducing wastewater flows should
be consdered.
20. Heiring Fillet : Reduction of water consw ption at the
butcher].ng machines is often possible. Dewatering of the
larger ;o1ids which are flumed from the machines is essential
for a good waste managemenL program. Mesh conveyors or
similar means are available to collect and dewater gross
solids prior to fine screening the wastewater.
21. Abalone - Washwater represents the major source of wastewater
generated by processing plants Water use can be reduced by
optirnizLng the washing operations.
END-OF-PIPE ‘REAT tENT
Background
With few exceptions, conventional wastewater treatment technolo-
gies have not been demonstrated on a full-scale level within the
seafood industry. Processors, in general, have favored the inves-
tigatiori and implementation of techniques which are relatively
simple nd require minimal land area. Aside from in-p1ant meas-
ures, the most basic and prevalent approach to end-of-pipe treat-
/05
-------
ment ha,s been solids separation by screening. Physical treatment
technologies such as sedimentation and dissolved air flotation
(DAFT) have been employed to a lesser extent. The application of
biological systems and land treatment alternatives has been limit-
ed by land availability in coastal areas. Technologies more
sophisticated than DAF have generally not been mandated by reg-
ional EPA ofEices or state regulatory agencies. Therefore, little
information is currently available for full-scale secondary and
advanced wastewater treatment alternatives. Some investigations,
however, have been conducted on laboratory scale and pilot plant
levels.
Solids Separation by Screening
Several types of screening devices are available to the seafood
processing industry for in-plant solids recovery, thereby mini-
mizing the discharge of fish parts to the process waste stream.
With the promulgation of the current BPCTCA guidelines, various
segments of the industry were required to install the equivalent
of 20-mesh screens as an end-of-pipe measure for compliance.
A variel:y of solids recovery equipment with various opening sizes
is available to the processor. Frequently, a coarse screen is
used in series with fine screens. The most common equipment for
gross solids removal appears to be the revolving drum type or
troinmel screens. Screen opening sizes are generally 1/4-inch
/o
-------
(0.64 cm) in, diameter or larger. These units remove the larger
solids and r duce solids loadings to fine screens. However, not
all installations have trommel units preceding the finer screens.
Through plant visits and communications with manufacturers, the
more acceptable types of fine screens for the seafood industry
were found to be tangential, cylindrical and vibrating. Centri-
fugal screen have been used for seafood wastewater applications.
These units Lse centrifugal action to force the wastewater through
considerably smaller openings. Other devices can be classified
into one of the following categories: inclined-trough screens,
drilled plates, bar screens, belt screens, microstrainers, and
basket screens.
Tangential screens have achieved wide acceptance as a result of
their simplicity. Flow can be delivered to these devices by
gravity or through pumping. As the flow cascades down the face of
the screen, solids are retained on the wedge shaped bars while the
wastewater passes through. Removed solids progress down the
screen surfa:e by gravity and are eventually collected. There-
fore, nc moving parts or drive mechanisms are involved with actual
screen operation. Generally, tangential units have flow capaci-
ties based on the upper third of the screen surface with the
remaining t o thirds provided for dewatering of the captured
solids and peak loadings.
Rotating cylindrical screens retain solids on the surface while
the wastewater passes through and into the interior. Effluent
-------
passing through the drum serves to backwash particles trapped in
the operrings at the bottom arc of the screen. Some applications
within he seafood industry require an internal spray wash to
assist in the cleaning process of the horizontal drum. A steel
wiper blade is provided to direct the removed solids to a suitable
collection system. Cylindrical screens revolving on the hori-
zontal axis have gained acceptance in the tuna and sardine pro-
cessing industries.
As mentioned previously, wastewater can be delivered to the screen
headbox by pumps or gravity flow. Controlled gravity feed is the
preferred approach, however, the use of centrifugal non-clog pumps
is more common. Screen performance can be impaired as a result of
the pulverizLng action of the pumps on larger solids, thus creat-
ing smaller particles which can clog the openings. As a result of
the sma ler particles, measured waste loadings in terms of BOD 5
TSS, and oil and grease have been shown to increase between the
pump swnp and screen effluent. Replacement of centrifugal pumps
with positive displacement or progressive cavity non-clog pumps
may have a beneficial impact on effluents discharged to receiving
waters or subsequent treatment processes. This is due to the
gentler action of the positive displacement pump which minimizes
the pulverization of the wastewater solids.
The effectiveness of screening devices is generally quantified in
terms of total suspended solids removal. Samples are collected at
the screen headbox to determine influent characteristics and
effluent. aliquots are taken after the wastewater passes through
-------
the mesh surface. The difference between the two suspended solids
levels s ut)lized to calculate removal efficiency.
As discussed above, the effluent suspended solids concentration
will equal or exceed the influent measurement at times, although
visual observation indicates solids are being removed from the
wastewater. It appears erroneous test results are a function of
the inherent, limitations involved with accepted sampling and
analytical procedures. Instantaneous variations of wastewater
characteristcs is comirion for seafood plants. During monitoring
programs, it is often impossible to collect influent and effluent
samples simultaneously. Collection at different times can influ-
ence test results for highly variable wastewaters Moreover, the
standard total suspended solids analysis will bypass the larger
fish solids when obtaining a specific aliquot from a larger volume
for determin.3tion. These factors should be considered during the
evaluat]on of efficiency data and published information regarding
screen performance.
A performance comparison of tangential and rotating cylindrical
screens has been presented in the literature. (27) Removal of
total suspended solids appear to be comparable. From the stand-
point of mechanical maintenance, static screens are advantageous
with no moving parts. Rotary devices are essentially self-clean-
ing and requ re less attention during operation. However, tangen-
tial screens can be supplied with self-cleaning mechanisms such as
/(
-------
brushes and surface spray washers to minimize blinding and clogg-
ing.
A Canadian study evaluated the full-scale performance of both
tangential and cylindrical screens for handling various seafood
processing effluents. (28) For herring fillets and shrimp waste-
waters, the 25-mesh tangential device achieved median total sus-
pended solids removals of 42 and 60 percent, respectively. With a
30-mesh rotating cylindrical screen, 30 percent solids reduction
for redfish descaling effluent was achieved 50 percent of the
time. The inefficiency of the cylindrical device was felt to be a
function of the wastewater characteristics relative to the parti-
cle size distribution. Although percent removals for fine screens
cannot be consistently applied to the influent wastewater, it was
demonstrated that both screening systems were effective in treat-
ing the effluents considered.
Other investigations have been conducted with regards to the
application of screen technology to various seafood processing
effluents. ationa1 Flarine Fisheries Service (NNFS) has generated
data pertinent to screen performance for effluents from shrimp,
tuna, salmon and bottom fish processing. Testing involved rotary
and tangential equipment with various opening sizes. As indicated
in Table 34, this technology is applicable to several subcate-
gories which are characteristic of the industry. Similar assess-
ments were made for multiple screening, a centrifugal device and
vibrating screens.
I/o
-------
TABLE 34
FINE SCREEN PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO VARIOUS PROCESS WASTEWATERS
No. of
Samples
Screen
Species Type
Openings Size Total Suspended Solids Rem. (°h )
Inches mm. Mean Range
Salmon
Tangential
0.010
0.25
9.0
1
Salmon 1
Salmon
Tangential
Tangential
0.014
0.014
0.35
0.35
18.6
25.0
21.6-28.3
1
2
Salmon 1
Salmon
Tangential
Tangential
0.020
0.030
0.51
0.76
18.6
25.6
0-53.0
21.2-30.6
5
3
Salmon
Rotary
0.010
0.25
15.4
5.9-24.7
2
Tuna
Tangential
0.010
0.25
1.2
-
1
Tuna
Tangential
0.020
0.51
25.8
0-54.8
6
Tuna
Rotary
0.020
0.51
12.6
0-25.3
2
Shrimp
Tangential
0.014
0.35
60.1
—
1
Shrimp
Tangential
0.020
0.51
36.0
30.6-41.4
2
Shrimp
Tangential
0.040
1.02
37.9
1
Bottom
Fish
Tangential
0.020
0.51
8.8
0-19.4
4
Data collected over
entire processing day using composite samples.
-------
The use of two fine screens in series which have progressively
smaller openLngs was evaluated for salmon processing wastewaters.
Table 3 presents data for a tangential screen with 0.014-inch
openings foLlowed by a 0.005-inch tangential device. This
approacb was not shown to be particularly effective for solids
removal. Hcwever, the data presented is based on only three
samples and the previous discussion regarding the difficulties
associated wth obtaining representative results may be applicable
to this limited information.
A centrifugal screen concentrator (CSC) is shown in Figure 1.
This device incorporates the advantage of utilizing finer mesh
screens (165 to 400 mesh) for solids separation The inherent
disadvantage proves to be the handling of the concentrated liquor
(underfiow) which results. Vibrating screens have been employed
to separate solids contained in the underflow with the effluent
returned to :he influent end of the system Although recyling the
screened effluent can effectively reduce chemical requirements,
the long term impact relative to pollutant buildup has not been
fully determined. This approach and others require further de-
velopment. to provide a means to adequately handle the concentrate
which represents approximately 5 to 15 percent of the total
throughput. The addition of chemical coagulants to enhance re-
moval efficiencies associated with the CSC has been evaluated on a
pilot s’:ale and found to be effective. The relative effectiveness
of the centrifugal screen with chemical addition for salmon cannery
-------
R 0 TAT INC
SCREEN
CAGE
EFFLUENT
DISC H A RG
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a SWECO centrifugal
screen concentrator (CSC).
BACKWASH
SPRAY SYSTEM
COLL. ECTOR
I NFLUENT
CONCENTRATE
DISCHARGE
-------
TABLE 35
EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE SCREENING ON SALMON PROCESSING WASTEWATER
Screen Opening Size No. of Percent Removal
Inches (Miljimeters) Sam les
0.014 (0 35) 3
0.005 (0 13) 3
Combined 3
effluent. is displayed in Table 36. Table 37 summarizes CSC per-
formance for several mesh sizes, while handling wastewaters from
different or.Lgins.
Vibrating screens which utilize a linear or circular motion have
been employed for specific in-plant processing operations, partic-
ularly in fish meal plants. However, these devices have found
increasing acceptance for end-of-pipe applications and in con-
junction with the centrifugal (CSC) units to dewater underfiow as
mentioned previously. Generally, smaller openings (105 to
165-mesh) are utilized for concentrate treatment, while mesh sizes
for effluent screening are comparable to tangential equipment
(20-mesh). It should be noted that vibratory screens are better
suited br non-oily effluents (shrimp and oysters) due to inherent
blinding problems associated with oils. One shrimp facility with
a 10-mesh unit accomplished an average total suspended solids
removal of approximately 45 percent. (26) Some wastewaters with a
relatively high oil and grease content may be more effectively
handled after elevating the water temperature.
BOD 5
TSS
Oil & Grease
13.2
less
than
0
11.6
less
than
5.2
0
less
8.7
than
0
15.9
20.7
II
-------
TABLE 36
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON FOR 165-MESH CSC TREATING SALMON
WITH AND WITHOUT CHEMICALS
CANNERY WASTES
COD
Operating Condition BOD 5
With Chemical Addition 49.81
Without Chemical Addition 16.1
62.1 6O.3 42 2
34.6 14.9 23.4
5
3
‘Determ]natlon based on two samples
TABLE
37
CSC PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO
VARIOUS PROCESS WASTEWATERS
Species Mesh Size BOD 5
Percent Removal
TSS O&G COD
No. of
Samples
Salmon 165 49.8
Salmon 400 48.5
Tuna 165 23.9
Tuna 400 -
Shrimp 165 -
Shrimp 325 -
Shrimp 400 -
62.1 60.3 42.2
61.3 42.9i
30.1 19.9 32.3
46.72 - -
78.1 - 2 44.6
46.0 10.9 21.0
- - 57 5
5
1
3
I
3
3
1
2 Based on one sample determination
‘/5
Percent Removal
TSS O&G
No. of
Samples
1 Determination based on two samples
-------
Hecharii2ed salmon and bottom fish processing requires the equiv-
alent of screening to meet BPCTCA regulations. A monitoring
program to evaluate the effectiveness of in-place screens for
these commodities was undertaken. As Table 38 denotes, the daily
maximum BPCTCA limitations were not exceeded for salmon. The
30-day mean emission rates were met by one salmon cannery while
the other processor exceeded the promulgated levels for total
suspended soLids, and oil and grease. It was noted during sample
collection t iat measures could be taken by the processor to im-
prove screen operation.
Since the conventional bottom fish processing facility employs a
scaler for selected species of fish, data collected during its use
have been isolated in Table 38. No difficulty was encountered in
meeting the total suspended solids level in either operational
mode. However, excessive oil and grease emissions occurred during
the sca]er use. It is indicated that 30-day mean limitations are
achievable with screening technology for conventional operations
without a mechanical scaler.
An overall assessment of the Naryland seafood processing industry
encompassed the conventional blue crab, conventional bottom fish,
hand-shucked clams and hand-shucked oysters subcateogries. (29)
All facilities which were investigated employed static or vibrat-
ing screens. A grab sample was collected at each facility on a
weekly basis to determine the pollutant mass emission rates.
-------
TANGENTIAL SCREEN PERTORI’IANCE RELAT
Screeri d Effluent
NC). of Average Naximum
Plant-Sample ; TSS O&G TSS O&G
WE TO BPTCA
BPCTCA Eff.
LINITATIONS
Limitations
Daily
TSS O&G
30-Day Hean
TSS O&G
1 2
2 3
13 5.8 13 6.]
31 16 38 22
44 29
44 29
26 11
26 11
Conventional Bottom Fish
Subcategory
1 4
0.51 0.28 0.61 0.30
3.6 1.0
2.0 0.55
1A 5
2.0 0.85 2.9 1.3
3.6 1.0
2.0 0.55
Note. All values are given as kg/kkg
Data collected during scaler use
Although the data have inherent limitations resulting from the
sample collection procedures the following conclusions were pre-
sented:
1. Oi and grease limitations for BPCTCA and BATEA are currently
being met by all processing plants sampled within the various
subcategories.
2 All clam plants and the majority of the oyster processors
investigated were found to meet BPCTCA and BATEA requirements
for tot l suspended solids.
3. The BPCTCA 30-day mean effluent limitations for total sus-
pended solids were not achieved by the blue crab and bottom
fish prccessors.
-------
It is difficult to adequately compare the collected data for six
blue crab p ants and two bottom fish processors with the BPCTC \
limitatLons based on screens. Flow proportioned composite samples
which are more representative than grab samples comprise the
existing data base for effluent guidelines. Moreover, NPDES
permits generally require several grab samples to comprise a daily
composLce sample for analysis. One grab sample per week is not a
representatiJe basis to establish compliance with the existing
guidelines.
Under the auspices of the Maine Sardine Council, the operation of
screen systems in conjunction with oil separation equipment was
investigated. Much of the information was submitted in compliance
with the NPEES permit program and is indicative of the industry’s
ability to meet BPCTCA limitations with screens in-place as shown
on Table 39.
Although screens represent a simple end-of-pipe treatment tech-
nology, the various aspects of their application to seafood pro-
cessing effluents must be considered. Proper design and installa-
tion ol such devices is necessary to obtain acceptable screen
performance with minimal operation and maintenance problems. The
most prevalent difficulty encountered by the industry is the
blinding ancJ clogging of the screen surface. Besides selecting
the proper type of device, various ancillary equipment can be
provided to minimize problems.
-------
TABLE 39
PERFORMANCE OF FINE SCREENS AND OIL SEPARATION EQUIPMENT
RELATIVE TO BPCTCA LIMITATIONS FOR SARDINE PROCESSING
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
___________________ Daily Maximum Maximum 30-Day Mean
TSS O&G TSS O&G
362 352 io2 1.42
48 6.3 16 28
48 6.3 16 2.8
48 6.3 16 28
48 6.3 16 2.8
Note: All values are given as kg/kkg
1 Compos]te samples obtained over a full shift
2 Effluent linitations are based on dry conveying whereas the remaining
plants have wet fluming
Performance is generally presented by screen manufacturers in
terms of gallons per minute per foot of screen width for clean
water. Lower capacities can be expected for seafood processing
wastes. Therefore, it is essential that the sizing and selection
of equipment be based on the specific wastewater characteristics
From the a ailable information for current installations, the
hydraul:Lc capacity of screens appears to be related to the oil and
grease content of the wastewater. Indications are that actual
hydraulLc loadings for screens treating oil wastewaters range from
40 to 70 gpni per foot (50-80 liters/minute/meter) of width. For
wastewal:ers with a lower oil and grease content, screens have
operated effectively at 60 to 90 gpm per foot (70-100 liters/
minute/meter) with some loadings approaching 120 gpm/ft (140
minute/meter). In Table 40, each commodity has been classified as
generat ng either oily or non-oily wastewater.
i 1 H
No. of
Plant Samples
SA4 1
SA5 2
SA6 1
SA7 1
SA1O 1
Screened Effluent
TSS O&G
4.95 1.25
2.92 0.55
4.50 1.60
3.65 0.50
3.20 0.95
-------
TABLE 40
SUBCATEGORV CLASSIFICATION REGARDING
TEE RELATIVE DIFFICULTY FOR WASTEWATER SCREENING
SUBCATEGORY CLASSIFICATION
PHASE I
Farm Raised Catfish Oily
Conventional Blue Crab Oily
Nechanized Blue Crab Oily
Alaskan Crab Neat Oily
Alaskan Whole and Section Crab Oily
Dungeness and Tanner Crab Oily
Alaskan Shrimp Non-Oily
Northern Shrimp Non-Oily
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Non-Oily
Breaded Shrimp Non-Oily
Tuna Non-Oily
PHASE II
Fish Neal Oily
Hand-Butchered Salmon Non-Oily
Nechani2ed Salmon Oily
Alaskan Halibut Non-Oily
Conventional Bottom Fish Non-Oily
Hechanized Bottom Fish Oily
Hand-Shucked Clam Non-Oily
Nechanized Clam Oily
Hand-Shucked Oyster Oily
Steamed and Canned Oyster Oily
Sardine Oily
Scallop Non-Oily
Herring Fillet Oily
Abalone Non-Oily
/ o
-------
It should be emphasized that the classifications outlined in Table
40 are generalized with the purpose of indicating a basic differ-
ence for sizing screens. This concept serves as a basis for
selected screen sizes and developing the associated costs as
presented in Section VIII of this Report.
In selecting a particular type and size of equipment, there are
several factors to be assessed. Wastewater characteristics have
been mentioned as one factor with emphasis on the oil and grease
concentration. Screen(s) must be capable of accomniodating both
peak hydraulic and solids loadings, although hydraulic capacity is
the key criterion for design. Other considerations include the
capital expenditures and operation and maintenance requirements.
Tangential screens appear to be the most widely accepted for
general application throughout the industry. However, cleaning
demands are ,reater as compared to rotating cylindrical units. In
view of the smaller capital investment required, relative sim-
plicity, and general industry acceptance, tangential screening
equipment was selected as a basis for cost development in Section
VIII.
Oil Separation
Removal of oil and grease from seafood processing effluents can
facilitate subsequent screening operations. Grease traps in
combination with 20-mesh screens formulate the basis of the cur-
i f
-------
rent BPCTCA effluent limitations for the following Phase I sub-
categorLes farm raised catfish, conventional and mechanized blue
crab, Alaskdn crab meat, Alaskan whole crab and section, and
Dungeness and Tanner crab. Available information has not in-
dicated the existence of simple grease traps operating within
these subcategories. An EPA funded study of the Maryland seafood
industry, which included conventional blue crab processors, made
no refcrence to this technology. (29) Moreover, the absence of
in-place grease traps was confirmed during visits to numerous
Alaskan crab processing plants. Catfish processing facilities
which were contacted did not have oil separation equipment in
place.
Oil skimniing of the pre—cook water was recommended for sardine
canners as part of the Phase II BPCTCA regulations. Gravity
equipment specifically developed to recover saleable oil has
proven to be partially successful to date. Using the available
data, i:he performance of full scale oil skimmers relative to
reducing oi] and grease concentrations is displayed in Figure 2.
Although the removal efficiencies are quite variable, relatively
consistent effluent oil and grease concentrations have been
measured in the effluent. It appears that an achievable effluent
oil and grease concentration for sardine pre-cook water using
simple gravity separation is 1,500 mg/l.
-------
7.
0
0
LI
E
2
0
I.-
4
z
w
0
2
0
0
1. 1.1
U,
4
U
w
0
z
4
-j
0
I-
z
U
-J
‘a-
L i i
INFLUENT OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION C mg/I)/I000
0
0
ACHIEVABLE LEVEL: 500mg/I
S.
5
4
3
2
0
V
LEGEND
o TEST DATA
o TEST DATA BEFORE FINAL MODIFICATIONS
V OPERATION BY PLANTS
0
V
V
0
0
0
0
0 0
a
10 20
3b o o o 8b 9b
Figure 2. I crfornIdn e of full s .fle oil .,el)aratluII uqIuIi.leflt For L1a ‘ ardine indw-.Lry.
-------
Solids Separ ition by Sedimentation
Gravity sett .ing of solids has not found wide application through-
out the indlLstry. Conventional equipment for this physical pro-
cess includes grit chambers, clarifiers and in some instances
settling basins. For the majority of processing operations,
sedimentation is not applicable due to the excessive detention
times required to effect adequate solids-liquid separation. The
organic sol:ids retainc. d would become putrescent and generate
undesirable odors.
Grit chambers have application within the clam and oyster pro-
cessing industries. For the most part, chambers with manual or
mechanical grit removal would handle wastewaters generated during
raw product washing operations. Essentially heavy inorganic
material, including sand, bottom sediment and shell particles is
separated thus reducing the potential for putrefaction associated
with extended retention of organic solids. Removal of grit from
washwaters minimizes wear and maintenance problems on downstream
pumps and other process equipment. Therefore, installation of
grit removal facilities by clam and oyster operations should
precede screening and other end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
Gravity settling processes can be disrupted by highly variable
flows and solids loadings. To obtain good performance, grit
chambers should be designed to operate effectively under the peak
hydraul.Lc loads expected at the processing facility. Provisions
to avoid short circuiting of incoming flow are also necessary.
-------
The material removed from the exterior of the shellfish during
washing operations is essentially silt which has a lower specific
gravity than sand and requires a longer time for separation. Due
to the nature of these solids, clam and oyster processors should
allow for removal of 100-mesh material in the design of grit
chambers.
Although several grit removal installations were identified for
the selected subcategories, no information regarding the effect-
iveness of in-place grit removal equipment was available from
industr a1 sources. Sampling was conducted at one East Coast
oyster cannery to determine the efficiency of a settling basin.
It shou’d be noted that the chamber was initially designed and
constructed by plant personnel and subsequently underwent modifi-
cation. The sampling program was undertaken following modifi-
cation 1:0 increase the basin depth to approximately two feet. In
addition to the waste streams generated by the drum washer and
shocker, brine flotation tank spillage and retort blow-off entered
the chamber at the midpoint. Short circuiting through the basin
was observed during the course of a normal processing day. Grit
was removed manually every two or three days. Under these con-
ditions. solid reductions were achieved as shown in Table 41.
A well-designed settling basin or grit chamber which handles only
raw product washwaters can operate more effectively than the one
investigated. Elimination of short circuiting and frequent solids
removal are necessary measures for improving the effectiveness of
this process.
I t-m —
Io )
-------
TABLE 41
PERFORMANCE OF A SETTLING BASIN FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL
FROM OYSTER WASH ATERS
Mean
Range
Influent
Total
Suspended
Solids
(mg/i)
2,710
1,280-3,740
Effluent
Total
Suspended
Solids
(mg/i)
1,870
904-2,980
Removal
(1%)
31.5
6.6-45.9
Physical-Chemical Treatment
Treatment by physical-chemical processes is more applicable to
most of the industry than biological treatment because it offers
the advantage of significant levels of wastewater renovation
within a smaller land area. A disadvantage which prevails for a
large number of these technologies is the associated higher costs
for equipment, chemicals, power, maintenance and other operational
requirements. There is little practical application in the sea-
food industry for advanced technologies such as carbon adsorption,
filtration, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, ion exchange and
chemical oxi(Iation due to the extensive pretreatment requirements.
In addition, the high level of sophistication demands considerable
operatoi training and attention. Air flotation with chemical
addition apçears to have the greatest potential for effluent
treatment; however, other physical-chemical processes may be
feasible for selected waste streams.
-------
Air Flotation
Air flotation has received considerable attention with regards to
its app] icat on to the seafood industry. This technology has been
utilized extensively within other food industries, including red
meat and poultry processing. However, air flotation generally
provides pretreatment for the meat industry prior to secondary
biological treatment.
With the appropriate chemical additions, air flotation is capable
of removing significant levels of BOD5, solids, oiis and greases
in the form of floating sludge (float). Material suspended in the
wastewater and subsequently floated by air bubbles is skimmed from
the surface and collected. In addition to introducing chemicals
for coa; ulatLon and flocculation, removal of suspended and dis-
solved constLtuents can be aided by adjusting the pH to the iso-
electric point of fish protein.
A variety of coagulants and flocculents are commercially available
for chemically treating the wastewater prior to flotation. Lime
in addition to trivalent salts such as aluminum sulfate (alum),
sodium aluminate, ferric chloride have been employed for coagu-
lation. Other flotation aides such as lignosulfonic acid (LSA)
have been investigated in various combinations with anionic and
cationic po]yelectrolytes (polymers) to enhance pollutant re-
movals. From the available information, it appears that chemical
additions are necessary to provide acceptable performance for air
flotation systems.
-------
Flotation is available in four major arrangements: 1) vacuum
flotation; 2) dissolved air flotation; 3) dispersed air flota-
tion; and 4) electroflotation. Vacuum flotation has not received
wide spread acceptance within the food processing industry.
Dissolved air flotation with chemical addition was identified as
BPCTCA For the tuna processing industry. Prior to establishing
effluent limLtatlons for BPCTCA, information was obtained from at
least four pilot plant studies to determine the effectiveness of
this physical-chemical treatment technology. In addition, two
full-scale systems were operating: the demonstration unit at
British Columbia Packers, Limited, in Steveston, British Columbia,
Canada; and a DAF unit treating tuna processing wastes at Terminal
Island, California. A third system was installed at a Maine
sardine plant; however, only limited information was developed due
to mechanical problems.
Employing DAF technology as a basis, BPCTCA effluent limitations
were esl:ablished for the tuna processing segment of the industry.
Five tuna processing facilities, three at Terminal Island, Calif-
ornia, ind two in American Samoa, have been operating DAF treat-
ment systems for more than two years. Facilities in San Diego,
California, and Puerto Rico, recently initiated DAF treatment of
process wast waters. Screening prior to flotation is employed at
all facilities. The plants in California and Puerto Rico incor-
porate tuna scrap reduction with solubles recovery and red meat
tuna petfood operations into their daily tuna processing activi-
-------
ties. In American Samoa, the canneries do not operate evaporation
plants to produce solubles which necessitates the discharge of
stickwater to the DAF treatment systems.
With the exception of a few demonstration units operating in other
segments of the industry, flotation systems treating tuna pro-
cessing wastes have been the primary indicator of dissolved air
flotaticin capabilities in the seafood industry. Trivalent salts
(alum or sodium aluininate) followed by an anionic polyelectrolyte
are introduced into the waste stream; however, BPCTCA limitations
have nol: demanded an optimized chemical system for DAF treatment.
Optimization requires the introduction of coagulants and floccu-
lents into the system to achieve maximum removals for the selected
constituents As documented in numerous studies, pH is a con-
trolling parameter and flotation has been found to be most effec-
tive at the isoelectric point of fish protein (pH 4.5 to 5).
GeneralLy, a neutral pH range of 6.5 to 8.0 has been maintained
for the systems currently operating. In the Phase I Development
Document, it was stated that DAF performance would be signifi-
cantly improved as a result of increased operator skill, chemical
optimization and development of new coagulants and flocculents.
NPDES monitoring data and additional information collected by the
processors iave historically provided the basis for evaluating
flotation technology relative to seafood processing wastewaters.
However, much of the information developed at the Terminal Island
tuna canner:..es, prior to November 1976, was accumulated using
/) :
-------
sample c:ollection and analytical techniques which were inconsis-
tent with EPA approved procedures and Standard Hethods (30)
To generate reliable DAF operating data, a field sampling effort
was conducted at the Terminal Island facilities. Both installa-
tions which employ chemical addition were evaluated over a 10-day
period. Add]tional information was provided by the organizations
which o perate these facilities. All operating data which was
collected following the implementation of EPA approved sampling
and analytical procedures in November 1976, was considered.
However, much of the available data was accumulated during periods
when other commodities such as non-tuna petfood and anchovies were
being processed.
Over a four-day period, the waste loads attributed to non-tuna
petfood production were quantified in terms of raw material.
Based on the limited data collected, the contributions of the
petfood operations were found to be substantial and quite variable
as shown in Table 42.
Data collected during the 10-day sampling efforts at each Terminal
Island EacliLty when non-tuna petfood was being processed is
summarized in Table 43. T.I. No. 1 achieved higher removals than
T.I. No. 2 for each parameter considered. This was felt to be a
result of the significantly greater influent concentrations ob-
served at T.I. No. 1.
-------
TABLE 42
NON-TUNA PETFOOD CONTRIBUTION TO THE
DAF INFLUENT WASTE LOADS
Parameter
(kg/kkg of Raw Material)
(kg/kkg of Raw Material)
Five-Day BOD
10.2
1.8-20.9
Total Suspended
Solids
3.8
1.1-8.2
Oil & Grease
7.3
4.0-16.6
During the s.3mpling program conducted at the Terminal Island tuna
canneries, influent. samples were analyzed for soluble BOD 5 . A
standard method is not available for determining this parameter;
however, it is general practice to use the filtrate from the total
suspended solids analysis which has passed through 0.45 micron
filter paper. The relationship between the soluble portion of the
influent BUD 5 as measured and total BOD 5 removal is shown in
Figure 3. For this data, the line of best fit was determined
through the method of least squares. A fairly good correlation
(r= -0.30) :Lndicates that as the influent soluble BOD 5 portion
increases, the percent total BUD 5 removal decreases. Therefore,
minimizing the soluble portion of the influent through pH optimiz-
ation to the isoelectric point, becomes critical in maintaining
consistent BUD 5 removals.
Selected industrial self—monitoring data generated at T.I. No. 1
during strictly tuna processing operations is presented in Table
44. Indications are that greater and more consistent removals
-------
ThBLE 43
D4F PERFOft’L .CE FOR THE TERII\AL ISLA\D
Effluent Concentration (mg/I)
8005 TS 4
lean Ran2e Mean Rang lean Range
1,320 180-314 70 8 11 1-220
669 132-308 40 4 4 5-123
659-1,740
265
339-936
190
Plant
T
I No I
I
I. No 2
(CALIFOR .lA) TUNA CANNERIES
lean
OUUJ
I
Mean
vii
.rease
42
9
7 8-77
9
74
8
46
Range
5-89
6
835
R n e
43
3-98
0
24
3 12 0-47
0
48
2
18
5-62
5
64 3
0-96
8
-------
LEGEND
V T1NoI
• TINo2
SOLUBLE BOOS
TOTAL 8005
OF OAF INFLUENT
Figure 3. Percent BOD 5 removal as a function of
the soluble portion of the influent BOD 5
V
100
80
60
40
20
V
-J
4
>
0
L i
U,
0
I-.
z
Li
U
Ii i
Q.
V
VW
V
S
S
S
S
S
0
S
V
I I
.20 .40
60
.80
I.00
,1
-------
TABLE 44
D41 PERFOR’L4 cE FOR TL .A t.;STE lER BASED ON INDLSTRIAL SELF-9ONITORJ\G DATA AT T I O
EEiLtJENT CUNt.L’ ii
-------
were achieved as compared to those observed during the 10-day
effort when non-tuna petfood was processed.
Three approaches are available to introduce air into the waste-
water for flotation: 1) total flow pressurization; 2) partial
pressurization; and 3) pressurized effluent recycle. To place
the performance data in perspective, the operating mode for each
facility should be noted. With the exception of one Terminal
Island instaLlation (T.I.No.1) which utilizes pressurized recycle,
the total f.Low pressurization mode has been adopted by the tuna
processing industry.
Two DAT facilities operating in Puerto Rico treat wastewaters
which are generated during essentially tuna canning operations.
Self-monitorLng data was supplied by both installations to provide
a basis for performance evaluation. At one facility, daily com-
posite samples were analyzed for the significant parameters using
approved methods. For the other facility, usefulness of the data
collected is limited due to the analysis of grab samples which
served as the basis for performance. Table 45 summarizes the
composite sample data for BOD 5 and total suspended solids as well
as the grab oil and grease information accumulated in Puerto Rico
over a three-month period in 1977.
The tuna canneries in American Samoa operate DAF systems which are
similar to those installed in Puerto Rico. Only tuna related
production activities, which include red meat tuna petfood and
-------
TARLE 45
DAF PERFOR1ANCE FOR TIJNA .ASTE .ATER BASED ON INDLSTRIAL
SELF-IONITORING DATA AT t PUERFO RICO FACILITY
lonth’77
Mean
BOD5
Range
Mean
TSS
Range
Oil & Grease
Mean Range
RODS
Mean
Mean
ISS
REMOVAL
Oil & Grease
July
868
85—1,670
213
40-1,100
224
40-785
44 3 10
3-78 3 60
6
Range
3 9-91
Mean
1 49 6 2
Range
5-82
1
August
743
120-2,000
229
65—625
184
24-980
39 2 6
6-85 3 62
7 10 8-93 9 64 0 8
1-87
8
September
753
24—2,100
36S
6
0-1,520
216
32-820
45 4 1
0-91
1 65
3
2 6—98 8 65 1 20
0-97
8
-------
tuna meal, ‘ire conducted at this facility. It should be noted,
however that the wastewater characteristics are significantly
different due to the absence of a solubles plant at both facili-
ties. Therefore, pre-cook water and press water from the tuna
scrap reduction process are discharged to the DAF treatment sys-
tems resulting in significantly higher wasteloads.
In August 1976, the EPA National Enforcement Investigation Center
(NEIC) undertook a compliance monitoring survey of the American
Samoa canneries. Samples were collected for six 24-hour periods
at the .S. No. 1 facility while monitoring data was accumulated
for a total of eight days at the other cannery. The higher re-
moval rates documented at A.S. No. 1, as indicated in Table 46,
can be partially attributed to a lower operating pH range of 4.2
to 6.5 which approaches the isoelectric point within this flota-
tion ce]1.
For other industry segments, the application of DAF has been
limited. Investigations were conducted by the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada in 1971-72 to demonstrate the applicability of
this technology for wastewaters generated during the processing of
salmon, herring and bottom fish. Acceptable performance was
clearly established for the wastewaters studied. Additional data
has been ac umu1ated for the full-scale demonstration unit at
British Columbia Packers, Limited. While operated by plant per-
sonnel, information was collected utilizing a variety of sampling
procedures to establish DAF performance for wastewaters generated
/3
-------
T RLE 46
D F PERFOR’L\NCE FOR THF . ‘IFRICA\ S. M0A TII 1A NF RiES
EFFLLFNTCO CENTRATL0 (mg/I) _____ PERCE’.T RE 1O’ AL
BODS TSS Oil & Grease BODS TSS ___________
Range lean Mean Range 1ean Range Mean Range
1,500-3,900 220 70-620 120 26-340 94-98
820-1,120 290 60—510 230 18-280 23-93
—- -— 95
66
Plant
lean
AS
No
1
2,480
AS
No
2
970
Oil &
Mean
Grease
Range
88
64-99
57
33-97
I -
-------
during the processing of various commodities. Flow recordings
were no available for several sampling days. Due to the nature
of data collection procedures, it is difficult to adequately
assess the capabilities of this in-place flotation unit.
At a Gulf Ccast cannery, a demonstration DAF treatment system was
installed to establish the effectiveness of this physical-chemical
process in handling shrimp and oyster processing wastewaters. The
major portion of this investigation was devoted to defining the
treatability of the biodegradeable shrimp wastes. With attentive
operation and chemical addition, it was found that significant
reductions of conventional pollutants can be achieved. Alum
followed by polymer addition were the primary flotation aides in-
vestigated. However, wastewater conditioning with lignosulfonic
acid and polymer was found to yield similar results. A comparable
degree of treatment was achieved for oyster cannery effluent with
minor modifications to the system which was designed for shrimp.
For pressurization, the recycle mode was found to yield the most
consistent results for both commodities; however, total flow
pressurization demonstrated good performance. Results documented
for this sysl:em are summarized in Table 47.
Foreign literature has described the use of flotation technology
for a variety of related seafood processing effluents. In Japan,
DAF treatment with chemical addition has been successful in treat-
ing wastewater from plants which handle cod, mackerel, squid, tuna
and sardines (31,32) Although significant removals of BOD (50 to
)39
-------
TABLE 47
PERFORMAi CE OF DAF DE9ONSTR;T1O S STEH
EFFLUENT CONCE TRATIO (mg/i
I SS
Ri Mean _____
230-756 140 28-348
154-260 230 84-444
?rocess
haste ater 1ean
Shrimp
453
Oysters
224
AT GULF COAST CAN’4ER\
Oil & Grease
BODS -
REMOVAL
TSS
Oil & Grease
Mean
Mean
18
2
Range
4-30
56
5
Range
22-72
Mean
65
6
Range
19-94
85
Mean
0
Range
67-99
42
-------
60 percent), suspended matter (80 to 90 percent), and oil and
grease (80 10 90 percent) are achieved with chemical additions,
further treatment is required to meet the stricter effluent stan-
dards imposed by the Japanese government.(32)
The flotation process was the subject of another Japanese study
which emphasized fish oil and protein recovery (33). Following
gravity oil separation, wastes generated from the processing of
finfish were subjected to pressurized flotation. An average 77
percent decrease in BOD and 86 percent suspended solids reduction
were reported for the various species with a significant recovery
of proteinaceous material noted.
Cursory evaluations were undertaken by the Swedish National En-
vironment Protection Board at several processing facilities which
employ some form of air flotation for treatment. Generally, the
testing period ranged from one to three days at each facility
processing fLsh in combination with other food commodities. This
physica].-chetnical process preceded discharge to municipal treat-
ment facilities at the majority of the seven processing plants
investigated The levels of pollutant removals varied consider-
ably among those plants. (34,35,36,37,38,39) Without the benefit
of pH optirriization, one fish cannery achieved removals of 36
percent BOD, 65 percent total suspended solids and 60 percent oil
and grease civer a two-day period.(35) Non-fish commodities were
not processed at this facility.
I //
-------
During the investigations cited, the most evident parameters
consideted for DAF treatment were: 1) surface loading; 2) solids
loading; 3) air to solids ratio and 4) pH. Normal surface load-
ings for full pressurization systems range from 1 to 2 gpm/ft 2
(0.35 to 0.71 1/minIm 2 ). Solids loadings in excess of 1.0
lb/hour/ft 2 (0.04 kg/hour/rn 2 ) were not recommended. For seafood
wastewaters, an air to solids ratio should be maintained within a
range of 0.01 to 0.04. With these criteria met, consistent per-
formance can be achieved with proper chemical additions and by
optimizing the pH to the isoeletric point of fish protein (pH
4.5-5.0).
To a lesser extent, dispersed air technology has been investigated
on a pilot p]ant level and employed as a full-scale approach. Air
bubbles can be entrained within the wastewater either mechanically
or by diffusing air into the bottom of a flotation cell. The
mechanical approach is more common and two different methods have
been documented.
In the United States, a centrifugal concentrator (CSC) which
employs a fine-mesh screen (165 to 400-mesh) is utilized to blend
surrounding air with the waste stream as it is centrifugally
forced through the screen. A small portion of the wastewater is
retained by the mechanism as concentrate and is continually dis-
charged. The larger portion with air entrained is then released
to a flotation cell for further treatment. Chemicals are added
prior to concentration and again to assist the flotation process
-------
as illustrated in Figure 4. During some investigations, pH was
adjusted to 10.5 with lime to enhance removals of the treatment
system. To date, pilot plant assessments have been performed for
processing wastes generated by the shrimp, tuna, and salmon in-
dustries. Performance of this technology for several wastewaters
is summarized in Tables 48 and 49. Full-scale equipment has been
installed at a tuna cannery and a trout processing plant. As
indicated in Table 50, the CSC-flotation system was found to be
particu arly effective with chemical addition. Except where
noted, chemj.cals were utilized to enhance removal efficiencies.
The renaming mechanical method employs propellers to produce
small air bubbles through a shearing action. For seafood wastes,
this technology was the subject of one European investigation and
achieved excellent results. After 15 minutes of retention, the
fat and suspended matter content of a fish cannery effluent was
reduced in excess of 99 and 86 percent, respectively. (40)
The final method for floating suspended particles and fats and
oils to the surface of a cell for removal is referred to as elec-
troflotation. The concept adopted by a United States manufacturer
employs two physical mechanisms for achieving pollutant removal:
1) reducing the electrical charges of particles to promote coagu-
lation; and 2) producing hydrogen and oxygen bubbles through
electrolysis to float the destabilized particles. In the electro-
coagulation cell, insoluble materials are coagulated, flocculated
and floated. Chemicals are added prior to the wastewater entering
/7
-------
SCRFFNEfl IPJFLUENT
COAGULANTS (e g alum)
POLYMER
CsC AIRENTRAINED
WA STEWATE R
— SLUDGE TREATED EFFLUENT
_________ N
FLOTATION CELL I
L_J
CSC UNDERFLOW
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of CSC — flotation process with chemical addition.
-------
TABLE 48
PERFORMANCE FOR CSC - FLOTATION SYSTEM
cj
Process
Wastewater
No. of
Samples
PE
RCENT REMOVAL
BODS
TSS
Oil
& Grease
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Salmon
8
72.5
50.6-85.0
88.1
81.8-97.5
94.9
88.5-99.2
Salmon
2
75.4
70.5-80.2
93.9
93.1-94.6
92.9
91.0-94.7
Tuna
10
66.1
41.3-90.5
84.8
60.4—97.6
93.9
75.2-99.4
Shrimp
3
80.1
71.4-88.2
91.8
-
89.1
-
U
PILOT PLANT
Information based on composite samples
-------
TABLE 49
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FROM CSC - FLOTATION SYSTEM
Species
No. of
Samples
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/i)
BOD5
TSS
Oil & Grease
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Salmon
8
737
325-1,260
181
66—270
31
5-75
Salmon
2*
518
415-620
109
108—110
72
47-96
Tuna
12
1,060
100-1,710
145
40-302
71
1-270
Shrimp
3
196
115-247
55
—
12
—
*Information based on composite samples
-------
TABLE 50
PERFORNANCE OF FULL-SCALE CSC - FLOTATION SYSTE 1
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/i) PERCENT REHOVAL
BOD 5 TSS Oil & Grease TSS Oil & Grease
1,560 1,130
189 100
BODç
—
34.1
44.7
-
28
84.0
82.2
85.2
without chemical addition (unpublished data; N?IFS - Seattle)
see Reference 41
the cell. In addition to negating particle charge, electrocoag-
ulation offers the advantage of producing smaller bubbles ranging
from 50 to 110 microns, whereas dissolved air systems release
bubbles with a diameter of 100 to 150 microns. (42,43) Smaller
bubbles provide better adhesion and are capable of attaching
themselves to smaller flocs.
Although flotation induced by electrolysis has been established as
a potential pollution control technology for the food industry by
one principle investigator. (43,44,45), seafood plants have not
adopted it on a full-scale level to date. Published information
regarding bench-scale and pilot plant investigations of this
physical-cheoiical process for the seafood industry is lacking in
the United Etates. However, an EPA funded study is on-going to
determine the applicability of electroflotation to the New England
seafood processing industry. It is important that economics as
well as the technical aspects are considered for this technology.
/L7/7’
Process
Wastewater —
Tuna 1
2
Trout
-------
Electroflotation and its application to fish processing effluents
has been described by a Japanese author. (46) Emphasis was placed
on the need to operate the system at the isoelectric point. Prior
to undergoing electrolysis, wastewater was screened and pH ad-
justed. As with other flotation schemes, chemical addition is
required to effect flocculation. Treatment capacity of the system
was estimated at 150 to 200 m 3 /hour, and influent COD of 700 to
2,000 mg/i was effectively reduced to 200 to 400 mg/i. A pH range
of 4.8 to 5.5 was maintained for treating pollack processing
was tewater.
In Canada, a patent has been issued for an apparatus which separ-
ates proteins from water using ozone in combination with oxygen.
The concept appears to be similar to electroflotation whereby the
charge of protein molecules is altered to encourage coagulation.
Resulting f:loated material is skimmed from the liquid surface
prior to exiting the reactor. Performance data for this approach
is unavailable at the present time.
From the preceding discussion, it has been established that flo-
tation technology is diversified and extensively applied in treat-
ing a variety of food and seafood processing wastewaters through-
out the world. Pollutant removal rates have been proven to be
comparable for the various methods of introducing gas bubbles into
the wastewater. However, efficiencies can be expected to vary for
wastewa ers generated by different processing operations. Consis-
tent and optimum results can be achieved through attentive opera-
14S
-------
tirnt and pH optimization to the isoelectric point of the waste-
water undergoing treatment.
Advanced Technologies
Alternative physical—chemical processes which are considerably
more sophisticated, have been considered by several investigators
for various wastewaters. Menhaden bailwater has been the subject
of two studies at a major university. State agencies are re-
quiring substantial treatment for this highly contaminated waste
stream and fish meal facilities have been encouraged to process it
through an evaporation plant. As a result, it is desirable to
significantly reduce the volume requiring concentration.
Reverse osmosis is one process which has received consideration on
a bench scare level. Following primary flotation to remove oil
and suspended particles, the bailwater was introduced into a
batch-type unit. Substantial pollutant reductions were achieved
at an optimun pressure of 30 psi (88 kg/cm 2 ); 98 percent BOD 5 91
percent suspended solids, and 90 percent fat.(47) With the re-
suiting effluent quality, (75 mg/i BOD 5 and 50 mg/i TSS), it is
possible that the permeate is suitable for reuse within the plant;
i.e., w shdown.
An overview of baiiwater clarification utilizing an acid activated
clay column was also conducted.(48) Conclusions from the pilot
plant study indicate that significant reductions of pollutants can
I4
-------
be achieved and continued investigations are warranted for this
treatmerLt process.
In a cursory manner, treatability of shellfish processing waste-
waters utilizing filtration, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption
and chemical precipitation was studied.(49) The effluent from one
clam processor was employed for this investigation. Bench scale
results showed that only carbon adsorption proved ineffective for
end-of-pipe treatment. The inability of carbon adsorption to
treat shrimp processing effluents was verified by another
study. ( ,4)
Advanced treatment of air flotation effluent from a fish cannery
was evaluated by NNFS. The objective of this study was to deter-
mine the viability of wastewater renovation and reuse. During the
process ng of salmon and tuna, separate tests were undertaken to
assess the performance of a package physical-chemical unit.
Chemica [ coagulation assisted by activated carbon addition and
followed by settling and filtration was the treatment scheme
employed. The limited data which was generated is summarized in
Table 51.
A clam proc€ssor in Delaware has contemplated the installation of
a manufactuied physical-chemical treatment system which consists
of flocculation through pH adjustment, filtration and carbon
ISO
-------
TABLE 51
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF AIR FLOATION EFFLUENT
FOR THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY
Process EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/i) PERCENT REMOVAL
Wastewater BOD 5 TSS Oil & Grease BOD 5 TSS Oil & Grease
Salmon 1 390 39 26 37.1 64.5 46.2
Tuna 2 1,350 125 130 11.8 48.3 18.8
‘Information based on composite samples
2 lnformation based on grab samples
adsorption. The location of the plant on a water quality limited
segment has prompted this consideration in lieu of biological
treatmei t. Funding as a demonstration project has been sought by
the processor.
The lim]ted information available for advanced treatment processes
provides an indication of seafood industry’s level of sophistica-
tion regarding water pollution control. Current BPCTCA regula-
tions do not encourage treatment beyond screening for most pro-
cessors Interest in higher degrees of treatment normally occurs
as a result of the implementation of permit programs by state
agencies on water quality limited segments. In some instances,
wastewaLer renovation for plant reuse may be an objective; how-
ever, this concept has not received a great deal of attention
within this industry where sufficient process water is generally
availab Le.
/ r
/ D
-------
Biologit’al Treatment
Several biological processes are available to effectively reduce
the organic loads discharged into receiving waters. These pro-
cesses can be separated into two major areas: 1) suspended
growth; and 2) attached growth. Activated sludge and its modifi-
cations, including extended aeration and aerobic lagoon treatment
are considered suspended growth systems. Trickling filters and
rotating biological contactors (RBC) are categorized as attached
biomass systems.
High Rate Aerobic Systems
The conventional activated sludge process can produce relatively
high degrees of treatment when properly designed and skillfully
operated. To provide a conducive environment for treatment, some
seafood processing effluents may require additional buffering
capacity. Sufficient nutrients to support biological oxidation
should be av. ilable.
Shock loadings are highly detrimental to process efficiency;
however, flow equalization can reduce the impact of this occur-
rence. A re atively constant source of wastewater with consistent
organic loads is desireable to maintain acceptable performance.
Clarification is required for biomass-liquid separation and sub-
sequent s1ud e recycle to maintain high oxidation rates.
I5
-------
Due to the longer detention time in the aeration basin, extended
aeration is more tolerant of shock loadings, provided the clar-
ifier can accommodate peak hydraulic loads. Nearly continuous
wastewater f.Low is usually necessary to maintain adequate treat-
ment. Intermittent processing schedules with several days of
shut-down wil:hout supplemental carbonaceous feed does not permit
efficient operation.
Fixed growth systems offer a greater resistance to hydraulic
surges than the suspended biomass systems discussed previously.
1u1tip1e stages are preferable for reducing the impact of sudden
high organic loads. Simpler operation is characteristic of REC’s
and trickling filters. During periods of low or no flow, effluent
recycle can be employed to maintain biological activity and ac-
ceptable wetting rates. Similar to suspended growth systems,
extended per]ods of processing plant inactivity, is detrimental to
the performance of these systems. Ambient temperature also plays
a significant role in attached growth systems. Since the biomass
is exposed t the air, freezing can occur during winter operation
in northern climates. Trickling filters and RBC’s can be housed
to maintain above freezing temperature; however, trickling filters
are more subject to reduced efficiencies during cold weather
operation. Phase separation and recycle of clarified effluent to
the oxidation process is necessary to maintain high activity
rates. Although areas required for the reactors are relatively
small, additional land is necessary to accommodate the clarifiers
and ancillary equipment.
-------
A study was undertaken which determined the major considerations
for developing a wastewater treatment scheme applicable to the
seafood industry to be: 1) low capital cost; 2) ease of oper-
ation; and 3) relatively small space requirement. Using these
criteria, an approach to handling 2,000 gallons per day (7,570
1/day) of oyster and blue crab packing effluent was investigated.
Employing a batch-type extended aeration process, the system
achieved 80 to 90 percent BOD removal with a final average efflu-
ent concentration of 150 mg/1.(51) The entire biological system
was contained in a 32-foot trailer, with screening provided at the
point of raw wastewater collection.
For treating process wastewaters from a salmon plant, a demonstra-
tion project to evaluate extended aeration was undertaken in the
contigucus siates.(52) Effluent from manual butchering operations
was screened, aerobically oxidized, followed by polishing in one
of two available ponds. Acceptable performance was achieved;
however, fish food was added to the aeration basin to maintain
biological activity when no processing was taking place. Most
salmon processing facilities operate during a several month period
with variable production schedules. Daily production levels also
vary considerably. To maintain biological activity in the treat-
ment system, it would be necessary to add substantial quantities
of food and nutrients to maintain activity.
For screened shrimp processing wastes, the application of the RBC
process was found to be feasible through a bench-scale, contin-
-------
uous-flow unit. System loadings were comparable to those gener-
ally employed for other industrial wastewaters. BOD removal
across a two stage system was found to approach 95 percent, and it
was indicated that clarification would not be a problem. (53) A
less elaborate presentation of RBC studies summarized BOD reduc-
tions ranging from 71 to 79 percent for relatively less contain-
mated fishecy waste. (54)
Lagoon Treatment
In view of the intermittent loads associated with the seafood
processing industry in general, lagoon treatment systems appear to
be applicable for obtaining reasonable long-term performance.
Various modes of wastewater lagooning which include aerobic and
anaerobic processes are common in other food processing indus-
tries. Lagoons which are maintained aerobic, either naturally or
mechanically, can provide acceptable treatment. Organic loadings
and hydraulic retention times are selected, based on the method of
supplying oxygen to the system. Supplemental aeration allows the
ponds to be deeper which is advantageous for colder climates and
areas with Limited land availability. The major disadvantage of
ponds or lagoons is the relatively large land requirement.
Salt content of the wastewater should not pose an insurmountable
problem for aerobic processes; however, it is a serious consider-
ation for an.3erobic alternatives. In addition, it should be noted
that metabolic rates for anaerobic biomass is significantly less
155
-------
than for aecobes, thereby requiring longer retention times and
larger ]and areas.
Lagoon wastewater systems have generated a greater interest than
the other biological treatment alternatives previously mentioned.
On a bench scale, two investigations were conducted regarding
aerobic treatability of shellfish wastewaters. One study found
that 90 percent BOD 5 and 68 percent COD removal could be achieved
for eff]uent . generaLed by a breaded, frozen shrimp operation with
less than one day aeration and no sludge recycle. (55) Longer
hydrauLic retention times were evaluated for a treatability study
of clam processing wastewaters. After a five-day retention time,
COD reductions exceeded 90 percent and total nitrification had
occurred. (25) Average effluent concentrations of 18 mg/l BOD,
and 36 mg/i total suspended solids were also observed. Based on
this study, a land requirement of approximately one acre was found
to be necessary to effectively treat 40,000 gallons per day (150
m 3 /day) of c.Lam processing wastewaters.
Although sail: toxicity poses a potential problem, anaerobic oxida-
tion has been considered as a treatment alternative for selected
seafood processing effluents. Conventional anaerobic treatment
processes were not found to be well suited for screened shrimp
wastewaters. (56) A contact process with solids recycle was
suggested to reduce the apparent inhibitory effects. (50)
-------
Treatment by lagoons in series has been found to be effective for
several different fish processing effluents. During the investi-
gations noted, emphasis was placed on anaerobic treatment followed
by an aerobic lagoon.
Due to the highly concentrated nature of stickwater, anaerobic
lagoons were evaluated as a possible alternative for a fish meal
facility. Chemical coagulation and sedimentation with dewatering
of the resulting sludge preceded biological treatment. The super-
natant had a BOD 5 content in excess of 20,000 mg/l. (56) Follow-
ing anaerobic oxidation which achieved approximately 80 percent
BOD 5 reductiDn, aerobic treatment was required to obtain accept-
able effluent. BODS and total suspended solids levels for discharge
into receiving waters.
An innovative approach which utilizes an anaerobic lagoon followed
by aerobic treatment has been researched for crab wastes. (57) In
addition to waste disposal, recovery of a useful resource was an
objecti ’e. terobic oxidation consisted of a lagoon followed by
trickling filtration for nitrification. Emphasis was placed on
reducing the quantity of solids which entered the waste stream.
Waste solid5. were ground after collection and treated in the
system described above. Relative to anaerobic digestion, no
problems were encountered with the salinity of the water. Algae
cultures thrived on the digester effluent during aerobic treat-
ment. In lieu of nitrification, the nurturing of oysters was
attempted with algae laden effluent but inconclusive results were
/57
-------
obtained. However, BOD 5 removals in excess of 90 percent were
measured and a 95 percent reduction of solid wastes volume (85
percent by weight) was realized. The residue appears to have some
nutrient, value, and similar results were expected for salmon and
shrimp wastes.
The various forms of biological wastewater treatment have been
reviewed along with recent information relative to their applic-
ability to the seafood industry. In general, activated sludge
systems would be difficult to operate effectively for most seafood
processing plants which process intermittently. This would also
apply to attached growth systems (trickling filter and RBC),
although the resulting impact is less. Clarification is required
for all of these processes.
From the standpoint of reliability, aerated lagoons appear to
possess the ability to handle intermittent, highly variable waste
loads which are characteristic of the industry. Performance data
from beach ;ca1e and pilot plant investigations provides a good
indication that both fish and shellfish wastewaters are treatable
using this approach. Reductions in BOD 5 and TSS, and their re-
spective effluent levels were acceptable for the specific waste-
waters investigated. However, the major disadvantage of aerated
lagoons is the land requirement which limits their application to
most subcate: ories. At locations where conditions permit, aerobic
oxidation with a BOD 5 loading of 2 lb/l,000 ft 3 /day (0.03
kg/m 3 /day) and hydraulic retention times approximating 25 days can
provide adequate performance for the industry.
-------
Land Treatment
Utilizing land for the treatment of wastewaters has been the
subject of increased interest during recent years. This approach
to wastewater renovation is viable when sufficient and suitable
land is avai].able. Existing soil conditions are the major criter-
ion for determining the suitability of a site. For much of the
industry, s ’itable land areas are either severely limited or
unavailable.
V
Three general approaches have been developed for applying waste-
water to selected land areas: 1) irrigation of a cover crop or
vegetation; 2) overland flow; and 3) infiltration- percolation.
Due to the nature of seafood processing effluents, pretreatment (a
minimum of fine screening) is necessary to implement any of the
land treatment options. Overland flow and infiltration-percola-
tion alternatives will generally require substantial pretreatment
to minimize operational problems and assure effective operation.
For an irrigation system, wastewater can be distributed over a
designated land area by spraying or flooding. Removal of solids
by screening and/or sedimentation is essential to prevent plugging
of spray no2.zles and solids deposition in flooded furrows which
could clog the soil. Ultimately, odor problems and system failure
would result from soil clogging. (58)
-------
Several concerns come to light when considering the irrigation of
land with seafood processing effluents. The primary one is the
total disso]ved solids content, particularly sodium concentra-
tions. Large use of salt water during plant operations would
prove to be incompatible with irrigation technology. Evaluations
relative to the specific wastewater requiring treatment and the
site under consideration are necessary. In addition, climate is
important for irrigation systems. Facilities located in cold
climates may require storage depending upon the timing and length
of the processing season. The final concern is the determination
of loading rates. Wastewater characteristics dictate whether
hydraulic application rates or other factors will control. With a
proteinaceous wastewater, such as that found within the seafood
industry, nitrogen loading must be considered to prevent ground-
water contamination.
Two clam processing facilities in Maryland which employ spray
irrigat.ion for ultimate wastewater disposal were identified.
Prior to spraying, plant effluent is passed through a fine screen
and a CSC followed by sedimentation to minimize problems associ-
ated with nozzle clogging. At one facility, filtration has been
contemp.Lated as a further safeguard for the irrigation system.
This disposal method has proven effective for these facilities
which generate relatively low volumes of wastewater from essen-
tially manual processing operations.
j o
-------
Treatment For tlult i-Product Operations
Information presented in Section V addresses wastewater character-
istics for individual subcategories; however, numerous plants
process more than one commodity or utilize varied processing
operations For the same raw material. For example, several
Alaskan facilities hand-butcher salmon for freezing, in addition
to cann:Lng mechanically—butchered fish. The flows and waste loads
for these operatioi . .iirfer dramatically. It then becomes nec-
essary to consider end-of-pipe treatment technologies in relation
to the commodities processed and the corresponding wastewater
characterist LCS.
Short term, on-site investigations should be undertaken to iden-
tify interactions among all the waste streams generated coinci-
dently. Combined process wastewaters could conceivably enhance
treatability due to dampening peaks for organic and/or hydraulic
loadings, pH neutralization or dilution of high salt concentra-
tions. However, a detrimental effect could result from increased
peaking factors. This occurence would possibly dictate provisions
for oversized equalization facilities to allow the installation of
smaller, more economical treatment equipment.
During evaluation procedures at specific facilities, attention
should be directed at segregating highly concentrated waste
streams for more effective treatment. Non-contact water such as
that utilized for can cooling should also be isolated for poten-
-------
tial reuse cr direct discharge. As in single commodity plants,
byproduct recovery is encouraged to reduce end-of-pipe wasteloads.
Proposals for effluent treatment technologies should consider the
potential combinations of commodities at one facility. From an
economic viewpoint, it is desirable to employ one treatment
facility for the waste streams generated by the various production
lines. The characteristics of the different waste streams will
general]y control individual equipment selection, and in some
cases, trade offs will be necessary to minimize costs.
Another immediate concern within the industry is the processing of
diverse products during different times of the year. An example
of this occurrence is the sequential processing of shrimp and
oysters at selected Gulf Coast plants. From the standpoint of the
plant owners, a common treatment system for both commodities is
desirab] e.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTING SUBCATEGORY TECH1 OLOGY BASE
As described in Section V, wastewater characteristics vary among
the industry subcategories considered. Applicable waste manage-
ment technologies have been discussed herein, and the criteria and
provisions required for each were outlined. Other considerations
such as multi-product plants and land requirements for technology
implemerttation were also discussed.
-------
Based on the technology assessment presented herein, the rationale
for selecting subcategory waste management techniques is susnmar-
ized. The elected technologies will serve as a basis for cost
development (Section VIII) and ultimately effluent limitations.
Fine screens represent the most basic and wide spread approach to
end-of-pipe treatment for the seafood industry. In the contiguous
United State:;, essentially all seafood processors which discharge
to receiving watcrs have screens in place to meet BPCTCA regula-
tions. However, a significant number of Alaskan plants, espec-
ially in remote areas, are currently grinding their wastes for
direct iischarge into receiving waters. Screens have been found
effective for removal of solids for a variety of seafood waste
streams and wastewaters generated within other industries, such as
red meat and poultry processing. Application of this end-of-pipe
technology is, therefore, justified in terms of its capabilities
for the entire seafood processing industry. As a minimum measure,
all unloading waters (from boat or truck to plant) should be
screened and discharged.
In-plant, water and wastewater management is another pollution
control method which has wide application. Specific methods for
each corrimodi:y were outlined previously as recommended techniques
for reducing flows and waste loads to achievable levels. These
measures were determined to be generally lacking within the appro-
priate subcategories, but should be an integral part of future
efforts to reduce pollutant discharges to receiving waters.
l 3
-------
As part of the technology base for BPCTCA, grease traps were
employed for the following Phase I subcategories: farm raised
catfish:, conventional and mechanized blue crab; Alaskan crab
(meat, whole and sections); and Dungeness and Tanner crab. A
relatively sLmple approach, free grease and oil removal equipment,
is assumed to be in-place in conjunction with screens at facil-
ities which process these commodities. Oil separation equipment
is currently installed at sardine plants as dictated by the Phase
II BPCTCA requireuleuLs.
In selecting end-of-pipe treatment technologies to serve as a
basis for effluent limitations beyond BPCTCA, the major consider-
ations were: 1) geographical location; 2) seasonality; 3)
processing schedules; 4) land availability; 5) process waste-
water volume ;; 6) wastewater characteristics; and 7) demonstrated
performance of the technologies considered. The following dis-
cussion relates to the selection of end-of—pipe treatment tech-
nologies for specific subcategories. Effective operation of the
treatment systems outlined in the subsequent narrative, as with
all treatment facilities, is dependent upon proper design, in-
stallatiori, operation, and maintenance. The statements relative
to operational capabilities assume that the systems are properly
designed and operated.
-------
Farm Rased Catfish
Aerated lagoon treatment represents an applicable technology for
catfish processors, due to the system’s ability to accommodate
intermittent plant operation and variable flows and waste loads.
Principally inland operations, catfish processing plants do not
have the land availability constraints faced by the remainder of
the seafood industry. Several facilities which currently treat
screened effluenLs i i lagoons or impoundments were identified.
Plants ].ocated near population centers discharge pretreated waste-
water 10 municipal secondary treatment facilities. Although
seasonality is characteristic of this industry, the raw material
supply can be controlled to some extent by harvesting procedures
and scheduling.
Conventional Blue Crab
Implementation of in-plant measures as outlined previously will
serve as a means to further reduce waste loads which are currently
screened and discharged under BPCTCA regulations. Plants within
this subcategory are typically small, locally owned businesses,
with highly variable production schedules. Water usage is small
with the contamination attributable to the cooking and clean-up
operations. Through in-plant isolation of the cooker water for
separate disposal and by eliminating non-contact flow from the
process effluent, in a relatively small volume requiring discharge
to receiving waters would result.
-------
1echanized Blue Crab
Chemically optimized DAF is capable of providing acceptable treat-
ment fo i the wastewaters generated by the mechanized processing of
blue crab. 1ajor considerations for this industry are the season-
ality arid irLtermittent availability of raw material to process.
The use of picking machines increases the wastewater flows and
waste loads many times beyond those observed for conventional
operations. Brine from the flotation tanks could present opera-
tional dlffLculties relative to salt toxicity for biological
treatment sVstems. Physical-chemical treatment (DAF) should
function adequately under the conditions which characterize this
subcategory and achieve performance levels comparable to those
recorded for Pacific Coast crab plants as indicated in Table 52.
TABLE 52
TREATHENT OF CRAB PROCESSING WASTEWATER
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION AND DAF (59)
Effluent Concentration (mg/l) Percent Removal
Parameter
TSS
47-710
69
COD
95-940
65
Note: [ nforination represents an average of three runs
/“
-------
Alaskan Crab
For additional waste management, the implementation of recommended
in-plant rnea ;ures to supplement screens is applicable. Processing
of crab in Alaska involves the three major species: King, Tanner
and Dungeness. Plants generally produce crab meat or frozen
sections from the King and Tanner species. The bulk of Dungeness
crab processed is generated as a whole product. For the most
part, plants have the capability to produce more than one of the
commodities mentioned; however, market conditions usually dictate
the forn of the finished product. It is, therefore, essential
that a common technology be employed as a basis for the crab meat,
and whole and section crab subcategories.
Another consideration is the raw material availability. During
the appropriate seasons, harvesting and subsequent processing is
highly dependent on weather conditions, which can be severe during
most of the year. Suitable land for the construction of waste-
water treatm nt facilities is at a premium in the areas where crab
is processed. A great number of plants are supported over the
water b pilngs.
Dungeness and Tanner Crab in the Contiguous States
Dissolved air flotation treatment which is chemically optimized is
capable of reducing pollutants found in crab processing effluent
with minimal land requirements. Dungeness and Tanner crab repre-
I 7
-------
sent the species processed on the Pacific Coast of the contiguous
states. Generally, plants have significantly smaller production
capabil]tles and weather is less severe than found in Alaska.
Production schedules are also less variable. The use of a brine
tank di [ fers West Coast operations from Alaskan plants. Intro-
duction of brine into the waste stream creates a potential for
inhibit]ng b]ological oxidation processes. Available data for the
application of DAF technology to crab processing wastewaters is
summarized in Table 52.
Alaskan Shrin
Successlul implementation of in-plant measures which have been
identified can be effective in minimizing the discharge of pollu-
tants by shrimp processors. Factors influencing the technology
basis for this subcategory are very much similar to those outlined
for Alaskan crab processing. Dependence of raw product avail-
ability on weather conditions is a major consideration. Heavy
activity during peak months and intermittent operations over the
remaining portion of the year is also characteristic. In addi-
tion, land constraints are prevalent throughout major processing
areas.
Northern Shr]
Chemically optimized DAF treatment has been demonstrated as being
effective for shrimp processing wastewaters by several investi-
-------
gators. Water usage within these plants is significant as are the
wasteloads. This physical-chemical process is capable of oper-
ating intermittently, and requires considerably less land area
than biological treatment alternatives. In Figures 5 and 6, the
capabilities of DAF with chemical addition to remove total sus-
pended solid:; and oil and grease is displayed.
Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp
Treatment by dissolved air flotation with chemical optimization is
also applicable to these shrimp processing wastewaters. The
considerations addressed during the discussion of Northern shrimp
generalLy apply to this subcategory, although the mass emission
rates were determined to be lower. Recent investigations for the
Southern non-breaded shrimp segment have provided much of the
background for developing Figures 5 and 6. Therefore, these
graphs reflect the effectiveness of chemically optimized DAF for
treating was tewaters generated by Southern shrimp plants.
Breaded Shrii
Chemica [ ly optimized DAF treatment is applicable to the waste-
waters generated by shrimp plants which employ breading oper-
ations. These facilities process raw shrimp, utilizing manual
and/or inecharnzed techniques. Variations in processing operations
for this commodity and the increased total suspended solids levels
are not exp€cted to significantly impact the successful operation
-------
E
z
0
I -.
I—
2
Li
0
z
0
0
U)
0
-J
0
U)
-‘ 0
2
Li
a.
(I )
U)
-J
d
0
I.-
z
Li
-J
Li
2
AV
001 0.1 02 05 I 2 5 tO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
PERCENT OF TIME. GIVEN VALUE
998 999
Figure 5. DAF eff]uent quality (TSS) for treatment of shrimp processing wastewater.
-------
190.
80.
ITO -
I80 .1 /
R ISO-
140-
z
2 150-
I —
.4
120-
z
o 110-
z
0
100-
60
I-
z
LI
-J
I a . 40 AVERAGE: 38mg/I
I aJ
0 I 0 2 05 I 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 98 998999 9999
PERCENT OF TIME GIVEN VALUE
Figure 6. DAF effluent quality (O&G) for treatment of shrimp processing wastewater.
-------
of dis:solvei air flotation technology. Performance should
approach the levels indicated in Figures 5 and 6.
Tuna
The operation of DAF systems under chemically optimized conditions
should significantly improve the effluent quality generated by
non-optimized systems. The production of canned tuna represents
an atypical situation when assessed in relation to the remainder
of the industry. Seasonality is not characteristic for the larger
tuna canneries. Vessels travel thousands of kilometers year-round
to catch fish and return them to port. In addition, byproduct
recovery is xtensively practiced by tuna canners. The magnitude
of plant pioduction is generally large. Currently, screened
effluent is chemically treated and subjected to air flotation to
meet BPCTCA regulations. With the adoption of recycle thaw water
systems which use fresh water, aerobic biological oxidation pro-
cesses are a viable treatment alternative, due to the consistent
production within the industry. The limiting factor appears to be
sufficient land area to accommodate a complete secondary system.
Alternatives such as trickling filters and activated sludge pro-
cesses require clarifiers for liquid-solids separation, thus
necessitating the allocation of substantial space in a coastal
zone. Aerat.?d lagoons which require no clarification also con-
suines large Land areas for implementation. Since the vast major-
ity of canne ies are located along waterfront property, difficul-
ties would be encountered in providing sufficient space on exist-
ing property or acquiring additional land adjacent to the plant.
I n
-------
Effective tr atment can be provided through improved operation of
the in-place dissolved air flotation systems. Improvements should
consist of installing ancillary equipment and making the required
provisions fr optimizing pH. Also, better operator training and
investigations involving new coagulants and flocculents are essen-
tial to ach]eving pollutant reductions beyond those indicated in
Figures 7 and 8.
Fish Heal .
The extensive in-plant measures which have been recommended are
definit]ve m ans to substantially reduce pollutant levels, espec-
ially for facilities which do not operate evaporation plants.
Depending on the degree of modernization and production capabil-
ities, facilities producing industrial meals from anchovies and
menhaden either evaporate stickwater and/or bailwater, or handle
these waste streams by alternative means. Generally, the larger,
more mo 1ern plants recycle bailwater, and subsequently evaporate
it with their stickwater and washwater to produce solubles. The
information obtained during the original monitoring program indi-
cates that the elimination of these flows was more than offset by
the condenser dropleg flow. However, the resulting waste loads
were on the order of 20 to 40 times less. Implementation of a
program that allows the evaportation of stickwater and washdown
flows, Ldentlfled as in-platn modifications, will achieve accept-
able mass emLssion rates as indicated in Table 53.
-------
1800
1600 /
I
. —, s,..,
E
2
0
1200
I-
2
Li
U
2
8 1000
(I )
a
-J
0
a eoo•
Li
a
2
Li
0
600
U,
-J
0
400
2
Li
AVERAGE 260mg/I
-i
Li 200
0• , I I I I I I I I I I I I —1
03 I 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99 8
P ERCE NT OF TIME GIVEN VAL.U E
Figure 7. l)AF effluent quality (TSS) for treatment of tuna proceb ing wastewa( r.
-------
900
BOO
I JU
= 600
E
0
500
4
I-
z
z
o 400
U
U)
4
I’J
300
C
z
4
0
I 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99 8
PERCEP.IT OF TIME 
-------
TABLE 53
EFFECTS OF EVAPORATION PLANT OPERATION ON WASTE LOADS
GENERATED BY THE FISH HEAL INDUSTRY (Z)
WASTEWATER SOURCES
Solubles Plant Stickwater
and Bailwater and Bailwater
Hand-Butchered Salmon
Incorporation of in-plant measures into the daily plant activities
is a viable approach to minimizing pollutant levels. Wastewaters
from manual preparation of salmon for freezing or canning repre-
sent relatively low flows and waste loads per unit production. At
some locations, hand operations are supplemental to mechanized
salmon processing which operate mechanized lines in conjunction
with manual processing should direct all process wastewaters to a
common treatment system, possibly consisting of DAF with chemical
addition for optimization.
Alaskan Mechanized Salmon
Implementation of recommended in-plant measures can be effective
in reducing water use and waste loads. Several areas were identi-
fied where in-plant measures will result in substantial reductions
in f1o ratios and mass emission rates. End-of—pipe treatment
Parameter
(kg/kkg)
Solubles
Plant
BOD 5
2.9
6.1
59
Suspended
Solids
1.0
3.8
41
Oil and Grea.;e
0.7
2.5
25
-------
which ]S more sophisticated than fine screens does not appear
warranted. In comparison to West Coast plants, Alaskan facilities
experience a shorter processing season with extremely high pro-
duction levels. A number of canneries are constructed on piles
extending over the water, which is a good indication of the lack
of suitable land for construction. Even though air flotation
requires considerably less space than comparable biological treat-
ment facilities, the reduced land requirements may often exceed
the availability.
Mechani ed Salmon
DAF systems which are chemically optimized have been shown to be
applicable to salmon processing wastewaters. The processing
season in the contiguous states extends over a longer period of
time. Also, production rates are somewhat lower since most plants
employ only one butchering machine and pack one-quarter pound and
one-half pound cans. As a result, flow rates to any proposed
treatment system should be less extreme, thereby minimizing poten-
tial oversi2ing. Physical-chemical treatment which can tolerate
intermittent operation can be effective for the mechanized salmon
industry. Available data relative to achievable levels for re-
ducing total suspended solids and oil and grease concentrations is
presented in Figures 9 and 10.
I 7
-------
14 LEGEND
.
B C. PACKERS
3
12 J 0 ECJ DATA FOR N FS PILOT PLANT
V NMFS PILOT PLANT DATA
\ FRBil 1STE *. n V.
o “‘“‘ 1111% P.
0
— II
E
— 10
z
0
4
9.
z
Li
L) 8
z
0
— U) 7
-4 0
0
U) 6
0
Li
0
2
Li 5
U)
U) 4
-J
4
I - .
o . .•
I - V
0
2
W 2 V V
D
-J .
V
Li I-
V
0 i i i u
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 7 8 19 20 21
INFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/I) , 100
Figure 9. Effluent quality (TSS) relative to influent concentration for
l)AF’ t reaLunclit of s.ilrioii prc)ceHbing wastewater.
-------
LEGEND
50O BC PACKERS
0 ECJ DATA FOR NMFS PILOT PLANT
V NMFS PILOT PLANT DATA
z I 0 FRB HISTORICAL DATA
0
400
I.-
z
w
z
0
300
L i i
U)
L i i
Z 200-
-J
0
2
L ii
100- e
U - V
Lii
. 0
1 \ 0 v
V
0 I I
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
INFLUENT OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION (mg/I)
Figure 10. Effluent quality (O&C) relative to influent concentration for
DAF treatment of salmon processing wastewater.
-------
Alaskan Halibut
In-plant measures as outlined for this subcategory are a viable
approach for supplementing in-place screens and controlling pollu-
tant thschaiges. In Alaska, the processing of halibut is gener-
ally pcacti:ed in conjunction with other operations, such as
salmon freezing. Halibut are butchered and sometimes beheaded at
sea. Processing consists primarily of washing the incoming raw
material for subsequent freezing. Waste loads and flows are
usually low and on the same order of hand-butchered salmon.
Conventional Bottom Fish
To minimize the discharge of pollutants, recommended in-plant
measures can be effective. Production of fresh/frozen bottom fish
which are processed essentially by hand requires little water
usage. However, plants which employ a mechanized scaler produce
considerable quantities of wastewater. Volumes could be reduced
by implementing recommended in-plant measures with emphasis on the
scaler. Mass emission rates for the pollutants considered are
significantly less than those observed for mechanized operations.
Mechanized Bottom Fish
Chemically ptimized dissolved air flotation treatment can be
applied to the waste loads generated during mechanized bottom fish
I o
-------
operations. Plants which were previously studied indicated that
the prcduct.on levels and flow ratios were several times greater
than the av€ rage values documented for hand operations. Harvest-
ing of bottom fish can occur on a year-round basis, with severe
weather conditions as a primary limitation. Processing facilities
within this subcategory enjoy the benefit of regular processing
schedules. Due to the location of plants on waterfront property,
biological treatment including aerated lagoons is not a viable
alternative. Treatment with an optimized DAF system should be
capable of the performance summarized in Table 54.
TABLE 54
TREATMENT OF BOTTOM FISH FILLETING WASTEWATER
WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION AND DAF (59)
Parameter Effluent Concentration (mg/l)
Percent Removal
BOD 5
245
51
TSS
55
95
COD
550
58
Hand-Shucked Clam
Implementation of in-plant measures as specified can be an effec-
tive approach to controlling waste discharges from manual oper-
ations. Hand shucking of clams contribute relatively low organic
loads and corresponding flows.
/ I
-------
Mechaniied C [ am
Grit removal followed by chemically optimized DAF is an applicable
end-of-pipe treatment scheme to handle the flows and organic
loading ; generated by this subcategory. Highly mechanized facili-
ties usually have very high water use due to extensive washing of
the product. Silt and other heavy solids present in raw product
washwaters can be effectively removed in a grit chamber. To
prolong the life of process pumps and equipment, grit removal
should preceed all other end-of-pipe treatment processes. Infor-
mation regarding flotation treatment of clam processing wastes is
not available. However, the character of the wastewater is simi-
lar to that generated by oyster processing and DAF performance
should approach the levels indicated in Figures 11 and 12.
Hand-Shucked Oyster
Water and wa;ste load reductions can be accomplished by recommended
in-plant measures which were previously discussed. For the pur-
pose of applying end-of-pipe technology, wastewater volumes and
pollutant loads are significant factors. Conventional hand-
shucking operations conducted in the East and Gulf Coast areas, as
well as the Pacific Coast, are generally small with low water use.
The corresponding mass emission rates are also relatively low and
do not warraat end-of-pipe treatement beyond screening.
-------
5
LEGEND
• VIOLET PACKING W/CHEMICALS
rn VIOLET PACKIPJ( W/O CHFMI(A 1 S
0 — -- - -
2 4
• e
0
E
3.
I—
I-
z
w .
z 2
8 .
In 0 •
(I )
I-
I—
z S
U i I
-J
Ui
0 I I
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
INFLUENT TSS CONCENTRATION (mg/I), 100
Figure 11. Effluent quality (TSS) relative to influent concentration for
DAF treatment of oyster processing wastewater.
-------
LEGEND
• VIOLET PACKING W/CHEMICALS
o VIOLET PACKING W/O CHEMICALS
• •
I
IN FLUENT OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION (mQ/I)
Figure 12.
Effluent quality (O&C) relative to thfluent concentration for
DAF treatment of oyster processing wastewater.
E
2
0
I-
I-
z
U i
2
0
C)
U i
U,
4
U i
2
4
-J
0
2
Ui
-j
U-
U-
L ii
0
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
•
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
160
-------
Steamed and Canned Oyster
Solids removal from primary washwaters can be accomplished by
gravity settling. Overflow from the grit chamber and other pro-
cess wastes can be effectively treated by DAF which is chemically
optimized. The processing of steamed and canned oysters entails a
high degree of mechanization. Product washing is considerable,
thereby generating significant quantities of wastewater. Data
collected for a full-scale DAF unit at one oyster cannery is
displayed in Figures 11 and 12.
Sardine
Dissolved a r flotation which is chemically optimized can be
applied to 5 e1ected waste streams generated by sardine canning.
Plants generally operate throughout the calender year, but inter-
mittentLy during the winter months when raw material is scarce.
The largest portion of the plant effluent is generated during the
storing and conveying of fish to the packing tables. In-plant
changes will be helpful in reducing the water utilized for these
handling processes. For the remaining operations, fresh water is
employed. Precook water which contains high concentrations of
organics and oils currently undergoes oil separation. Significant
concentrations of the various waste constituents remain in the
effluent.. This waste stream along with other fresh water streams,
includirLg washwaters, require isolation for air flotation treat-
ment wit.h chemical addition. DAF performance should be comparable
-------
to that shown in Table 55. The remaining portion of the effluent
requires screening prior to discharge.
TABLE 55
TREATMENT OF SARDINE PROCESSING WASTEWATER
WITH CE [ EMICAL ADDITION AND DAF (60)
Percent
Equipment Parameter Influent Effluent Removal
BOD 5 7,500 3,200 57
12,000 3,500 71
Pollution Control
Engineering 6,450 530 91
3,550 50 98
Oil & Grease 1,150 230 80
205 -
BOD 5 13,300 7,400 45
CE
NATCO* TSS 4,400 1,300 70
Oil & Grease -
*MechanLcal difficulties were encountered with the equipment
Scallop
In-plant measures as outlined previously can be effective in
reducing waste flows and loads generated during the production of
scallops. [ n Alaska and the contiguous states, scallops are
processed al: facilities which are generally involved with the
production of other seafood commodities. Frequently, different
-------
product line ; are operated simultaneously. Scallops are delivered
to the plant shucked where they are washed and packed. Therefore,
flows and waste loads are minimal. Wastewater from scallop opera-
tions can then be accommodated by end-of-pipe treatment facili-
ties, winch are provided for other seafood product lines.
Alaskan Herring Fillet
Implementation of in-piant measures which were previously recom-
mended are applicable to this Alaskan subcategory. Processing of
herring by mechanical means is practiced in Alaska on a limited
basis. Generally, facilities which have the capabilities to
freeze herring fillets process other commodities, including
salmon. Weather, which can limit raw material deliveries to the
plant, plays an important role in processing schedules. Similar
to salmon plants, land available for constructing water pollution
control facilities is generally non-existent.
Herring Fillets
Chemically optimized dissolved air flotation treatment is appli-
cable to the wastewaters generated by herring filleting opera-
tions. During the past several years, the production of herring
fillets has increased in importance relative to the other subcat-
egories. The number of plants have increased significantly with a
processing operation which typically generates large flows and
waste loads. Treatment of wastewaters resulting from a herring
-------
fillet operation was determined for a single day with the effluent
concentcatioiis shown in Table 56.
TABLE 56
DAY EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR HERRING FILLET WASTEWATER
EF LIJENT CONCENTRATION (mg/l ) No. of
BUD 5 TSS Oil and Grease Samples
1,380 953 271 1
NOTE: Data provided by B.C. Packers Limited, Steveston, British
Columbia, Canada.
Abalone
In-plani. mea:;ures can be effective for minimizing flows and pollu-
tant di:;charges from abalone processing operations. Comprising a
relatively small industry, abalone processors generate flows and
waste loads which are small.
i
-------
SECTION VII
SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
GENERAL
Section VT o [ this report discussed technology for controlling and
treating wa tes generated by the seafood industry. Two basic
concepts to waste management developed were in-plant management
and end-of-pipe treatment. With the implementation of specific
measures to control the discharge of pollutants entering receiving
waters, materials requiring disposal are produced. The funda-
mental nature of the recovered solids will vary with the specific
technology erriployed as a pollution control measure. Less signifi-
cant variatins are dependent on the commodities being processed.
Solids which are recovered as the result of in-plant management
practices h ve greater potential for utilization and eventual
marketing than the materials resulting from end-of-pipe tech-
nology. Generally, the capture of wastes at their source repre-
sents the least costly approach for internal waste reduction.
Examples of waste recovery for secondary products and byproducts
have been cited in Section VI of this report. The recovery of
materials which have been historically discarded can provide a
means to ofFset a portion or all of the costs associated with
waste management. In addition, the reduction or elimination of
residual volumes requiring transportation and disposal can be
realized.
I 5?
-------
Portions of the product which are not isolated at their source
enter the total waste stream and must then undergo a separation
process for removal and subsequent collection. The most prevalent
method employed to achieve end-of-pipe solids removal from process
wastewaters is screening. Since this technology is a physical
process which does not require chemical additives, a number of
alternatives for disposal of the solids are available. The op-
tions include the manufacturing of products for animal feeds,
aquaculture nutrients, agricultural fertilizers, nutrients, and
landfilling. Shellfish wastes offer another alternative which is
the production of chitin/chitosan.
Following screening, dissolved air flotation with chemical addi-
tion has been employed by the major tuna canneries for wastewater
treatment. The use of trivalent salts and commercially available
polymers to facilitate solids separation has inhibited the conver-
sion of the resulting sludge into animal feed additives. De-
watering processes to achieve reductions in sludge volumes have
not been widely utilized by the industry. Landfilling has been
adopted for the ultimate disposal of dewatered and liquid float
generated by the tuna industry.
The treatment of seafood processing wastewaters with biological
systems involves the conversion of organic constituents to biomass
for phase separation. Activated sludge processes and lagoon
treatment have been explored for treating the industry’s effluents
and produce sludges which are similar in nature to those generated
190
-------
by munLcipal. operations. Therefore, conventional sludge de-
watering and disposal practices may be applicable to processing
plants operating secondary treatment facilities, and deserve
consideration.
The sources of waste solids and the general approaches for their
ultimate disposal have been outlined. A more detailed assessment
of specific handling and disposal alternatives, as they relate to
solids incurred by adupting waste management techniques, will be
presented in the remainder of this report section. Solids dis-
posal practices in Alaskan processing areas will also be discussed
with emphasis placed on conversion of wastes to byproducts as an
option 1:o barging for deep sea disposal.
NANTJFACTIJRING OF SECONDARY PRODUCTS AND BYPRODUCTS
Background
Research activities relating to the development of secondary
products and byproducts were identified in Section VI of this
report. Furthermore, a thorough discussion relative to the con-
cept of total utilization of raw material was provided. This
presentation, however, will emphasize the general principles of
convert ng waste materials into secondary products and byproducts
as a means to reduce or offset the expenditures required to adopt
a comprehensive waste management program. Discussions will relate
I I
-------
to specific practices which have been adopted by the industry for
handlin; finfish and shellfish wastes.
Finfish Wast s
In the past, on-site manufacturing of such products has been
limited to modern fish meal and tuna industries in addition to a
few isolatec plants which handle other primary commodities. The
most coinnion operat:cr z re related to the production of fish meal,
fish oil anc petfood. However, seafood processing facilities are
also capable of generating secondary products for human con-
sumption.
Depending or the type of operation conducted, fish parts can be
collected from the production lines using a number of methods.
The siniplest approach is manual accumulation of gross solids in
totes or bins. Several facilities which hand butcher salmon have
adopted thi$ method for the purpose of eliminating gross solids
from the waste stream. Conventional bottom fish is another in-
dustry segment which could readily adopt manual separation of fish
parts for subsequent utilization.
Dry handling of all waste materials is desirable in terms of
pollution control. Belt conveyors are standard equipment through-
out the fool industry and can be used for this purpose. Since
large tuna canneries operate meal plants, wastes from the cleaning
tables are transported without the use of water utilizing belt
conveyor systems.
-------
Devices have been installed at various facilities for the specific
purpose of preventing gross solids which are flumed, from hitting
the floor and ultimately entering the total waste stream. In
considering the development of secondary products from these
materials, it is essential that contact with the floor does not
occur. Coarse screens or mesh-type conveyors can serve as means
to achieve this goal as well as accomplishing solids removal prior
to fine screening or other end-of-pipe treatment alternatives.
Secondary Products
Following collection of fish parts in a specified area, they can
be subjected to secondary processing for human consumption. A
model example of such a product is salmon roe. Conventional
process].ng equipment has been modified and handling practices
developed to facilitate roe separation from mechanically butchered
salmon. Subsequently, the roe is graded, cured and boxed for
shipment. to Japan. In recent years, salmon roe has become a
secondary product which is too valuable to be discarded by canning
and freezing operations. Great care is exercised in producing a
commodity for human consumption which was once discharged as
waste.
The isolation of other fish parts for the purpose of manufacturing
secondary products can be accomplished. Finfish processing plants
are capable of producing deboned flesh from normally discarded
fish parts and carcasses. Implementation of these operations
ic 3
-------
require a considerable capital investment and an established
market. At least one salmon cannery in the Puget Sound area
determined that the capital expenditures were justified in pro-
ducing a deboned salmon commodity from materials which are dis-
carded as waE.te by most facilities. Although every salmon cannery
cannot be expected to install a similar line, the economic feas-
ibility should be explored by individual plants. Bottom fish
operations also have the potential for generating deboned or
extruded products. BaL ering and breading operations can follow
to generate marketable commodities such as fish cakes.
Byproducts
The production of animal food and feed additives represents a more
common activity for specific segments of the industry. Seafood
processing w3stes from tuna and salmon operations have been suc
cessfully converted to petfood which can be marketed at a profit.
On a la cge scale, tuna canneries collect the red meat portion of
the fish whi:h does not appeal to humans and packages it as cat-
food. Smalli r single-line petfood operations have been observed
within t.he salmon industry. Generally, the incorporation of fish
wastes into petfood is accomplished in conjunction with the pro-
duction of petfood containing other primary ingredients such as
beef and chitken parts. However, small on-site petfood operations
which involve only fish wastes hold the potential for reducing the
volume of waste requiring disposal and offsetting a portion of
treatment co ;ts.
-------
In the absence of on-site facilities, the collection of waste
materiaLs for transport to a plant with the capabilities to manu-
facture petfood represents another alternative. This practice has
been employed by Alaskan salmon canneries. Specifically, salmon
heads have been removed from the waste stream, packaged and frozen
for shipment to Seattle, Washington. Since these facilities have
grinders in-place and the other plants grind gross solids for
discharge to receiving waters in the areas where this practice has
been documented, it ggests that some economic advantage is
realized.
Gross solids separation for subsequent utilization is practiced by
the sardine industry. From the packing tables, the heads and
tails are conveyed to a chum truck for collection. The major use
of these materials is as bait by lobster fishermen who purchase
the wastes. When the demand lessens, the wastes are transported
to a byproduct facility which generates fish meal and oil through
a conventional reduction process.
The utilization of fish wastes for bait has also been adopted by
West Coast facilities. Heads removed from salmon and halibut are
useful as hang bait in crab traps (pots). This practice is also
applicable to Alaskan processing areas.
To generate byproducts from proteinaceous wastes, the reduction
process has been adopted by a number of food industries. Neat and
poultry processing operations have been subjecting their wastes to
it.-,-
I ‘ -
I I-
-------
this process over a period of years to yield a protein meal which
is employed as an animal feed additive. Other byproducts such as
tallow also result. In many cases, the required equipment has
been installed on the premises of individual processing plants for
handling the wastes incurred.
With the exception of the major tuna canners, the seafood pro-
cessing industry, as a whole, is not characterized by year round,
normalized production. The absence of a consistent supply of
waste materials, which are generally comprised of gross and
screened solids, can inhibit the operation of a reduction facility
at a profit. Fish meal equipment installed on-site to accommodate
waste materials generated by a single facility is less common in
the seafood processing industry than in the other food industries.
This can be partially attributed to intermittent production
schedules which are characteristic of the seafood industry.
Reduction facilities operating at the larger tuna canneries gen-
erally yield three byproducts - meal, oil and solubles. In some
instances, solubles are introduced into the drying process to
produce a whole meal. The processing of tuna scraps is supple-
mented by anchovy reduction at specific plants during a portion of
the year. Figure 13 represents the conventional reduction process
employed to handle tuna wastes and anchovies. Finfish wastes
including screened solids which are generated by other seafood
processing segments can also be subjected to this process.
-------
WHOLE FISH
AND/OR FISH WASTES
PRIESS CAKE
WHOLE FISH
_______H
OIL 1
POLISHING ri
(OPTIONAL)
CD
WASHWATERJ
Figure 13. Process schematic of a conventional
fish meal plant with solubles production.
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
OIL
SEPARATION
rt
OIL
STORAGE
L
F
-------
Two typical fish meal installations are currently operated by
processing riants in Petersburg and Seward, Alaska. Although
these facilities will accept wastes from competitive plants, they
were originally designed to be self-sufficient in producing fish
meal and oil from processing wastes and whole fish. Neither
installation has been operating at full capacity on an annual
basis as a result of limited raw material.
Due to the nature 0± the seafood industry it appears that the
concept of a centralized fish meal facility which will accept
processing wastes is more economically attractive than installing
equipment at individual plants. This approach is reinforced by
the availabi].ity of similar facilities which currently operate for
the sole purpose of handling waste materials generated by other
food processi.ng industries.
Operations which receive various types of food wastes for separate
processing have been established in the United States, while other
installations will accept only fish wastes for generating by-
products. An example of a seafood byproduct facility can be found
in Kodiak, A]aska. Bio-Dry, Incorporated receives seafood related
materia]s from approximately 15 processing plants in the immediate
area. Meal commodities and oil are produced essentially year
round while the stickwater is discharged to the harbor. A portion
of the meal production involves shellfish wastes which are speci-
fically addressed later in this section. Installations of a
similar natLre are available in the contiguous United States
although the number and locations are limited.
jc
-------
The subject of recent investigations, fish silage represents an
alternative to dry fish meal production. (61,62,63) The con-
ceptual process involves the mincing of fish parts followed by
acidification. Under acidic conditions, the natural enzymes
within the fLsh flesh cause liquification. The production of fish
silage has Lhe advantage of being relatively simplistic, thereby
requiring minimal capital investment. Because of this aspect, the
process is particularly well suited to small seafood operations.
One investigator stat d that fish silage has gained acceptance. in
Europe for herring and other fish processing waste.(64) The
magnitude of operation can range from a 55-gallon drum scale to a
larger instaiJation specifically designed for this purpose.
At the preseit time, fish silage is fed in liquid form to pigs and
cattle. Incorporation of the liquified byproduct into the diets
of hens and mink has also been studied,(61,62) To accomplish long
term storage or transportation and encourage additional uses, it
is possible :o dry the silage.(64)
Shellfish Wa:;tes
Investigations relative to the utilization of wastes resulting
from shrimp processing were outlined during the discussion of
waste control technology. Chitin/chitosan generation from shrimp
and crab wa tes has been the subject of a number of studies and
demonstration projects. Full scale production of shellfish meals
to min inize waste discharges has also been achieved. The follow—
I
-------
ing discussion will ephasize: 1) the demonstrated technology of
meal production, and 2) the manufacturing of chitin/chitosan which
appears to be a promising alternative. However, other processes
such as peptone production and enzymatic digestion will be iden-
tified.
The conversion of crab and shrimp processing wastes to meal pro-
ducts has been employed on a full production scale in the con-
tiguous United States and Alaska. The basic process involves the
dehydration of shells. In handling crab wastes, grinding is
generally required to facilitate drying. Shrimp shells removed by
screening equipment are introduced directly into the dryer. This
approach ha been employed by a Gulf Coast shrimp cannery to
generate a b’,rproduct for marketing. Although the resulting shrimp
meal contains only 30 to 40 percent protein, it has been reported
to be a quality source of protein for animals.(65,66) Meal
products from crab wastes generally represents lower quality with
regards to feed additives.
In Alaska, three conventional fish meal plants are utilized to
handle crab and/or shrimp wastes generated in selected areas. This
practice is conducted in combination with or in lieu of finfish
waste reduction. Crab shells are subjected to a grinding process
followed by a dryer which normally dehydrates the press cake
produced from finfish wastes. This approach represents the use of
equipment which otherwise would be idle. The shrimp shells re-
ceived by Alaskan facilities do not require grinding.
OQ
-------
The drying operation can be highly odorous, particularly with some
species of crab and may necessitate the installation of odor
and/or air pollution controls in some areas. The consistency of
the meal also poses some handling difficulties for plant em-
ployees. Airborne particles can inhibit the human respiration
process. Environmental and health measures require additional
capital investment, thus making shellfish meal production less
attractive than the processing of finfish wastes. Moreover, high
calcium levels (up Lo 43 etcent-dry weight) and the relatively
low protein content command lower prices in the feed supplement
market. Wholesale prices of shellfish meal may be as little as
one-third cf that received for fish meal (60 percent protein).
The use of crab meal as a nitrogen source for lagoon treatment of
potato wastes has been identified.(64) Investigations relative
to uttLizin King crab meal as a protein source for dairy cows and
swine have been conducted.(67,68) Soybean oil meal provided the
contro for these experiments. For lactating cows, low palata-
bility and feed rejection was noted for high levels of crab meal
supplementation. Feed efficiency was significantly reduced when a
100 percent replacement of soybean oil meal with whole King crab
meal was tested for swine diets. No difference was noted in daily
weight gain for 50 percent replacement. Results were improved for
experiments involving meal which had undergone a separation pro-
cess to obtain a higher quality product from viscera and unex-
tracted meat. It appears that physical separation by screening to
retain larger shell particles can provide a method for increasing
-o1
-------
the acceptance of crab meal as a feed supplement. Following
separat.Lon, shell wastes remain which require disposal or further
processLng to obtain a byproduct such as chitin/chitosan.
Because of the increased interest in the shellfish byproduct
during recent years, the First International Conference on chit-
in/chitosan was held in Boston, Nassachusetts. The published
proceed ngs of the 1977 conference addressed the numerous aspects
of the byproduct from siieiiEisb wastes and represent the most
comprehensiv service of information on this subject.(67) Tech-
nological an.1 economic considerations of production were among the
principle topics addressed during the conference.
As sho n in Figure 14, chitin manufacturing consists of several
physical-checnical processes. Chitin separation is primarily a
caustic extraction to remove proteins from the shell followed by
demineralization with hydrochloric acid. The byproduct of the
acid extraction is a calcium chloride brine generated from the
calcium salts normally found in the shell. A polysaccaride,
chitin is the residual from the two-stage extraction process.
Washing, centrifuging and drying are the additional steps nec-
essary to fc’rmulate the final product. Chitin can then be ground
to a specific particle size for subsequent packaging or further
processing to generate chitosan.
The prc’ducton of chitosan involves subjecting chitin to deace-
tylization in hot caustic. During this process, the acetyl group
-------
SHEL_FISH WASTES
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
SHELL MATERIAL
PROTEIN
CALCIUM CHLORIDE
Figure 14.
Process schematic for chitin production
from shellfish wastes.
---p
PROTEIN
RECOVERY AND
FINISHING
SALT
RECOVERY
PROC ESS
(OPTIONAL)
CHITIN
ao3
-------
(CH 3 CO) is separated and placed in solution. Chitosan production,
as shown in Figure 15, can be accomplished subsequent to chitin
extraction at the same facility or accomplished at another loca-
tion. If the chitosan operation is conducted as an add-on process
to chitin s paration, the chitin does not undergo the initial
separat]on step and grinding. The entire operation required to
produce chitosan from shellfish wastes is quite sophisticated;
however, four marketable products result: 1) chitosan, 2) pro-
tein, 3) calcium chloride, dw.i 4) sodium acetate.
Recently, considerable research has been conducted relative to the
utilizat.ion of chitin/chitosan. One publication outlined several
general commercial uses including those within the paper-making,
pharmaceutical and agricultural industries.(64) In an earlier
publication prepared by the University of Alaska, a literature
review suininarized numerous applications for these shellfish de-
rivatives.(70) Examples of other industries which conceivably
have uses for chitin/ chitosan are textiles and cosmetics. Other
specific applications, such as an adhesive component and a food
thickener, were also identified.
Under the Sea Grant Program, a study was undertaken to determine
the industrial prospects for utilizing shellfish waste deriva-
tives.(71) Viewed as a solution to the waste disposal problem,
the technology as well as the supply and demand aspects were
explored. The economics of chitosan production were investigated
based on a tsio-step production sequence: 1) separation of protein
-------
CHIT IN
-
LEGEND
SOLIDS
LIQUID
SODIUM
ACETATE
RECOVERY
7
SODIUM ACETATE
CAUSTIC
RECOVERY
CAUSTIC
Figure 15. Process schematic for chitosan production
from chitin.
ACCOMPLISHED I A 40-
5O% HOT CAuSTIC soLurloN
CHITOSAN
-------
and shell residue at facilities accessible to seafood processing
centers, and 2) shipment of residue to a regional or national
chitosari plant. With the stated assumptions, it expected that the
market can accommodate the annual production of several million
pounds of chitosan based on yearly sales of other cellulosic
polymers. Of course, the market capacity for a particular commod-
ity is a function of selling price. The establishment of a sell-
ing price is generally related to production costs. The minimum
costs for chitosan production was estimated at $1.00 to $2.50 per
pound.
According to this Sea Grant study, market absorbance is based on
sales at $1.60 to $1.90 per pound. There are, however, several
applications capable of obtaining higher selling prices which
include ion exchange, coagulation of wastewater, film, fiber and
paper manufacturing, and wound healing accelerators. Another
publication relative to the utilization of chitin also identified
wound treatment and unsupported specialty films, such as food
wraps, as po’:ential applications.(72)
A significant amount of research has been devoted towards identi-
fying the capabilities of chitosan as a coagulating agent. Par-
ticular emphasis has been placed on suspended solids removal from
food processing wastewaters due to the potential use of the re-
covered solids as animal feed supplements. For poultry processing
effluents, significant removals of suspended solids were obtained
for two separate treatment processes aided by chitosan; gravity
-------
settling and DAF treatment.(73) Sedimentation yielded the greater
efficiency and a sludge with a higher protein content, while DAF
tended to concentrate the fat content of the composite waste
stream. As a polymer, chitosan has been effective for the coagu-
lation and removal of suspended solids from wastewaters generated
by food industries such as vegetable processing, fruit cake pro-
duction, egg breaking, meat packing, and seafood processing.(74)
The seafood effluent tested was obtained from a shrimp processing
and breading operation on the Atlantic Coast. Removals of sus-
pended solids through chitosan and anionic polymer addition ex-
ceeded 90 percent for sedimentation and DAF. COD reductions were
slightly less for both treatment technologies. tloreover, DAF with
chemical coagulation proved to be an effective measure for re-
covering protein with 32 percent of the float being crude protein.
Similar results were achieved for chemical treatment of cheese
whey with hitosan enabling the recovery of coagulated solids
which contain in excess of 70 percent crude protein. (75)
A number of food industries treat their wastewaters with bio-
logical prccesses which generate sludge requiring disposal.
Utilization of chitosan to aid the dewatering of activated sludges
has been explored. Sludges subjected to centrifugation include
those generated by a brewery and a vegetable canning plant.(76)
With regard to efficiency, the testing results for both sludges
showed chitosan to be competitive with and in some cases, superior
to synthetic polymers with suspended solids captures exceeding 95
percent. Furthermore, the utilization of dewatered sludges as
-------
animal Feed . dditives is possible. Feeding studies involving rats
and chitosan-coagulated byproducts indicate no significant physi-
ological effects. Although it appears to be a promising means for
recovering Jood processing wastes, Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approval of chitosan as an ingredient for animal feeds has
not been issued.(77) Additional feeding studies should fulfill FDA
requirements and gain acceptance of chitosan as an animal feed
additive.
Centrifugal dewatering of sludges with chitosan addition was the
subject of another investigation.(78) Various types of municipal
and industrial sludges were centrifuged following the addition of
chitosaii and other polymers. In all cases, suspended solids
recovery exceeded 97 percent. Cake moisture was 75 percent or
less for municipal sludges. A higher moisture content of 85.5
percent occurred for a shellfish industrial sludge utilizing
chitosari and ferric chloride.
Other research activities have explored additional uses of shell-
fish wastes. Bench-scale efforts have been directed towards
generating single-cell protein suitable for animal feed by a
bioconv rsion process.(79) Wastes are pretreated to isolate
chitin for subsequent hydrolysis, thus generating the protein-
aceous animal feed supplement. The development of microbiological
media from ;hrimp processing wastes was identified in Section VI
of this report. Following enzymatic hydrolysis or digestion of
proteins in the wastes to produce peptones, solid fractions remain
-------
which c n be converted to chitosan. It appears, therefore, the
digestion process for peptone production can be utilized in place
of the conventional alkaline extraction step to deproteinize
shellfish wastes.(80)
It appears that the most attractive byproduct from shellfish
wastes is chitin/chitosan. The emphasis of the previous dis-
cussion was placed on the production and utilization of these
shellfish derivatives. A . Cue present time, there is only one
manufacturer of chitosan in the United States. Food Chemical and
Research Laboratory in Seattle, Washington operates on a rela-
tively small scale. A pilot scale facility, Narine Commodities
Limited (Brownsville, Texas) recently discontinued operation due
to economic considerations. The remainder of the world’s supply
of chitosan is generated by one foreign producer.
Several organizations within the United States have considered the
full scale production of chitin/chitosan from shellfish wastes,
however final committments have not been made to proceed with
instalLing the required equipment. It appears that the major
obstacles to full scale production is the unavailability of large
markets and the uncertainty associated with controlling the
quality of the final product. Additional research will be re-
quired in these two areas to determine the long-term feasibility
of chum! chutosan manufacturing.
-------
DEWATERING OF DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION SLUDGE
Background
The generatLon of sludge associated with DAF treatment results
from the separation of pollutants (suspended solids, oil and
grease) that. are present in the wastewater. Based on the oper-
ation of DAY treatment systems for salmon, tuna, and shrimp cann-
ery wastewaters, the voiu iie o sludge generally approaches one to
two percent of the total wastewater flow. Float composition is
variable corLtaining 5 to 20 percent solids (by weight) and 0.2 to
3 percent OLl and grease (by weight). These characteristics will
vary depend.ng on the type of wastewater undergoing treatment and
the operatirg parameters employed. Typical parameters for DAY are
surface loading, hydraulic retention time and air to solids ratio.
The vo]uine of sludge generated can be significantly influenced by
the air to .olids ratio and is clearly a function of the treatment
efficiency achieved for a particular wastewater.
Although the practice of sludge dewatering has generally found
acceptance due to economic, environmental and aesthetic consid-
eratiorLs, the seafood industry has limited experience operating
DAF units and even less exposure to dewatering technology. Fewer
than ten s afood plants (all tuna) have full-scale DAF systems
operat]ng on a continuous basis. Demonstration units have been
employed foc the salmon and shrimp industries and cursory investi-
gation ; were conducted relative to float handling. However, DAY
ajo
-------
systems have been extensively utilized in other industries, i.e.
meat and poultry, which exhibit comparable waste loads. Following
a brief overview of available sludge handling and dewatering
techniques, current and prospective methods utilized by the meat,
poultry, rendering, and seafood industries will be discussed.
While sludge dewatering has been practiced for many years, the
environmental concerns of the last decade have substantially
increased its applications for both industries and municipalities.
The increasing number of wastewater treatment plants, as well as
the adoption of more sophisticated technologies, has resulted in a
dramatic increase in the quantity of sludge requiring disposal.
Recently, great emphasis has been placed on managing sludge in an
environmentally sound manner. This trend is expected to continue
and intensify due to growing concern for all aspects of pollution,
including that associated with groundwater.
The demand for more efficient sludge dewatering has resulted in
the development of a wide range of sludge treatment methods.
Figure 16 presents a generalized flow sheet for the major types of
sludge handling and disposal techniques. Detailed information on
all of these techniques is available in several sanitary engin-
eering texts.(81,82,83) The following discussion relates to each
unit process as it applies to the handling of DAF sludge (float).
-------
TP1ICK N INc3
8TAB*JZAflOi.j
ONO(flON ING
OEV ATERINQ
AtJ() DRYING
Figure 16. Schematic diagram of alternatives for the handling and
disposal/utilization of sludge.
OXIDATION
ULTIMATE
D4SPO BALI
UTILIZ AT ION
SLuOG( IROM
-------
Thicken g
The thcken].ng process is adopted to concentrate sludges, thus
optimizing the size and operation of subsequent dewatering equip-
ment. This process is usually defined as concentrating sludge to
less than 10 percent solids. Sludge of this nature can usually be
pumped by conventional means and displays the essential character-
istics of a liquid. Economic considerations usually dictate
whether thickening is a viable approach. GeLL Ldllf, lower initial
sludge concentrations (1 to 2 percent) enhance the economics of
thickening. The available processes for achieving this purpose
include gra’iity thickening and dissolved air flotation. Coagu-
lants and flocculents can be added to enhance performance.
Within the seafood industry, DAF technology has application as an
effluent treatment measure for a number of subcategories. Under
certain operating conditions for specific wastewaters, thickening
of the float will occur coincidentally with phase separation. For
example, slLdge samples collected from DAF units operating at the
Terminal Island tuna canneries indicate solids concentrations
ranging from 7 to 20 percent. It is apparent that additional
thickening equipment would not be necessary for sludges of this
nature.
-------
Stabilization
The major cbjective of sludge stabilization is to reduce the
putrescible and pathogenic characteristics associated with the
material. The necessity of the process is usually a function of
the ult mate disposal method. Minimizing impacts to the surround-
ing environment would be the principal goal.
Biological techniques generally result in a reduction of sludge
volume and weight through decomposition of the organic material
and generation of byproducts. Additional benefits include im-
proved sludge dewaterability, and the production of a combustible
gas (methane) when the process is anaerobic digestion. In addi-
tion, chemical stabilization can be accomplished for certain
sludges. The use of chlorine, ozone and lime is generally asso-
ciated with domestic sludges for pathogen kill. The dewaterabil-
ity of the material is also enhanced. The implementation of
stabiliration techniques is most desirable when sludge is de-
posited on the land.
Conditioning
For most. sludges, conditioning is performed to improve dewater-
ability. Improvements in the dewatering rate, solids capture, and
the compactibility are generally achievable. A degree of stabil-
ization is also possible if heat treatment or certain chemicals
are emp].oyed While conditioning can be an important and econom-
i4
-------
ical process, it is just an intermediate step in the total concept
of sludge handling and disposal. The need and selection of a
conditioning method is generally dictated by the dewatering tech-
nology practiced. For example, one tuna processor chemically
conditions float prior to centrifugation. The selection of the
chemicaLs and dosages was based on the optimum performance of the
centrifuge.
Dewater
The removal of water, with its corresponding reduction in the
weight and volume of sludge requiring disposal, is the main ob-
jective of a iy dewatering process. Significant reductions in fuel
required for sludge drying or incineration can also be realized.
The end product of this process is usually a moist cake with the
solids content exceeding 20 percent. The method of dewatering is
usually governed by the sludge characteristics and the ultimate
disposal alternative. An example of a technology employed by the
seafood industry is centrifugation which has achieved solids
concentration approaching 35 percent with chemical condition-
ing.(84) Other common processes for municipal and industrial
applications including vacuum filtration, sludge drying beds, and
pressure filtration (belt filter and filter press).
gj5
-------
Drying
Sludge drying including conventional oxidation processes takes the
removal of water one step further than dewatering. Depending upon
the degree of sludge treatment, the end product can either be a
dry material high in volatile solids or an inert residue. Addi-
tional benef its include sterilization of the sludge and the poten-
tial for u’:ilization. Since supplemental fuel is necessary,
energy requirements and the associated costb aic puime considera-
tions. Examples of this approach are incineration and pyrolysis.
Disposal/Uti Lization
The puipose of the unit processes described previously is to
produce a sludge which is suitable for subsequent utilization, or
disposal in an environmentally sound manner. Hany state-of-the-
art disposal techniques such as landfilling, will encounter addi-
tional restrictions in the future due to potential environmental
hazards In view of this aspect, utilization of the liquid or
dewatered sLudge should be given strong consideration. When
utilization is technically or economically unfeasible, the option
of land app]ication should be the next approach evaluated. The
selection of the ultimate disposal or utilization alternative will
general]y dictate the types and degree of sludge treatment re-
quired.
-------
SLUDGE HANDL [ NG PRACTICES OF RELATED FOOD INDUSTRIES
There are :;everal food industries which generate wastewaters
contain.Lng animal fats and oil in addition to dissolved and sus-
pended protEin. Plants operating within the meat, poultry and
rendering industries utilize DAF with chemical addition for pre-
treatment of process wastewaters. With DAF equipment in-place,
these faci1i ies generate float which requires disposal.
Since the seafood processing industry has little experience with
dewater:Lng flotation sludge, information developed by related food
industries cias sought. The literature specifically addressing
this subject was found to be somewhat limited. The results of one
investigation pertaining to the centrifugation of float generated
by a poultry processor was published. (85) The objective of the
study was to increase the solids concentration of the sludge to
reduce costs associated with transporting the material to a ren-
dering plant. Coincidentally, the cost of drying the material at
the byproduct facility could be minimized. Laboratory results
indicate the feasibility of increasing the total solids content of
12 percent material by 100 percent through centrifugation.
A survey was conducted to determine current practices of three
industries regarding sludge handling and disposal. From manu-
facturer’s installation lists, meat packers, poultry processors
and renders which operate DAF units for wastewater treatment were
identified. A total of 40 processors, large and small, were
-------
contacted to discuss methods of sludge handling and disposal. The
results of tins survey are sununarized in Table 57.
TABLE 57
OAF FLOAT HANDLING AND DISPOSAL FOR RELATED INDUSTRIES (88)
Red Meat Poultry Renderer
Total Number Surveyed 20 10 10
Gravity Thickening 8 6 1
Heat Treatment 3 1 0
Render 12 7 10
Chemical AddLtives + 5 2 9
Render
Chemical AddLtives ÷ 2 0 0
Dewater + Render
Land DisposaL 5 2 0
Other 3 1 0
Almost half of the facilities contacted concentrated sludge to
increase the solids content prior to further processing or dis-
posal. It was found that only two red meat processors reduced the
moisture content of the sludge through mechanical means. Both
facilit]es employed centrifugal equipment. Gravity settling with
subsequent decanting was found to be the most common dewatering
method with 15 processors employing this alternative. In some
-------
instances, the sludge was heated to encourage liquid-solids separ-
ation; however, this is generally employed in conjunction with
in-house byproduct recovery operations such as rendering. The
dewatering methods identified include thin film dryers and steam
injection. With the continued escalation of energy costs, the
benefits of mechanical dewatering should be more fully realized.
Approximately two-thirds of the facilities operating DAF units
rendered the float in—house or hauled it to an off-site rendering
operation. As one would expect, all renderers reintroduced their
residuals into the processing operations. Nine of the ten facil-
ities contacted employed chemicals to aid removals. Seven of the
eleven meat packers and poultry processors using coagulants sub-
sequently subjected the recovered solids to a rendering operation.
In add]tion to the survey, literature pertinent to this subject
was obtained and reviewed. Related food industries, including the
three major ones discussed above, were considered. Available
foreign literature was also reviewed to identify flotation sludge
handling practices with byproduct recovery as an objective.
A Norwegian manufacturer, Aiwatech A/S, has provided a treatment
system for a beef processor which is designed to reclaim high
quality prol:ein from the process wastewater.(86) The key aspect
of the system which employs DAF is the use of lignosulfonic acid
(LSA) as the coagulating agent. LSA concentrations of 4 percent
or less are widely accepted as an animal feed additive. Following
-------
collection, neutralization and heat conditioning, the float is
dewatered on a horizontal belt filter. A centrifuge is an accept-
able dewatering alternative for this system. Depending on the
dewatering method employed, a solids content for the concentrated
sludge is projected at 30 to 50 percent solids. The LSA concen-
tration of :he dry solids will generally vary from 5 to 15 per-
cent. Information presented for a herring protein concentrate
showed a 10 percent LSA concentration. This indicates the need
for blending the recovered protein with other animal feed ingre-
dients to achieve an acceptable level of LSA.
The dew.3terirlg of sludge containing the coagulants, ferric sulfate
and poLymer, was studied for meat packing plants located in
Poland.(87) Employing a precoat vacuum filter with diatomaceous
earth, the solids levels in the resulting sludge ranged from 32 to
60 percent with an average of 42 percent by weight. Consider-
ations for Lncorporating this material into a byproduct was also
discussed. Emphasis was placed on the fate of the ferric sulfate
and di itomaceous earth during rendering and the potential of
mixing the resulting material with other meals.
The Coors brewery (Golden, Colorado) has adopted an approach for
producing a byproduct from the solids generated by its secondary
wastewater I.reatment system. Although OAF is not employed for
primary tre tment, it is utilized to thicken the sludge produced
by the existing system. An approved water treatment polymer is
added to as5ist in the flotation process. Dewatering is accom-
-------
pushed through an evaporation process to produce a material to be
marketed as animal feed.
DAF SLUDGE DEWATERING FOR THE SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Current Methods
At the present time, two seafood processors in the contiguous
United States which dewater DAF sludge on a regular basis have
been identiFied. Both processors operate tuna canneries on the
West Coast and in Puerto Rico, and utilize a similar dewatering
technology. A basket centrifuge preceded by chemical conditioning
is the approach selected for sludge concentration. One facility
has recently installed the dewatering equipment, thus no operating
data are currently available. The other processor has success-
fully operated the basket centrifuge at one installation for over
two years. Achievement of approximately 65 percent volume re-
duction and a sludge cake approaching 35 percent solids is real-
ized. The average solids concentration of the feed ranges from 5
to 12 percent solids (by weight).
A literature review identified information from two foreign
countries where wastewaters from seafood processing operations are
being successfully treated by flotation systems and the resulting
sludge dewatered. A Japanese fish processor, employing air flo-
tation and activated sludge treatment, used a vacuum filter for
dewatering the combined residuals.(32) The system produced 30 to
-------
40 kg per day of sludge with a solids content of 20 percent (by
weight) 1r Sweden, a centralized facility treated wastewaters
from several food processing operations including fish plants and
a potato r ?fining factory.(89) The treatment plant employed
two-stage flotation with flocculation assisted by chemical addi-
tion. The sludges were thickened before being dewatered by cen-
trifugation. Performance data for the dewatering equipment was
not presented.
With the objective of recovering fish oil and protein, the hand-
ling of float generated at a Japanese fish meat plant was ex-
plored. (90) The chemical coagulated skimmings were directed to a
wire-me ;h conveyor for preliminary dewatering. A pressure-vacuum
belt filter was incorporated as the final concentration step.
The information presented above provides some indication that DAF
sludge can be successfully dewatered. Centrifugation has been
utilized in a number of cases, while vacuum filtration was em-
ployed to dewater blended material consisting of float and acti-
vated sludge. As more seafood facilities adopt DAF treatment for
their process wastewaters, experience relating to float dewatering
will continue to develop and improve. Recent bench scale and
pilot plant activities have identified the various aspects for
float handling and disposal for future consideration. The speci-
fic technologies investigated are presented as prospective altern-
atives for the seafood industry.
3.
-------
Prospecl:ive !iethods
Several types of heat treatment have been investigated for hand-
ling DAF sludge. An EPA demonstration project addressing treat-
ment of shr]mp and oyster wastewaters with DAF technology incor-
porated a Limited scope for dewatering investigations.(26,91)
Evaluations were directed towards achieving a volume reduction
with a pilot scale evaporator-dryer, manufactured by Contherrn
CorporaLion. The pilot unit consisted of dual-scraped surface
evaporators and one entrainment separator for isolation of the
vapor and ccncentrate phases. Operating under a variety of temp-
erature, vacuwn and flow conditions, volume reductions in excess
of 50 percent were achieved for float generated by treating shrimp
cannery was ewaters. Sludge solids concentrations of approxi-
mately 5 pex cent were increased to 12 percent (by weight) with a
protein content of 52 percent.
Another heat treatment process has been proposed for treating DAF
sludge incurred by the tuna processing segment for subsequent
utilization. On a laboratory scale, the effectiveness of the
Carver-Greenfield process, manufactured by Dehydro-Tech Corpor-
ation, was determined.(92) The total process employs a multiple-
effect evaporator, followed by a centrifuge, a hydroextractor and
steam stripping. End products include fish meal and fish oil.
The meal derived from tuna sludge was found to contain 50 to 60
percent protein.
-------
The potential for recovering fish meal and fish oil makes heat
treatment an attractive alternative for sludge dewatering. Other
heat treatment systems are available for handling sludge which
include rotary kilns, and spray dryers. However, it appears they
have not teen investigated for seafood sludges. To determine the
effectLveness and economics of these systems, extensive investi-
gation:; which consider ultimate disposal are necessary.
Two investigations relative to the stabilization of seafood DAF
sludge were identified. The EPA demonstration project for treat-
ing shrimp wastewaters also examined the performance of a bench
scale BIF Furifax system.(91) Utilizing chlorine as the chemical
oxidizer, the Purifax system provided results similar to those
described by the manufacturer for the treatment of municipal
sludges. Liquid-solid separation occurs and produces a relatively
clear supernatant for subsequent treatment. The sludge is stab-
ilized for ultimate disposal. Application of this technology
appears to be more pertinent to processors considering disposal
alternatives in lieu of byproduct recovery. The volume reduction
and the destruction of putresible and odoriferous materials are
attractive characteristics for processors faced with landfilling
DAF sludge.
On a laboratory scale, anaerobic digestion of float incurred from
tuna waste ater treatment was studied.(93) The main purpose of
this stabdization process is to achieve volume reduction and
improved solids dewaterability. Based on the study program, a
-------
pilot scale operation utilizing a 30-day detention period and a
loading of 0.14 pounds (0.06 kg) of volatile solids per cubic foot
per da was proposed. Asswning centrifugation of the digested
sludge to 25 percent solids, an 86 percent volume reduction was
projected for this approach. The methane gas produced is a useful
byproduct of anaerobic digestion. A value can be placed on the
amount of methane available after fulfilling the digester’s heat-
ing requiremmts. Utilization of the gas to meet a portion of the
energy needs of the processing facility can offset a portion of
the costs associated with water pollution control. The economic
analysis incorporated in the study program indicated favorable
conditions for anaerobic digestion of float generated by a Term-
inal Island tuna processor. The situation will be enhanced with
the continued escalation of energy costs. However, the potential
for salt to ucity exists with extensive use of seawater for pro-
cessing operations. The use of recycled fresh water for thawing
tuna, would eliminate the major source of salt water entering the
DAF system. Toxicity problems were not experienced for float
containing 7’DO mg/i sodium chloride.(93)
In addition to the processes outlined above, several techniques
have been used successfully to dewater alum sludges. The de-
watering mettiods include lagooning, horizontal belt filter presses
and blending with biological sludges. Lagooning and belt filters
have been used to dewater alum sludges generated by water treat-
ment plants; the former in the United States and the latter in
Europe. Although the blending of alum sludges with biological
-------
sludges has not received extensive applications, it does have some
potential for improving float dewaterability in areas where rela-
tively large secondary treatment systems are operating below
design capacLty.
The dewatering of chemically coagulated sludges has been demon-
strated for specific seafood operations and other types of
sludges, incLuding those generated by related food industries. As
with any material of singular characteristics, pilot plant work is
desirable before the full scale application of any technology is
attempted. rhe necessity for dewatering DAF sludges and associ-
ated bertefit ; will certainly be more fully realized in the future.
Although land disposal of unstabilized and/or liquid sludges is
presently practiced, tighter restrictions governing the disposal
of such material are envisioned. Consideration of the use or
utlimate disposal of the sludge is a major criterion for selecting
dewatering alternatives. Emphasis should be placed on byproduct
recovery; however, economics may dictate the adoption of a sludge
management. piogram which incorporates land disposal.
LAND APPLICATION
Background
Associated w .th the operation of the wastewater treatment facili-
ties is the generation of significant quantities of residual
-------
solids. These residues consist of three types: 1) fish and
shellfu;h solids removed by screening the wastewater; 2) DAF
sludge (float) which is comprised of the fish solids, oils and
chemical.s separated from the treated wastewater; and 3) waste
biological solids from secondary treatment systems. The separated
material, requires disposal in a manner that meets applicable
local, state, and Federal criteria established to minimize the
potential for environmental impact. A method available for solids
disposal. is land application which has gained increasing accept-
ance throughout the United States.
The land d]sposal of sludges will be governed by regulations
currently being developed under FL 94-580, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA). It appears that these regulations
will not be finalized until mid-1979. In addition to the Federal
regulat.Lons several states have applicable guidelines related to
the land application of wastewater residuals. State regulations
as wel1 as pertinent local controls must be met prior to imple-
menting a land application system.
In this country, land application has been used successfully as a
method of w stewater sludge disposal. Both industrial and muni-
cipal residues have been applied to such diverse areas as agron-
omic crops, grasslands, forest areas, and denuded or sparsely
vegetated areas. However, it is essential that a cover crop be
considered a component of the system where the principal goal is
the rerLovat]on of the waste material. The soil-plant structure
-------
functions as a treatment system in which several mechanisms inter-
act to assimilate the waste.
Sludge, whether it is screened solids, DAF float or biomass,
consists of two fractions - solid and liquid. When the raw
materiai is placed on vegetated land, the liquid portion is dissi-
pated in the soil-plant system through the processes of evapora-
tion, transpiration and percolation. Suspended matter is removed
by soil particles which act as a filter, while selected organic
matter may be adsorbed on the individual particles. Naturally
occurring soil bacteria have the capabilities to decompose simple
organic compounds. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous may
be removed by the cover crop or fixed within the soil structure.
Some of the nitrogen can also be lost through ammonia volatiliza-
tion and denitrification.
When evaluating land application as a disposal alternative for
wastewater treatment residuals, a number of parameters demand
consideration. The following characteristics are pertinent to
handling seafood processing wastes: 1) nitrogen content, 2) oil
and grease content; 3) sodium concentration; 4) salinity; and 5)
odor pol:ential.
A critical factor for determining the viability of land appli-
cation br sludge disposal is the ability of the soil-plant system
to consume or reduce the nitrogen present in the waste. In con-
junction with nitrogen, phosphorus which is a major nutrient
— -.
-------
component of some seafood residues, should be considered. De-
pending on the concentrations of iron, aluminum, and calcium
oxides present in the soil structure, various soils can fix or
chemica]ly bond significant quantities of phosphorus. Hence,
limiting the application rate to obtain an acceptable nitrogen
loading, adequately controls phosphorus under most conditions.
Studies have been conducted at universities throughout the United
States to qu ntify the nitrogen uptake per acre on an annual basis
for varmous crops. In general, these studies have determined that
field crops will remove 50 to 200 (23-91 kg) pounds of nitrogen,
while forage crops will utilize 120 to 600 pounds of nitrogen per
acre (130-670 kg/ha) annually. Forest vegetation also removes
nitrogerL; however, consumption is limited to a range of 20 to 100
pounds per acre per year (22-110 kg/ha-yr), depending on the age
of the tree;. Uptake rates for specific vegetative covers are
listed n Table 58.
-------
TABLE 58
N IJTRIENT UPTAKE RATES FOR SELECTED CROPS (94)
Uptake, lb/acre-year
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Forage crops
Alfalf, 200-480 20-30 155-200
Bromegrass 116-200 35-50 220
Coastal Bermuda grass 350-600 30-40 200
Kentucky bluegrass 180-240 40 180
Quackgrass 210-250 27-41 245
Reed canary grass 300-400 36-40 280
Ryegrass 180-250 55-75 240-290
Sweet clover 158 16 90
Tall fescue 135-290 26 267
Field crops
Barley 63 15 20
Corn 155-172 17—25 96
Cotton 66-100 12 34
Milo maize 81 14 64
Potatoes 205 20 220-288
Soybeans 94-128 11-18 29-48
Wheat 50-81 15 18-42
Forest Crops
Young deciduous 100
Young evergreen 160
Medium and mature deciduous 30-50
Medium and mature evergreen 20-30
a Legumes will also take nitrogen from the atmosphere and will
not withstand wet conditions.
1.0 lb/acre-year = 1.12 kg/ha-year
-------
In addition to the nitrogen that is assimilated by the plant,
nitrogen will also be lost from the applied solids through vola-
tilization and denitrification. Because these processes are
dependent upon local and climatic conditions, it is not possible
to accurately predict specific nitrogen losses for presentation in
this document..
When considering the application of sludges containing nitrogen,
the first criterion to establish is the type of soils which are
conducLve to this practice. Soils that are extremely permeable,
i.e., exces ively well drained, are not suitable. Since water
movement thrugh these soils is so rapid, the nitrates are allowed
to leach out before uptake by the plant roots can be accomplished.
Similar y, Lhe poorly drained soils have seasonal high water
tables at or near the surface during significant portions of the
year, and the nitrates could, in effect, be added directly to the
water table for these soils. In either case, groundwater con-
taminat LOfl rasults.
Only well drained and moderately well drained soils should be
consideced for sludge applications to land. The water applied to
a well drained soil moves through the soil profile readily, but
not rapidly. Thus, these soils generally have year round water
tables greater than 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 1.5 in) below the surface.
Moderately well drained soils commonly have a slowly permeable
layer within or immediately beneath the subsoil (B horizon).
Water movement through the soil profile is slow, thus creating wet
-------
conditions diring a small but significant part of the year. The
seasona]. hig i water table is generally found within 1.5 to 3 feet
(0.5 to 0.9m) of the ground surface.
As a guide, sludge application rates should be limited to the
total p:Lant uptake of nitrogen for the crops grown on well drained
soils. For example, a crop which can withdraw 300 pounds of
nitrogen per acre (336 kg/ha) annually, should receive a maximum
nitrogen application rate of 300 pounds per acre per year (336
kg/ha-ye). Due to the seasonal high water table, sludge appli-
cations should be limited to one half of the crop uptake potential
for a moderately well drained soil. However, timely applications
which will •illow nitrogen withdrawal by the plant roots, rather
than leaching into the water table, can permit greater loadings.
The presence of oil and grease inherent with most seafood solids
can create problems for land application systems in the absence of
proper management techniques. If the oil and grease is concen-
trated on the soil surface or within a small subsurface area, the
potential fcr sealing or blinding of the soil is great. However,
if the oil and grease constituents are thinly applied and are
incorporated into the soil, the available microorganisms can break
down the hydrocarbon molecules. Oil decomposing bacteria are
relatively common in the soil system.
One investigator examined about 2,000 sites in 16 states and found
hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria at every location.(95) These sites
23
-------
had soils ranging in textures, pH, drainage, and moisture content.
It was concluded from these studies that hydrocarbon utilizing
bacteria are commonly found in most soils. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the necessary microorganisms would be
present to decompose the animal base oil and grease found in the
seafood wastes.
The concentration of sodium in a soil can create infiltration and
permeabLlity problems, particularly in fine textured soils.
Excess sodium causes a dispersion of the clay particles present in
the soi] resulting in a sealing of the soil surface or a reduction
in permeability of the subsoils. When 10 percent of the cation
exchange capacity (CEC) of a fine textured soil or 20 percent of a
coarse textured soil is occupied by sodium, reduced permeability
will generally occur. Another means of determining the potential
problem with sodium buildup is to determine the sodium adsorption
ratio (SAR) of the waste being applied. The SAR relationship is
based on the ratio of sodium ions to two divalent cations which
are calcium and magnesium.
In general, a SAR exceeding nine can cause some reduction in
permeability. 1oreover, salinity can create problems with both
the soil system and cover crops. Excessive salt buildup can
steri1i :e the soil and inhibit microbial activity, which is essen-
tial for the decomposition of solids applied to the soil. Crop
tolerance to salt accumulations is a function of the specific crop
grown. Publications are available which identify the relationship
-------
between salliuty hazard and the various soil textures.(96) Speci-
fic tolerances of cover crops to salinity are also presented.
Odors and f:Lies are the major nuisance problems associated with
the land application of organic wastes. The incidence of odors
can be reduced when the wastes are applied to the land shortly
after collection and by incorporating them into the soil. Incor—
poration of residuals into the soil will also control flies.
There are two alternative methods for the general application of
waste sludges to the land. These are surface spreading and soil
injection.
Surface spreading at controlled rates has proven to be a viable
alternal:ive for the disposal of various sludges. Nuisances assoc-
iated with odors and flies become more evident with the practice
of surface :;preading. tleasures should be taken to develop dis-
posal sites in such a manner as to prevent the public from coming
in direct coitact with the waste materials.
Since surface spreading should not be practiced on land which is
snow covered, frozen or excessively wet, storage must be provided
during these periods. Odor control may be necessary for the
storage facLlities. Furthermore, the solids should be incor-
porated into the soil through such means as dishing, plowing, or
roto-tL [ llng to control odors and flies. The implementation of
this alternative is subject to land availability with respect to
the anticipated waste volumes.
-------
Soil injection involves the physical incorporation of the sludge
into the soil at the application site. This procedure is similar
to a basic agricultural practice known as the plow-furrow—cover
method. Sludge is discharged into the open furrow, and sub-
sequently covered as the plow makes the next furrow. Vehicles
which are specifically designed for the subsurface disposal of
liquid sludges are presently being marketed, and can inject the
waste material into the soil in a more efficient manner than the
described agricultural practice. Because the sludge is applied
below the sc’il surface, nuisances associated with flies and odors
are eliminated, while runoff to surface waters is minimized. As
outlined for surface spreading, adverse conditions such as frozen
ground or e cessively wet soils will restrict application. Stor-
age requirenients are a function of the specific wastes to be
handled and geographical location.
Screened Solids
Due to the relatively low water content (less than 75 percent),
materiaLs retained by screening devices cannot be incorporated
beneath the soil surface by conventional subsurface injection
techniques. Therefore, surface spreading appears to be the pre-
ferred rnethcd for applying screened solids to land. As noted
previously, he control of potential odors and fly problems can be
accomplished by incorporating solids into the soil immediately
following the spreading operation. This practice will also accel-
erate the decomposition of the waste materials since it places
them in direct contact with the soil microorganisms.
-------
Research conducted at Oregon State University concluded that both
shrimp and crab processing wastes have value as fertilizer when
applied to the land.(97) In a subsequent document prepared by the
same author acting as the Clatsop County (Oregon) Extension Agent,
shrimp and crab wastes generated by West Coast processors were
stated to have the plant nutrient values presented in Table 59.
TABLE 59
NUTRIENT VALUES OF ONE TON OF FRESH SHELLFISH WASTES (98)
Shrimp Waste Crab Waste
Contains Pounds of Contains
26 Nitrogen 32
20 Phosphate (P 2 0 5 ) 24
1.1 Potash (K 2 0) 5.9
1.2 Sulfur 3.7
129 Lime 300
3.5 Magnesium 6.6
0.02 Boron 0.03
1,540 Water 1,280
In general, fish processing wastes would have a higher fertilizer
value than the shrimp and crab wastes with the exception of the
calcium content. The nitrogen content of either fish or shellfish
wastes would be the determining factor for developing specific
application rates. For example, a maximum of 8 to 10 tons per
acre per year (9-11 kkg/ka-yr) on forages in Oregon was reco-
rnmended.(98) This would equate to the annual application of
approximately 200 to 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre (224-336
kg/ha). The oil, grease, sodium, and salt content of screened
-
‘-I
-------
solids are generally low enough to be of no consequence to a land
application operation.
By incorporating the fish solids into the soil, protection against
surface runoif will be realized in addition to minimizing odor and
fly problems. The remaining considerations are the availability
of suitable Land and the operational costs. It is essential that
the nitiogen limitations are not exceeded for the selected appli-
cation site. In many coastal areas, this could prove to be the
major limitation relative to the viability of adopting land appli-
cation. The capital investment associated with acquiring suffi-
cient land and purchasing application equipment is a prime con-
sideration. In some processing areas, local farmers may be will-
ing to accept fish wastes without charge because of its fertilizer
value. Some Oregon shrimp operations have benefited from this
simplistic approach. The processors are responsible for trans-
porting the screened solids to the local farms which are located
less than 10 miles (16 km) from the coast.
DAF Sludg
When employing land application as a means for DAF sludge dis-
posal, the i idustry has the option to select either of the two
methods described previously. The float can be dewatered to
approximately 30 percent solids and spread on the soil surface.
AlternatLvely, liquid sludge can be hauled to the site and sprayed
on the ground. Another approach is to haul it as a liquid for
-------
subsequent injection beneath the soil surface. For sludge spray-
ing or injection, the solids content should be 10 percent or less.
If the float is dewatered, then the considerations outlined for
the land application of screened solids would apply. An addi-
tional consideration would be the general characteristics of the
dewatered float. Some sludges can be difficult to handle when
dewatered to 30 percent solids. However, the economics of trans-
porting and disposing of the waste solids will generally dictate
the methods selected.
The fertilizer value of the DAF sludge should be somewhat com-
parable to that associated with screened solids. Oil and grease
content, however, would be greater in the float. Hence, sub-
surface injection of the liquid sludge could provide a more con-
trollable means of equally distributing the oil and grease
throughout the soils, and simulataneously achieve contact between
the hydrocarbons and the available soil bacteria for degradation.
Achievement of the same objective would occur for liquid sludge
sprayed onto the ground and subsequently incorporated into the
upper layer of the soil. If the sludge is introduced below the
soil surface, nuisance conditions would be minimized or completely
eliminated.
Excess aluminum concentrations in the soil can create a toxicity
condition for plant growth. Since alum and sodium aluininate are
commonly employed to aid the flotation process, aluminum in sig-
nificant concentrations would be present. Accumulations of this
-------
metal in the float is dependent upon the dosages utilized for
chemical conditioning and its effectiveness for specific waste-
waters. To Drevent aluminum toxicity to the cover vegetation, the
sludge shou d be limed to elevate the pH of the semi-solid
materia to the 6.0 to 6.5 range. Studies have shown that alum-
inum remains insoluble in the soil-water system at a pH above 5.5
and thu!;, woild not be available to the plant.
Another consideration that must be addressed when evaluating the
feasibility of applying DAF sludge to land is the sodium and salt
content of the material. Specific sludges should be analyzed to
assure that neither the sodium adsorption ratio of the soil, nor
the salt tolerance level of the vegetation is exceeded. If these
factors are within the tolerable limits which have been estab-
lished in available publications, nitrogen content of the sludge
will control . The required area for application would then be
governed by the characteristics of the sludge in relation to the
soil amenability. Again, the availability of suitable land will
be a major consideration with regard to the viability of disposal
of specific •;ludges by land application.
Waste Activated Sludge
The alternative methods for applying biological solids to accept-
able land areas are similar to those described for DAF sludge.
Economics will suggest the degree of dewatering adopted at the
treatment site and the sludge application method selected. En-
c 3CI
-------
vironmental conditions also play a significant role in the de-
cision-rriakin ; process.
Characterist]cs of the waste activated sludge should vary little
from those documented for biological solids generated by related
food industries and strictly municipal treatment systems. Land
application of domestic sewage sludges has been employed exten-
sively in recent years. Therefore, the criteria developed for
municipal sludges can be applied to the seafood processing in-
dustry, but with some limitations.
Nuisance conditions associated with odors and flies remain as
prime considerations. Toxicity resulting from relatively high
aluminum and salt concentrations can be a problem. Although the
biomass functioning within the wastewater treatment system can
become tolerant to high levels of these constituents under certain
conditions, :he cover crop may not exhibit the same adapability.
Oil and grease concentrations for the secondary influent should be
insignificant with proper pretreatment.
In summary, an evaluation in light of the sludge characteristics
and soil conditions existing at a proposed site is necessary to
determine th viability of land application whether it is con-
sidered for biological solids, float or screened solids.
4O
-------
LANDFILLING
The larldfllLLng of sludges and other solid wastes has traditonally
been the most common and least expensive method of disposal.
During the past several years, greater emphasis has been placed on
the proper Landfilling of wastes with the primary objective of
reducing env]Lronmental impact. As a result of this concern, state
and Federal legislation has been adopted to address the land
disposal of solid wastes. In 1976, Public Law 94-580 or the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was signed into law.
Under this egis1ation, the first national regulations for the
land di5posa]. of solid wastes will be promulgated.
Because of 5everal factors, the location and development of new
landfill sites for solid wastes is becoming increasingly diffi-
cult. The d]fflculty is a result of:
1. increased awareness of the potential for adverse environ-
mental impact;
2. more sophisticated state and Federal regulations which must
be met; and
3. resistance of neighbors to locating landfill operations near
their pioperty.
-------
For the reasons cited above, it would be difficult for a single
seafood processor to develop an approved landfill site for the
purpose of residuals disposal. In addition, the daily generation
of residual solids represents a relatively small volume. Equip-
ment and peisonnel would not be required at the site on a full
time ba ;is. As a result, the cost and logistics of operating the
site would be unattractive. Other alternatives must then be
explored.
If landfilling is to be utilized for the disposal of seafood
solids removed from waste streams, the use of an existing private
or municipal landfill represents a more viable approach. A con-
tract bEtween the processor and the operator of the disposal site,
which specifies a fee per unit of waste, would be a common
arrangement -
Seafood processors can participate in the joint use of an existing
sludge Iandf:Lll or arrange for the co-disposal of residual solids
at a convenlional refuse landfill. These practices are common
throughout the United States and they can offer an economic,
environmentally sound disposal option.
If it is necessary for a processing facility to develop its own
landfill, there are several major elements which must be consid-
ered for the burial of any seafood waste. The principal con-
siderations are:
-------
1. the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the
sludge;
2. avallabLlity of acceptable landfill sites;
3. local cLimatological and hydrogeologic conditions; and
4. regulatory requirements.
The physical, chemical and biological composition of the sludge
will have an influence on the manner by which this material can be
landfil]ed. Sludge from a DAF unit or biological system is com-
prised of water and solids removed during the treatment process.
The water content of the material will have a significant impact
on transport and disposal costs. Based on the associated costs,
it may he appropriate to consider the installation of a dewatering
system 1:0 reduce the total sludge volume. The removal of water
from the material will reduce transportation and disposal costs
and wil]. minimize potential disposal problems. The evaluation of
alternative iewatering systems and the related economic benefits
must be conducted on a case by case basis.
When selecting a landfill site the character of the soils is a
basic element which must be assessed. Generally, well-drained and
moderately well-drained soils are considered to be suitable for
landfilling as they are for land application. Leachate draining
from the solids will move downward through these soils at a rate
c243
-------
which allow , microorganisms and soil particles to remove con-
taminanl..s before it enters the groundwater. The soil treatment
mechanisms include filtration, adsoption, ammonia volatilization,
cation fixation and biological decomposition.
Odors and in:;ects can pose a nuisance problem with the landfilling
of float from DAF units. These problems can be controlled by
utilizing proper landfill procedures at the site. Daily covering
of the sludge w 1I minimize potential problems.
The biodegradable organics measured as BOD can be almost totally
removed by the soil matrix. The filtration mechanism will sep-
arate suspended organics from the leachate as it percolates
through the soil, and bacterial oxidation assimilates the trapped
particles. Removal generally occurs in the upper several inches
of soil. D]ssolved organics, both biodegradable and refractory,
are removed initially by adsorption on clay and humus material
with degradable material subsequently oxidized by microorganisms.
A problem which can be anticipated with the landfilling of resid-
uals, especjally partially dewatered sludges, is developing a
physical means of achieving disposal. Because of its semi-solid
nature, the float must be contained or it will tend to flow as a
viscous slurry. To overcome this occurence, it is recommended
that the celL or trench method of landfilling be adopted.
44
-------
For the trench method, the normal operating procedure is to ex-
cavate a trench prior to unloading the material. The excavated
soil is stockpiled and used for daily, intermediate and final
cover. The cell method of landfilling generally requires the
construction of an above grade soil enclosure on the existing
area. The :;olids can then be placed in the cell and covered.
With some sludges, it may be necessary to blend the semi-solid
material with soil to provide stability prior to covering. Figure
17 presents the schematic drawings of the trench and cell systems.
SOLIDS DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR ALASKAN PROCESSORS
Background
Seafood processors are dispersed along the Alaskan coast ranging
from the Aluetian Islands to the city of Ketchikan and the south-
eastern panhandle. Depending on the location, plants are either
isolated or situated in processing centers where several seafood
operations a e ongoing. Processing centers and population centers
are not nece.;sarily coincident. For example, the city of Anchor-
age is the nost densely populated area in Alaska; however, pro-
cessing operations consist of one salmon cannery and a cold
storage facility (freezing plant). The largest seafood processing
center ith respect to the number of plants is the city of Kodiak.
While accommodating approximately 15 seafood plants which process
a wide variety of raw materials, the population is less than 10
percent of the Anchorage area.
c24 5
-------
CELL METHOD
TRENCH METHOD
EARTHEN FILL
COMPLETED
TRENCHES
Figure 17.
Acceptable methods for landfilling sludge.
-------
Promulgation of the existing effluent limitations guidelines for
the seafood industry was based on prevailing conditions at
specific Alaskan areas. Supplemental to the Development Docu-
ments, .3 rationale for delineating remote and non-remote areas of
Alaska was developed. Currently, the non-remote areas are desig-
nated a , processing or population centers which include Anchorage,
Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak and Petersburg. Significant
populations or concentrations of several processing facilities
emphasl2:ed the importance of water quality considerations and the
need for more rigorous pollution control efforts in these areas.
Since plant by plant determinations were deemed neither practical
nor realistic under the original effort, two alternatives were
consideted for determining a non-remote location. The alternative
not selected would define a non-remote plant as any facility
within a ten-mile radius of the nearest seafood processor located
within the city limits of the designated cities or towns. The
other option which included those facilities within the geograph-
ical boundaries of the city or town was adopted. This alternative
constituted a jurisdictional line and could prevent increasing
near-shore water quality problems in areas of relatively dense
populations (Anchorage and Juneau) or those areas which have
several procE•ssing plants in relatively close proximity (Cordova,
Ketchikan and Petersburg). In the remaining location of Kodiak,
degradation of receiving waters which accept the wastes from 15
seafood processing plants was documented during water quality
investigations undertaken in the early 1970’s.
-------
It was felt that non-remote locations offer several economic
advantages which were considered. In some areas, more dependable
road ana feriy transportation, readily available power, and access
to larger populations which demand lower wage rates are charac-
teristic. These factors reflect a lower cost factor (Anchorage -
1.65 and Juneau - 1.75) than the 2.5 value initially employed to
estimate costs for all Alaskan areas. Plants in Kodiak and
Petersburg have access to reduction facilities and can employ
cooperative approdches to solid waste disposal. Joint munici-
pal-industrial treatment was another factor in designating areas
as non-remote. However, joint treatment, cooperative barging or
joint w;e of reduction facilities to achieve solids disposal or
by-product recovery was not assumed.
Although the conditions encountered throughout Alaska will vary
with the specific location, they are significantly different than
those observed in the contiguous United States. The subcategoriz-
ation rationale presented in the Development Documents and in
Section IV of this report substantiate this conclusion. Some
unique factors influencing the handling and disposal of waste
materials are labor availability, weather conditions, geography,
geologic and soil conditions, and relatively high costs associated
with coristrurtion and transportation activities. The combination
of two or more of these factors tend to limit the alternatives
available to seafood processors for the disposal of wastewater
treatment residues.
-------
A review of the general soil characteristics and geologic con-
ditions for selected processing areas indicates that landfilling
of seafood ;olids should not be adopted as an industry wide al-
ternative in Alaska. Input from the municipalities reinforce this
conclusion. Surface spreading or subsurface disposal of solids is
limited to agricultural areas which are not prevalent in Alaska.
Therefore, it appears that byproduct recovery and barging are the
two disposal options which are technically feasible for Alaskan
seafood processors.
Under BPCTCA effluent guidelines, the remote processors are re-
quired to grind all solids for discharge while plants in non-
remote locations have regulations based on screening (20-mesh
equivalent). On-site visits to Alaskan processing facilities in
July 1977 indicated there are several non—remote locations where
plants have not complied with BPCTCA regulations. (99) The loca-
tions includ Anchorage, Cordova, Ketchikan, and Petersburg. The
imposition of screening requirements in these areas and remote
Alaskan areas necessitates the development of a viable alternative
for residuals disposal. Therefore, the viability of solids dis-
posal practices should be a key criterion for defining non-remote
areas which are subject to stricter effluent limitations.
Barging
Since the waste control technologies considered for Alaskan seg-
ments of the industry are limited to in-plant management and
49
-------
screening, the residuals requiring disposal consist of gross and
screened solids. As they are generated, waste materials can be
stored Lfl available hoppers for subsequent loading onto a barge.
Thus, equipment in addition to the actual barge and power boat is
not required to implement this disposal option.
There are several factors which deserve consideration for deter-
mining the viability of barging solids for disposal. The most
significant consideration is adverse weather conditions which will
inhibit the deep sea disposal of processing wastes. The most
severe weath r generally occurs during the winter months. The
severity is dependent on the geographical location. Restrictions
on barging operations are a function of the commodities processed
and their harvesting seasons. The disposal of salmon wastes which
are generated from June through October would incur the least
restrictions in the major Alaskan processing areas.
For each processing area, a dumping site has been designated for
acceptable disposal of processing wastes. The major objective of
selecting an acceptable site is to minimize the impact of dis-
posal. The organic nature of seafood solids represent a high-
oxygen demand during decomposition in the receiving waters.
Therefore, it is essential that the wastes are deposited in waters
where adequate dispersion will occur. In general, approved dump-
ing sites are located in areas which have sufficient depth and
currents to rainimize significant localized impacts. Analysis is
required on a site by site basis.
5o
-------
A shrimp processor in Kodiak, which initiated operations in Hay
1976, elected to transport screened solids for deep sea disposal
rather than pay the fee charged by Bio-Dry Incorporated for by-
product conversion.(99) According to a plant representative, the
cost associated with having a local fishing boat haul the solids
to the dumping site was $15.00 per ton. The solids were processed
on deck and subsequently flushed overboard outside the harbor
area. This practice was terminated after a period of approxi-
mately one year when the transport of wastes to Bio-Dry Incor-
porated was :Lnitiated.
Two other Alaskan processors which were barging in 1977 have been
ldentif]ed. Since these operations involve only salmon comniodi-
ties, weather restrictions are not a major consideration. The
Larsen I3ay plant was found to have the longer one way distance to
the approved dumping site which is approximately five miles. At
the Kake facility, salmon wastes are transported less than one
mile for deep sea disposal. Dumping areas for plants operating in
Petersburg, Cordova, Ketchikan, Anchorage, Kodiak and Seward are
less than five miles from the processing plants. The capital and
operating costs associated with barging fish wastes a five mile
distance are presented in Section VIII of this report. It is
assumed that each facility owns and operates a barge or similar
vessel for waste disposal, emulating the two operations described
above.
-------
Byproduct Manufacturing
General
As outLined in previous sections of this report, the recovery of
marketable byproducts is the most desirable approach in terms of
waste management. Principal commodities for Alaska consist of
various finf sh and shellfish species. The actual distribution of
wastes generated by processing activities related to these commod-
ities is a function of the specific geographical area. Consider-
ation given to potential byproduct manufacturing should include
the following information: 1) waste characteristics, 2) volume
associated with each type of waste material, 3) frequency distri-
bution for generation, 4) capital and operating costs for manufac-
turing processes, and 5) market value of byproducts.
Approach and Methodology
The type of byproduct which can be generated from seafood wastes
is dependent on the specific materials available. For example,
discarded solids from shellfish operations can be converted to
chitin/chitosan or shellfish meal. Finfish processing plants have
the option of producing fish meal and fish oil, as one measure to
reduce waste discharges with the possibility of recovering a
portion of the costs. The manufacturing of chitin/chitosan has
been discussed earlier in this section. Although considerable
research has addressed the industrial aspects of the shellfish
-------
byproduct, the economic feasibility of full scale production is
unclear at the present time. Therefore, the following discussion
will strict]y address the potential of fish meal plants as a
feasible alternative for handling finfish and shellfish wastes in
Alaska
At the present time, three Alaskan areas are benefiting from the
capabilities of reduction facilities to convert fish processing
wastes to useful byproducts; Kodiak, Petersburg and Seward. Each
facility has the capacity to accommodate materials generated by
local processors. Since the fish meal operations in Petersburg
and Seward have significant excess capacity, they will generally
accept processing wastes transported from outside the immediate
area. Both facilities have processed wastes generated by seafood
plants located in excess of 100 miles away. Through contractual
agreements, operation of the reduction plant in Kodiak, which is
the largest of the three, is essentially devoted to serving the 15
processors in the immediate area.
Employing the approach of a centralized byproduct facility as
described fcr Kodiak, evaluations relative to establishing fish
meal plants at specific sites were conducted. Selection of the
sites were limited to cities or areas meeting at least one of the
following criteria: 1) current designation as a non—remote lo-
cation; 2) three or more major processing plants generating sea-
food wastes, or 3) reduction facility currently operating to
handle seafood wastes.
c253
-------
There are two areas which can be considered processing centers,
Naknek-South Naknek and Dutch Harbor, but will not be addressed
with respect to the manufacturing of meal products. As many as
seven plants. have operated along the Naknek River to process
strictly salmon. The salmon season in this area is relatively
short averaging 10 processing days over a three-week period. The
extremely short duration of waste generation is not conducive to
the operation of a reduction facility.
In recent years, the Dutch Harbor area has become more significant
relative to seafood production and has grown to be the second
largest seaf)od processing port in the world. The major commodi-
ties are King and Tanner crab, and shrimp. A very small volume of
salmon is processed in this area. In view of the volume and
frequeruy of waste generation, this processing center may provide
significant raw material for chitin/chitosan production at a
future time. The low value of shellfish meal and the logistics
associated wjth the Dutch Harbor area eliminate it from the inves-
tigatiorL process for fish meal operations.
Relative to the criteria and discussion presented herein, the
processing areas subjected to cursory assessments for fish meal
production are as follows: Cordova, Kenai Peninsula, Ketchikan,
Kodiak and Petersburg. Profiles which outline the characteristics
of each area will be developed to preface the summarized informa-
tion regarding the feasibility investigations. A profile for the
borough of Juneau is presented, since it is currently designated
54
-------
as a non-remote area. With only two major salmon processors and a
very sniall seafood plant operating in the area, investigations
relative to fish meal production from wastes do not appear warr-
anted for Juneau.
The Alaskan seafood industry can be characterized in general as
one which is oriented toward high production over relatively short
seasons. Wit.h this in mind, the operation of fish meal plants has
been adopted as a means for the disposal of processing wastes
rather than high profit business venture. The general approach
assumes that fish wastes are delivered to the reduction facility
by the respective processors without the exchange of funds.
Therefore, nc costs are associated with the raw material available
to generate the byproducts.
The emphasis of the analyses was placed on determining the ability
of a specific site to support a byproduct operation relative to
the existing wholesale price structure. In approaching the feas-
ibility deteiminations for the defined areas, several assumptions
listed below were adopted for universal application.
1. raw material costs are zero
2. processing plants have screens (20-mesh equivalent) installed
for solids recovery
-------
3. finfish wastes and shellfish materials are separated prior to
reduction to assure high quality for the resulting products
4. sufficient storage is provided at the fish meal plant to
accommodate peak processing days
5. finfish wastes are subjected to the entire reduction process
whle ;hellfish wastes are dried without undergoing the
cooking and pressing operations
6. the facility will be staffed year round for one shift with
other shifts added to maintain maximum production during peak
process ing periods
7. the meal products and fish oil are transported to Seattle,
Wa1;hington for marketing.
The availability of production data for Alaskan processors was
limited, however, the most recent and complete information avail-
able wns utilized. To determine the annual volumes of waste
generation for specific locations, publications which include
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Statistics and Pacific Packers
Reports were employed. The published data was supplemented with
production information obtained during on-site visits to the
various planes. In assessing the available data, 1976 was select-
ed as the base year for exploring the feasibility of fish meal
operations. Neither high nor low extremes for production were
observed for this year.
O2
-------
The general methodology utilized for developing distribution
graphs has been outlined above. However, variances from this
approach were required for individual sites and these will be
identified for the specific locations.
Due to the Jack of detailed production information, the distri-
bution graph!; were confined to average generation rates for the
various months. The size of the fish meal plant(s) which serve as
a basis for the economic assessments was selected from the appro-
priate graph Although reduction facilities are currently oper-
ating in Kodiak, Petersburg and Seward, efforts were directed
towards refining the design capacity for waste processing while
utilizing the most recent data available for these areas.
Cost Development
To develop representative capital cost estimates for fish meal
operations, equipment costs and supplemental information were
solicited from several foreign manufacturers. Equipment sizes of
interest range from 25 to 150 metric tons per 24 hours.
Stord Bartz A/S provided the most comprehensive information for
its Atlas Stord plants which served as the basis for assessing
each site. The Norwegian supplier included data for the following
items:
-------
1. itemize equipment list and approximate total weights
2. equipment prices (CIF Seattle, Washington)
3. manpower requirements for equipment installation
4. general equipment layouts for determining building sizes
5. esl:imdt u Ilidintenance requirements over the life of the
equipment
6. steam consumption, and
7. power Consumption.
Employing the manufacturer?s information as a basis, the capital
investment associated with constructing fish meal plants in the
various areas was estimated. The different components of this
figure ire itemized as follows:
1. process equipment
2. boiler md fuel storage
3. freight
-------
4 installation
5. buiLding and site preparation
6. piping
7. electrical, and
8. engineering and contingencies
Development cf the capital costs assumed that the boiler and fuel
storage tank are fabricated in Seattle, Washington for transport
to the designated site along with the process equipment. The
expenditures required for equipment installation and building
erection were adjusted utilizing the appropriate construction cost
adjustment f, ctor for the area. Adjustment factors are based on
Seattle, Washington prices and range from 1.75 to 2.15 for the
areas being investigated. All expenditures are based on January
1978 figures (ENRCC12675).
Direct operating costs were developed, in part, from the data
provided by Stord Bartz A/S. The breakdown of direct operating
costs for each installation followed the format presented below.
1. operating labor
-------
2. e ectri al power
3. fuel for steam generation and heat
4. ma ntenance of equipment and building
5. sh pment of final products to Seattle, Washington.
Indirect costs, such as administration expenses, were omitted from
this analysi:;.
Labor rates for plant operation were modified to reflect the cost
indices asso’:iated with individual areas. As presented in Section
VIII of this report, the rate structure for electrical power will
also vary for each proposed site. Where available, exact kilo-
watt-hour rates were incorporated into the direct operating cost
estimates. The cost of No. 2 fuel oil for steam generation was
obtained for the respective areas from two national oil companies.
Maintenance requirements were estimated as a percentage of first
cost for the equipment and building. Assuming that the final
products must be transported to Seattle, Washington for marketing,
shipping costs were obtained from the two carriers serving the
selected Alaskan areas. Only one of these carriers is available
to serve any of the sites under consideration.
Since the raw material being introduced into the fish meal process
is a combination of gross and screened solids from various
-------
sources, the composition of the feed could experience hourly and
daily variations. Manufacturer’s literature and input from
sources familiar with the conversion of fish wastes to meal. and
oil prcduct were employed to determine product yields. With
stickwaier evaporation, the average recovery rates for fish meal
and fish oil were assumed to be 25 percent and 8 percent, respec-
tively. Sub]ecting shellfish wastes directly to the drying oper-
ation would produce an average yield of 25 percent.
Applying the product yield estimates to the waste generation
graphs deveThped for the respective locations, the volumes of
byproducts vailable for sale were determined. Annual revenues
were based on the prevailing wholesale prices in 1977 of the
commodLties produced at each installation. Revenue projections
for 1976 prcduction figures are outlined for individual locations
utilizing the following wholesale prices:
Fish meal (60 percent protein content) — $380 per ton
Fish oil (low free fatty acid content) $400 per ton
Shellfish meal (30 percent protein content) $100 per ton
Projected revenues were compared to the total annual cost (sum of
direct operating costs and capital depreciation) to indicate the
potential feasibility of fish meal operations for the five loca-
tions considered. A better perspective of the economics associ-
ated with specific installations was gained by determining the net
profit or loss per ton of raw material processed. The pertinent
-------
data is presented in the following discussions of the individual
sites evaluated.
City of Cordova
Currenl]y cl issified as a non-remote area, the city of Cordova has
an estimated population of 2,500. Mountains surround the general
vicinity and it is not accessible to other population centers by
ground t.ransportation. There are three seafood processing plants
located withi.ri the city limits. A fourth processor is situated
less than two miles by road from the population center. The
principle seafood commodities include canned and fresh/frozen
salmon, Tanner and Dungeness crab, frozen herring in the round,
and herring roe.
In June 1976 approximately 950 of 2,500 people were employed of
which approx mately 200 were involved in the seafood processing
industry. There is one publicly-owned landfill site located
one-half mile outside the city. However, city officials have been
receiving pressure from state and federal regulatory agencies to
close the refuse landfill. The city also operates a primary
treatment plant which is not capable of accepting the wastewaters
generated by the local seafood plants.
The restricted accessibility of the city from other Alaskan areas
through , round transportation limits the local system to less than
20 miles of roads. Some roads are paved whi]e a significant
-------
number are gravel. The state of Alaska marine highway (ferry)
system serves Cordova through Valdez on two or three days per
week. ‘rhe greater activity occurs during the summer months. In
addition, a nodern airport is located directly outside the popu-
lation center for commercial traffic.
The volume of waste generation for the 1976 calendar year was
estimated from information obtained during on-site visits and the
1977 Pacific Packers report. The weekly production of s-3lmcn
wastes is based on data presented in the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, 1976 Preliminary Salmon Statistics. The monthly shell-
fish waste generation rates represent the distribution displayed
in the 1974 Alaska Catch and Production, Commercial Fisheries
Statistics far Prince William Sound. The volume of herring solids
available for reduction was assumed to be distributed equally over
a three week period in the spring. The results of this compil-
ation are displayed in Figure 18.
The estimated waste generation rates for the four processing
plants in the Cordova area, as plotted in Figure 18, provided the
basis for selecting the size of the fish meal plant for further
assessment. A 50 metric tons per day facility was chosen to
demonstrate lhe potential feasibility of meal production in this
area. The design and economic considerations are outlined in
Table 60.
-------
CITY OF CORDOVA
MONTH 1976
F:Lgure 18. Monthly generation of seafood ‘astes
for the city of Cordova.
LEGEND
FINFISH WASTES
—— — — SHELLFISH WASTES
08
07
0.6
0. 5
04
03
02
0I
w
w
U,
-J
2
0
-J
-J
U,
w
I-
U,
4
0
0
0
I I.
4
(U
U,
0
I ’
(U
I-
4
2
0
I-
4
(U
z
(U
I I
I I
J F N A N J J A S 0 N D
2&4-
-------
TABLE 60
DESIGN AND ECONO 1IC CONSIDERATIONS
CORDOVA FISH 1EAL FACILITY
1. Fifty m€ tric tons per 24 hours facility equipped with
a .tickwater plant.
2. Total annual waste volume is to be processed by the
proposed facility.
3. Construction cost factor relative to Seattle is 1.95.
4. Construction labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $23.60/hour
unskilled - $16.40/hour
5. Land acquisition costs are not included.
6. Useful life of equipment and building is 20 years.
7. Annual depreciation of capital investment is 8 percent.
8. Facility operation labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $19.80/hour
unskilled - $13.10/hour
9. Electrical power costs for medium demand - $O.045
per KWH.
10. Fuel oil cost - $0.50 per gallon.
11. Shippin , rate for the final products is $72.60 per ton.
-------
Employing th considerations as listed, the capital investment
required for a reduction facility to handle the entire volunie of
seafood wastes incurred by the area processors was estimated. The
corresponding operation and maintenance costs were also assessed.
Total annual expenditures based on depreciation over the useful
life of the facility were then compared to the revenues which
could be realized for the assumed processing schedules. This
resulted in a net profit of $22 per ton of raw material processed.
The economic analysis is summarized in Table 61.
-------
TABLE 61
CITY OF CORDOVA
ECONONIC ANALYSIS SUHIIARY
Fish Heal Plant Design Capacity - 50 metric tons per day
Initial Capital Investment - $1,100,000
Direct Operation and Naintenance Costs - $285,000
Total Annual Costs - $399,000
Annual Revenues
Fish Neal - $360,000 (940 tons)
Fish Oil - $117,000 (300 tons)
Shellfish Neal - $ 13,000 (135 tons)
TOTAL $490,000
Net PROFIT Before Taxes - $22 per ton of raw material
City of Juneau
According to census estimates prepared in 1973, the borough of
Juneau has a population of 15,400. Figures for the number of
people residing within the city limits were not available. Infor-
mation made available by city and borough officials indicates that
the total labor force consists of 8,750 of which 95.5 percent were
employed in September 1976. Two major seafood processing plants
operating in the borough and one of those is located within the
city limits. For this area, the principle commodities are canned
and fresh/frozen salmon, and halibut.
-------
A private landfill site is available for refuse disposal and is
easily accessible by paved road. This disposal site is located
five miles from the population center. The city and borough of
Juneau operates a secondary wastewater treatment plant which
currently handles organic loadings well below design capacity.
Indications from the Borough Sanitarian are that consideration
would b given to accommodating the process waters from seafood
operations.
In the borough of Juneau, ground transportation is judged to be
very good with approximately 50 miles of paved roads. A bus line
is also operated by the local municipality. Access to this area
from outside population centers is limited to air and waterborne
transportation. The state ferry system serves the city and
borough while commercial air travel is available at the local
airport.
Due to the nature of the seafood processing industry in this area,
disposal of wastes is only required during the summer months.
Barging of wastes by processors under the existing conditions
would not be limited by weather. Some restrictions would probably
be realized if processing does occur during the period from Nov-
ember through Narch.
The limitation of two major processing plants operating in the
borough prohibits serious consideration of a cooperative waste
reduction facility for the area. Therefore, any further evalu-
-------
ations relative to byproduct manufacturing should be directed
towards the .Lndividual plants. A foreign manufacturer can provide
package fish meal plants ranging in capacity from 250 to 1,000
kilograms per hour for this type of application.
Kenai Peninsula Area
There are a nwnber of seafood processors situated in a relatively
small geograph ca! arca ‘.nown as the Kenai Peninsula. This land
mass is adjaient to the municipality of Anchorage and extends in a
southerly direction into the Gulf of Alaska. The peninsula is
bounded by Cook Inlet to the west. Processors are dispersed
around the perimeter of the Kenai Peninsula in such municipalities
as Kenai, So]dotna, Ninilchik, Homer and Seward.
Estimates for 1973 show the population for the municipality of
Anchorage as 145,800. Greater than one-third of the people reside
within the city limits. More recent figures indicate the total
labor force residing within the municipal boundaries exceeds
67,000. Unemployment during the first quarter of 1977 was iden-
tified by municipal officials to be 8.3 percent. One organization
is engaged with processing seafood at two local facilities. At
the cannery and cold storage facility, activities have been
limited to handling salmon and herring.
Since it represents the largest population center in Alaska,
Anchorage ha been designated as a non-remote area with regard to
c2( 1
-------
seafood processors. The municipality operates a landfill; how-
ever, d]sposal is limited to refuse. Treatment of domestic waste-
water is accomplished by a primary plant which is not conducive to
the poor settling characteristics of most seafood processing
effluents. tlunicipal officials have no intentions of accepting
these wastewaters in the future.
Anchorage is a modern municipality with a number of transportation
modes available for moving people and freight including bus lines,
railroads ani commercial ferry services. The area is not part of
the state marine highway system.
For the Kenai Peninisula area, the principle seafood commodities
include canned and fresh/frozen salmon, halibut, King and Tanner
crab, and herring. The largest and most diversified processor is
located in Seward. Operations at this facility include a fish
meal plant with a 150 metric tons per day capacity. At the
present time, sufficient raw material is not available to allow
the plant tc operate near capacity. Information for 1976 indi-
cates that the annual output from processing seafood wastes was
less than 10 percent of the 24-hour design capacity.
Since there are a significant number of processors in this geo-
graphical area, the handling of waste materials by a centralized
fish meal plant deserves assessment. This approach is aided by
the relativeLy good conditions of roads accessing the area. Year
round ground transportation is possible with some minor restric-
c270
-------
tions. Waterborne transport of wastes represents an alternative
available to processors when the fish meal plant is strategically
located in an accessible port.
Evaluation oE the available production data resulted in the waste
generation graph shown as Figure 19. Information regarding fin-
fish wastes was obtained from the 1977 Pacific Packers Report
which did not provide complete data for this area. The rela-
tionship between waste volun e and time of year was based on the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1976 Preliminary Salmon Sta-
tistics and average production of halibut over the entire fishing
season. She]lfish estimates which are essentially King and Tanner
crab were obtained during a site visit to the Seward facility and
then averaged over the respective processing seasons as indicated
in Figure 19.
It becomes apparent from Figure 19 that the existing fish meal
plant a].so eKceeds the capacity required for a regional facility.
Therefore, a complete economic assessment which addresses the
Seward installation in relation to the available raw material is
inappropriate for the purposes of this investigation. To demon-
strate the financial capabilities of a facility designed for the
available raw material, a 35 metric tons per day package plant was
selected for analysis. The pertinent design and economic consid-
erations are listed in Table 62.
-------
KENAI PENINSULA AREA
0.6
LEGEND
FINFISH WASTES
3
0.5 ———— SHELLFISH WASTES
0 .
-J
z
0
-J
-J
C / )
w
I .-
U,
4
3
a
0
0
U-
4
U)
0
U.
UJ
0.2
4
2
0
I-
4 --
r
2
II
01 i i
I I
I II
I II
I II
I II
I ____ II
— I 4 ——— I I
J F M A N J J A $ 0 N D
MONTH 1976
FIgure 19. Monthly generation of seafood wastes
for the Kenai Peninsula area.
z1.l
-------
TABLE 62
DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
KENAI PENNINSULA AREA FISH MEAL FACILITY
1. Thxrty- [ ive metric tons per 24 hours facility equipped
with a ;tickwaLer piant.
2. Total annual waste voiwne is to be processed by the
proposed facility.
3. Construction cost factor relative to Seattle is 1.95.
4. Construction labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $23.60/hour
unskilled - $16.40/hour
5. Land acquisition costs are not included.
6. Useful life of equipment and building is 20 years.
7. Annual depreciation of capital investment is 8 percent.
8. Facility operation labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled — $19.80/hour
unskilled - $13.10/hour
9. Electrical power costs for medium demand - $0.052 per
KWH.
10. Fuel oil cost - $0.50 per gallon.
11. Shipping rate for the final products is $39 per ton.
273
-------
TABLE 63
KENAI PENINSULA AREA
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Fish Heal Plant Design Capacity - 35 metric tons per day
Initial Capil:al Investment - $860,000
Direct Operal:ion and Maintenance Costs — $175,000
Total Annual Cost - $269,000
Annual Revenues
Fish Med — $170,000 (450 tons)
Fish Oil. - $ 55,000 (140 tons)
Shellfi:;h Heal - $ 20,000 (200 tons)
TOTAL $245,000
Net LOSS Before Taxes - $10 per ton of raw materials
Demonstratin; the potential for operating a byproduct facility
requires the estimation of initial capital investment, direct
operating co ts and annual revenues. The results of this analysis
are presented in Table 63. A net loss before taxes of $10 was
determined by comparing annual costs (operating, transportation
and depreciation) to the projected revenues.
The existence of the 150 metric tons per day fish meal plant at
Seward suggests the undertaking of a cursory analysis for the
current operational mode. Assuming Figure 19 reflects the avail-
able raw material supply, the direct operation and maintenance
-------
costs would approach $187,000 while revenues are estimated at
$245,000. E:ince the facility is already equipped to process
seafood wastes, depreciation of the invested capital is neglected.
Under these conditions, it appears profitable to continue oper-
ating the Lirger facility with the estimated volume of wastes
realizing a return of approximately $24 per ton of raw material.
It should be noted that Figure 19 does not include estimates for
the salmon and herring wastes generated by the cannery and cold
storage plant. located in Anchorage since they were not available.
The canning plant is relatively large and is capable of processing
in excess of 200,000 pounds (90,700 kg) of raw material per day.
Incorporatin the waste quantities attributed to the Anchorage
operations into the economic analysis would probably increase the
optimum design capability of the plant to 50 metric tons per day.
Depending on the actual frequency and generation rates, the econ-
omics would approach a breakeven situation, assuming that the cost
of transport]ng the raw material in excess of 100 miles is borne
by the processor. The addition of higher value waste materials
(salmon and herring) could assist an optimal size system in be-
coming solvent. The profit margin for the existing reduction
facility wouLd be significantly enhanced with the processing of
wastes contributed by Anchorage operations and other plants in
this geographic area. Transportation of the wastes generated
outside the Seward area is a significant economic consideration
for the individual processor.
p275
-------
City of Ketchikan
The city of Ketchikan was designated as a non-remote area for the
purpose of establishing effluent guidelines for the local seafood
processors. According to the 1976 estimate, the population of
Ketchikan is 10,400. Data provided by city officials indicates
that in the latter part of 1975, local employment reached 4,800.
Influence of the seafood processing plants is reflected in the
employment rates for 197ó which range from 87.8 percent in January
to 96.3 percent in September. A total of three processors have
been operating in the city limits while a fourth plant is situated
approximately 3 miles from the population center. The main pro-
ducts for this area are canned and fresh/frozen salmon, halibut,
herring and bottom fish.
City offici.ds have determined that potential landfilling of
seafood wastes is inappropriate with respect to the geography of
the area. It appears that limitations for barging operations
would occur only during adverse weather conditions. Because of
its location, Retchikan experiences relatively mild weather and
deep sea disposal is a feasible alternative essentially year
round. The potential for treatment of seafood processing waste-
waters by a municipal system does not exist at this time, since
the city is not operating such a system. Although the road system
in the Ketchikan area can be defined as fairly modern, geo raph-
ical charact ristics of the area prohibit access by ground trans—
portation from outside locales. Commercial air travel is supple-
mented by the State of Alaska ferry system.
-------
Reported production of canned and fresh/frozen salmon was obtained
directly from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1976 Pre—
liminary Salmon Statistics. The 1977 Pacific Packers Report
listed monthly halibut landings for 1976 which were incorporated
with the saLmon data to produce Figure 20. The generation of
bottom fish wastes is insignificant when compared to the monthly
volumes associated with the other finfish species.
Because of the relatively short processing season characteristic
of this area, the initial approach encompassed a 50 metric tons
per day fish meal plant supplemented by barging of wastes during
peak salmon processing periods. The objective of this procedure
was to minimize capital expenditures and obtain optimum operation
for a ptoposE.d facility. While utilizing the methodology outlined
for the previous sites, the profit margin for this operation was
found to approximate the value determined for a 100 metric tons
per day plant which is capable of accommodating the total volume
of wastes. Therefore, the remaining discussion will address
strictly the larger reduction facility. The design and economic
considerations for an installation to serve the seafood plants
established ]fl the Ketchikan are outlined in Table 64.
-------
CITY OF KETCHIKAN
15•
LEGEND
FINFISH WASTES
— — - — — SHELLFISH WASTES
L i i
Lii
Lii
a-
U,
-J
z
9 1.0
-J
1
U,
( i i
I -
U,
4
C
0
0
U.
4
L i i
U,
0
U.
L i i 0.5
I -
4
z
0
I -
4
U
z
U
0
_, I I — ——
J F N A N J J A S 0 N D
MONTH 1976
Figure 20. Monthly generation of seafood wastes
for the city of Ketchikan.
z1
-------
TABLE 64
DESIGN AND ECONOt 1IC CONSIDERATIONS
KETCHIKAN FISH NEAL FACILITY
1. One hundred metric tons per 24 hours facility equipped
wit.h a ;tickwater plant.
2. Tot.al annual waste volume is to be processed by the
prciposed facility.
3. CorLstruction cost factor relative to Seattle is 1.75.
4. Construction labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled $21.20/hour
unskilled $14.70/hour
5. Land acquisition costs are not included.
6. Useful ]ife of equipment and building is 20 years.
7. Annual depreciation of capital investment is 8 percent.
8. Facility operation labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $17.80/hour
unskilled - $11.80/hour
9. Electrical power costs for large demand - $0.046 per KWH.
10. Fuel oil cost - $0.45 per gallon.
11. Shipping rate for the final products is $22 per ton.
c27?
-------
As outlined in Table 65, the initial capital expenditures, and
operation ani maintenance costs were estimated for the 100 metric
tons per da plant. Annual revenues were based on the waste
production figures for 1976. Comparison of the depreciated cap-
ital izwestnient and direct operating costs with the estimated
revenues yieLded a net profit of $15 per ton of raw material. The
relative attractiveness of the economics can be attributed to the
absence of shellfish wastes and the dominance of salmon production
in the KetchLkan area.
TABLE 65
CITY OF KETCHIKAN
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Fish Meal Plant Design Capacity - 100 metric tons per day
Initial Capil:al Investment - $1,800,000
Direct Operal:ion and Maintenance Costs - $225,000
Total Annual Cost - $427,000
Annual Revenues
Fish Meal - $360,000 (950 tons)
Fish Oi:L - $120,000 (300 tons)
TOTAL $480,000
Net PROFIT Before Taxes - $15 per ton of raw material
c F0
-------
City of Kodiak
Population figures developed for 1974 indicate that 8,900 persons
reside in Kodiak. Within the city boundaries, a total labor force
of 2,470 wa.s estimated by city officials in 1977. Employment
approaches 9 percent of the available labor force. There were 14
separate installations processing seafood in the city of Kodiak
during 1977. Another plant is located directly outside the city
boundar]es. For this area, the principal commodities include
canned and fresh/frozen salmon, halibut, King and Tanner crab,
shrimp and herring.
The road system in the city of Kodiak and adjacent areas can be
characterized as having few paved roads and mostly good gravel
thoroughfares;. Located on an island, the city has an adequate
facility for commercial air travel and is served by the state
ferry Lines. Ferries scheduled for three days per week during the
summer and twice per week during the remainder of the year provide
access to Homer and Seward.
Processing operations continue throughout the year at the various
facilities 1EL Kodiak. During the winter months, barging of wastes
would be restricted by extended periods of adverse weather con-
ditions. A reduction facility has been operating since 1973 to
accommodate the wastes generated by the local seafood processors.
However, stickwater evaporation is not practiced to improve the
quality of the fish meal. At a capacity of 270 metric tons per
-------
day, the meal plant is sufficient to handle the total volume of
wastes incurred by the use of solids separation techniques at the
individual plants. Barging may only be necessary during extended
shutdown periods for the reduction facility. With the avail-
ability of such a facility, the practice of landfilling fish
solids has not been adopted.
Even though screens have been installed by the local processors,
the proposed municipal wastewater treatment facility will not be
capable of accepting the processing effluents. The city expected
the pollution control facility to be on-line by April 1978.
In the absence of a stickwater evaporation plant, the Kodiak
reduction facility forfeits the ability to produce solubles or
enhance its fish meal product. The nature of the area’s pro-
cessing activities necessitate the combining of finfish and shell-
fish wastes for reduction, thus compromising the quality of the
final product. The subsidies provided by the local plants rein-
force the presence of inefficiencies such as those identified
herein. To gain a perspective of the capabilities of the area to
support a by-product facility, optimized equipment has been em-
ployed as a basis for the economic analysis.
With sufficient production data lacking in the 1977 Pacific
Packers Report and gaps occurring in the information obtained
during on-si:e Visits, statistics published by the Alaska
-------
Department of Fish and Game served to generate Figure 21. The
State of Alaska publications for the 1976 salmon season and the
1974 cal:ch and production figures included the city of Kodiak data
in the Kodiak Island statistics. To adjust for this occurrence,
it was asswned that two-thirds of the processing was conducted by
the non—remo :e plants. General comparisons with specific informa-
tion obtained from individual processors indicate the assumption
to be within reason.
The variety of the processing activities in Kodiak dictated the
need for incorporating flexibility into a proposed facility. From
Figure 21, Lt appeared that a 150 metric tons per day fish meal
plant and a 70 metric tons per day dryer is required. The aux-
illiary dryer was selected for periods when finfish wastes and
shell mater]als are generated simultaneously. Shell drying can
occur in the mechanism provided with the fish meal equipment
and/or the auxiliary dryer. Separation of the different types of
wastes was ‘n integral part of the economic analysis procedures.
Consideratiofls which are specific to the design and economics of
the proposed Kodiak facility are detailed in Table 66.
Z 3
-------
CITY OF KODIAK
LEGEND
FINFISH WASTES
SHELLFISH WASTES
U
U
Li
a.
50
-I
z
0
I I
I I
4.0 1
U) I
o I I
o I I
2 i i
i ,
U
U) 30 I
0
Ia. ) I---’
U I I
4 I
z I
20
U
z
U I
F-i
r”” I
I I I I
L___i i i
I I I
I I I I
i I
I I ... _ — — — .. •••• — — ______________________________________
•—i— I I I
J F N A N J J A S 0 N 0
MONTH 1976 (FINFISH)
MONTH 1974 (SHELLFISH)
Figure 21. Monthly generation of seafood wastes
for the city of Kodiak.
Z$4 .
-------
TABLE 66
DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
KODIAK FISH MEAL FACILITY
1. One hundred and fifty tons per 24 hours facility
equipped with a stickwater plant and a 70 metric
tons per 24 hours auxiliary dryer.
2. Total annual waste volume is to be processed by the
proposed facility.
3. Coristruc tion cost factor relative to Seattle is 2.15.
4. Constrution labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $26.00/hour
unskilled - $18.10/hour
5. Land acquisition costs are not included.
6. Useful life of equipment and building is 20 years.
7. Annual c’epreciation of capital investment is 8 percent.
8. Faci1it operation labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $21.85/hour
unskilled - $14.45/hour
9. Electrical power costs for large demand - $O.071 per
KWH.
10. Fuel oil cost - $0.50 per gallon.
11. Shipping rate for the final products is $65 per ton.
-------
Estimates for the first cost of the proposed reduction facility
along with annual operation and maintenance expenditures were
prepared. Based on Figure 21, the revenues from the sale of
byproducts c ere projected. It appears that a potential for a
profit margin of $5 per ton exists in view of 1977 market con-
ditions. The pertinent information is summarized in Table 67.
TABLE 67
CITY OF KODIAK
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Fish Meal Plant Design Capacity - 150 metric tons per day
Auxiliaty Dryer Design Capacity - 70 metric tons per day
Initial Capital Investment - $2,800,000
Direct Operation and Maintenance Costs - $1,100,000
Total Annual Cost - $1,420,000
Annual Bevenite
Fish Me l — $700,000 (1,850 tons)
Fish Oil - $240,000 ( 600 tons)
ShellfiEh Meal — $630,000 (6,300 tons)
TOTAL $1,570,000
Net PROFIT Before Taxes - $5 per ton of raw materials
-------
City of Petersburg
Located in southeastern Alaska, the city of Petersburg has been
designated as a non-remote area. The 1970 census indicated a
population of approximately 2,000 residing in the city. Infor-
mation provided by city officials in 1977 estimated the total
labor force to be 1,100 of which 800 are employed.
Ground transportation in the Petersburg area can be considered
typical for a municipality located in the southeastern part of the
state. Some roads are paved with the majority being gravel. The
road system is amenable to conventional passenger and commercial
vehic1es . Service provided by the State of Alaska marine highway
system is similar to that received by Juneau and Ketchikan.
There are fcur seafood processing facilities which are operating
or have operated within the city boundaries. The principle comm-
odities of i:he processors are: fresh/frozen and canned salmon,
halibut, herring fillets, Tanner and King crab, bottom fish and
shrimp. Herring is also frozen whole and stripped for roe. In
1974, one processor initiated operation of a fish meal plant which
is capable cf handling 100 metric tons per day of fish related
materials. Processing wastes are delivered to the reduction
facility by plants located in the city. In the past, the fish
meal plant has accepted wastes from processors operating in other
areas such as Ketchikan, Sitka and Juneau. It appears that this
-------
practice has been discontinued due to the costs associated with
barging the materials to Petersburg. The reduction facility
operate only during a portion of the year and has never operated
at total design capacity.
As of 1977, the city maintained a landfill site approximately one
mile from the population center which is accessible essentially
year round. A proposed site, ten miles outside the city, is
currently undevelcpeJ. Th2 municipal wastewater treatment facil-
ity does not accept process wastewaters generated by the seafood
plants. floclification of this philosophy is not anticipated.
The Petersburg - Wrangell area may experience adverse weather
conditions during the period from September through January.
Barging operations for waste disposal may encounter some minor
restrictions during this time. Deep sea disposal during the
remainder of the year can be accomplished under good conditions.
The combination of finfish and shellfish processing results in
waste generation essentially year round. In the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Preliminary Salmon Statistics for 1976, pro-
duction for canned and fresh/frozen salmon was reported for the
Petersburg - Wrangell area. Subtracting the Wrangell production
obtained frot the 1977 Pacific Packers Report, the distribution
for Petersburg salmon waste generation was obtained. Shellfish
information was made available by the individual plants or re-
ported in the 1977 Pacific Packers Report. Monthly allocations
-------
for waste generation was based on the 1974 Catch and Production,
Commercial FLsheries Statistics which has been prepared by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The summarization of the
available seafood wastes information for the city of Petersburg is
shown in Figure 22.
As indicated by Figure 22, the existing 100 metric tons per day
facility well exceeds the required capacity for the immediate
area. A fish meal pL t 3ized at 35 metric tons per day has been
selected for assessing the Petersburg area. It appears that a
facility of this capacity may require a barge to dispose of excess
waste material during peak production periods. First priority
would be given to barging shellfish wastes. The variety of pro-
cessing acti’,ities dictates the operation of the reduction facil-
ity over the entire calendar year. Again, separation of specific
wastes for processing is necessary to maintain by-product quality
and value. Other factors with regard to plant design and the
inherent economics are outlined in Table 68.
-------
CITY OF PETERSBURG
LEGEND
FINFISH WASTES
— — SHELLFISH WASTES
Ui g .
I i i
w
0
U,
-J
z
o 04
-J
-J
2
(n
UJ
I-
U,
4
0.3
a
0
4
U,
0
I L
w 0.2
2
0
U i --
0.1 L ,
_.:_ __________
I I I
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
MONTH 1976
Figure 22. Monthly generation of seafood wastes
or the city of Petersburg.
-------
TABLE 68
DESIGN AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PETERSBURG FISH MEAL FACILITY
1. Thirty-1 ive tons per 24 hours facility equipped with a
stckwaier plant.
2. Niriety-Lwo percent of the total annual waste volume is
to be processed by the proposed facility.
3. Construction cost factor relative to Seattle is 1.80.
4. Construction labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled — $21.80/hour
unskilled - $15.20/hour
5. Land acquisition costs are not included.
6. Useful life of equipment and building is 20 years.
7. AnrLual depreciation of capital investment is 8 percent.
8. Facility operation labor rates with fringe benefits:
skilled - $18.30/hour
unskilled - $12.10/hour
9. Electrital power costs for medium demand - $0.053 per
KWH.
10. Fuel oil cost - $0.50 per gallon.
11. Shippin : rate for the final product is $23 per ton.
;2- 1I
-------
Following th procedures adopted for the other Alaskan sites, the
required initial capital investment and the associated operation
and maintenance costs were estimated. The estimates developed
include the costs associated with barging excess solids. Annual
revenue ; were computed for the byproducts resulting from the
volumes of wastes depicted in Figure 22.
Even with the smaller by-product facility, a net loss of $5 per ton
of raw material was de errnined for the 1977 protein and fish oil
market. The basis for this conclusion is outlined in Table 69.
TABLE 69
CITY OF PETERSBURG
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Fish Meal Plant Design Capacity - 35 metric tons per day
Initial Capital Investment — $820,000
Direct Operation and Maintenance Costs - $141,000
Total Annual Costs — $235,000
Annual Revenues
Fish Meal - $152,000 (400 tons)
Fish Oil — $ 48,000 (120 tons)
Shellfish Meal — $ 14,000 (140 tons)
TOTAL $214,000
Net LOSS Before Taxes — $5 per tons of raw material
c2 -
-------
Since a fish meal plant has been operating in the city of Peters-
burg over the past several years, a cursory economic evaluation
was performed to determine the viability of continued operation.
Since the initial investment has been made, estimated operating
costs only ere compared with projected revenues. The larger
plant capaci:y will easily accommodate the total volume of wastes
generated in this area. The annual costs associated with normal
operation and maintenance of the 100 metric tons per day facility
were estimated t” he $1R3,000. Yearly revenues far exceed the
direct costs associated with processing seafood wastes incurred by
the local processors. The net gain for this approach was deter-
mined to be $25 per ton of raw material processed.
9 3
-------
SECTION VIII
COSTS AND ENERGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
GENERAL
As a result of the existing effluent limitations guidelines,
seafood processors have attempted to establish water and waste
management practices which include in-plant measures and end-
of-pipe treaLment. Specific plants are approaching the concept of
total uti1i; ation of raw materials through secondary product
manufacturing and byproduct recovery. For the most part, these
facilit]es are contained within the tuna and fish meal subcate-
gories.
Although end-of-pipe wastewater treatment systems and in-plant
management practices have been implemented, areas have been iden-
tified throLighout the industry where these operations require
improvement. Therefore, the first step in the implementation of a
comprehensive water and waste management program should be an
indepth review of the existing practices and processing proced-
ures. The results may dictate the modification of specific tech-
niques or the adoption of new methods. This approach can provide
the means to meet potentially stricter limitations under BCTCA and
reduce the capital and operating expenditures necessary for com-
pliance.
L294
-------
An understanding of the seafood industry has been achieved through
visiting and observing the operation of numerous plants covering a
variety of subcategories. For example, more than 25 Alaskan
seafood processing facilities were visited. Through this effort
the significant factors which processors face in developing a
total water and waste management program have been delineated.
Consideration has been given to precautions which should be taken
when implementing water recycle systems as well as other major
elements of recornmcn ln-plant management practices. Moreover,
specific equipment utilized for effluent treatment has been iden-
tified and provides the basis for developing costs associated with
complete sysl:ems.
Current praci:ices for water and waste management adopted by plants
within individual subcategories were found to vary significantly.
Available data indicate that a wide range for the ratio of waste-
water volume to the quantity of raw material processed exists for
specific segments. For example, a mechanized salmon cannery in
the contiguous United States utilized an average of 1,700 gallons
of water to process one ton of raw material or 5,800 l/kkg, while
a similar plant consumed in excess of 4,000 gallons per ton
(15,000 l/kkg). Similar comparisons can be drawn from other
subcategories.
In providing a consistent basis for developing costs associated
with end-of-pipe treatment systems, plants were assumed to adopt a
good water and waste management program. A detailed discussion of
-------
the program components has been presented in Section VI of this
report. Flow has been established as the most significant para-
meter for the effluent treatment technologies considered and thus,
provides the basis for capital and operating cost development.
However, expenditures for implementing and maintaining in-plant
modification5 designed to reduce water use and waste loads have
been specifically generated utilizing plant production capabili-
ties as the foundation.
Although con5iderable efforts have been directed toward developing
representative cost estimates, an individual processing facility
may possess characteristics which differentiate it from the
typical or model plant. The information presented herein has been
generated for the purpose of comparing the economics of alterna-
tive technolgies. Therefore, it is not intended or recommended
that these Figures be used for the purpose of estimating the
actual expenlitures required to construct and/or operate a pro-
posed treatment facility.
The in-plant measures, outlined in Section VI, represent several
of the methods which a plant may utilize to reduce water consump-
tion and waste loads. Several approaches are generally applicable
throughout the seafood processing industry. Based on observations
and concurrent data collection in facilities where measures have
been implemented, achievable flows and waste loads for the appro-
priate ;ubcategories have been established to serve as the common
base for appLying BCTCA end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
-------
Moreover, good water and waste management practices provide an
effecti e means of reducing the cost of meeting both current and
future effluent limitations.
IN-PLANT MANAGEMENT
The in-plant waste management techniques discussed in Section VI
represent several approaches which can be employed to reduce water
use and waste loads. These techniques have been categorized as
follows:
1. Good housekeeping . General housekeeping consists of educat-
ing plant personnel to accept water conservation and good
solids handling practices as part of their daily activities.
This concept can be implemented without direct cost or pro-
cess modification.
2. Intensive waste management . An acceptable program of waste
management requires minimal expenditures; however it does not
necessitate process changes. Some generally applicable
techniques include dry capture and collection of gross solids
followed by washdown utilizing high pressure-low volume
equipment. Employing this procedure, in contrast to the
removal of waste solids with hoses during periodic washdowns,
will result in reduced water use and organic loads.
-------
3. In”plani: modifications . The concepts available to plants for
achieving reductions in water consumption and pollutant
discharges under this category are changes in processing and
product handling procedures. Specific modifications include
water recycle, water conservation through equipment changes
and replacement of flumes.
Many of the water and waste management practices determined to be
appropriate for the industry are relatively simplistic in nature.
With the exception of a few subcategories, the recommended in-
plant measuri s can be placed in either of the first two categories
described; good housekeeping or intensive waste management. Major
in-plant modifications, representing a higher level of sophistica-
tion, have been identified for the tuna and fish meal subcate-
gories. A thaw water recycle system, as shown in Figure 23, can
significantly reduce the daily volume of wastewater generated by a
tuna cannery. Fish meal plants, currently barging stickwater or
discharging it to receiving waters, can upgrade the facility to
produce solubles. Figure 24 depicts this process which converts a
concentrated waste stream into a marketable byproduct. At the
present tim€, a number of fish meal plants are either selling
solubles or incorporating the concentrate into the meal during the
drying stage.
Estimates for specific in-plant changes have been developed for
total capital expenditures and the net increase in daily operating
costs. The values presented in Table 70 represent the total cost
-------
LI IiH -
COLLECTION
SUM P
LEGEND
EXISTING
PROPOSED
0
ACID
STEAM
- DRAIN TO WASTE WATER SUMP
t”4
RETENT ION
TA N K
Figure 23. Schematic diagram for tura thaw water recycle system.
-------
LEGEND
EXISTING
COOLING PROPOSED
SOURCES WATER STEAM
I SEPARATION ‘ 1
L_____J I
- OIL —

I WASHDOWN I
L__ _r —
EXISTING
FISH MEAL
FACILITY
- 1
PUMP
— — — — . DISCHARGE TO
RECEIVING WATER
FIgure 24.
Schematic diagram for stickwater evaporator system.
-------
for all measures listed for a particular subcategory. Included in
the estimated capital investment are expenditures for modifica-
tions to exi .ting systems as well as the purchase and installation
of new equipnient.
The actLtal costs incurred by an individual plant will vary accord-
ing to which modificiations are already in place, and the specific
modification ; which are applicable at that facility. The in-plant
changes listed in Table 70 are those which are considered to be an
integral part, of an effective waste management program.
The estimated operating costs reflect the implementation and
maintenance of the recommended in-plant water and waste management
programs. These estimates are primarily associated with the
additional labor necessary to incorporate modified procedures into
the daily plant activities. In general, the incremental labor
requirements are dependent on the manner of implementation and the
attitude of the personnel directly involved.
In developing representative costs for in-plant management, no
benefit has been given to possible net savings which may result
from decreased water use and the corresponding wastewater treat-
ment requirements. tloreover, the benefits of higher product
utilization rnd byproduct have been excluded. In some instances,
the benefits outlined above will partially or totally offset the
capital and operating costs incurred through the adoption of
recommended in-plant measures. This concept is most evident for
30)
-------
TABLE 70
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING IN-PLANT MEASURES
Conventional
Blue Crab
Partial Recycle of Live Tank Water
Modify Washdo n
Isolate Cooker Water
Modify Washdown
Mechanized Optimize Water Use During Picking
Blue Crab & Subsequent Washing
Eliminate Flumes
Isolate Cooker Water
Modify Washdown
Alaskan Crab
Meat
Alaskan Whole
Crab and
Section Crab
Dungeness and
Tanner Crab
Eliminate Flumes 3
Dry Capture Shell & Waste Solids
Modify Washdown
Eliminate Flumes 5
Dry Capture Shell & Waste Solids
Modify Washdown
Separate Solids at Source for
Collection
Optimize Use of Cooling Water
Modify Washdown
Eliminate Flumes 5
Optimize Water Use of Peeling
Machines
Modify Washdown
35 35 15 50
10 50
30 190
Subcategory
Farm Raised
Catfish
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
c,,
C ,
( M
A c M
AiM
In-Plant Measures tons/day
K$1,000
Cost $
tons/day
K$1,000
Cost $
tons/day
K$I,000
Cost
$
2
5
2 10
2 20 10
S 7
S 7
5
7 10 15
10 10
10 25 15
85 155
Alaskan
Shrimp
30
30
12
50
70
30
08
40
3
10
10
15
15
30
30
20
20
40
25
45 55 35
-------
TABLE 70 (Continued)
COSTS OF I9PLEME JTING IN-PLANT IEASURES
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
Size
Cost
O&!1
iie
( ‘nc r
(DAM
Sl7e
( ‘ncr
Subcategory In-Plant Measures tons/day
KSl,000
Cost $
tons/day
K$1,000
Cost $
tons/day
1 (51 ,000
Cost
$
Northern Eliminate Flumes 5 15 10 15 20 10
Shrimp Optimize Water Use of Peeling
Machines
Modify Washdown
Southern Eliminate Flumes 10 15 10 30 30 20
Non-Breaded Optimize Water use of Peeling
Shrimp Machines
Modify l.ashdown
Breaded Eliminate Flumes 3 15 10 12 20 10
Shrimp Optimize Equipment Flows
Modify l.ashdown
Tuna Optimize Water Use in Butchering 20 20 20 100 75 75
Area
Recycle Thaw System
Modify Washdown
Tuna Same as Above 250 120 130 500 220 245
Fish Meal Contain Leaks 35 15 5 160 30 5 250 45 5
w/Solubles Modify l ashdown and Process into
Solubles
Fish Meal Add Solubles Unit 35 270 275 160 415 480 250 550 555
w/o Solubles Modify Washdown and Process into
Solubles
-------
TABLE 70 (Continued)
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING IN-PLANT MEASURES
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
Design
Capital
Daily
Size
Cost
O&N
Sl7e
COSL
OAM
Sl7e
Cnct
1) M
Subcategory In-Plant Measures tons/day
X$1,000
Cost $
tons/day
K$1,000
Cost
tons/day
KSl,000
Cost
$
Alaskan Install Overflow Wash Basin 10 10 25 40 20 50
Hand- Dry Capture of Waste Solids
Butchered Modify Washdown
Salmon
Alaskan Elininate Flumes 35 90 75 90 150 160 150 220 245
Mechanized Modify Washdown
Salmon Collect & Dewater Gross Solids from
Chink Area
Optimize Equipment Flows
Dry Collection of Solids from
Sliming Table and Can-Filling Area
Isolation of Head Cooker Discharge
Hand-Butchered Install Overflow Wash Basin 5 10 5 15 15 15
Salmon Dry Capture of haste Solids
Modify Washdown
Mechanized Eliminate Flumes 20 30 25 35 45 40 80 75 15
Salmon Modify Washdown
Collect & Dewatez- Gross Solids from
Chink Area
Optimize Equipment Flows
Dry Collection of Solids from
Sliming Table and Can-Filling Area
Isolation of Head Cooker Discharge
Alaskan Modify Washdown 20 15 5 75 30 10
Halibut
q
-------
TABLE 70 (Continued)
COSTS OF IMPLEIENTING IN-PLANT MEASURES
Dcbi I, LapiLat Daily Desigii %..dpLLdL Daily Dc u Capital Daily
Size Cost O&Z1 Size Cost O&M Cost CosC O&9
Subcategory In-Plant Measures tons/day K$l,000 COST $ tons/day K$l,000 Cost $ tons/day K$1,000 Coi t $
Conventional Modify Pre-Rinse 3 10 s is :0 5 40 15 5
Bottom Fish Reduce Fillet Table Flow
Modify hashdown
Mechanized Eliminate Flumes 5 20 10 30 35 25 70 50 IS
Bottom Fish Dry Capture of Solids from
Butchering Machine
Modify ashdown
Hand-Shucked Modify Washdown 25 5 5 60 15 5
Clam
Mechanized Optimize Equipment Flows 80 20 5 250 25 5
Clam Modify Washdown
Hand-Shucked Modify Washdown 0 3 5 5 3 5 5
Oyster
Steamed/ Optimize Equipment Flows 1 5 5 7 10 5 15 10 5
Canned Modify Washdown
Oysters
-------
TABLE 70 (Continued)
COSTS OF IHPLE IENTING IN-PLANT MEASURES
Sardine Eliminate Flumes 20 20 15 40 30 20 70 45 30
Recycle Can Wash Water
Modify hashdown
Alaskan Intall Batch Washer 7 15 15 15 25 20
Scallop Modify Washdo .n
Scallop Install Batch Washer 3 10 5 7 10 10
Modify 1.ashdohn
Alaskan Eliminate Flumes 50 75 50 120 125 80
Herring Dewater Gross Solids at Machines
Fillet Modify Washdown
Abalone Recycle Wash Water 1 10 5 5 10 5
Optimize Process Water Use
Modify Washdown
.- /
C,
-------
the installation of stickwater evaporation equipment in a fish
meal plant where increased product yield or a byproduct is the
result of a pollution control measure.
END-OF-PIPE TREATt NT
Ba ckground
Based on the technology assessment presented in Section VI, efflu-
ent treatment costs have been developed for screening, grease
traps, grit removal, dissolved air flotation, aerated lagoons as
well as solids handling and disposal. Estimates for the implemen-
tation of these technologies were assessed for process wastewater
flows without consideration of specific subcategory characteris-
tics. ‘or each treatment technology, design criteria have been
established o formulate the basis for the development of capital
costs.
Screen i r
The capital costs for implementing solids separation by tangential
screening are based on the design criteria listed in Table 71.
The components of a typical system are shown in Figure 25.
The screening system estimated includes the following:
307
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
Figure 25.
SOLIDS
STORAGE HOPPER
Schematic layout for wastewater screening system.
COLLECTION
SUMP
I 1J
C
SOLIDS
CONVEYOR
SCREENED
WASTE WATER
TO OUTFALL OR
FURTHER TREATMENT
-------
TABLE 71
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SCREENING SYSTEN
1. Screen( ;) are located to optimize solids handling.
2. TangentLal screen
a. Opening size: 0.7 mm
b. Loadings: 50 gpm/ft (58 1/min/m) for oily
species
70 gpm/ft (81 1/min/m) for non-oily
species
c. Continuous operation at peak flow and inter-
mil:tent operation at average flow.
3. One or two pumps operating and one pump for
standby.
4. Systems designed for an average flow of 200 gpm
(13 1/sec) or greater have a steel hopper for
so).ids ;torage.
5. Outfall is 300 feet (91 m) in length and is de-
signed to accommodate the specific peak flow rate.
309
-------
(a) co lection of wastewater in a drain and sump system;
(b) pumps for transporting of the wastewater to the tan-
gential screen(s);
(c) tangential gravity flow screen(s);
(d) sc-eened wastewater outfall;
(e) conveyors for the transfer of screened solids to a
storage hopper; and
(f) an elevated storage hopper.
As noted in Section VI, the hydraulic capacity of tangential
screens can vary considerably. It is a function of the character-
istics of the wastewater and therefore, the raw material being
processed. Wastewaters from oily species processing are more
difficult to screen than those generated during the processing of
non-oily species. The design criteria for sizing of the screens
reflects this phenomenon.
Solids which are retained on the screen(s) would be transported by
screw or bel: conveyors to an elevated hopper for storage prior to
recovery or disposal. Systems designed for an average flow of
less than 200 gpm (13 1/sec) only require totes for solids stor-
age.
For the Alaskan subcategories and other selected industry seg-
ments, the inlet sump, screens and conveyors are housed in a
building due to severe weather conditions. The elevated storage
hopper is located adjacent to the building. All components for
3)0
-------
systems in the contiguous United States are assumed to be housed
in an existing building or situated outside of the plant. It
would be advantageous for plants which currently employ some form
of byproduct recovery to install the screening system in an area
to facilitate solids handling. Removed solids can then be readily
incorporated with the other byproducts thereby, minimizing the
need for transport and the expense of a storage hopper.
Several seafood pr3ccssors in Alaska have installed pneumatic
transport systems to convey the solids from the screen(s) to the
hopper. Jhile these systems are acceptable, they are generally
more expensive than screw or belt conveyors and should be con-
sidered on1 where logistics are an insurmountable constraint.
For estimatng purposes, a 300-foot (91 m) outfall has been
assumed for directing the screened effluent to receiving waters.
Since screening is the recommended initial step for treating
wastewal:ers generated by the seafood industry, the cost of an
outfall has not been duplicated for subsequent end-of-pipe pro-
cesses.
Grease
For selected subcategories, wastewater can be directed to a grease
trap, which is depicted in Figure 26, to reduce the fat and oil
content. Table 72 outlines the design criteria used to determine
the size and associated costs to accommodate the desired flow
-------
WASTEWATER
INLET
EFFLUENT
TO
FURTHER TREATMENT
Figure 26. Schematic diagram for simple grease trap.
p
-------
rates for grease removal. The required piping to transport the
flows subjected to treatment has been incorporated into the esti-
mates for capital expenditures.
TABLE 72
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SINPLE GREASE TRAPS ______
1. Hydraulic retention time equal to 10 minutes.
2. Provide a storage capacity to equal to twice the
average daily accumulation.
3. Allow one foot (0.91 m) of freeboard.
4. Concrete construction.
Grit Removal
Although sedimenation does not have wide application throughout
the seafood :Lndustry, the removal of silt and sand from raw pro-
duct washwaters, generated by clam and oyster processors, is a
viable approach for waste management. A concrete channel designed
for manual solids removal can serve this purpose for washwater
flow rates less than 300 gpm (19 1/sec). For flows greater than
300 gpm (19 1/sec), standard grit removal equipment, as shown in
Figure 27, can provide continuous solids removal from the channel.
Automatic solids removal on a continuous basis requires a signifi-
cantly higher capital investment. The design criteria for sizing
and estimating the capital expenditures required for grit removal
are shown in Table 73.
‘-_._) / .___)
-------
INLET
WASTEWATER . j__* .GRIT COLLECTION
_________________________________ CONVEYOR
CONCRETE CHANNEL
DEGRIT TED
EFFLUENT
TO
OUTFALL
OR
SUBSEQUENT TREATMi N1
Figure 27. Schematic diagram for mechanically cleaned grit channel.
-------
TABLE 73
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GRIT RENOVAL
1. Horizontal-flow grit removal with a maximum flow
velocity of 1.0 ft/sec (0.30 m/sec).
2. An allowance of 50 percent of the theoretical chamber
length provided for inlet and outlet turbulence.
3. Storage capacity for 3 days is allowed for 70 percent
of totaL suspended solids loading.
4. Required piping to be included.
3L5
-------
Disso].ved Air Flotation
The c ipita costs for implementing DAF technology are based on the
design criteria listed in Table 74. The components of a typical
system are shown in Figure 28.
The DAF treatment system estimated includes the following corn-
ponen Ls:
(a) screened wastewater collection sump;
(b) pumps for transporting of the wastewater from the sump
to the equalization tank;
(c) an equalization tank which utilizes diffused air to
accomplish mixing and deter anaerobic conditions.
(d) total flow pressurization pump with a standby pump;
(e) pH optimization equipment for the addition of an acid
and a base chemical;
(1) chemical addition equipment for the addition of aluminum
sulfate and polyelectrolyte;
(g) chemical storage facilities;
(h) DAF cell and required appurtenances;
(i) flow monitoring and automatic sampler;
(j) floated solids storage sump; and
(k) DAF effluent recycle.
DAF systenis, as discussed in Section VI, are designed to receive
screened wastewater of varying flow rates. An equalization tank
-------
TABLE 74
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
1. Treatnent of screened effluent by total flow pres—
surization.
2. Equalization tank volume is equal to 20 percent of the
average daily flow.
3. 1)iffu:;ed air is used to mix the contents of the equali-
zation tank for flows of 300 gpm (19 1/sec) or greater.
4. 1)AF system is pH optimized. pH is adjusted to
approumately 5.0 for treatment and elevated to
6.5 prior to discharge.
5. Chemi:al requirements:
a. lum: 100 mg/i dosage of liquid alum as
Al 2 (SO 4 ) . 14 H 2
Storage minimum o 3,000 gallons or a 14-day supply
b. Polymer: 3 mg/i dosage
6. Design loadings:
a. Hydraulic: 1.7 gpm/ft 2 (0.60 1/min/m 2 ) at
average flow
b. tlaximum Solids: 1.0 lb hour/ft 2 (0.04 kg!
hour/rn )
7. Recirculation provided for periods of low inflow
8. S1ud e thickened to 30 percent solids by centri-
fugation with chemical addition.
9. Standby pumps are provided at critical wastewater
flow points.
fr - I ,
-------
Figure 28. Schematic layout for chemically optimized DAF treatment system.
LEGEND
i i
•jO
®
TREATED
EFFL UENT
NOT TO SCALE
-------
has been included in the system to dampen the variations associ-
ated with the incoming flow. Since it is the most common opera-
tional mode for this industry, the total flow pLessurizatlon
concept has been employed for the purpose of estimating costs
associated with DAF systems. However, the pressurized recycle
mode is gaining wider acceptance for DAF treatment and can be
implemented without a significant increase in the costs developed
for total flow pressurization systems.
It has been assumed that a new DAF system will be optimized with
regards to pH. The cost estimate for incorporating pH optimiza-
tion includes a protective coating applied to all surfaces that
contact the chemically treated wastewater, pH control system,
storage tanks for acid and caustic, chemical feed pumps and safety
equipment required for chemical handling.
Separate costs have been developed for optimizing existing DAF
systems similar to those currently employed in the tuna industry.
Generally, tuna processors have not optimized the wastewater pH in
their effort to meet current BPCTCA requirements. The cost for pH
opt].nhlzat].on of existing systems includes the items listed prev-
iously; however, an additional increment has been included for
draining and cleaning the existing tanks. A caustic feed system
has not included since it is normally available to elevate the pH
of the tieated effluent for compliance with discharge standards.
3/7
-------
The costs for sludge handling facilities to coUecl and dew itc r
the sludge solids generated by the DAF technology have been de-
veloped. Dewatering the float generated during the operation of
DAF units represents a major component of the treatment system
which consumes a relatively large percentage of the total capital
and operating costs. The conceptual design of the dewatering
facility ]5 based on the technology described in Section VI. The
sludge is removed from the flotation system, collected and pumped
to a basket—type centrifuge. It was found that the smallest
available unit has the capacity to process float generated by a
300 gpm (19 1/sec) DAF system during a single shift.
The costs to construct buildings to house the various sizes of DAF
treatment systems have been estimated. All system components will
be housed except for the equalization tank and the screened waste-
watet col]ection sump.
Estimates have also been prepared for the construction of wharf
space for plants which do not have adequate land area available
for installation of a DAF system. Total wharf costs have been
developed utilizing the design criteria as outlined in Table 75.
Because oE the relatively high loadings associated with DAY units
and appurtenances, the estimates presented are not appropriate for
screening systems. The costs estimated for wharf construction are
intended for application on a site specific basis. Where applic-
able, the capital expenditures can be employed as add-on values
— ( ‘I
/ C.
-------
TABLE 75
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WHARF CONSTRUCTION
1. The harf is constructed of a reinforced concrete cap
supported on steel H-piles. These piles are assumed
to be acting as friction piles.
2. Piles are steel H-type in lengths greater than
60 feet (18 m)
3. Concrete slab:
a. 3,000 psi (210 kg/cm 2 ) concrete at 28 days
b. steel reinfo cement with 60,000 psi
(4,218 kg/cm ) yield
‘ -7
-------
for processing facilities which have limited land as a major
constx aint
Aerated Lagoon(s )
The capital costs for implementing the technology of aerated
lagoon tre3trnent are based on the design criteria listed in Table
76. The components of a typical lagoon system are shown in Figure
29.
The treatment facility consists of earthen basin(s) lined to
prevent groundwater contamination. Aeration is provided by float-
ing surface aerators. Final clarification is accomplished in a
quiescent zone contained within the last lagoon of the system.
COST 1)EVELOPMENT
Capital Costs
An estimation of the capital expenditures required for the in-
stallation of applicable end-of-pipe treatment systems have been
developed. The wastewater treatment schemes estimated are:
Screeung
Greas traps
Grit removal
I.> i,.:
-------
TABLE 76
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR AERATED LAGOONS
1. Hydraulic retention time equal to 25 days.
2. Maximum al owab1e BUD 5 loading is 2 lb/1,000 ft 3 /day
(0.03 kg/rn /day).
3. Number of lagoons required:
a. one: less than 50,000 gal/day (190 m 3 /day)
I). Lwo: 50,000 to 200,000 gal/day
c. three: greate than 200,000 gal/day
(760 m /day)
4. Lagoon(s):
a. LO-foot (3.0 m) liquid depth
b. 3-foot (0.91 m) freeboard
c. 3:1 side slopes
d. 10-foot top of dike width
e. lagoons are sealed with synthetic liner
5. Aeration:
a. type: floating surface
b. oxygen transfer: 2.5 lbs/hp/hour
(1.13 kg/hp/hour)
c. oxygen required: 1.2 lbs/lb of influent BOD 5
(1.2 kg/kg of BOD 5 )
d. mixing: minimum of 7 hp/ illion gallons
(26.5 hp/1,000 m )
6. No sludge handling required.
7. Facilities for flow measurement and sampling are
provided for flows greater than 200 gpm (13 1/sec).
-------
EFFLUENT WEIR BOX
LAGOON NO 3
LAGOON NO 2
FLOW MONITORING
AND
SAMPLING
EQUIPMENT
LAGOON NO I
TREATED
EFFLUENT
FOR
DISCHARGE
INLET PUMP
STATION
Figure 29. Schematic layout for aerated lagoon (three—cell) system.
-------
Dissolved air flotation
Aerated lagoon(s)
In addition, the capital costs associated with “add-on” subsystems
have been developed. The “add-on” subsystems adressed are as
follows:
pH optimization for new and existing DAF systems;
Wharfs for DAF systems;
Buildings to house screening and DAF systems;
Sludge dewatering centrifuge for DAF systems; and
Sludge handling and disposal.
Convention d estimating procedures have been followed to develop
appropriate costs. These procedures assume that a contractor will
install the treatment systems by providing the labor, construction
equipment and materials required. To reflect this approach, a
factor of 5 percent for the contractor’s overhead and profit have
been included in the total system cost. The procedure adopted
also assumes that an engineer will evaluate and design the treat-
ment systems and therefore, for engineering design fee has been
included. In addition, a contingency factor was added to the
total system cost to account for the uncertainties inherent with
capital cost estimating. Other cost components include the follow-
ing: equipment (F.O.B. factory); freight; installation and elec-
trical tie-in of equipment; site preparation; and system start-up.
The cost cf land has been excluded from the total installed cost.
2) 1
-
-------
Non-purchased system component costs have been developed by apply-
ing unit costs to quantity estimates. The unit costs have been
obtatned from the 1978 Means Unit Cost and Cost Data Gi. ides.
Purchased equipment has been sized according to the established
design criteria. Equipment quotations have been received from the
respective manufacturers. For the purpose of comparison, equip-
ment cost.; were solicited from more than one manufacturer of
similar items.
Based on the methodology outlined above, a relationship between
total installed cost and wastewater flow has been developed for
each end-of-pipe treatment technology. Figures 30 through 38
display these relationships.
The estimates developed represent an approximate cost for in-
stalling astewater treatment systems in the contiguous United
States and Alaska. These costs have been related to the Engin-
eering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI) of 2,850 for
September 1978. ENRCCI is a widely accepted index which monitors
the fluctuations in the price of labor and materials within the
construct on industry for 20 United States cities.
To account for cost differentials between Alaska and the con-
tiguous United States, the capital costs developed for the con-
tiguous lJnited States have been adjusted for application to
Alaskan subcategories. Capital costs for the proposed Alaskan
installations have been modified as follows:
LE
-------
2 3 5 I 8 9 GPM/IOO
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 L/SEC
200-
(00
0
0
0
U)
0
w
-J
-j
I .-
U)
z
-J
I-
0
f’J
0
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 30. Capital cost cur”c fr screening non—oily waslewater in the cOfltiguou U.S.
-------
0 2 3 5 7 18 9 I 10
I 1 I GPM/l00
80 L/SEC
10 20 30 40 50 60
70
200-
100 -
0
0
0
U)
0
0
Lu
-J
-J
4
I—
(I )
z
-J
4
I-
0
I-
.1
(0
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 31. Capital cost rurves for screening oily wastewater in tie contiguous U.S.
-------
300
200
0
11)
U)
0
I- )
a
-J
I-
o I00
I -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
AVERAGE FLOW RA TE
Figure 32. Capital cost curves for Alaskdn screen installation.
GPM/ 100
80 L/SEC
0 I
-------
8-
6-
0
0
0
11) 5-
0
0
0
w
-J

S .-
U,
z
-J
. 3-
I-
0
5-
I I 1100 I I 11501
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
FigurL 33. Capita’ cost curves for simple grease traps.
I I 2001 6PM
II 12 3 L/SEC
0
0
2
-------
70 -
100 I 200 30d 400 I 500 600 I ioo
10 20 30 40 50
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
1800 900
60
iobc GPM
65 L/SEC
0
0
0
41
I —
ad .,
0
C-,
0
w
-J
-J
U,
-J
0
60 -
50
40
30
20
I0
LLYC
0
Figurc 34. Capital cost curves for maiiuafly cleaned and mechanically leaned grit cIi inne1s.
-------
I 0-
0.9 -
0
0
0
0
07•
0 6
I- .
U,
0
0.5
0
L i i
-J
-J 04
I.-
U,
0.3’
-J
02
I-
0.1’
I I I
0 I 2 3
10 20
I I
4 5 6
30 40
19 20 GPM/I00
120 L/SEC
• C,
“$1 -,
p 10 I’l’ 12 13 “41 15 116 17 8
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 35. Capital cost curves for DAF treatment and sludge dewatering.
-------
I00
90
80
70
60
50
40
30•
20
0 I 2
10
31 4 Is
20 30
6
40
18
50
9 I
60
AVERAGE
to
FLOW
2
70
RATE
l’3
80
‘41 5 116
90 100
17 lB
110
19 20 GPM/l00
120 L/SEC
0
0
0
In
0
U,
s I
-J
-I
4
I-
In
z
-J
0
I-
FIgure 36. CapItal cost curve for housing DAF systems in the contiguous U.S.
-------
1.0—
I I I I I I
i 2 3 4 5 6
10 20 30 40
I I I
7 8 9
50 60
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
I I
15 16 17
100 110
13 119 20 GPM/IO0
120 L/SEC
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 1%
I-
U)
0
C)
0
-j
U)
z
1
I-
0
0.9-
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5—
0 4—
0.3-
0. 2—
0. I —
0
I0
I I
iii 2 13
70 80
14
90
Figure 37.
Capital cost curve for providing wharf area for DAF systems in the conti{uous U.S.
-------
I 051 I 101 I
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 38. Capital cost curve for aerated lagoon(s).
I 5 MGD
M 3 /DAY
rj
2.0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 1.5-
I-
U)
0
0
LIJ
-j
-J
I.0-
z
-j
I-
0
I-
0 5-
0
-------
1. For purchased manufactured items, transportation costs from
Seatt e, Washington to the Alaskan port have been added to
the F,O.B. budget prices provided by manufacturers.
2. On-site construction activities which include items such as
concrete work, site development, building erection, have been
estlm3ted by applying a multiplier of 2.0 to the contiguous
lJnjtej States costs. This factor was derived from Table 77
as a representative figure for major Alaskan processing
centers.
3. Since the principle component of installation is labor, a
separate cost factor for this activity is warranted. It was
found thai the increase in labor rates for Alaska do not
coincide with the construction cost factors. A comparison of
labor rates for specific Alaskan areas with Seattle figures
indicate a multiplier of 1.8 to be appropriate for this
capital cost component.
TABLE 77
CONSTRUCTION COST FACTORS FOR SELECTED ALASKAN AREAS
Area Relative to Seattle
Anchorage 1.65
Juneau 1.75
Ketchikan 1.75
Petersburg 1.80
Cordcva 1.95
Homer 1.95
Kodiak 2.15
DUtCIL Harbor 2.35
NOTE: These figures are rounded to nearest 0.05.
.2 -‘
. ) ,
-------
Operal;ion and tlaintenance Costs
Operation arid maintenance costs have been assessed for each treat-
ment technology based on the effluent flow rate. Included in
these costs are the following components: labor, equipment,
general maintenance, chemicals, and energy requirements. The
relationships for daily operation and maintenance costs are dis-
played in Figures 39 through 46 which employed an electrical rate
of $0.04 per kilowatt-hour to estimate power costs.
For Alaskan facilities, adjustments have been made to the various
components of the daily operating costs including the labor rates
which reflects the general increase associated with the geographi-
cal areas considered. Rate schedules for electrical power avail-
able in selected areas have been prepared from information pro-
vided by he Alaska Public Utilities Commission. The rates for a
range of power demands and consumption are presented on a geo-
graphical basis in Table 78. For estimating purposes, a power
rate of S0.065 per kilowatt-hour has been employed for Alaskan
faci I itie .
Solids Handling and Disposal
Hand] ing and disposal of solids generated through the application
of wastewater treatment technologies also requires capital and
operating expenditures. As shown in Table 79, some general guide-
line ; have been employed to evaluate this aspect of cost devel-
opment.
-------
200—
100-
4
5
0 I
7
8
9
10
I I
12 GPM/I00
50
60
70
80 L/SEC
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Operation and maintenance cost curves for screening
non—oily wastewater in the contiguous U.S.
0
U )
I-
U)
0
U
0
>-
-J
d
0
61
40
Figure 39.
-------
200 T
100
0 I 2
20
60 10
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 40. Operation and maintenance cost curves for screening
oily wastewater in the contiguous U.S.
12 GPM/I00
80 L/SEC
I-
U•)
0
0
>-
-j
0
4 30 40
I — I I
6 7 8
50
-------
300—
200-
a
lft
‘I ,
I-
U,
0
C-)
0
-J
0
(00-
0 u —
0 I 2 31 4 5 6 1 7 9 I ic Ill GPM/lOO
(0 20 30 40 50 60 70 L/SEC
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
1 igure 41. Operation dnd maintenance cost curves br screening non—oily wastewater in Alaska.
-------
300-
200-
0
(l
I-
U,
0
0
0
100-
0
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I IOGPM/IOO
10 20 30 40 50 60 L/SEC
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 42. Operation and maintenance cost curves for screening oily wastewater in Alaska.
-------
60
50H
40
30
20-
I0-
0 I ‘ I ‘ 0
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 43. Operation and maintenance cost curves for simple grease traps.
200 GPM
12 3 L/SEC
a
I-
U,
0
U
0
>-
-J
a
-------
40
30-
25
20-
‘5-
I0•
5.
0 ko 200
5 tO 15
304
20
400
6001
30 40
700
Ie o
50
900 t0O GPM
60 65 L/SEC
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
FIgure 44. 0perati oii and maintenance cost
curves for manually cleaned and mechantcal1 cleaned grit clianiiels
I-
4. (I,
‘-, 0
I - )
0
_1
a
-------
2 0
‘.9.
l.8
I 7
I 6-
‘5
I 4
‘.3.
I 2
I I•
I.0
09-
0.8
07
0.6
05•
04
03
02
0I
I -—I I I I I I
0 I J 2 31 4 15 61
12 3 141 IS I6 IT 18
70 80 90 100 110
19 20 GPM/I00
120 L/SEC
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
Figure 45. Operation and maintenance cost curves for DAF treatment
and sludge dewatering.
0
0
0
0
I-.
4 U)
0
>-
-J
0
1 I
10
60
-------
I .0-
09-
0.8 -
0
0
07-
06-
C l )
0
C -,
05-
0
> 0.4-
-J
o 0.3-
02-
0.1 —
0 ..
1.0 1.5 MGD
1000 4000 5000 M3/DAY
AVERAGE FLOW RATE
I 0151 I
2000 3000
Figure 46. Operation and maintenance cost curve for aerated lagoon(s).
-------
TABLE 78
ELECTRICAL POWER COST FOR SELECTED ALASKAN AREAS
Power Rate Schedule (cents/KWH)
1 2 3
Small Demand Medium Demand Large Demand
Area (25 KW) (150 1(W) (300 1(W)
Anchorage 4.0 3.4 2.1
Cordova 6.2 4.5 3.9
Ketchikan 6.3 5.3 4.6
Homer 6.8 5.2 4.7
Juneau 7.5 7.1 6.8
Kodiak 8.5 7.2 7.1
Cold Bay 13.0 11.8 10.7
13,000 KWH/month
220,000 KWH/month
50,O00 1(11W/month
4 includes 2 cents/KWH fuel surcharge
5
includes 1.9 cents/KWH fuel surcharge
—. V
-------
TABLE 79
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SOLIDS HAN1 LING AND DISPOSAL
1. Screeied Solids
a. quantity removed equals 80 percent of raw
material production for shrimp operations
b. distance to disposal site is 25 miles per
roundtrip
2. OAF sludge
a. initial volume equals 1.5 percent of average
design flow
b. dewatered to 30 percent solids
c. transported a roundtrip distance of 25 miles
for disposal at an approved landfill site
-------
Traditionally, screened solids have been added to other fish
solids and transported to a reduction facility or an acceptable
land disposal area. For plants in the contiguous United States
which do not produce gross solids during processing operations, a
cost has been included for hauling the screened solids to either a
reduction facility or a land disposal site. For example, this
approach has been employed for shrimp canneries. Transportation
costs have been developed on a cubic yard basis for a range of
round trip distances as shown in Figure 47. Included in the
transport costs are vehicle depreciation, labor, fuel, and general
maintenance and repairs. A 25-mile round trip distance has been
selected for hauling residuals to a suitable disposal iste, the
number of round trips per day depends upon the volume of waste
generated and the location of the disposal area.
No disposal costs for screened solids have been developed for the
contLguous states since these solids are normally received by
reduction facilities without charge. In fact, reduction facili-
ties will often pay for waste fish solids. Owners of adjacent
agricultural land have also accepted residuals from processors,
including shellfish plants, delivered free of charge. If a situa-
tion exu;ts where a reduction facility or agricultural land is
unavailable, the landfill costs discussed later in this section
may be applied to specific operations.
In Alaska, the two solids disposal methods which have been deter-
mined to be applicable are reduction and barging. Presently,
-------
12 5—
25 J I 1 0 125
25 50 75 tOO
DAILY SLUDGE VOLUME
150 CU YARD
CU METER
10.0-
>-
‘ 7.5.
(I ,
0
U
z
-J 5.0-
t J’
2.0-
0
Figure 47. Cost curves for hauling residuals over various roundtrip distances.
-------
there are three reduction facilities in Alaska. Two of these
facilities will accept screened solids at no charge; however, the
Kodiak facility required a subsidy of $10 per wet ton in 1977
Barging of process wastes has been practiced on a limited basis to
date. The methods employed by several Alaskan processors which
have adopted this option have been investigated. Consequently,
capital and operating expenditures have been developed assuming a
single barging operation for each plant requiring this solids
disposal alternative.
Capital ccsts for deep sea solids disposal have been based on the
fabrication of a 30-foot (9.1 m) by 50-foot (15.2 m) scow with a
plastic lLner for $25,000. Towing of the barge would be accom-
plished b an available power boat. A review of permitted dumping
areas along the Alaskan coast indicates that the majority of
processor are located less than five miles (3.1 kin) from their
respective dumping sites. Therefore, a 10-mile (6.2 kin) roundtrip
distance has been selected as a representative basis for assessing
operating expenses. Assuming a two-man crew, general maintenance,
and the operation of the power boat, the daily cost has been
estmated at $120.
Depending on the type and availability of dewatering equipment,
the (lispo3al of float from the operation of DAF units can repre-
sent a significant portion of the operating costs for the system.
Because o the relatively high capital cost of a sludge dewatering
360
-------
system with chemical conditioning, oniy systems which Ireat
200,000 gallons per day (760 m3/day) or more have been assumed to
concentrate float prior to landfilling. Smaller treatment facil-
ities which generate less sludge will potentially have less diffi-
culty in identifying acceptable disposal sites. Therefore, the
land applLcation alternative for small volumes of liquid sludge
gains importance as a solution to the float disposal problem.
As previously discussed, costs have been prepared for residuals
transport covering a range of distances. The information provided
in Figure 47 is presented on a dollar per cubic yard basis and can
be applied to the DAF sludge. An average round trip distance of
25 mtles appears to be appropriate for general application to the
seafood industry. Due to the relatively small quantities of
sludge generated by a single facility, no one processor could be
expe ted to absorb the costs of developing an acceptable landfill
Therefore, the costs have been prepared assuming the development
landfill site of specific area to accept this material at an
existing landfill site. These estimates assumed that the site
soils are suitable and that no provisions for leachate treatment
are necessary. Ammortization of estimated capital expenditures in
conjunction with operation and maintenance costs resulted in a
relal:ionship based on daily volumes of sludge requiring disposal.
Figure 4 provides the means to estimate daily sludge disposal
costs for a range of plant sizes.
I
-------
20-
15-
0
C.)
4l
o 10-
C.)
—I
C l )
0
a.
U,
0
5-
I I I I I II
25 ‘ 50 ‘ 75 ‘100 125 ISO CU. YARD
25 50 75 100 CU. METER
DAILY SLUDGE VOLUME
Figure 48. Cost curve for sludge disposal at an acceptable landfill site.
-------
Subcategory Costs
Appropriate costs have been extracted for each subcategory util-
izing the respective curves as described previously for capital
and daily expenditures. Within each subcategory, costs have been
assessed for the applicable treatment technologies over a range of
plant sizes. Two to four separate production levels, which were
established based on industry profiles, have been selected for
each subcategory. The production rates have been developed from
the data base, and documented during monitoring progrmas, plant
visits and telephone inquiries. Typical production schedules vary
for individual plants and subcategories from 8 to 24 hours per
day. The rocessing day selected for each subcategory is intended
to be representative of that industry segment. Production rates
have been normalized and are presented in terms of kkg/hour.
Wastewater volumes requiring treatment have been established for a
range of production capabilities within each subcategory employing
the flow ratios presented in Section V, Tables 32 and 33. Since
final washdown is a significant source of wastewater, the total
flow is a;sumed to be generated over the entire processing day
plus a 4-hour washdown period. The average flow rate is then
applied to the appropriate cost curves to obtain the capital cost
associated with the effluent treatment technology considered. To
derive representative estimates for the application of DAF, ad-
justments have been made for subcategories where solids loading
was found to be the controlling parameter. For subcategories
-------
TABLE 81
IN-PLANT ODIFICAT10NS AND EFFLUENT T EATM NT COSTS
Subcategory A — Farm Raised Catfish
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 14,000 l/kkg
(3,330 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.2 0.8 1.7
2 7 15
26 92 200
6,760 23,700 50,700
0.2 0.8 1.7
2 7 15
26 92 200
6,760 23,700 50,700
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,GT
S,GT,IP
S,ALCT,IP
48 49 50
50 51 52
55 58 62
107 158 237
12 18 28
15 24 38
20 34 48
60 84 118
-------
TABLE 82
1 T ’ A TT TP ’ATM ’MP C( ZT
IN—PLANT L1uu ir r ’jJ
Subcategory B — Conventional Blue Crab
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 120 days
Process Flow Rates: i,iool/kkg
(264 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.2 0.8
2 7
2.1 7.2
528 1,850
0.2 0.8
2 7
2.1 7.2
528 1,850
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,GT
S,GT,IP
48 48
49 49
59 59
8 8
10 11
15 16
-------
TABLE 83
_ _ UENT TFPATMPNT rncrc
— I L ttL 1. £ £%JJJ .L I • • -— -
Subcategory C — Mechanized Blue Crab
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: l 2 0days
Process Plow Rates: 31,400 l/kkg
(7,530 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.2 0.6 1.1
2 5 10
58 150 300
15,100 37,700 75,300
0.2 0.6 1.1
2 5 10
58 150 300
15,100 37,700 75,300
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,GT
S,GT,IP
S,GT,IP,DAF
49 50 52
51 52 55
71 72 80
251 262 290
14 23 36
19 31 49
29 41 64
203 281 321
-------
TABLE 84
vt’VT1TV T1’ TP ’ TMPNT cn TS
IN—PLANT j t.jij .i. r i z- i .
Subcategory D and E — Alaskan Crab Meat
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 80 days
Process Flow Rates: 44,500 1/kkg
(10,700 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (in 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.3 1.4 3.4
3 12 30
120 500 1,200
32,100 128,000 321,000
0.3 1.4 3.4
3 12 30
120 500 1,200
32,100 128,000 321,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
S
S
S*,GT
S*,GT,IP
S*,GT,IP,B
82 106 204
85 113 215
115 163 300
140 188 325
40 88 137
53 123 220
83 193 370
203 313 490
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 85
IN-PLANT 10DIF1CATI0NS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory F and C — Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 90 days
Process Flow Rates: 20,200 l/kkg
(4,850 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.6 1.7 4.5
5 15 40
94 280 750
24,300 72,800 194,000
0.6 1.7 4.5
5 15 40
94 280 750
24,300 72,800 194,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S ,CT
5*,GT,IP
S*,CT,IP,B
82 89 140
85 93 149
120 193 244
145 168 269
34 64 108
44 86 159
79 166 349
199 286 469
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 86
m1 r pMVNT (‘flcTS
IN—PLANT rluuLr i r i. --—-.-.-—-
Subcategory I and J — Alaskan Shrimp
16 hours
120 days
90,600 l/kkg
(21.800 gal/ton)
Processing Day:
Season:
Process Flow Rates:
(j’
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.3 1.1 2.8
5 20 45
420 1,700 3,700
109,000 436,000 981,000
0.3 1.1 2.8
s 20 45
420 1,700 3,700
109,000 436,000 981,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
s*
S*,IP
S*,IP,B
84 158 257
114 198 312
139 223 337
73 168 264
93 193 299
213 313 419
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 87
IN-PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT CnST
Subcategory K - Northern Shrimp in the Contiguous States
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 51,900 l/kkg
(12,400 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.6 1.7
5 15
230 700
62,000 186,000
.6 1.7
5 15
230 700
62,000 186,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
S,IP,DAF
50 72
65 92
270 362
78 171
88 181
333 615
-------
TABLE 88
r t C’T TTt’ V1’ ‘T’t? ’MVM1’NT ( P’
IN-PLANT MODIFICAL L .L LJ
Subeategory L — Southern Non—Breaded Shrimp
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 44,500 l/kkg
(10,700 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.1 3.4
10 30
410 1200
107,000 321,000
1.1 3.4
10 30
410 1200
107,000 321,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S 55 116 115 249
S,IP 70 146 125 269
S,IP,DAF 300 435
S,IP,DAF,SD — 630 — 850
-------
TABLE 89
n’TfTh1C’ AMT VFVTTTt’? TT TP I1 ’NT COSTS
IN—PLANT iiuu i r .* t . j . , - —- -—- —
Subcategory N - Breaded Shrimp
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 10 ,OOO l/kkg
(26,200 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
.3 1.4
3 12
300 1,200
78,600 314,000
.3 1.4
3 12
300 1,200
78,600 314,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
S,IP,DAF
S,IP,DAF,SD
50 114
65 134
275 475
— 615
62 158
72 178
343 —
— 750
-------
TABLE 90
IN-rLANT MODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory N — Tuna
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 11,200 l/kkg
(2,680 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
2.3 11.4
20 100
200 1,000
53,600 268,000
2.3 11.4
20 100
200 1,000
53,600 268,000
TREATMENT ALTER1 ATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,DAF*
S,DAF*,IP
S,IP,DAF
S,IP,DAF,SD
48 100
203 360
223 435
268 —
— 625
24 60
154 315
174 390
320 —
— 685
*Non_optimized and without sludge disposal
-------
TABLE 91
I’A’V’TONS ‘ ‘LUEN TREATMENT COSTS
IN—PLA T sJ jLL —- — —
Subcategory N — Tuna
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 250 days
Process Flow Rates: 11,200 1/kkg
(2,680 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
28 57
250 500
2,500 5,100
670,000 1,340,000
28 57
250 500
2,500 5,100
670,000 1,340,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
S
S,DAF*
S,DAF*,IP
S,IP,DAF,SD
132 178
472 728
592 948
797 1,200
124 177
505 870
635 1,115
1,100 2,220
*NQfl_OptiiBiZCd and without sludge disposal
-------
I&bL L
I!’J-PL T MODIFTCATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory 0 — Fish Meal (with solubles)
Processing Day: 24 hours
Season: 200 days
Process Flow Rates: 17,4OO1/kkg
(4,160 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.3 6.0 9.4
35 160 250
550 2,500 3,900
146,000 666,000 1,040,000
1.3 6.0 9.4
35 160 250
550 2,500 3,900
146,000 660,000 1,040,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
IP
15 30 40
5 5 5
-------
TABLE 93
IN PLANT MODIFICATIONS .kND EFFLUENT TRFAThFNT COSTS
Subcategory 0 — Fish Meal (without solubles)
Processing Day: 24 hours
Season: 200 days
Process Flow Rates: 3,490 l/kkg
(835 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.3 6.0 9.4
35 160 250
110 510 790
29,200 134,000 209,000
1.3 6.0 9.4
35 160 250
110 510 790
29,200 134,000 209,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
S
B
IP
25 25 25
270 415 550
75 75 75
275 480 555
-------
TABLE 94
IN-PLANT WDIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TRFATMF.NT COSTS
Subcategory P — Alaskan Hand—Butchered Salmon
Processing Day: 12 hours
Season: 90 days
Process Flow Rates: 3,420 l/kkg
(818 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.1 4.5
15 60
48 190
12,300 49,100
1.1 4.5
15 60
48 190
12,300 49,100
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S*,IP
S*,IP,B
79 81
109 161
134 186
34 47
64 172
184 292
*includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 95
TrS r C’ ’T TTVM’T’ T’ TM1?MT (‘AcTs
IN—PLAi T ?i0DIFiCAii- ’L
Subcategory Q — Alaskan Mechanized Salmon
Processing Day: 16 hours
Season: 60 days
Process Flow Rates: 14,200 l/kkg
(3,400 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
2.0 5.1 8.5
35 90 150
450 1,200 1,900
119,000 306,000 510,000
2.0 5.1 8.5
35 90 150
450 1,200 1,900
119,000 306,000 510,000
TREATMENT ALTER1’ ATtVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S’
S , IP
S*,IP,B
89 133 198
179 283 418
204 308 443
111 176 216
186 336 461
306 456 581
*includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 96
IN—PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subeategory R — West Coast Hand—Butchered Salmon
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 3,420 1/kkg
(818 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.6 1.7
5 15
16 48
4090 12,300
0.6 1.7
5 15
16 48
4090 12,300
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
46 46
56 61
14 16
19 31
-------
TABLE 97
s, TT’Tr A’PTCIMC A1 Tr . t PVT TTL TT TPP PMrNT cncTc
IN—PLANT LL JU . i
Subcategory S — West Coast Mechanized Salmon
Processing Day: 12 hours
Season: 80 days
Process Flow Rates: 14,200 1/kkg
(3,400 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.5 2.6 6.0
20 35 80
260 460 1,050
68,000 119,000 272,000
1.5 2.6 6.0
20 35 80
260 460 1,050
68,000 119,000 272,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
S,IP,DAF
50 54 83
80 99 158
280 319 438
40 57 82
65 97 157
335 460 747
-------
TABLE 98
TVS t’ ’T T VV TP ’ T ( 9’c
IN—PLANT HODIFICAL 1. JI ) tI.LW L
Subcategory U — Non—Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 200 days
Process Flow Rates: 3,980 1/kkg
(955 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.3 1.7 4.5
15 40
11 56 150
2,870 14,300 38,200
0.3 1.7 4.5
3 15 40
11 56 150
2,870 14,300 38,200
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S’
S ,IP
52 52 52
62 62 67
14 16 21
19 21 26
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 99
IN—PLANT MODIFICATIONS A D EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory V - Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottom Fish
Processing Day:
Season:
Process Flow Rates:
8 hours
200 days
12,800 l/kkg
(3,080 gal/ton)
-I,
-3
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.6 3.4 7.9
5 30 70
60 360 835
15,400 92,400 215,600
0.6 3.4 7.9
5 30 70
60 360 835
15,400 92,400 215,600
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S ,IP
S*,IP,DAF*
S*,IP,DAF*,SD
54 58 95
74 93 145
280 343 —
— — 590
14 30 52
24 55 87
198 405 —
— — 552
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 100
IN—PLANT M0DlFICL TI0NS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory 14 - Hand—Shucked Clam
Processing Day:
Season:
Process Flow Rates:
200 days
4,830 l/kkg
(1,160 gal/ton)
8 hours
‘3
4’
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
2.8 6.8
25 60
110 270
29,000 69,600
2.8 6.8
25 60
110 270
29,000 69,600
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
47 50
52 65
20 27
25 32
-------
TABLE 101
I’PPATMPNT COSTS
IN—PLAi T LIUIJLE L t i.
Subcategory Y — Pacific Coast Hand—Shucked Oyster
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 34,700 1/kkg
(8,340 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.03 0.3
0.3 3
10 100
2,500 25,000
0.03 0.3
0.3 3
10 100
2,500 25,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
46 46
51 51
14 18
19 23
-------
TABLE 102
r t’1 Vr ‘rp rMPMT (‘A T
IN—PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND Ei .
Subeategory Z — East and Gulf Coast Hand—Shucked Oyster
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 29,000 l/kkg
(6,980 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (in 3 /day)
(gal/day)
.03 0.3
O’3 3
8 80
2,090 20,900
.03 0.3
0.3 3
8 80
2,090 20,900
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
46 46
51 51
14 18
19 23
-------
TABLE 103
T1?PATMPNT cOSTç
Ii’—PLANT rLuuj.r .L J.
Subcategory AA — Steamed and Canned Oyster
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 69,300 l/kkg
(16,600 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.1 0.8
1 7
60 440
16,600 116,000
0.1 .8
1.0 7.0
60 440
16,600 116,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
S
S
S,IP
S,IP,CR
S,IP,GR,DAF
S,IP,GR,DAF,SD
49 56
54 66
56 70
236 300
- -
15 47
20 52
27 63
205 468
- —
-------
TABLE 104
‘rDVAPMV TT COSTS
IN-rLANI MUDIFIC TIONS AND Erri u ..
Subcategory AB — Sardine
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 6,950 1/kkg
(1,670 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
2.3 4.5 7.9
20 40 70
130 250 440
33,400 66,800 117,000
2.3 4.5 7.9
20 40 70
130 250 440
33,400 66,800 117,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S*
S ,IP
S*,IP,DAF*
55 58 65
75 88 110
271 284 306
21 33 47
36 53 77
180 210 260
*Includes building to house equipment
**Treatment of precook, can wash and washdown waters only.
-------
TABLE 105
IN—PLANT 1ODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory AE — Alaskan Herring Fillet
Processing Day: 12 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 12,400 l/kkg
(2,990 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
5.7 13.6
50 120
570 1,400
150,000 359,000
5.7 13.6
50 120
570 1,400
150,000 359,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
S
S*,IP
S*,IP,B
100 183
175 308
200 333
112 166
162 246
282 366
*Includes building to house equipnient
-------
TABLE 106
IN-PL Ni M0DIFICATI01 ’ “ -‘‘u TRE’ M1’ (‘fl T
tiL U L L I L U
Subcategory AF — Non—Alaskan Herring Fillet
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 100 days
Process Flow Rates: 12,400 l/kkg
(2,990 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.6 5.7 13.6
5.0 50 120
60 570 1,400
15,000 150,000 359,000
0.6 5.7 13.6
5.0 50 120
60 570 1,400
15,000 150,000 359,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily O&M Cost
$
S
S*,IP
S*,IP,DAF*
S*,IP,DAF*,SD
54 74 150
69
100 215
249 350 —
— — 765
12 54 90
22 79 130
162 280 —
— — 640
*tncludes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 107
IN-PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT (‘.OSTS
Subcategory AG — Abalone
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 200 days
Process Flow Rates: 34,100 lfkkg
(8,190 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
0.1 0.6
1 5
30 150
8,190 41,000
0.1 0.6
1 5
30 150
8,190 41,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S,IP
46 47
56 57
16 22
21 27
-------
TABLE 108
. TA ’Tr Te AM1 vVt’TTT T1’ TPPAPMVNT CflSTS
IN—PLANT LL JLJJL —
Subcategory AH — Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 3,980 1/kkg
(955 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
1.7 5.7
15 50
50 180
14,300 47,800
1.7 5.7
15 50
50 180
14,300 47,800
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S*,IP
S*,IP,B
79 82
99 112
124 137
32 42
42 52
162 172
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
TABLE 109
IN—k’LANJ. MUDIFICAIONS aND EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Subcategory Al — Alaskan Mechanized Bottom Fish
Processing Day: 8 hours
Season: 150 days
Process Flow Rates: 12,800 l/kkg
(3,080 gal/ton)
Production Rate (kkg/hour)
(tons/day)
Hydraulic Loading (m 3 /day)
(gal/day)
3.4 7.9
30 70
360 820
92,400 216,000
3.4 7.9
30 70
360 820
92,400 216,000
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Cost
1,000 $
Daily 0&M Cost
$
S
S ’,IP
S*,IP,B
94 151
164 251
189 276
74 114
124 184
244 304
*Includes building to house equipment
-------
which have a baseline flow ratio presented in either Table 32 or
33, representative costs for capital and daily operation and
maintenance have been developed for selected production levels.
Waste control technologies are represented by codes which are
delineated in Table 80. Cost estimates for cumulative technology
pertinent to the industry subcategories are presented in Tables 81
through 109.
CODE
TABLE 80
COST TABLE CODES FOR WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY
Screening
Grease Trap
n-Plant Change
Grit Removal
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved Air Flotation w/Sludge Dewatering
Aerated Lagoon
Barging
It should be noted that the estimated capital costs for imple-
menting end-of-pipe treatment can be significantly reduced for
plants whLch are capable of performing some of the activities
related to facility construction. For example, a 25 percent
savings can be realized for the simplier systems, such as screen-
ing, through the use of plant personnel for installation. The
savings result from the portion of the cost relating to a con-
tractor’s overhead and profit. For the more sophisticated sys-
tems, cap)tal expenditure can be reduced by purchasing the equip-
ment directly and contracting outside organization to perform
selected construction activities.
S
GT
IP
I
GR
DAF
DAF(SO)
AL
B
-------
Other Cons]derations
The energy requirement for end-of-pipe treatment as a percentage
of total plant use is a function of several variables which in-
clude: effluent treatment technology employed, type and size of
the proce .sing facility, and degree of automation and energy
conservation practiced within the plant. Information provided for
existing installations indicates that the electrical power con-
sumption required for screening systems ranges from less than 1 to
15 percent while DAF treatment demands 2 to 35 percent of the
total plant use.
To verify the estimates prepared for the various end-of-pLpe
treatment technologies assessed, actual cost data was solicited
for existing facilities which are currently operated by seafood
processors. This information was updated and found to be com-
parable to the costs presented herein.
It was determined that there are few cost adjustments which can be
generally applied to old processing plants within specific sub-
categories. Expenditures required to collect numerous existing
floor dra]ns and transport the wastewaters to a sump have been
included in the cost relationship for screen installation. In
addition, cost estimates have been prepared for in-plant modifi-
cations which can be implemented by older facilities to approach
the baseline water use and waste loads prior to end-of-pipe treat-
ment. Detailed assessment for the specific plant under consider-
._Jc
-------
ation is required to determine constraints and the costs associ-
ated with resolving them.
Where PubLicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are available, a
seafood processor may elect to forgo installing end-of-pipe treat-
ment and discharge to the POTW. Screening of the plant effluent
is generally recommended and often required by the municipality.
However, several factors must be considered by the processor as
well as the POTW before treatment can be provided by an existing
municipal facility or design of new facilities, which will accomm-
odate seafood processing effluents, is undertaken. Major consid-
erations are the characteristics of the industrial wastewater and
the capacity of the POTW relative to the specific technologies
employed.
In general, most seafood plants operate intermittently with a
variable processing day. Seasonal operation is also characteris-
tic for a major portion of the subcategories. To achieve effec-
tive perfDrmance, a POTW must be designed to accommodate peak
loadings celivered by the industrial discharger. Larger municipal
water pollution control facilities (greater than 10 mgd) generally
have the inherent capability to absorb the impact of variable
waste loads which may be generated during intermittent operations.
However, many seafood processors are not located near large popula-
tion and/or industrial centers. Small POTW’s may experience
operational difficulties in handling the characteristic waste
-------
loads from just one salmon cannery. These concepts are emphasized
through reviewing two examples.
At Terminal Island, California, tuna canneries which represent
essentially a year round operation and provide pretreatment,
currently discharge to a large POTW without apparent difficulties.
In contrast, the State of Washington Department of Ecology, which
originally adopted the policy of requiring all industrial dis-
chargers to participate in available municipal treatment facili-
ties, has modified its approach regard]ng some seafood processors.
The nature of the industry, in general and specifically salmon
canneries, has demanded excessive capacities to be incorporated
into celatLvely small POTW’s. In these isolated cases, the plants
have been encouraged to provide effluent treatment prior to dis-
chargLng to receiving waters as a cost-effective measure. This
approach eliminates the necessary capital expenditures to accommo-
date var1 ble waste loads generated over a short period of the
year.
It is apparent that general user charges for processors which may
discharge into municipa1 water pollution control facilities are
difficult to develop. Hence, the effectiveness of selecting or
requiring joint municipal-industrial wastewater treatnient in a
POTW should be evaluated in light of the individual processor and
the specific POTW under consideration.
-------
REFERENCES
1. 1)evelopment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Stand rds of Performance for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and
Tuna Segments of the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
[ ndustry Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines Division,
EPA-440/1—74-020-a., U.S. EPA, June 1974.
2. Deve1 pment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Eource Performance Standards for the Fish Heal, Salmon
Bottocn Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring and
Abalone Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood
Processing Industry Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-75/041a,
U.S. EPA, September 1975.
3. Public Law 94-265, 94th Congress, H.R. 200, April 13, 1976
4. “Resources: Aid for U.S. Fish Processing”, Business Week ,
April 17, 1978.
5. King, Maxwell, TTDOWn to the Sea with Money”, Forbes , October
15, 1977.
6. Lewis, W.L., et aL, “A Preliminary Evaluation of a Fish Diet
Based on Roased Soybeans and Fresh Fish”, reprinted from the
Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, 1973.
7 Annual Report of the Warmwater Fish Cultural Laboratories ,
Stuttgart, Arkansas, Kermit, E. Sneed, Director, 1970.
8. Perkins, B.E. and S.P. Meyers, “Recovery and Application of
Orgaric Wastes from the Louisiana Shrimp Canning Industry”,
Proceedings Eighth National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes, EPA-600/2-77-184, August 1977.
9. Costa, R.E., Jr., “The Fertilizer Value of Shrimp and Crab
Processing Wastes”, M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University,
June 1977.
10. Green, J.H. , “Mushroom Culture: A New Potential for Fishery
Products”, Marine Fisheries Review , Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.
27-32, February 1974.
11 Green, J.H. et al. , “New Methods Under Investigation for the
Utilization of Fish Solubles, A Fishery Byproduct, As A Means
of Pollution Abatenient”, Proceedings Fifth National Symposium
on Food Processing Wastes EPA-660/2-74-058, 1974.
12. Loveil, R.T., “Utilization of Solid Waste from Catfish Pro-
cess:ng Plants”, presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1975.
3 p
-------
13. Processii FarmRaised Catfish , Southern Cooperative Series
Bulletin 193, edited by R.T. Lovell and G.R. Animerman,
October [ 974.
14. Patton, R.S. and P.T. Chandler, “In Vivo Digestibility Evalu-
ation of Chitinous Materials”, Journal of Dairy Science ,
Vol. 58, pp. 397-403, March 1975.
15. Patton, R.S. et al., “Nutritive Value of Crab Meal for Young
RuinLnating Calves”, Journal of Dairy Science , Vol. 58, pp.
4O4 4o9, March 1975.
16. Stephens, N.L. et al., “Preparation and Evaluation of Two
Miccobiological Media from Shrimp Heads and Hulls”, (unpub-
fished) Department of Food Science, University of Georgia,
Cofiege Df Agricultural Experiment Stations.
17. Bucove, G.M. and G.M. Pigott, “Pilot Plant Production of a
Functional Protein from Fish Waste by Enzymatic Digestion”,
Proceediq Seventh National Symposiuni on Food Processing
Wastes, EPA-600/2-76-304, December 1976.
18. Carver, J.H. and F.}1. King, “Fish Scrap Offers High Quality
Protein”, Food Engineering , Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 75-76,
January 1971.
19. Hood, L.F. et al , “Conversion of Minced Clam Wash Water Into
Clam Juice: Waste Handling or Product Development 9TT , Food
Product Development , November 1976.
20. Riddle, N.J. et al., “An Effluent Study of a Fresh Water Fish
Processing Plant, EPA C-WP-721, Canada: Water Pollution
Control Directorate, 1972.
21. Lawler, F.K., “Cuts River Pollution — Recycling of Water for
Transporting Fish from Boat to Plant Permits Recovery of
Solubles”, Food Engineering , Vol. 45, No. 4, 1973.
22. Handwerk, R.L., “FDA Viewpoint on Water Reuse in Food Pro-
cessing”, presented at the Seventh Engineering Research
Foundation Conference on Environmental Engineering in the
Food Industry at Pacific Grove, California, February 14,
1977.
23. Hanover, L.I1. et al., “Effects of Cooking and Rinsing on the
Protein Losses from Blue Crabs”, Journal of Milk Food
Technolo gy, Vol. 36, No. 8, Pp. 409—411, 1973.
24. Hanover, L.M. et al., “BOD, COD, and TOC Values for Liquid
Wastes From Selected Blue Crab Pilot Processes”, Journal of
Milk Food Technology , Vol. 38, No.3, pp. 155-158, March 1975.
25. Zall, R R. et al., “Reclamation and Treatment of Clam Wash
Water”, Proceedings Seventh National Symposium on Food
Processiflg Wastes , EPA-600/2-76-304, December 1976.
-------
26. LaFleur, L.F. et al., “Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of
Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater”, (unpublished) EPA Project
No. S 803339-01-1, December 1977.
27. Benkovich, J.F., “Dewatering Screens in Pollution Control”,
Pollution Engineering , pp. 51-52, Hay 1974.
28. Lindsay, G. and Schinidtke, N.W., “Screening Demonstration for
Three Fi3h Processing Plant Effluents’, Environmental Protec-
tion Service, Fisheries and Environment Canada, Technology
Developm nt Report, EPS 4-WP-77-4, June 1977.
29. Brinsfield, R.B. et al., “Characterization, Treatment and
Disposal of Wastewater from Maryland Seafood Plant”, JWPCF ,
Vol. 50, No. 8, August 1978.
30. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ,
14th Ed:Ltlon, American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federa-
tiori, Washington, DC, 1975.
31. Tanaka, Y. et al., “Purification of Waste Water from Marine
Products Processing Plants”, Japan Patent Disclosure No.49-
84068, August 13, 1974.
32. Tashiro, H., Treatment of Wastewater from Canneries ,
(Shizuoka Paper Exp. Stn , Shizuoka, Japan), PPM Vol. 6, No.
3, pp.42-49, 1975.
33. Kato, K. and S. Ishikawa, “Fish Oil and Protein Recovered
from Fish Processing Effluent”, Water and Sewage Works ,
October 1969.
34. Swedline, E., and H. Hedin, “Load Measurements at Salto
lndustrial Purification Plant”, The Swedish National Environ-
ment Prctection Board, May 7, 1974.
35. Swedling, E. et al., “Investigation of the Operations at
Skame - Delikatesser, Horvicken”, The Swedish National En-
vironmert Protection Board, January 15, and April 28-39,
1976.
36. Melvin, A. and Q. Ekiund, “Load Measurements at Abba,
Uddevalla”, The Swedish National Environment Protection
Board, February 5-7, 1974.
37. Swedling, E. and L. Eklund, “Load Measurements at Foodia,
Inc., Industrial Sewage Plant at Lysekil”, The Swedish
National Environment Protection Board, September 24-26, 1976.
38. Eklund, L. and H. Hedin, “Load Measurements at Kattegatt
Fisk, Inc., BUA”, The Swedish National Environment Protection
Board, April 22—24, 1974.
-------
39. Eklund, L. and E. Swedling, “Load Measurements at Foodia,
Inc , at Ellos”, The Swedish National Environment Protection
Board, September 24-26, 1974.
40. Sh]flin, S.M. et al., “Research on the Mechanical Purifica-
tion of Wastewater from Fish Canneries”.
41. Keith, J.S. , “Treating Trout Processing Wastewater -- A
Successful Case History”, Proceedings Ninth National
y os1wn on Food Processing Wastes , EPA-600/2-78-188, August
1978.
42. Ramrez, E.R., “Electrocoagulation Clarifies Food Waste-
water”, Highlights published by the Water Pollution Control
Federation, April 1975.
43. Ramirez, E.R., Electrocoagulation of Heat Processing Waste-
waters, WWEMA Industrial Water and Pollution, Conference,
Detroit, Michigan, April 1974.
44. Ramirez, E.R. et al., “Direct Comparison in Physiochemical
Treatmen: of Packinghouse Wastewater between Dissolved Air
and Electroflotation”, Proceedings of the 31st Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference 1976.
45. Ramirez, E.R. and 0.A. Clemens, “Electrocoagulation Tech-
niques for Running Treatment of Several Different Types of
Wastewat r”, presented at the 49th Annual WPCF Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 1976.
46. Kujt, Y. et al., “Treating Waste Water of Fish Processing by
Electrical Flotation”, Journal of Water and Waste , Vol. 17,
No. 10, pp. 12—20, 1975.
47. Abu, M.Y.B., “Clarification of Menhaden Bail Water by Reverse
Osmosis”, M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Decem-
ber 1973.
48. Rao, M.R. et al. , “Pilot Plant Clarification of Menhaden Bail
Water with Acid Activated Clay”, First International Congress
of Engineering and Food, Digest of Papers, Boston, Massa-
chusett.s, August 9-13, 1976.
49. Knickle, H.N., “Treatment of Wastewater from Fish and Shell-
fish Processing Plants”, (unpublished) OWRR Project No.
A-048-RI, July 1974.
50. Hudson, J.W. and F.G. Pohiand, “Treatment Alternatives for
Shellfish Processing Wastewaters”, Proceedings of the 30th
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference , 1975.
51. Creter, R.V. and J.P. Levandowski, “Simple Waste Treatment
for Seafood Packers”, Pollution Engineering , pp. 32-33,
February 1975.
-------
52. Lin, S.S and P.B. Qias, “Evaluation of an Extended Aeration
Process for Skokomish Salmon Processing Wastewater Treat-
ment”, (unpublished) EPA Grant No. 803911, August 1978.
53. Hudson, J.W. et al., “Rotating Biological Contactor Treatment
of Shellfish Processing Wastewaters”, Proceedings of the 31st
Industrial Waste Conference , 1976.
54. Antonie, R.L. and R.J. Hynek, “Operating Experience with
Bio-Surf Process Treatment of Food Processing Wastes”,
Proceedii of the 28th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference ,
1973.
55. Horn, C.R. and F.G. Pohiand, “Characterization and Treatabil-
ity of Selected Shellfish Processing Wastes”, Proceedings of
28th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference , 1973.
56. PohLand, F.C. and J.W. Hudson, “Aerobic and Anaerobic Micro-
bia Treatment Alternatives for Shellfish Processing Waste-
waters in Continuous Culture”, Presented at the Symposium on
Novel Approaches to Microbial Utilization and Control of
Waste, Mexico City, Mexico, November 30 to December 5, 1975.
57. Shotwell, J.A., “A Seafood Solid Waste Process” (unpublished),
197 6.
58. Evaluation of Land Application Systems”, Technical Bulletin,
EPA-430/9-85-O01, U.S. EPA, March 1975.
59. Snider, I.F., “Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Seafood
Wastes”, presented at the EPA Technology New Orleans, Louisi-
ana Transfer Seminar - “Upgrading Seafood Processing Facili-
ties to Reduce Pollution”, March 5-6, 1974.
60. Claggett, F. , “Treatment Technology in Canada - Chemical
Treatment and Air Flotation”, Seminar on Fish Processing
Plant Effluent Treatment and Guidelines, EPS 3-WP-75-1,
February 1975.
61. Wignall, J. and I. Tatterson, “Fish Silage”, Process
Biochemistry, Vol. 11, pp. 17-19, December 1936.
62. Tatterson, I. and J. Wignall, “Alternatives to Fish Meal:
Part 1, Fish Silage”, World Fishing , Va. 25, p. 1 +2, May 1976.
63. Potter, D.P., et al., “Fish Byproducts— Fish Meal and Fish
Silage”, Process Biochemistry , Vol. 13, pp.22-25, January
1978.
64. Green, J.H. and J.F. Mattick, “Possible Methods for the
Utilization or Disposal of Fishery Solid Wastes”, Journal of
Food Quality, Food and Nutrition Press, Inc., Westport,
Connect]cut, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 229-251, October 1977.
-------
65. Meyers, 3.P. and J.E. Rutledge, “Shrimp Meal - A New Look at
an Old P-oduct”, Feedstuffs , November 27, 1971.
66. Meyers, S.P and B.E. Perkins, “Recovery and Applications of
Byproducl:s from Louisiana Shellfish Industries”, Proceedings
of the Second Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fish Technology
Conference of the Americas , October 1977.
67. Bruiidage, A.L., et al., “King Crab Meal as a Protein Source
for Lactating Dairy Cows”, (unpublished), University of
Ala ;ka, Alaska Agricultural Experimental Station, 1978.
68. Husby, F.M., et aL, “King Crab as a Replacement for Soybean
HeaL in Growing Swine Diets”, University of Alaska, Alaska
Agricu1t iral Experiment Station, unpublished 1978.
69. Proceedi of the First International Conference on Chitin
Chitosan, April 11-13, 1977, Boston, Massachusetts, edited by
R.A.A. Muzzarelli and E.R. Pariser, May 1978.
70. Mendenhall, V, Utilization and Disposal of Crab and Shrimp
Wastes, Alaska University Cooperative Extension Service,
Marine i dvisory Bulletin No. 2, NTIS CON—71—01092, March
l97L.
71. Hattis, D. and A.E. Murray, Industrial Prospects for Chitin
and Protein from Shellfish Wastes , A Report on the First
Marine Industries Business Strategy Program Marine Industry
Service, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant
Program, Report No. MITSG-77—3, 1977.
72. Brine, C.J. and P.R. Austin, “Utilization of Chitin, A Cell-
ulose Derivative from Crab and Shrimp Waste”, presented at
Earth Environment and Resources Conference, U.S. Environment
and Resources Council, Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, DEL-SG-l9-74, September 12, 1974.
73. Bough, W.A., et aL, “Use of Chitosan for the Reduction and
Recovery of Solids in Poultry Processing Waste Effluents”,
Poultry Science Vol. 54 pp. 992-1000, 1975.
74. Bough, .A., “Chitosan - A Polymer from Seafood Waste for Use
in Treatment of Food Processing Wastes and Activated Sludge”,
Process Biochemistry , Vol. 11 p. 13-16, January - February
1976.
75. Bough, W.A. and D.R. Landes, “Recovery and Nutritional Eval-
uation cf Proteinaceous Solids Separated from Whey by Coagu-
lation ith Chitosan”, Journal of Dairy Science , Vol. 59, pp.
1874-1880, November 1976.
76. Bough, W.A., D.R. Landes, et al., “Utilization of Chitosan
for RecDvery of Coagulated Byproducts from Food Processing
-------
Wastes and Treatment Sysleins”, Proceedings of Sixth National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes , EPA-600/2-76-224, Decem-
ber 1976.
77. Bough, W.A., personal communication, June 15, 1977.
78. Asano, T. , et al., “Centrifugal Dewatering of Municipal and
Industrial Sludge”, Water and Sewage Works , Vol. 124, No. 9,
pp. 130-J35, September 1977.
79. Carxoad, P.A. and R.A. Tom, “Bioconversion of Shellfish
Ch]tin W. stes: Process Conception and Selection of Microor-
gari)sms”, Journal of Food Science, Institute of Food
Technologists, Vol. 43, 1978.
80. Bough, W.A., et al., “Waste from Shrimp and Crab Processing
Could Be Used as Microbiological Media’, Food Engineering , p.
158. September 1977.
81. Veslind, P.A., Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater Sludges ,
Ann Arboc Science, 1974.
82. Slu4g Treatment and Disposal , U.S. EPA Technology Transfer,
EPA 625/ 74006, October 1974.
83. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering , McGraw-Hill,
197 2.
83. Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc., Summary Report on the Evaluation
of Tuna Wastewater Treatment Facilities at Terminal Island
Caltfornia (unpublished), prepared under EPA Contract No.
68-01-3287, September 1976.
85. Ca’ruthers, J.A. and F.E. Woodard, “Dewatering of Dissolved
Air Flotation Sludge by Centrifugation”, Proceedings of the
3ls Industrial Waste Conference , Lafayette, Indiana, pp.
628-635, 1976
86. Hallmark, D.E. et al., “Protein Recovery from Meat Packing
Effluent”, Proceedings Ninth National Symposium on Food
Processi Wastes , EPA-600-2-78-188, August 1978.
87. Morris, R.E. and D.G. Bzdyl, “Physical/Chemical System Pro-
vides Cost Saving Pretreatment and Byproduct Recovery”,
Pollution Engineering , March 1977.
88. Ertz, D.B., et al., “Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of
Seafood Processing Wastes--An Assessment”, Proceedings Eighth
National Sumposium on Food Processing Wastes , EPA-600/
2—77—184, August 1977.
89. Bloornstrom, G. and L. Ekiand, Technical Investigation of the
Operations at Salto Industrial Sewage Purification Plant,
Karlskrona, The Swedish National Environment Protection Board
November 13, 1973.
-------
90. Kato, K. and S. Ishikawa, “Fish Oil and Protein Recovered
from Fi h Processing Effluent”, Water and Sewage Works ,
October 1969.
91. Szabo, A.J. et al., “Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of
Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater”, Proceedings Ninth National
y osiuni on Food Processing Wastes , EPA 600/2-78-188, August
1978.
92. National Canners Association, “Preproposal: Utilization of
Tuna DAF Sludge”, prepared for Tuna Research Foundation,
Terminal Island, California, May l9]7.
93. Kissam, A. et al., “Preliminary Evaluation of Anaerobic
Sludge Digestion for the Tuna Processing Industry”,
Proceedii g Eighth National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes, EPA 600/2-77-184, August 1977.
94. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Information
Cenl:er, Technology Transfer, EPA 625/1-77-008, 1977.
95. Harris, J.O., “Asphalt Oxidizing Bacteria of the Soil”,
Industri 1 and Engineering Chemistry , Vol.58, No. 6, June
1966.
96. U.S D.A., Agricultural Handbook 60, Diagnosis and Improvement
of Saline and Akalai Soils, 1954.
97. Costa, F.E., Jr., “The Fertilizer Value of Shrimp and Crab
Processing Wastes”, M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University,
Jun 1977.
98. Costa, R.E., Jr. (Clatsop County Extension Agent), “Recoinnien-
dations for Use of Shrimp and Crab Processing Wastes in
Coastal Agriculture”, (unpublished) May 3, 1977.
99. Atwell, J.S. and D.B. Ertz, Transcribed Notes for Visits to
Alaskan Seafood Processing Facilities, (unpublished), July
1977.
-------