Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Program
Upgrading Seafood Processing
Facilities To Reduce Pollution
Waste Treatment Systems
Industry Seminars For
Pollution Control
New Orleans,La. Seattle, Wash.
March 5 & 6,1974 April 2 & 3,1974
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Scientists and Engineers
Corvallis, Oregon
-------
ysai
Km**?
Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Program
Upgrading Seafood Processing
Facilities To Reduce Pollution
Waste Treatment Systems
Industry Seminars For
Pollution Control
New Orleans,La. Seattle, Wash.
March 5 & 6,1974 April 2 & 3,1974
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
•' Consulting Scientists and Engineers
K/\l Corvallis, Oregon
-------
ABSTRACT
These documents were designed by Environmental Associates,
Inc. of Corvallis, Oregon to supplement formal presentations
at various Technology Transfer Seminars presented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in each region of the country
where fish and/or shellfish processing is a significant indus-
try. This report covers all major subcategories of seafood
processed in the United States. The bulk of the material appear-
ing herein was developed by Environmental Associates, Inc. under
separate contract with the E.P.A. (Contract Number 68-01-1526).
The wastewater streams and solid wastes generated in the
processing of fish and seafood are thoroughly characterized.
Then the various wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal
alternatives applicable to the subject industries are discussed
and the costs of each recommended alternative (capital and oper-
ating/maintenance) reviewed for "typical" processing operations.
The numbers presented in this report are averages of values de-
veloped within a limited time framework; they should not be used
as the sole bases for design or cost estimation for specific
facilities. The influences of site specificity and other local
conditions dictate that each design situation be considered sep-
arately. Furthermore, mention of trade names does not constitute
endorsement.
Included at the back of this document are four papers which
were included in the first of the series of seminars. These
ii
-------
discuss: 1) applications of dissolved air flotation in the fish
industry; 2) screening and dissolved air flotation of shrimp pro-
cessing wastewaters; 3) characterization and treatment of fish
meal and crab processing wastes in Canada; and 4) waste treatment
technology in Canada.
In a separate document, the various methods of wastewater re-
cycle and reuse, process modification, new product development and
other in-plant changes designed to minimize the environmental im-
pact of the seafood industry are comprehensively discussed.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Need for Wastewater Treatment ..... l
Industry Categorization 3
Waste Categorization 6
Industry Wastewater Characterization
Summary 6
Industrial Fish Meal Process . . . , 12
Salmon Canning Process 22
Salmon Fresh/Frozen Process 29
Herring Filleting Process 37
Tuna Canning Process . 40
Sardine/Jack Mackerel Canning Process 45
Bottom Fish, Groundfish, and Miscel-
laneous Finfish Process 52
Herring Pickling Process 69
Catfish Processes 73
Alaska Crab Process 79
West Coast Crab Process. 86
Blue Crab Processes 93
Alaskan Shrimp Process 100
West and Gulf Coast Shrimp 104
Clam Processes 113
Oyster Processes 124
Sea Urchin Roe/Abalone Process ... 133
Scallop Process 139
Lobster Process 143
2 WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 149
Introduction 149
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Waste-
Water 149
Screening. ...... 150
Air Flotation. . . . . 164
Vacuum flotation 166
Dispersed air flotation ..... 167
Dissolved air flotation ..... 167
Sedimentation and Clarification. . . 178
Chemical Oxidation . . . 181
Sludge Treatment 182
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Biological Treatment of Wastewater . . 184
Activated Sludge 188
Rotating Biological Discs 193
High Rate Trickling Filter 197
Ponds and Lagoons 199
Land Disposal of Wastewater 203
Solids Disposal Methods . 207
Sanitary Landfill and Land Disposal 207
Deep Sea Disposal 208
Incineration 209
Waste Treatment Case Studies 210
Case Study Number 1: Tangential
Screening of Shrimp Processing
Wastewater (Peterson, 1973b) . . 211
Case Study Number 2: Dissolved Air
Flotation Treatment of Sardine
Processing Wastes 212
Case Study Number 3: Dissolved Air
Flotation Treatment of Tuna Pro-
cessing Wastes 216
Case Study Number 4: Biological
Treatment of Oyster Processing
Wastes 219
Case Study Number 5: Centrifugal
Wastewater Concentrator Treatment
of Shrimp Wastes 221
3 TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS 222
As sumptions 222
Industrial and Finfish 222
Fish Meal 222
Salmon Canning 227
Fresh/Frozen Salmon 236
Herring Fillering 245
Sardine Canning 250
Jack Mackerel Canning . 255
Conventional Bottom Fish 256
Mechanized Bottom Fish 267
Herring Pickling (Alewife) 26 3
Catfish Processes ....... 26n
iv
-------
Shellfish 268
Alaska Crab 275
West Coast Crab ........... 277
Blue Crab Processes 277
Alaska and Northwest Shrimp 277
Gulf Shrimp Processes 283
Clams 283
Steamed and Canned Oysters 296
Hand-Shucked Oysters . . 296
Scallops 296
Abalone and Sea Urchin 296
Lobster and Conch Canning 306
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 310
BIBLIOGRAPHY 311
TERMS APPLICABLE TO WASTE TREATMENT
AND THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 314
APPENDIX A -List of Equipment Manufacturers. 327
CONVERSION TABLE 331
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION TREATMENT OF
SEAFOOD WASTES by Irvin F. Snider. . . . 332
TREATMENT OF GULF SHRIMP PROCESSING AND
CANNING WASTE by Frank Mauldin 355
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IN CANADA by Fred Claggett384
CHARACTERIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CANADIAN
FISH MEAL AND CRAB PROCESSING PIANT
WASTEWATERS by M.J. Riddle 407
v
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Fish reduction and finfish subcategories. . 5
2 Shellfish subcategories 5
3 Waste load reduction using bailwater
evaporation 14
4 Summary of average waste loads from fish
meal production 15
5 Fish meal process summary (discharge from
solubles plant only) 17
6 Fish meal process summary (without solubles
plant) 18
7 Fish meal production with solubles plant
material balance 20
8 Fish meal production with bailwater material
balance ..... 21
9 Fish meal production without solubles plant
material balance 23
10 Mechanically butchered salmon process
summary 27
11 Salmon canning process material balance
(iron chink) 28
12 Salmon canning process material balance
(hand butchered) 30
13 Annual production of Northwest fresh/frozen
salmon 31
14 Daily peak production rates of Alaska fresh/
frozen salmon plants (Phillips, 1974) ... 31
15 Hand butchered salmon process summary ... 35
16 Fresh/frozen round salmon process material
balance 36
17 Herring filleting process summary 39
18 Herring filleting process material balance. 41
vi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
19 Tuna process summary (9 plants) 43
20 Tuna process material balance 44
21 Waste load reduction using dry conveyor
(Plant SA2) 4 7
22 Sardine canning process summary 48
23 Mackerel canning process 49
24 Sardine canning process material balance . 50
25 Non-Alaska bottom fish size breakdown. . . 56
26 Alaska bottom fish (halibut) process summary 58
27 Conventional bottom fish process summary . 59
28 Mechanical bottom fish process summary . . 61
29 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance (with skinner) 62
30 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance 63
31 Whiting freezing process material balance. 65
32 Halibut freezing process material balance. 66
33 Halibut fletching process material balance 68
34 Alewife pickling process summary 71
35 Pickled herring process material balance . 72
36 Catfish process summary (5 plants) .... 75
37 Catfish process material balance 77
38 Material balance - Alaska tanner and king
crab sections process and Alaska Dungeness
crab whole cooks (without waste grinding). 82
39 Material balance - Alaska tanner crab frozen
and canned meat process (without waste
grinding 83
vii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
40 Material balance - Alaska tanner and king
crab sections process (with waste grinding) 84
41 Material balance - Alaska tanner crab
frozen and canned meat process (with waste
grinding) 85
42 Alaska crab process summary (8 plants)
with grinding 87
43 Alaska crab section process summary with
grinding (4 plants) 88
44 Alaska crab frozen & canned meat process
summary without grinding (4 plants).... 89
45 West Coast Dungeness crab process summary
without shell fluming (3 plants) ..... 91
46 Oregon Dungeness crab whole and fresh-
frozen meat process (without fluming wastes) 92
47 Conventional blue crab process material
balance 95
48 Conventional blue crab process summary
(2 plants) 96
49 Mechanized blue crab process material
balance 97
50 Mechanized b-lue crab process summary
(2 plants) 99
51 Alaska shrimp frozen and canned process. . 103
52 Alaska frozen shrimp process summary
(plants SI & K2) 105
53 Canned Gulf shrimp material balance. . . . 107
54 West Coast—shrimp canning 109
55 Breaded Gulf shrimp material balance . . . 112
56 Gulf shrimp canning process summary (4
plants) 114
57 West Coast canned shrimp process summary
(2 plants) 115
viii
-------
59
6G
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
122
124
127
128
130
131
132
135
136
138
142
146
152
153
156
157
159
171
174
TABLES (Continued)
Breaded shrimp process summary (2 plants). .
Conventional clam process summary
Mechanical clam process summary. ......
Surf clam canning process material balance .
Hand shucked clam process material balance .
Steamed or canned oyster process summary . .
Hand shucked oysters process summary ....
Steamed oyster process material balance. . .
Hand shucked oyster process material balance
Breaded oyster process material balance. . .
Abalone/sea urchin process summary
Fresh/frozen abalone process material balance
Sea urchin roe process material balance. . .
Alaskan scallop process summary
Spiny lobster process summary
Comparison of Tyler and U.S. sieve series
(Perry, 1950)
Northern Sewage Screen test results (34 mesh)
SWECO Concentrator test results
SWECO vibratory screen performance
( , 1972)
Tangential screen performance
Removal efficiencies for the dispersed air
flotation unit ( , 1973)
Dissolved air flotation performance—United
States ........
ix
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
80 Gravity clarification using F-FLOK coag-
ulant ............. 181
81 Screening study results - shrimp processing
wastewaters (Peterson, 1973b)... 212
82 Sardine processing wastewater, industry
average (mg/1) 214
83 Dissolved air flotation and removal effi-
ciencies on sardine processing wastewater. . 215
84 Removal efficiencies of the screen, SWECO
wastewater concentrator and skimming tank
with.and without chemical addition 221
85 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
fish meal with solubles plant 224
86 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
fish meal without solubles plant ...... 225
87 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska salmon canning - large 228
88 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska salmon canning - medium ....... 229
89 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska salmon canning - large 230
90 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska salmon canning - medium 231
91 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska salmon canning - small 232
92 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Northwest salmon canning - large 233
93 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Northwest salmon canning - small 234
x
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
94 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska fresh frozen salmon-large. . . 237
95 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska fresh frozen salmon - small ... 238
96 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
N/W Fresh frozen salmon - large. 239
97 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
N/W fresh frozen salmon - large. 240
98 Wa-'"or effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
West coast fresh frozen salmon - large. ..... 241
99 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
N/W fresh frozen salmon - small 242
100 Water effluent costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
N/W fresh frozen salmon - small 243
101 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
West coast fresh frozen salmon- small. ..... 244
102 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan herring filleting .......... 246
103 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaska herring filleting 247
104 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska herring filleting . 248
105 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska herring filleting . . 249
106 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Tuna 251
xi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
107 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Sardine canning - large 252
108 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Sardine canning - medium ....... 253
109 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Sardine canning - small 254
110 Water -effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mackerel canning 257
111 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska bottom fish - large 258
112 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alask bottom fish - small 259
113 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - large 260
114 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish anc" seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaska cony, bottom fish - large 261
115 Water effluent treatment costs canned anc
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - medium. ..... 262
116 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
pieserved fish and seafood, Subcatagory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - medium 263
117 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood,Subcategory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - small 264
118 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - small ...... 265
xii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Pages
119 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan conv. bottom fish - small 266
120 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan mech. bottom fish - large 269
121 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan mech, bottom fish - large 270
122 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Nonalaskan mech. bottom fish - small 271
123 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Herring pidkling (alewives) 272
124 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Herring pickling (alewives)..... 273
125 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Catfish 274
126 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska crab 276
127 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
West coast Dungeness crab 278
128 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Conventional blue crab 279
129 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized blue crab 280
130 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Alaska shrimp (Kodiak) 281
xii^
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
131 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Northwest shrimp 282
132 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
canned gulf shrimp 284
133 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Breaded gulf shrimp 285
134 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized cleans- large 286
135 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized clams - large 287
136 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized clams - large 288
137 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized clams - small 289
138 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized clams - small 290
139 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Mechanized clams - small 291
140 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Conventional clams - large 292
141 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Conventional clams - small 293
142 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Coventional clams - small 294
143 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Conventional clams - small 295
xl v
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
144 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Steamed of canned oysters 297
145 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Eastern hand shucked oysters - large 298
146 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Eastern hand shucked oysters - medium 299
147 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Pacific hand shucked oyster - large 300
148 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Pacific hand shucked oyster - medium 301
149 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Pacific hand shucked oysters - medium 302
150 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Pacific hand shucked oyster - small 303
151 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Pacific hand shucked oyster - small. ...... 304
152 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory: 305
Alaskan scallops
153 Water effluent treatment costs csanned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Abalone/sea urchin 307
154 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Spiny lobster 308
155 Water effluent treatment costs canned and
preserved fish and seafood, Subcategory:
Clam/conch canning 309
XV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Relative waste loadings for the finfish
category. .......... 8
2 Relative waste loadings for the shellfish
category 9
3 Relative amounts of waste produced per
production day for the finfish category . . 10
4 Relative amounts of waste produced per
production day for the shellfish category . 11
5 Fish- meal process plot (with solubles plant) 13
6 Fish meal process plot (without solubles
plant) 16
7 Salmon canning process plot 25
8 Fresh/frozen salmon process plot 33
9 Herring filleting process plot 38
10 Sardine/mackerel canning process plot ... 46
11 Conventional bottom fish process plot ... 54
12 Mechanical bottom fish process plot .... 55
13 Alewife pickling process plot 70
14 Conventional or mechanized clam process plot 118
15 Fresh/frozen, steamed, or canned oyster
process plot 125
16 Abalone/sea urchin process plot 134
17 Alaskan scallop process plot . 141
18 American lobster process plot 144
19 Spiny lobster process plot 145
20 Typical drum rotary screen 154
21 SWECO centrifugal wastewater concentrator . 155
xvi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
22 Typical tangential screening system
(Environmental Associates, Inc.) 161
23 Cost curves for tangential screen installa-
tion and maintenance (Environmental Assoc-
iates, Inc., 1974) 165
24 WEMCO dispersed air flotation unit 168
25 Typical dissolved air flotation system
(Environmental Associates, Inc.) 169
26 Carborundum Corporation dissolved air flota-
tion system 170
27 Installation costs of dissolved air flota-
tion units (Environmental Associates, Inc.,
1974) 175
28 Operating and maintenance costs for dis-
solved air flotation unit operated with
chemicals (Environmental Associates, Inc.,
1974) 176
29 Operating and maintenance costs for a dis-
solved air flotation unit operated without
chemicals (Environmental Associates, Inc.,
1974) 177
30 Typical activated sludge treatment system
(Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973). . . 189
31 Phases of biological growth 191
32 Capital and operating/maintenance costs for
typical extended aeration activated sludge
systems (Environmental Associates, Inc.,
1974) 194
33 BOD removal curve for hypothetical biolog-
ical treatment system 196
34 Capital and operating/maintenance costs for
typical aerated lagoon systems (Environmen-
tal Associates, Inc., 1974) 204
35 Alaska and West Coast shrimp canning process
(Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973). . . 213
xvii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
36 Tuna process (Environmental Associates, Inc.,
1973) 217
xviii
-------
PLATES
Number Page
1 Brush-cleaned screen at salmon cannery
(courtesy New England Fish Company) 163
2 Surface view of a typical circular clarifier 179
3 Trickling filter - biological action .... 198
4 Surface view of a typical trickling filter
with rock media 198
5 Trickling filter with synthetic media
(courtesy of Surfpac) 200
6 Aerated lagoon (courtesy Eimco Co.) 201
7 Spray irrigation disposal system (courtesy
Cape May Canning Co.) 205
xix
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Need for Wastewater Treatment
Concern about the discharge of industrial wastewaters into
the navigable waters of the United States was expressed in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the "Act")
The Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
effluent limitations on point sources of discharge. Many sub-
stances are discharged into receiving waters in sufficient quan-
tities to lower the water quality to the point that beneficial
uses are impaired. Substances which are potential pollutants
include solids (floating, suspended, settleable, and dissolved),
organic matter, nutrients, heat, toxic materials, acids and bases.
Floating solids, including foam, grease, scum, and fish vis-
cera are unsightly and interfere with natural aquatic functions
such as oxygen transfer and light penetration. Settleable solids
adversely affect light penetration, and after settling form
anaerobic sludge beds from which emanate methane and hydrogen
sulfide. The anaerobic environment on the bottoms of streams
and bays prevents hatching of non-bouyant eggs of aquatic animals
Turbidity and limited light penetration hinder the growth of
aquatic vegetation. If the receiving waters are to be used for
domestic water supplies, treatment becomes more difficult if
large amounts of suspended solids are present.
Organic matter decomposes when present in the marine environ
ment, thus depleting the amount of oxygen in the water. More
-------
desirable species of fish and aquatic life, such as trout ana bass,
will be replaced by scrap fish, such as carp and others having lower
oxygen requirements, when the dissolved oxygen levels fall below
5 mg/1.
Nutrients (particularly phosphorus and nitrogen), when present
in the marine environment under the proper conditions, stimulate
algae growth. Eish living within the algae bloom will often have
off-flavors. When the algae die, their decomposition exerts an
oxygen demand which can cause fish kills, unpleasant odors, and
unsightliness. Reaeration of oxygen-depleted waters by natural
means such as stream ripples and waves is limited.
Changes in temperature may adversely affect aquatic organisms
and the dissolved oxygen content of the water. Many fish have
narrow temperature tolerance ranges. If the temperatures vary
from the optimum, fish cannot carry out many important functions
such as reproduction. Water will not hold as much dissolved oxy-
gen at lower as it will at higher temperatures. Increased temp-
eratures also accelerate algae growth, thus compounding the dis-
solved oxygen problem.
Toxic chemicals are common in some industrial effluent streams,
but are not prevalent in seafood processing wastes. Toxic sub-
stances discharged to receiving waters can be harmful to plant,
animal, and human life.
Acids and bases present in the effluent can adversely influence
biological activity in the receiving waters. Most living organisms
can live only near the neutral pH of seven. Even slight deviations
from this value can drastically influence the organisms living in
-2-
-------
the waters. Seafood processing wastes typically have pH's within the
six to eight range.
Wastewater treatment of some form is needed to avoid the impair-
ment of water quality. Treatment, when discharging to a municipal
system, usually does not need to be as complete as when the waste-
waters flow directly to the receiving waters. Requirements of local/
statef and federal agencies will dictate the required degree of
treatment.
1.2 Industry Categorization
Important factors in the design of a cost effective waste
treatment system are: the characteristics of the waste load/ the
contaminants to be removed and the level of removal required/ the
scale of the operation, and/ very importantly, local factors such
as climate, land availability, solids disposal sites, and by-product
recovery facilities. For a specific problem certain variables may
be identified such as the required level of removal of certain
contaminants and possibly the scale of the operation. Factors such
as local conditions and specifics of the plant site will have to be
determined for each case.
Characterization of the waste load is one of the most impor-
tant factors and can be an expensive and time consuming step in the
design procedure. It is expensive because field personnel are re-
quired to take measurements and collect wastewater samples for sub-
sequent laboratory analysis. It can be time consuming if the nature
of the operation is seasonal or intermittent, requiring long delays
before or during an appropriate sampling period.
-3-
-------
When reviewing an entire industry, one way to maximize efficiency
is to categorize the industry such that the waste loads are relatively
uniform within each category, and then to conduct a sampling pro-
gram to characterize the effluent within each group. Once these
data are obtained, the designer has background information for most
cases and needs only to verify that his plant is typical. The back-
ground data will suffice in many cases to determine the most cost
effective system. A few samples should be collected to verify the
assumptions made.
Several factors should be considered in a categorization study.
Some of the more important to the seafood industry are: geographic
location, manufacturing processes and subprocesses, form and quality
of finished product, species and condition of the raw product, pro-
duction capabilities, waste loads, number of plants engaged in the
activity and ages of facilities and the seasonality of operation.
Recent studies of the wastes from the U.S. seafood industry
(Environmental Associates, 197 3 and 1974) resulted in the following
categorization scheme. The industry was first divided into three
main groups: 1) fish reduction; 2) finfish; and 3) shellfish.
The finfish and shellfish groups were further subdivided by
commodity and type of preservation method: canning, curing, fresh
pack, or freezing. To determine which segments of the industry were
more significant from the standpoint of the magnitude of pollution
abatement efforts required, a matrix analysis was performed to help
focus the study on the more- important areas. Field investigation
work was then concentrated in these areas, the data analyzed and
the subcategorization shown in Tables 1 and 2 developed. The sub-
-4-
-------
categories are listed in approximate order of importance in terms of
the waste loads produced per day from a typical plant.
Table 1. Fish reduction and finfish subcategories.
Fish meal production without solubles plant
Fish meal production with solubles plant
Alaska salmon canning
Northwest salmon canning
Tuna canning
Herring filleting
Herring pickling
Sardine canning
Jack mackerel canning
Mechanized bottom fish, groundfish, or miscellaneous
finfish
Conventional bottom fish, groundfish, or miscellaneous
finfish
Alaska bottom fish (halibut)
Alaska fresh/frozen salmon
West Coast fresh/frozen salmon
Catfish
Table 2. Shellfish subcategories.
Alaska shrimp
West Coast or New England shrimp
Gulf shrimp
Alaska crab
Mechanized blue crab
West Coast crab
Mechanically shucked surf clams
Conventional shucked surf clams
Conventional blue crab
Steamed/canned oysters
Hand shucked oysters
Alaska scallops
Non-Alaska scallops
Abalone or sea urchin
Lobster
-5-
-------
1.3 Waste Categorization
Waste from seafood processing plants typically can be grouped
into four categories:
a) "Contaminated fish processing waters" are defined as
waters which have been in contact with the raw or finished
product, and offal. These waters include flume water,
plant wastewater, clean-up water and water used in the
machines that do the actual processing. It is these
waste streams which contribute the largest part of the
waste load.
b) "Uncontaminated fish processing waters" are defined as
wastewaters which have not been in contact with the fish.
These waters include can cooling water.
c) "Storm water" is water which reaches drains used solely
for carrying storm and/or drainage water off the premises.
d) "Sanitary wastes" are waters which originate from toilets
and other domestic wastewater facilities within the plant.
1.4 Industry Wastewater Characterization Summary
During the studies conducted by Environmental Associates, Inc.
(1973 and 1974), initial evaluations of the industrial segments
resulted in sampling programs whose sizes were based on the relative
importance of the respective categories. The greater the waste
loads from the plants and the larger the industrial category, the
greater was the number of samples taken. Because of the large
variations in waste loads that occur, large number of samples fre-
quently must be taken to properly define the wastewater.
-6-
-------
The parameters of major pollutional significance to the canned
and preserved fish and seafood processing industry are: 5-day (20°C)
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), sus-
pended solids, settleable solids, oil and grease, organic nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, raw product input rate, and food/product recovery,
and flow. Of these BOD, suspended solids, grease and oil, flow,
and production are considered to be the most significant variables.
All wastewater samples taken should be flow-proportioned com-
posites of the total plant effluent. This method of sampling has
been found to reduce variability in the data and produce more
representative samples than would otherwise be obtained by other
sampling methods.
Results from wastewater sample analyses conducted by a labor-
atory are usually expressed as concentrations, normally milligrams
per liter (mg/1). For design purposes, data are best left in this
form. However, for the purpose of characterization, variations in
daily flow and daily production need to be considered by converting
mg/l to pounds of waste produced per ton of product (usually raw
product) processed. The following formula will convert mg/1 to
I
lbs/ton:
(mg/1) (8.34) (MGD)+ (tons/day) = lbs/ton
where MGD is an abbreviation for million gallons per day.
Figures 1 and 2 show the relative waste loads for the finfish
and shellfish categories. Figures 3 and 4 depict the relative
amounts of waste produced per day for the two major categories.
The listings on these four figures are generally in order of
decreasing impact on the receiving waters (season lengths as well
%s waste loads being considered).
-Is-
-------
FINFISH
BOD /PRODUCTION RATIO SUMMARY
KG OF BOD/KKG OF RAW PRODUCT FROM TYPICAL PLANT
10
20
—f—
30
—I—
40
60
—I—
FISH MEAL - EVAPORATOR
DISCHARGE
FISH MEAL - STICK WATER
DISCHARGE
ALASKA SALMON CANNING
NORTHWEST SALMON CANNING
HERRING FILLETING
WEST COAST TUNA CANNING
PUERTO RICO TUNA CANNING
MAINE. SAfl&HE CAHHMG
CONVENTIONAL BOtTOMFISH,
GROUNDFISH, FINFISH
MECHANIZED BOTTOMFISH,
GROUNDFISH,FINFISH
ALASKA FRESH/FROZEN SALMON
NORTHWEST FRESH/FROZEN
SALMON
ALASKA HALIBUT
ALEWIFE PICKLING
CATFISH
JACK MACKERAL CANNING
Figure 1. Relative waste loadings for the finfish catagory.
-8-
-------
shellfish
«oo/-production mho summary
Ka OF BOO/KNS OF RAW PROOUCT fnou TYPICAL PLANT
40
20
COMMODITY
ALASKA CRAB
WEST COAST CRAB
CONVENTIONAL
CRAB
MECHANIZED BLUE CRAB
ALASKA SHRIMP
WEST COAST
69
GULF SHRIMP
ATLANTIC SURF CLAM MEAT
(MECHANICAL SHUCK)
ATLANTIC SURF CLAM MEAT
(HAND SHUCK)
SURF CLAM CANNING
ATLANTIC FRESH OYSTERS
NORTHWEST FRESH OYSTERS
STEAMED OYSTERS
ABALONE
Figure 2. Relative waste loadings for the shellfish catagory.
-------
FINFISH
¦00 LOAD SUMMARY
KO Of 100/ DAY
COMMODITY
900
—t
1000
—I—
aoo
—i—
2000
I
2800
1
3000
1
FISH MEAL EVAPORATOR
OOCHARGE
FISH MEAL STICK WATER
DISCHARGE
ALASKA SALMON CANNMG
H *800
I—» 18400
NORTHWEST SALMON CANMN6
HERRING FLLETMG
WEST COAST TUNA CANNMG
PUERTO RKO TUNA CANMNQ
8000
MAINE SAROME CANNMG
CONVENTIONAL BOTTOMFTSH,
OROUNDFISH.FMFISH
MECHAMZED BOTTOMFBH,
QROUNOFtSH, FtNFISH
ALASKA FRESH/FROZEN SALMON
NORTHWEST FRESH/FROZEN
SALMON
ALASKA HALBUT
ALEWIFE PICKLMG
CATFISH
JACK MACKERAL CANNMG
Figure 3. Relative
day
amounts
for the
of waste produced per production
finfish cataqory.
-10-
-------
SHELLFISH
BOO LOAD SUMMARY
KG OF BOO/ DAY
COMMOOITY
500
tooo
1900 2000
2900
¦
- 1 T ' '
ALASKA CRAB
WEST COAST CRAB
CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAB
MECHANIZEO BLUE CRAB
ALASKA SHRIMP
WEST COAST SHRIMP
QULF SHRIMP
ATLANTIC SURF CLAM MEAT
(MECHANICAL SHUCK)
ATLANTIC SURF CLAM MEAT
(HAND SHUCK)
SURF CLAM CANNING
ATLANTIC FRESH OYSTERS
NORTHWEST FRESH OYSTERS
STEAMEO OYSTERS
ABALONE
SCALLOPS
Figure 4. Relative
day
amounts
for the
of waste produced per production
shellfish catagory.
-11-
-------
In the following sections, the wastewater characteristics of
each of the major subcategories (as defined on Tables 1 and 2) are
presented. These data were generated (largely) during the recent
studies by Environmental Associates (1973 and 1974). Accordingly,
for each subcategory there appears a discussion of the sampling
program involved and the conclusions reached as a result of data
analysis.
1.4.1 Industrial Fish Meal Process
Regardless of the species being rendered, five general types
of wastewaters are discharged from a wet reduction process: evap-
orator, drop-leg water, bailwater, washwater, and stickwater. Most
large plants employ solubles recovery systems and discharge only
evaporator water. Some medium-size plants evaporate the stickwater,
but discharge the bailwater, and the smaller, older plants often
discharge both stickwater and bailwater. Five of the plants sampled
were menhaden reduction plants located on the Atlantic or Gulf Coast
and three were anchovy reduction plants located in California.
Figure 5 shows a normalized (to production) summary plot of
the wastewater characteristics taken from all the fish meal reduc-
tion processes with solubles plants. Five parameters: flow, BOD,
suspended solids, grease and oil, and production, are shown for each
plant sampled. The vertical scale is in dimensionless units with
the scaling factor shown at the bottom of the figure. The average
value of the parameter is at the center of the vertical spread with
the height of the spread representing one standard deviation above
-12-
-------
Figure 5. pjSH MEAL. PROCESS- PLCI. CV.ITH-SOLUBL££ PLANT)
6.
P
P
P
S
BS
BS
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q-
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
BS
s
BSG
BS
BSG
BSG
. BS G
BS G
S
M2
M3
(5)
(<~>
8
B P
. _S
SG
M5
(9)
SYMBQt PARANET BR.
P
BS
P
BS
.
Q
: P._
BS
Q
Q GP
BS
Q
Q GP
QBS
G
Q GP
CBS
G
CP
QBS
Q
SGP
BSG
_.JQ
SG
Q
SG
BSG
G
SG
BSG
Q
SG
BSG
Q
BSG
BSG
Q
BSG
BSGP
...C
B_G
_-B_J»P
Q S
8 G
B GP
P
Q S
B G
8 GP
BS P
SGP
8 G
8 P
BSG
.. BSGF
6 G
8 P
BSG
BSGP
G
B P
G
BSG .
G
B
G
6
A2
Mi
H2H
M3H
ibi
(6)
(16)
(17)
SCALING.FACTOR
0
FLOH
. 1
UNIT
s
10000
L/KKG
B
5 DAY BOO
1
UNIT
a
5
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENOEO SOLIOS
1
UNIT
s
2
KG/KKG
G
GREASE < OIL
1
UNIT
=
2
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1
UNIT
.20-._
TON/HR...
-13-
-------
and below the mean. A plant code is shown at the bottom of each
group, where "M" stands for menhaden, and "A" stands for anchovy.
The number in parentheses under the plant code is the number of
samples taken from each plant.
The first four plants (M2, M3, M5, and A2) discharged only
evaporator water, while the remaining three plants (Ml, M2H, and
M3H) discharged bailwater instead of evaporating it. It can be
seen that the waste load was generally lower from the plants not
discharging bailwater. Plants M2 and M3 provided good examples
of the reduction in waste loads that can be achieved by evaporating
the bailwater. The codes M2H and M3H represent historical data
collected when both plants discharged or barged bailwater, while
the codes M2 and M3 represent recent data when both plants were
treating and evaporating the bailwater. Table 3 shows the average
waste loads both before and after bailwater treatment and evapor-
ation and the percent reductions obtained.
Table 3. Waste load reduction using bailwater evaporation.
Parameter (kg/kkg)
Suspended
solids
BOD
Grease
and oil
Plant
M2 - Before
4.1
5.9
3.0
- After
0.88
1.7
0.53
- % Reduction
78
71
82
Plant
M3 - Before
5.6
10.1
3.5
- After
1.2
3.6
1.0
- % Reduction
78
64
71
-14-
-------
Figure 6 shows a summary of the waste loads from two plants
discharging both stickwater and bailwater. The waste loads are
about 20 to 40 times greater than those from plants utilizing
evaporators.
Table 4 summarizes the average waste loads from plants with
three types of discharges: solubles plant only, solubles plant
plus bailwater, and stickwater plus bailwater.
Table 4. Summary of average waste loads from fish meal
production.
Solubles
Parameter (kg/kkg) plant
Suspended solids
5 day BOD
Grease and oil
1.0
2.9
0.74
Solubles plant
and bailwater
3.8
6.1
2.5
Stickwater
& bailwater
41
59
25
The fish meal production industry was segmented into two
subcategories: those with a discharge equivalent to that from a
solubles plant only, and those without a solubles plant. The
exemplary plants treat, recycle, and evaporate the bailwater and
washwater. The older, smaller plants typically have no existing
solubles plant facilities to expand or modify to treat the stick-
water or bailwater; therefore, these were placed into a separate
subcategory.
Statistics from plants sampled in these two categories are
shown in Tables 5 and 6. The tables show the estimated means,
standard deviations, and ranges for each of several parameters.
-15-
-------
Figure 6. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLOT (WITHOUT SOLUBLES PLANT)
6.
Q
0
09
08
QB
03
QB
QB
OB
QB
GB
CB
OBS
DBS
CBS
Q9SG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
S
BS I
BS I
BS I
BS
BS
8S
BS
es
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
G
Ai
(3)
A3
f 5)
SYMBOL
parameter
SCALING FACTOR
Q
FLCW
1
UNIT
s
5000
L/KKG
8
5 DAY 900
1
UNIT
s
20
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENOEO SOLIOS
1
UNIT
X
20
KG/KKG
G
GREASE < OIL
i
UNIT
s
20
KG/KKG
P
PROOUCTION
1
UNIT
s
2
TON/HR
-16-
-------
Table 5. FISH MEAL PROCESS SUMMARY
(DISCHARGE FROM)
(SOLUBLES PLANT ONLY).
PARANtTcK
MEAN
STO OEtf
5X MIN
95X MAX
production ton/hr
33. k
26.2
6.04
107
PROCESS timl hr/oay
22.1
2.21
19.0
24. J
flow l/sec
(oAL/'IIN)
2H6
156
2476
6h.6
102b
645
10200
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
3J600
7 39u
13900
332U
121b a
2910
652u0
15600
StTT. SOLI OS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
4. ol
1
--
—
SCR. SOLlOS mg/l
RATIO KC>/KKU
w «•
—
m> m
—
SUSP* SOLI OS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
26.u
6.664
11. V
0.351
12.1
0.372
55. i
1.72
5 OA Y dOO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
90.2
2.76
23.6
0. 726
52.7
1.62
145
4. *6
COO MG/l
RATIO KG/KKG
198
o.Q9
77.5
2.39
67.6
2.70
366
11.)
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO Ko/KKG
22.5
Ci.694
10.1
0.311
6.67
0.273
47.i
1.46
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO
-------
Table 6. FISH HtAL PROCESS SUMMARY
(WITHOUT SOi.USi.ES PLANT).
PArtAMETtR MEAN STD OEV 5X MIN 95* N4X
PRODUCTION T ON/HR 7.60
PROCESS TIHc HR/JAY iS. 7
FLOW l/SEC 13. i
(GAL/HIN) 2bS
Ft OH RATIO l/KKG 7390
(GAL/TON) 177U
StTT • SOLIDS HL/L 29. *
RATIO u/KKG 217
SCR. SOL.IDS HG/L 62.1
ratio kg/kkg u.*59
SUSP* SOLI Ui HG/L 553\i
RATIO KG/KKG *0.8
5 DAY tJJO HG/L 7 9*0
RATIO KG/KKG 56*6
COO HG/L 15 3du
RATIO KG/KKG 113
GREASE & OIl HG/L i3bu
RATIO KG/KKG 25, Q
ORGANI5-N H6/L 703
RATIO KG/KKG 5,20
AMMONIA-N HG/L -33.6
RATIO KG/KKG J. 221
PH b.dO
TcHP 0£G C 32.3
l.<*6 5.15 10.4
11.8 7.33 2*.J
12.9 1.67 *6.i
20** 29.6 7*3
7dtiU 931 27700
lt>70 223 66*0
37. «~ 2.66 12*
276 19.7 91«
3*00 1550 1*300
25.1 11. * 106
2330 *330 13*00
17.2 32.0 96.J
637u b*2 0 3090C
•~7.1 *7.5 22b
2 390 7*3 9620
17.7 5.0b 71.1
d.btt 687 721
d.Ob* 5.07 5.32
6.76 18.9 *5.2
0.050 0.1*0 0.13*
0.026 6.78 6.12
15.5 21.3 *3.3
PLANTS A1 , A3
-18-
-------
A basic assumption was that the bailwater, washwater, and stick-
water processed by the solubles plant during a given period resulted
from the volume of fish processed just previous to the solubles plant
operation period under consideration. The amount of fish processed
was then equally distributed over the solubles plant operational
period which followed, allowing the waste loads to be properly re-
lated to the production levels. As a result, the wastewater sum-
mary tables show long processing times and relatively low production
rates, and it must be remembered that these are in terms of solubles
plant operation and not fish pressing and drying time. For cases
where bailwater was being discharged, the flow rate was determined
by averaging over the period of solubles plant operation so that the
two waste loads could be added properly.
Table 7 shows the wastewater balance summary for plants with
only evaporator and air scrubber discharges (M3, A2) and Table 8
shows the wastewater balance for plants with evaporator and bail-
water discharges (M2H, M3H). It can be seen that the largest flows
(by far) were from the evaporator. Bailwater flows are relatively
small but contain substantial waste loads. Air scrubbers can con-
tribute relatively large flows containing about the same concentra-
tions of wastes as the evaporator flows.
While most of the total plant BOD load was contributed by the
evaporator process, very little suspended solids or grease and oil
were added at that point. It was determined that the evaporator
(sea water) intake contributed an average of only 8% of the BOD,
but 52% of the suspended solids and 78% of the grease and oil
(Environmental Associates, Inc. 1974).
-19-
-------
Table 7. Pish meal production with solubles plant material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) air scrubber
I of Total
Flow
80 - 85%
15 - 20%
% of Total
BOD
60 - 85%
15 - 40%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
60 - 90%
10 - 40%
Total effluent average
M3 / A2
51,000 1/kkg 3.7 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
1.6 kg/kkg
End Products
Products
a) oil
b) meal
By-products
a) solubles
Wastes
a) water
% of Raw Product
6
20
56 -
8%
21%
15%
59%
Average Production Rate, 540 kkq/day (600 tons/day)
-------
Table 8. Fish meal production with, bailwater material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) bailwater
% of Total
Flow
>99%
<1%
% of Total
BOD
17 - 48%
52 - 83%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
12 - 36%
64 - 88%
to
I
Total effluent average
M2H, M3H
29,300 1/kkg
8 kg/kkg
5 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 450 kkg/day (495 tons/day)
-------
Table 9 shows the wastewater balance summary for a fish meal
plant with no solubles plant discharging stickwater and bailwater.
The largest and strongest flow was the stickwater, which is the
liquid remaining after the oil is recovered from the press liquor.
The waste load from the stickwater is one of the strongest in the
entire seafood industry, being very high in BODi suspended solids,
and grease and oil. The bailwater also contributed a relatively
high flow and load.
1.4.2 Salmon Canning Process
Since the salmon canning process is essentially the same from
plant to plant, the only two factors prompting further subcategori-
zation are geographic location and plant size.
The salmon canning industry was subcategorized into Alaska
and Northwest regions because of the much greater costs and treat-
ment problems encountered in Alaska. Furthermore, due to the large
size range of the industry in both areas, the Alaska industry was
divided into three sizes and the Northwest industry into two sizes
for the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies.
There is no obvious distinct grouping of plant sizes; however, the
following divisions were established to develop criteria which
would adequately cover the range:
Alaska salmon canning--large: greater than
80,000 cases annually;
Alaska salmon canning—medium: between 40,000
and 80,000 cases annually;
-------
Table 9. Fish meal production without solubles plant material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
flpit Operation
a) stickwater
b) bailwater
c) washdown
d) air scrubber
% of Total
Flow
45%
39%
1%
15%
% of Total
BOD
93%
7%
<1%
<1%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
94%
6%
<1%
<1%
i
K>
CJ
I
Total effluent average
A3
1870 1/kkg
71 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
59 kg/kkg
Products
a) meal
b) oil
Wastes
a) stickwater
b) water vapor
28%
8%
35%
29%
Average Production Rate, 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day)
-------
Alaska salmon canning—small: less than 40,000 cases
annually;
Northwest salmon canning—large: greater than 20,000
cases annually; and
Northwest salmon canning—small: less than 20,000
cases annually.
Figure 7 summarizes the wastewater characteristics of three
salmon canning plants in Alaska (CSN2, CSN3, CSN4) and four plants
in the Northwest (CSN5, CSN6, CSN7, and CSN8). Codes CS7H and CS8H
represent hist6rical data from the same plants as CSN7 and CSN8,
respectivelyo Two of the Alaskan plants sampled, CSN2 and CSN4,
are in the "small" range (less than 40,000), and one, CSN3, is in
the "medium" range (40,000-80,000 cases). All of the plants sampled
in the Northwest are in the large range (over 20,000 cases).
It was noted that, in general, the waste loads from the plants
in Alaska were greater than those in the Northwest. The main reason
for this is that one Northwest plant (CSN5) did all butchering by
hand and two other Northwest plants (CSN6 and CSN7) practiced a
high percentage of manual butchering during the sampling period,
using the iron chink only when large quantities of fish arrived.
The three salmon plants ift Alaska used the iron chink routinely,
and also ground their solids before discharge, which increased the
waste load. The waste load at CSN3 appears to have been higher
than average; however, this may have been due to the fact that sam-
ples were taken from a sump where solids accumulated over the sam-
pling periodo The historical information from plant CS8H was obtained
-------
Figure 7. salhok canning process flct.
o
O P
C P
08 P
OB P
8 P
8 P
B
BS
S
sc
G
6
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
8
B
08 GP
QB GP
OB GP
OB GP
oe GP
OB GP
C8SGP
QBSGP
OESGP
0 SG
0 SG
G
G
G
G
G
«
B
es
p
p
p
OB P
P
F
8 P
S F
P
P
8 F
8 F
C8 F
ce F
s
SG
C-
e
es
ces
es
es
as
es
es
es
s
£
G
GP
a
B
3
a
B
3
B
B
9
B
B
S
B
B
BS
BS
BS
BS
OBS
~ BS
OBS
CBS
OBS
S
S
s
CSN?
>
CSTh
(4)
CSN8
(3)
CS8H
(6)
SYMBOL PARAMETER SCALIfcC FACTOR
0
FLOW
1 UNIT
= 10000
l/kkg
B
5 DAY BOO
1 UNIT
= 20
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENOEO SOLIDS
1 UNIT
= 20
KG/KKG
G
GREASE AND OIL
1 UNIT
= 10
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1 UNIT
S 2
TON/HR
-------
during a high production period when the iron chink was being used
extensively. The data collected during 1973 appear to be lower
and may be due to plant modifications accomplished in the meantime.
Table 10 summarizes statistics of the waste loads from all
the plants sampled which used the iron chink exclusively (CSN2,
CSN3, CSN4, CSN8). The flow ratio was not included for CSN8 as
it was not considered to be typical. These data provided the base
which was used as the typical raw waste load from salmon canning
processes in both Alaska and the Northwest.
The canning operations in the Northwest, which include hand
butchering, were included with the fresh/frozen salmon subcategory,
since the unit operations are similar except for the canning oper-
ation, which does not increase the load by a significant amount.
For Alaskan salmon plants, located in isolated places, intake
water is obtained from nearby surface water streams. For plants
located in towns, the intake water is supplied usually from the
municipal systems. The water used in the canneries is chlorinated
either by the plant itself, or by the municipal treatment plant.
City water is generally used by northwest plants for all phases
of the operation.
Table 11 shows the wastewater balance for a salmon canning
operation CCSN6) using an iron chink butchering machine. It can
be seen that this machine contributes a significant portion of the
flow and a very great portion of the BOD and suspended solids load.
The main reason that the BOD loads for the northwest plants were
quite variable and generally lower than the Alaskan plants was
because the iron chink was used only on a portion of the total
fish processed.
26.
-------
Table 10. MECHANICALLY BUTCHERED SALMON
PROCESS SUMMARY
PA RA Mi_ 1 R
Mt AN
STO OEV
5*/. MIN
95% MAX
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCtSS TIMi HR/OAY
FLCW L/5EC
(GA L/ ^ 1N)
FtOW KU10 l/KKG
(gal/ton)
S^TT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO u/KKG
SCR. SOLlOi MG/L
RATIC
-------
Table 11. Salmon canning process material balance (iron chink).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total
% of Total
Unit Operation
Flpw
BOD
a) thaw tank
30%
6%
b) iron chink
39%
73%
c) sliming t?&le
17%
8%
d) fish outter
2%
3%
e) can'washer and clincher
8%
3%
f) washcown
4%
7%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
6%
74%
7%
3%
7%
3%
Total effluent average
CSN6
6400 1/kkg
57.7 kg/kkg
118 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
% of Raw Product
Food products
By-product
a) roe
b) milt
c) oil
d) heads
60 - 62%
4-6%
2-3%
1%
12 - 14%
Average Production Rate, 37 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
Table 12 shows the wastewater material balance for an opera-
tion employing exclusively manual butchering (CSN5, CS6N). It can
be seen that the total loads were much lower for the hand butcher-
ing operation than for the mechanical butchering line. The hand
butchering operation for the canning process is identical to the
fresh/frozen butchering operation, hence the load for the manual
canning operation is similar to that from the fresh/frozen opera-
tion except for the wastes from the fish cutting and can filling
operation, which increase the load about 45 percent. Plant CSN2
used a hand packing operation rather than a mechanical filler; there-
fore, their wastes were lower®
1.4.3 Salmon Fresh/Frozen Process
Since the fresh/frozen salmon process is essentially the same
throughout the industry, geographic location and size were consid-
ered to be the only major factors affecting subcategorization.
It was decided that the fresh/frozen salmon industry be sub-
categorized into "Alaska" and "West Coast" regions because of the
greater costs and more serious treatment problems encountered in
Alaska. The size range of the industry is significant in both re-
gions; however neither is as great as the range for salmon canning.
Information on the size range of the industry in terms of
annual production is limited. Table 13 summarizes data obtained
from a study conducted by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(Peterson, 1970) involving Northwest fresh/frozen salmon plants.
29
-------
Table 12. Salmon canning process material balance (hand butchered).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) butchering line
b) f,i6h cutter
c) can filler
d) can washer
e) washdown
of Total
¦Flow
20%
20%
5%
22%
33%
% of Total
BOD
24%
16%
21%
5%
34%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
17%
17%
30%
5%
30%
Total effluent Average
CSN5, CS6M
5400 1/kkg
3.4 kg/kkg
2.0 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day)
-------
Table 13. Annual production of
Northwest fresh/frozen salmon.
Raw Product Processed Annually
Plant Number (kkg) (tons)
1 360 400
2 680 750
3 725 800
4
1815 2000
5 2720 3000
6 4535 5000
Table 14 estimates the daily peak production rates for Alaskan
fresh/frozen salmon plants. Based on these figures and obser-
vations made during the plant investigations, the dividing
line between large and small Alaskan and Northwest fresh/frozen
salmon plants was placed at 2370 kkg (2500 tons) of raw product
processed annually.
m.uip 14. Daily peak production rates of Alaska
fresh/frozen salmon plants (Phillips, 1974).
Size
Daily Peak Production Rate
TlcJcgl (tons)'
Large 8°-110 9°-120
Medium «"7° 5°-75
snail 27-45 3°-50
-------
Figure 8 is a summary plot of the wastewater characteristics
of four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska (FS1, FS2, FST1,
FST2) and three operations in the Northwest (FS3, FS4, FST3).
The code FS represents processes which butcher round salmon, while
the code FST represents the processing of troll-dressed salmon,
which have been eviscerated at sea. The four processes in Alaska
(FS1, FST1, FS2, FST2) fall into the "large" range, while the three
Northwest processes (FS3, FST3/ FS4) are in the "small" range.
It can be can be seen that the waste loads from the troll-
dressed processes were lower than those from the round processes
and that the waste loads from the Alaskan plants seem to have been
slightly higher than those from the Northwest plants. The waste
loads from all- these operations, however, were relatively low, with
BOD's less than 3 kg/kkg.
Since the unit operations, where most of the waste is gener-
ated, are similar for either the hand butchered fresh/frozen pro-
cess or the hand butchered canning process, they were included
in one subcategory; the average waste loads from the round fresh/
frozen processes (FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4) and from the hand butcher
canning process (CSN5, CS6M) were to characterize both segments
of the industry.
It would not be efficient to further subdivide the industry
into "round," "troll-dressed" and hand butchered canning processes
with the corresponding regulations and enforcement efforts required.
The slight advantage enjoyed by those plants processing mostly
troll-dressed fish was considered to be of little importance,
since the waste loads from any of these processes are relatively
-32-
-------
Figure 8. FR_SH/FROZt N SALlOf* PkOCLSS PLC T.
G
G
G
P
G
p
P
G
di P
F
G
BS P
P
G
F
es p
P
0 G
P P
<5S p
P
Q G
P P
es p
Q SG
F
P P
3S P
a
G SG
P
P p
SS P
e
Q SG
P
P P
95 P
3
Q SG
P
P P
qs P
r
0 SG
F
F
P
bsgp
6
Q SG
b
P
P
25 GP
83
Q SG
F
9 F
B P
esgp
QS
Q SG
P
9 P
6 P
t3sGF
i>
0 SG
P
8 F
BS P
93 GP
S
QBSG
P
es F
es p
Q 8S GP
S
QBSG
F
BS P
BS
oesGP
QBSG
S F
9S
BS
Q3SGp
9SC-
S F
S
BS
CJ9SGP
e g
Q S. f
SG
PS BS
03SGP
G
3 GP
aasG
G
BS G
Q6SG
G
GP
QbSG
G
ES G
Q s
P
8 G
Q
BSG G
0 o
0
P
Q
QBSG Q
Q
P
es c
FS 1
FS2
FSU
FST2
FS3
FS.T3 FSl*
(5)
(6)
(5)
(9)
<2) U>
syweci
PARAMETER
SCALING FACTOR
o
FLOW
1
UNIT =
10GO0 l/KKG
3
5 OAY
BOD
1
UNIT =
1 KG/KKG
s
SUSFcNOtO SOL 103
1
UNIT s
3.5 KG/KKG
G
G^tASt
< OIL
1
UNIT =
3.2 KG/KKG
P
PRODUCT 10 K
1
UNIT =
i TC'N/H*
-33-
-------
low. Table 15 summarizes processes sampled. These data were
used to determine the typical raw waste loadings from fresh/frozen
salmon or hand butchered salmon canning processes in both Alaska
and the West Coast
Table 16 shows that the primary source of wastewater from
the fresh/frozen salmon process is the wash tank operation, in
which the eviscerated fish are cleansed of adhering blood, mesen-
taries, sea lice, and visceral particles. Also, depending upon
the condition of the fish, a preliminary rinse of.the round fish
prior to butchering may also be implemented. This primary rinse
is employed to reduce the amount of slime adhering to the fish
to facilitate handling. The wash tank or wash tank plus pre-rinse
contributes about 90 percent of the total effluent flow. The
butchering table is essentially a dry operation except for short
hose-downs of the area at the discretion of the crew. Some plants
use small hoses attached to cleaning spoons and others use a small
constant flow on the tablec
The production rates vary considerably, due to raw product
availability. The rates observed at the round fish operations
averaged about 16 kkg/day (18 tons/day). Round fish processing
predominates in both Alaska and the Northwest; however, large
volumes of pre-dressed fish are handled on occasion as can be
seen from the production rates for plant FST3.
The recovery of eggs and milt represent about five and
three percent of the round salmon weight, respectively. Other
by product recovery, such as the grinding and bagging of heads
and viscera, is done only occasionally in Alaska and for the
-34-
-------
Table 15. HANO BUTCHEREO SALMON
PROCESS SUMMAKY
PA <^MuTlR
Mt AN
STO OEV
5X HIN
95X MAX
PRODUCTIOrt TON/HR
PKOCtSs Tilt. HR/OAY
FUCW L/SfcC
(GAL/ ilN)
FLOW r;UIG L/KK6
(GAL/TON)
s::tt. iOLios ml/l
ATI O l/KKG
SC*. SJlIDS HG/L
R4TIC
-------
Table 16. Fresh/frozen round salmon process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Pnit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
% of Total
Flow
88 -96%
4 - 12%
% of Total
BOD
76 - 92%
4 - 24%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
74 - 97%
3 - 23%
Total effluent average
FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4
3750 1/kkg
2 kg/kkg
0.8 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
% of Raw Product
Food products
a) salmon
b) eggs
c) milt
65 - 80%
5%
3%
By-product
a) heads
b) viscera
Waste
5 -
1 -
8%
7%
2%
Average Production Rate, 16.4 kg/day (18 tons/day)
-------
most part these solids are disposed of directly into the receiving
water. The heads and viscera in the Northwest plants are usually
collected for pet food or for reduction to fish meal.
1.4.4 Herring Filleting Process
Since the herring filleting process is essentially the
same from plant to plant and the number of plants is too small
to separate the industry into size ranges, geographic location
was considered to be the only factor requiring further attention
in the subcategorization process.
Figure 9 summarizes the characteristics of three herring
filleting plants. Plant HF1 is located in New England, plant
HF2 in the Maritime region of Canada and plant HF3 in Southeastern
Alaska. Information on plant HF2 was obtained from a study con-
ducted by the Environmental Protection Service of Canada (Riddle
and Shikaze, 1973).
It was noted that the waste characteristics for all the
plants were similar. One difference was the relatively high
flow ratio observed at the Alaska plant. This high ratio is
not considered to be typical, since the investigation was conducted
at the beginning of the season and few fish were being processed.
At low processing rates, water use is more independent of produc-
tion rate.
Table 17 summarizes statistics of the waste loads from
all three plants excluding the high flow ratio from the Alaska
plant. It was determined that the process is uniform enough
to allow the industry to be characterized by an average of the
data from the plants in different regions.
-37-
-------
Figure 9. HtSPlNG FILLETING f-ROCESS PLOT*
s
s
as
s
as
s
9S
s
9S
s
BS
s
IS
es
as
9S
as
03
BS
es
es
.3
3S
e
BS
g
9
5 P
3
3 P
3
3 P
a
P
a
P
d
l P
i
1
1
G
G
G
G
Q
Q
HFl HF2 HF3
(3) 12) (1>
SY^BCL PA«AM£T(R SCALING FACTCR
0
FLCK
1
UNIT
= 5000
L/KKG
B
5 OAY 800
1
UNIT
= 1C
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENDED SCLIOS
1
UNIT
= 5
KG/KKG
G
GREASE < OIL
1
UNIT
= 5
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1
UNIT
• r
TCN/HR
-38-
-------
Table 17. HERRING FILLETING PROCESS SUMMARY.
PA *A M£ Tu R
MEAN
STD Oct/
5X MXN
95% N)X
PROdUCUM TON/HR
PROCc-Sj TIMt. HR/OA*
FlUW l/slc
i GAL/ 11N)
FLOW RATIO l/KKG
I OAu/TON)
StTT. SOLIDi Ml/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. bJuIOS MG/c
KM TIO 52fc
62. 7
1 84U
13.5
4tt7
~.»9
21.9
~. lol
o. 4&
lb. 6
7. <*9
».23
19.7
311
3 930
1438
11.7
a b.7
403
2.96
297
2.19
962
7 . « 7
1650
12.1
3b*
2.68
17.3
0.127
59
12.6
1.72
2.74
<~3.4
142 Q
341
2.46
16.1
2040
IS.a
4140
33.5
679 a
4 9.9
3(5
2.24
106
U.779
4.38
u. 032
26. i
6. JO
71.1
1130
230 90
5510
44. J
32b
3610
26. i
5300
39.]
10600
77.a
6160
45.4
1440
10.3
67. £
0, «9<»
6 . J1
21.7
PLANTS HFl , HF2 » MF3
-39-
-------
City water was used in both the New England and Alaskan
plants monitored. Table 18 shows the sources of wastewater from
a herring filleting process. The largest percentage of the total
flow and waste load is produced by the filleting machines and
the associated fluming. The flow from each filleting machine
is only about 0o4 1/sec (6 gpm); however, the fluming of product
to and from the machine is much higher. The bailwater, when a
fish pump unloading operation is used, constitutes a relatively
large flow and waste loading. This could be reduced by using
a dry unloading system.
The New England plant is relatively large and was observed
to process an average of 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day) of raw fish
when they were available. Each filleting machine operated at
about 1.4 kkg/hr (1.5 tons/hr).
Table 18 shows percentages of food and by-product recovery
for this process. The food product averages 42 to 45 percent but
varies with the seajson and the type of filleting machine used.
During the spring spawning season roe and milt are collected in
addition to the fillets. This increases the food recovery by about
three to five percent. The rest of the solid waste is either sent
to reduction plants or discharged with the wastewater.
1.4.5 Tuna Canning Process
Segregation of the tuna industry as a distinct subcategory
of the seafood industry was done prior to sampling because of
the homogenetity of the tuna processing methods, extensive by-product
recovery, and the magnitude of production. This segregation was
-40-
-------
Table 18. Herring filleting process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) bailwater
c) washdown
% of Total
Flow
58%
37%
5%
% of Total
BOD
70%
27%
3%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
59%
38%
3%
Total effluent average
HF1
10,200 1/kkg
34 kg/kkg
23 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Product % of Raw Product
Food products 42 - 45%
By-product
a) heads, viscera 55 - 58%
(for reduction)
Average Production Rate, 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day)
-------
substantiated by the data and information obtained by the field
crews and subsequent comparison to the other subcategories of
the industry.
Although widely distributed, the tuna processors utilize
a common technology for the production of canned tuna and various
by-products. The waste characteristics of this common technology
do show geographic variation which, although obvious internally,
does not justify further subcategorization of the tuna industry.
This variation is due to operational inconsistencies which could
be corrected to minimize differences and thus justify a common
waste treatment technology applicable to all plants.
Table 19 shows average flows and loadings of the combined
effluent from all nine processors sampled. The amount of water
used per unit product varied considerably. It was also noted
that the waste loads in terms of screened solids, BOD. and COD
were relatively low compared to other seafood processing indus-
tries, due to good by-product recovery.
The processing of tuna as currently practiced requires a
considerable volume of fresh water obtained from domestic sources
and (usually) salt water pumped directly from the ocean or from
saline wells. The saline water or domestic industrial water is
used in direct contact with the tuna in only those stages prior
to the precook operation; except saline water may also be used
in the latter stages where contamination of the cooked fish would
present a problem.
Table 20 lists the average flow from each unit operation.
Total water use ranged from 246 cu m/day (0.064 mgd) to
-42-
-------
Table 19. Tuna process summary (9 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(% of mean)
Range
1
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
o
30 60
(0.80 8)
3370
110
246
(0.065
- 11
,700
3.1)
t.
Flow Ratio, 1/k.kg
(gal/ton)
18,290
(4386)
9023
49
5570
(1336
- 33
,000
7914)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
2.1
29.0
1.8
15,5
86
53
0.2
6.9
-
5.9
50.1
3 4
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
63.5
1.3
—
—
—
-
—
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
670
10.1
763.7
4.5
109
45
357
3.8
-
1769
17. 3
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kgAkg
9 39
13.0
692
4.1
73
31
421
6.8
-
2510
19 .9
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
—
—
—
—
-
—
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
2210
35.0
939.9
15.3
42
57
1310
14.1
-
39 40
63.8
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
364
5.78
20 7
3.40
57
58
130
3.20
-
589
13.18
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kgAkg
56.5
1.22
25.10
0.049
44
40
30
0.75
-
93.8
2.17
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
6.9
0.119
4.27
0.072
61
60
2.2
0.02
_
13.0
0.23
pH 5
6.7
0.40 8
6
6.2
-
7.2
1 day = 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 dry weight
4 two samples
5 laboratory pH
nine
plants
-------
Table 20. Tuna process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Plow* 3,060-cu m/day ( 0.81 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a)
thaw
65
35
- 75
b)
butcher
10
5
- 15
c)
pack shaper
2
1.5
- 2
d)
can washer
2
1
- 3
e)
retort
13
6
- 19
f)
washdown
7
5
- 10
g)
miscellaneous
1
0
- 2
Product Material
Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 167 kkg/day ( 184 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 45 40-50
By-products
Viscera 12 io - 15
Head, skin, fins, bone 33 30 - 40
Redmeat 9 8-10
Waste 1 0.1-1.5
* Including clean-up water
-44-
-------
11,700 cu m/day (3.13 mgd) with an average of 3060 cu m/day
(0.808 mgd), where a day was defined as one 8-hour shift.
1.4.6 Sardine/Jack Mackerel Canning Process
The jack mackerel canning process in California is funda-
mentally the same as the sardine canning process observed in Maine.
The wastes are also similar, as can be observed by studying the
summary plot of the sardine and mackerel canning wastewater char-
acteristics shown in Figure 10. The SA codes are the sardine
plants discussed earlier in this section, and the MAI code repre-
sents the jack mackerel plant. Plants SA1 and SA2 were investigated
by Environmental Associates. Information on plants SA2, SA3,
and SA4 were obtained from the Maine Sardine Council study (Atwell,
197 3). The wide standard deviation for the mackerel plant is
probably due to the fact that only two samples were taken.
It was decided, therefore, that the jack mackerel canning process
be included in the same subcategory as large sardine canning plants.
Relatively few sardine plants are still operating; however,
their sizes range widely. Of the 17 active processing operations,
five were considered to be large (over 55 thousand cases annually),
eight were considered to be medium (30 to 55 thousand cases annually)
(Reed 1973). Ten of the 17 plants are located outside of population
centers.
Plants SA1 and SA2 both used dry conveyors to move the
fish from the holding bins to the packing lines. This decreased
the flow and reduced the waste load (because it reduced the contact
-45-
-------
Figure 10. SARDINE/MACKEREL CANNING PROCESS PLOT.
6«
>
Q
Q
s a
Q
S Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q P
6 Q P
G Q P
6 Q P
G p
G S P
G S P
80 ! P
bsg I «
BSG | J
BSG B ^ P
BSC 0 0s p
BSG G a ®f
BSG G Q JJr
StiP Q G
SGP Q G J® J
SGP Q8SG J®J
SGP BSG !|J
P BSGP P p JfJ
9SGP 0SJ
BSGP J J
Q G 06
Q G 06
B G
SA1 * *SA2 SA3 SA1 MAi
C«) (3) (II <2)
SYMBOL PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR
Q
flow
1
UNIT
z
5000
L/KKG
B
5 OAY BOO
1
UNIT
s
5
KG/KKG
S
SUSPfcNOEO SOLIOS
1
UNIT
X
2
KG/KKG
G
GREASfc < OIL
1
UNIT
X
1
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1
UNIT
X
5
TON/HR
-46-
-------
time of the fish with the water)• Table 21 compares flows and
waste loads at plant SA2 before and after installation of the
belt conveyor.
Table 21. Waste load reduction
using dry conveyor (Plant SA2).
Parameter Before After % Reduction
Flow ratio (1/kkg) 20*400 7590 63
Suspended solids _ A 77
(kg/kkg) 8-' 2-° 77
BOD (kg/kkg)
12.3 5.0 59
Tables 22 and 23 summarize waste load statistics for the
plants.
Table 24 shows the wastewater material balance for a typi-
cal sardine canning plant. Each of the plants sampled used city
water for in-plant processing. Available surface water (salt
or brackish) was used to transport the fish from trucks or boats
to brine storage tanks.
The flume to the packing tables was observed to contribute
18 to 62 percent of the water. Another large source of waste
loading is the stickwater from the precooking operation. The
flow is quite low; however, the BOD and suspended solid loadings
are significant. A very great reduction in BOD, suspended solids,
and grease and oil could be made by storing the stickwater from
the precook operation and transporting it to a reduction plant
for oil and solubles recovery.
-47-
-------
Table 22. SARDINE CANNING PROCESS SUMMARY .
PAriAMtTtK M£AN
PKUJUCTlUN TON/HK 5.m»
PK.UCtS j T1HL HR/QA* o.?6
FLOW L/StC *.10
(GAL-MlN) l«tt
FlO* RATIO l/ 7 59t>
(bnc/TON) lt>2J
StfT. iOLlOS Hl/L l.*8
RATIO L/*KG 11.2
SCR. SJLiaS Mii/l Z«.*
RATIO .2bl
SUSP, JOtlOi MG/l «83
RATIO KG/KK&
5 OAY 300 MG/l 128J
RATI0 KG/KKG *.7*
COO HG/t 165u
RATIO KG/KKG 12.5
GRtASE & OIL HG/u 25j
kATIO iWKKG 1.69
ORGaNIG-N Mo/u 1u3
RATIO T0 Del# bX MIN 95/4 M*X
• • • • •
1. u5 i.iii 7. Jd
1«tc ?• 3*» 6. JO
«~ i lb J. 52 19. ~
bo* u 5 5.8 JOS
3b70 2760 16600
8du 667 <*U20
1«*8 3.2u«» 5»i5
11*2 1.55 <*0.7
3G.1 5.9u 113
0.229 O.Onb 0.361
581 227 2390
t, m 1.73 liti
h33 639 2310
3.28 t«85 17. j
1h3U 267 5*00
13.8 2.18 *~ 1. J
<>14 <*2.7 825
1.66 J.324* 6.26
36•9 18.6 331
J.660 0.1*1 2.51
J.11 0.706 11.)
O.G2"» 0.005 0.191
5.19 -- 6.+0
17.0 -- 23.J
Plants sai , saz , sa3 , sa*
-48-
-------
Table 23. MACKEREL CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
maximum
PRODUCTION TON/HR 15.7
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.5
FLOW L/SEC 86•4
(GAL/MIN) 1370
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 23200
(GAL/TON) 5560
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 2.08
RATIO L/KKG 48.2
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 1690
RATIO KG/KKG 39•1
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 182
RATIO KG/KKG 4-23
5 DAY BOD MG/L 262
RATIO KG/KKG 6-08
COD MG/L 546
RATIO KG/KKG 12.7
GREASE & OIL MG/L 40.4
RATIO KG/KKG 0.938
ORGANIC-N MG/L 47-6
RATIO KG/KKG 1•10
AMMOMIA-N MG/L 2.82
RATIO KG/KKG 0.065
PH 6.84
TEMP DEG C 14•7
4.81
4.81
76.4
5160
1240
12.3
6.0
83.0
1320
19500
4680
107
2.48
213
4.95
292
6.76
32.0
0.741
21.1
0.490
2.22
0.051
19.1
7.0
89.8
1430
26800
6430
107
2.48
111
2.58
340
7.88
17.8
0.414
32.6
0.756
1.25
0.029
258
5.98
413
9.58
753
17.4
63.0
1.46
62.5
1.45
4.39
0.102
-49-
-------
Table 24. Sardine canning process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
% of Raw Product
By-products
a) heads and tails
(reduction or
bait)
b) scales
30 - 60%
35 - 65%
1-2%
Unit Operation
% of Total
Flow
% of Total
BOD
% of Total
Susp. Solids
a) flume (boat to storage)
b) flume (brine tank to table)
c) pre-cook can dump
d) can wash
e) retort
f) washdown
14 - 46%
18 - 62%
<1 - 4%
3-4%
8 - 53%
1 - 10%
12 - 28%
14 - 22%
28 - 67%
16 - 23%
1-2%
1 - 6%
11 - 57%
16 - 30%
14 - 51%
9 - 10%
1-4%
1 - 12%
Total effluent average
SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
7600 1/kkg
10 kg/kkg
7 kg/kkg
Product
Material Balance
Summary
Average Production Rate, 31 kkg/day (34 tons/day)
-------
Table 24 also shows that the food product yield for the
sardine canning process can vary from a low of 30 percent to a
high of 60 percent. This wide range in yield is related to the
size of fish being canned. Since the same size can is often
utilized for various sizes of fish, more waste originates from
the large fish, which have a higher percent of the head and t
removed.
The heads and tails that are removed are usually dry
conveyed to trucks which transport the waste to reduction a
lities. Some solid waste is also collected by lobster fishermen
for bait. Scales, another by-product, are removed on the boats
prior to storage, and are used for cosmetics, lacquers, and
itation pearls.
Product rates varied from a low of 26 kkg/day (29 tons/day)
to a high of 35 kkg/day (39 tons/day) at the plant, investigated.
Only end-of-pipe composite samples were taken of the jack
mackerel canning process. Therefore* the flows from differen
unit operation, could only be estimated. The jack mackerel and
sardine canning unit operations are similar, with the main
ference being that the mackerel is a larger ish and is cut into
pieces before being packed into the can.
The brine tank overflow, which consists of sea water
which salt has been added to make a brine, is one of the major
sources of waste flow. This source plus the smaller continuous
flows emanating from the slicing machine and the automatic can
filling machine constitute about 90 percent of the total flow
for the process.
-------
The variability of raw product caused intermittent opera-
tion of the jack mackerel canning process; however, it can be
seen from the production rate on Table 23 that the plant had a
large capacity. The production ranged from 72 kkg/day (80 tons/day)
to 113 kkg/day (125 tons/day) during the period sampled.
Only about 40 percent of the mackerel is recovered as
food product and this includes a portion of the viscera. The
reason for this is that the removed head and tail portions are
large and contain considerable flesh.
The large pieces of solid wastes are recovered using a
screen and subsequently rendered with other fish processing scraps.
1.4.7 Bottom Fishf Groundfish# and Miscellaneous
Finfish Processes
Although there are a variety of species and processing
operations in the bottom fish, groundfish, and miscellaneous
finfish processing industry only three factors affected subcate-
gorization: geographic location, size, and degree- of mechanization
(therefore water use). The bottom fish, groundfish, and miscel-
laneous finfish industry was subcategorized into "Alaska" and
"Non-Alaska" regions because of the greater costs and more sig-
nificant treatment problems encountered in Alaska.
The halibut is the most significant bottom fish processed
in Alaska. Two typical halibut processes were observed; whole
freezing and fletching, but neither contributed a very high waste
load.
-52-
-------
With respect to Non-Alaska regions, the bottom fish indus-
try was subcategorized into "conventional" and "mechanized"
Processes due to the increased water and waste loads associated
with the latter.
A conventional process is defined as one where the unit
operations are carried out essentially by hand* requiring a rela-
tively low volume of water. A mechanized process is defined as
one where many of the unit operations are mechanized and relative-
ly large volumes of water are used. Figure 11 shows a summary
plot of the wastewater characteristics or what are considered
to be conventional processing operations with little or no mechan-
ization. Figure 12 shows a summary plot for what are considered
to be high—water-use mechanized processing operations. With
respect to Figure 11, codes FRH1 and FFH1 refer to halibut pro-
cessing operations in Alaska, codes Bl, 2 refer to groundfish
plants in New England, codes FNF1, 2, 3, 4 to finfish plants
in the Middle Atlantic and Gulf regions, and codes B4, 5, 10,
11, and 12 refer to bottom fish plants in California. With res-
pect to Figure 12, codes W1 and N2 refer to whiting plants in
New England, CFC1 to a fish flesh plant in the Gulf, and B6 and
B6H to a bottom fish plant in the Northwest. Code B6H represents
historical data obtained for plant B6.
Plant sizes range widely for both the Non-Alaska conven-
tional and mechanized portions of the industry, with the mechanized
plants being larger on the average. Information on the annual
production of bottom fish is limited. Based on studies conducted
in the Northwest and observations made during this study, the
-------
Figure 11.
CONVENTIONAL BOTTOM FISH PROCESS PLOT*
Q
Q
0
0
Q
a
a
P
Q
Q
p
Q
Q
F
Q
Q
P
B
Q
S
0
P
BS
OB
a s
C
F
s
BS
OB
Q s
Q
s
G
BS
QB
Q s
Q
P
s
G
BS
QB
Q S
G
P
s
G
BS
OB
S
Q S
P
s
G
BS
QB
BS P
Q S
F
a s
SG
BS
QB
BS P
QBS
F
a s
BSG
BS
QB
BS P
QBS
P
s
BSG
BS
QB
BS P
QBS
F
s
BSG
BSG
BS
0
BSGF
QBS
S
0 P
s
BSG
BSG
BS
a
BSGP
BS
s
s
0
S
s
s
BSG
BSG
BS
Q
BSGP
BS
s
s
0
S
s
BS
BSG
QBSG
BS
Q
BSG
BS
BS
s
s
a
s
s
BS
SG
Q SG
BSGP
P
Q
QBSG
BS
BS
SG
s
a s
s
BS
SG
Q G
SGP
OB P
B
OBSG
BS
s
S
s
a sg
s
BS
P
Q G
SGP
QBS P
BS
Q G
BSG
s
Q S
BS
SG
9
BS
8S
0 P
a G
GP
Q8S P
BS
6
SGP
a s
s
8Su
9
BS
BS
a p
a G
GP
S P
QBSGP
BS
G
GP
QBS
a
BSG
BS
BSG
Q P
6
6P
QBS
QBSG
BS
G
GP
p
Q
a
p
8 6
a p
BS
BSG
0
P
P
oesi
BSG
BS P
G
p
P
p
3
a p
QBS
B G
P
P
QBS*
B G
B G
G
p
P
p
a
0 P
P
CBS P P
4
G
6
p
P
G GP G &
FRH1 FT Ml 31 92 FNF1 FNF2 FNF3 FNFW 85 B7 BS B9 BIO Bll 812
(9) (31 (3) (S> («) <<.» (1) (SI (I.) (S> (J) C*>> (2) (9) (li» (7)
SYMBOL PARAMETER SCALIN6 FACTOR
Q
FLCN
1 UNIT
X
soot
L/KKG
B
5 OAT BOO
1 UNIT
X
2
KG/KKG
S>
SUSPENOED SOL I OS
1 UNIT
X
1
KG/KKG
G
GREASE ANO OIL
1 UNIT
X
0.5
KG/KKG
P
PROOUC TION
1 UNIT
X
2
TON/HR
-------
Figure 12. MECHANICAL BOTTOM FISH PROCESS FLOT.
B
e
QB
OB
ce
QB
ce
6
QB
e
QB
B
P
B
OB
6 G
P
3
CB
8 G
P
B
CBS
B G
P
B
QBS
B G
P
8
OBS
B G
P
B
CBS
BSG
P
B
QBS
BSG
B P
B B
QBS
eSGP
B P
B B
CBS
BSGP
B P
B OB
QBS
BSGP
B
QB QB
CBS
BSGP
B
Q0 Q8
BS
BSGP
BSG
ce G9
S
BSGP
BSG
QB
S
QBSGP
BSG
CB
s
Q SGP
BSG
QB S S F
G G
BSG
QB SGF S
Q G
SG
QB SGP S
Q G
Q SG
QBSG SG S
G
C SG
C SG SG S
Q G
Q SG SG S
Q G
Q SG
G S
Q G
Q SG
G S
G
SGP
SGP
G
S
*2 Ml CFC1 B6 B6H
(7) (5> (5) (<~> (6 >
SYHBCL PARAMETER SCALING FACTCfi
Q
FLOW
1
UNIT
= 10000
L/KKG
B
5 OAY BOO
1
UNIT
= 5
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENDED SOLIOS
1
UNIT
* 5
KG/KKG
G
GREASE < OIL
1
UNIT
= 2
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1
UNIT
2
TCN/HR
-55-
-------
following divisions were made to break the industry into approxi-
mately equal size ranges. The division between large and medium
conventional plants was set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product
per year and the division between medium and small conventional
plants was set at 1810 kkg (2000 tons). The division between
large and small mechanized plants was set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons).
Table 25 segregates the plants investigated into the
selected size ranges.
Table 25. Non-Alaska bottom fish
size breakdowno
Size
Conventional
Mechanized
Large
FNF4, B8
Wl, W2, B6
Medium
B5, B7, B9,
FNF1, FNF2,
B10, Bll, B12
"
Small
Bl, B2, B4,
FNF3
CFC1
Although some variability is evident between the plants
in the conventional and mechanized subcategories (especially
within the flow ratio and production parameters), the following
observations can be made. The waste loads, in terms of BOD, sus-
pended solids, and grease and oil, were four to five times greater
for the mechanized operations than the conventional operations.
The highly variable flow ratios for the conventional operations
were caused mainly by the different methods of washing the fish
before processing. For example, the high flow ratio exhibited
by plant BIO was attributable to the fact that a high velocity
-56-
-------
jet spray was used to wash the fish as they were conveyed to the
processing lines. The flow ratio for plant FNF4 was also rela-
tively higher and was caused by the use of a fish pump to unload
the fish from the boats.
The plants represented by codes FRH1 and FFH1 are con-
sidered to be large halibut processing operations. The waste
loads from the halibut processing operations are relatively low,
being of the same order of magnitude as the Alaska fresh/frozen
salmon process. Table 26 summarizes statistics of the waste loads
from the Alaska halibut process.
Since the waste loads were relatively low and uniform
for all the conventional bottom fish processes, it was reasonable
to place them into one subcategory. Table 27 summarizes statis-
tics of the waste parameters for the Non-Alaska conventional bot-
tom fish plants. Plant FNF3 was not included in the average
because a small number of fish were being handled in the round
on the day the sample was taken and this was not considered typi-
cal.
The plants used to represent a mechanized bottom fish
process were two New England whiting plants (Wl, W2), a fish
flesh plant on the Gulf (CFC1), and a bottom fish plant in the
Northwest (B6 and B6H). Plant B6 was included in the mechanized
subcategory because it used a mechanical scaler with high velocity
water jets. Since this was the only scaler of this type observed,
and it contributed a high percentage of the waste load, it could
not be considered to be typical. Plant CFCl was also included
in the mechanized subcategory, because mechanical beheading and
-------
Table 26. Alaska bottom fij>h (haliBuT)
PROCESS NUMMARY.
PARAHLTtk HtAN aTO OtV 5Z MIN 95 X H4X
PKOOUCriUN TON/HR <*. 39
PROCtSS TIHfc. HR/OAY ».13
FlOW c/StC b* 93
(bAL/HIN) Hi)
Flow katio l/kkg s<»8o
131u
StTT • SOLI 06 Ml/L.
RATIO t/KKG 2b.0
SCK. SJlIOS MG/L 607
KATIQ KG/KKG *.4*2
SUSP, a JLlOb HG/l 27b
RATIO KG/KKG 1.51
5 OAV 300 HG/l 331
RATIO KG/KKG l.tfl
COO MG/L JZZ
RATIO KG/KKG 3.95
GKcASl & OIL HG/l 53. 3
RATIO
ORGANIC-N HG/l 57.2
RATIO KG/KKG
AHflONlA-N HG/C 3»<«1
RATIO KG/KKG 0.019
PH b.»9
ThMP OtG C lu.l
PLANT$ FRH1, FFH1
h.oO 0#5b0 lb.~
U.526 <~. 76 "5.30
8.73 0.638 29.1
135 10.1 <*61
H38U 1060 17000
lw!>0 259 k()7U
s.97 o. I9.i
32.7 2.36 1J9
9<*d 8<*»3 3250
a.20 J.Vb2 17•i
86.1 1** h79
a«<*72 a. 795 2* 52
71.b 213 H90
0.389 It 17 2.59
132 <*98 1010
0.722 2.73 5.>5
5b** 7.08 198
0.30
-------
Table 27. GOfcVcNTlONAL BOTTOM FISH
FkoCtaS SUMMARY.
PARAMt TtR
MtAN
STQ Oct/
57. HIN
95'/. MIX
PROdUCTION TON/HR 1.77
PKOCtSS TIM- HK/OAV b. 91
FLCW U/itC 4.07
(GAL/HIN) 6h.h
FluW RATIO l/
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GKcASt ft OIL MG/L *><~. 7
kATIO 7
AMMONIA-N MG/l -*.26
RATIO KG/KKG u.u29
t>«02
TtMP 0£G C lb*5
I.17
0.77 0
3.45
54.7
t>3*o
152a
24. U
221
40>»
3. 72
b7 . 8
II.625
lo5
1.52
<£71
2.50
*~0.1
0.369
2*. 1
J. 222
1.75
J . (316
a.491
J. 64
0.453
9.50
J. 731
11.6
224 3
53o
0.275
2.53
57.0
J. 526
tt 9. 6
3. 327
135
1.24
27a
2.49
12.2
0.113
ia.i
0.166
1.03
J.01b
5.82
10.3
4.10
6. JO
13. 1
208
25700
6160
58.5
5 39
1476
13. i
352
3.it
765
7. J5
1310
12.1
159
1. 47
11C
1. J1
7. 55
b. J76
7.26
24.}
plants si ,92 » <*4 >85 ,67 , aa » 69 , bio , bh ,
312 , FNF1, FNF2, FnF4
-59-
-------
eviscerating machinery was used; however, the fish flesh process
is relatively new and is not typical of the rest of the industry.
The waste loads from the two whiting plants were considered to
be the most representative of the mechanized segment of he indus-
try and are summarized in Table 28.
Several conventional bottom fish processes exist* of
which the filleting process is considered to be the most important.
There are two main options within the filleting process; the use
of skinners and/or scalers. Table 29 shows the wastewater balance
for three operations (B2, B4, B8) which used skinners most of
the time. The skinners are mechanical and can constitute a large
percentage (13 to 64 percent) of the flow and load (6 to 36 percent
of BOD), depending on the type used. The flow from the fillet
tables is quite variable depending on water conservation practices.
It is common practice for a small hose to be continuously running
at each filleting position. Fish are sometimes rinsed before
filleting or eviscerating and are usually dipped in a wash tank
afterward to clean and preserve the flesh. The flows from either
of these operations are relatively small; however, the BOD and
suspended solids loads can be moderately high.
Table 30 presents the.wastewater balance for three opera-
tions (Bl, B6, Bll) which commonly used a descaler. it can be
seen that the descaler can contribute a substantial flow and waste
load, depending on the type. The scalers which use high pressure
water jets in a revolving drum can contribute a very high load.
One plant, B6, at times used a scaler which increased the water
flow and waste load by a factor of four. This scaler was so signi-
-60-
-------
Table 28. MECHANICAL BOTTOM fish
PROCESS SUMMARY.
PARAMtTtR
MEAN
STO Ot
-------
Table 29. Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with skinner).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) skinner
b) fillet table
c) pre-rinse or dip tank
d) washdown
% of Total
Flow
13
22
1
3
64%
83%
13%
21%
% of Total
BOD
6
43
7
4
36%
76%
26%
20%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
5
39
5
7
39%
80%
34%
21%
i
Oi
NJ
I
Total effluent average
B2, B4, B8
8000 1/kkg
2.8 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
% of Raw Product
1.8 kg/kkg
Food products
By-products
a) carcass
(reduction,
animal food)
20 - 40%
55 - 75%
Average Production Rate# 16.5 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
-------
Table 30. Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with descaler).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) descaler
b) fillet table
c) pre-wash or dip tank
d) washdown
% of Total
Flow
42 - 66%
21 - 36%
3 - 10%
7 - 18%
% of Total
BOD
56 - 61%
16 - 30%
4-8%
6 - 19%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
26 - 70%
12 - 19%
4-8%
7 - 18%
Total effluent average
Bl, BIO, Bll
10,000 1/kkg
2.5 kg/kkg
1.6 kg/kkg
-------
ficant and contributed such a high waste load that it was not
considered to be a conventional operation„ On the average, however,
the waste loads were about the same whether or not skinners or
scalers were used. Flow ratios and waste loads varied significantly
between plants, caused partly by different processing methods
and partly by different degrees of water conservation; however,
the average flows and loads from all the plants were relatively
low, compared to other seafood processes.
The two whiting plants sampled CW1, W2) were considered
to be typical mechanized operations where the fish were beheaded,
descaled, and partially eviscerated by mechanical methods and
relatively large water flows were usedo The finfish process in
the Gulf (CFC1) was processing croaker for fish flesh and was
highly mechanized. The Northwest plant (B6) used conventional
processing except for the large scaler, which produced a high
waste flow.
Table 31 itemizes the wastewater sources for a typical
whiting process. The process water included water from the lar-
gest source of wastewater. The largest portion of the process
water was attributed to the fluming of fish from the storage bins
to the processing line using a high pressure hose and elevator.
The replacement of the hose by a dry conveyor system such as used
in the sardine plants would reduce the waste flow and load signi-
ficantly. The visceral flume contributed about 20 percent of
the waste load and could be replaced by a dry conveyor system.
Table 32 shows the wastewater balance for a whole halibut
freezing operation. The first unit operation is the grading and
-64-
-------
Table 31. Whiting freezing process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total % of Total % of Total
Unit Operation Flow BOD Susp. Solids
a) process water 70 - 75% 74 - 77% 74 - 78%
b) washdown 3-8% 2-5% 2-6%
c) visceral flume 22% 21% 20%
i
a\
ui
l
Total effluent average
Wl, W2 13,500 1/kkg 14 kg/kkg 11 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
Food Products 50%
By-product
a) heads, scales,
viscera (to 48%
reduction plant)
Waste =: 2%
Average Production Rate, 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day)
-------
Table 32. Halibut freezing process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) head cutter/grader
b) washer
c) washdown
% of Total
Flow
3%
79%
18%
% of Total
BOD
11%
72%
17%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10%
62%
28%
Total effluent average
FRH1
8600 1/kkg
1.5 kg/kkg
1.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End products
Food products
By-products
a) heads
Wastes
% of Raw Product
90%
10%
minimal
Average Production Rate, 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day)
-------
head cutting operation? which produces a minimal waste load com-
prising about three percent of the total flow and a somewhat
larger percentage of the BOD and suspended solids loads. One
plant observed used no water for this operation. The washing opera-
tion is handled in two different manners, and they produce sub-
stantially different waste flows. In one system, a continuous
spray washer was used, as well as spray hoses for the gut cavity.
For this, the flow and waste loads were rather large, comprising
about 80 percent of the total flow and 70 percent of the BOD.
The other method involves washing the fish in shallow tanks with
brushes. This produces a much lower flow, but higher waste concen-
trations such that the waste load is similar to the other method.
For both processes observed, the washdown was similar, producing
about 20 percent of the total flow and waste load. The waste
flows from a halibut fletching process are minimal (Table 33)
with the washdown around the trim table constituting about 80
percent of the total BOD load.
The production rates at halibut processing plants can
be quite high. The average production for the monitored whole
freezing operation was 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day), while the aver-
age production for the fletching operation was 5.6 kkg/day (6.2
tons/day).
Solid waste from the freezing operation is minimal since
the only non-food products are the heads and carcasses which
are often used for bait. There is no visceral waste since the
fish are eviscerated at sea. Solid waste from the fletching
operation is about 40 percent, which consists of the carcasses
and heads which may be used for bait or disposed to the receiving
waters.
-67-
-------
Table 33. Halibut fletching process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) trim table
b) trim area washdown
c) butchering area washdown
% of Total
Flow
48%
46%
6%
% of Total
BOD
19%
80%
1%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
16%
83%
1%
Total effluent average
FFH1
2400 1/kkg .
2.1 kg/kkg
1.8 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
a) fletches
b) tip, trim,
bellies
By-products
a) heads
Wastes
a) carcasses
% of Raw Product
51%
9%
10%
30%
Average Production Rate, 5.6 kkg/day (6.2 tons/day)
-------
1.4.8 Herring Pickling Process
The marinated or pickled herring process is typified
by large flows and waste loads and is highly seasonal. It was
considered to be less important than the fresh/frozen or canned
herring industry because relatively few pickling operations exist
in the United States. Very few sea herring are pickled; a mod-
erate volume of alewife or river herring are pickled.
Since the alewife pickling season is in the spring, it
was not possible for Environmental Associates to investigate
any active operations in the recent studies. A limited amount
of historical data on Chesapeake Bay plants were obtained, pro-
viding the equivalent of three composite samples (Clifford and
Associates, 1973).
The alewife pickling industry is located in the Middle
Atlantic region and is not considered large enough to divide
into size ranges. Therefore, it was decided that all of the
alewife pickling industry be included in one subcategory.
Figure 13 and Table 34 summarize the characteristics of
the two alewife pickling plants sampled. These data were used
as the typical raw waste loads for this segment of the seafood
industry.
Both of the plants sampled received their water from wells.
The heavy waste loads came from the scalers, cutting tables,
and curing vats (Table 35). The curing vat wastewater comprised
only two percent of the total flow; however, it made up 42 percent
of the mean BOD and 21 percent of the mean suspended solids.
The waste loads are relatively high from this type of process and
-69-
-------
Figure 13. ALEWIPE PICKLING PROCESS PLOT*
B
8
B
B
B
3
BS
BS
BS
BS
OBS
QBS
OBS
Q S
Q S
Q S
S
s
s
s
s
s
PHI
(2)
PH2
(1)
SYMBOL PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR
Q
B
S
G
P
flow
1
UNIT
s
5000
L/KKG
5 CAY 800
1
UNIT
s
5
kg/kkg
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
1
UNIT
X
2
kg/kkg
GREASE < OIL
1
UNIT
s
0.001
KG/KKG
PRODUCTION
1
UNIT
5
2
TCN/HR
-70
-------
Table 34. ALEWIFE PICKLING PROCESS SUMMARY.
PARAM£TlR
McAN
STO OEV
5/C NIN
95X M*X
PRJJUCTIuN TON/HR «*.1<»
PKOCfcbi TIMt HR/OAY 7.06
2. liS
5.00
1210
12. J
3210
31. )
&35G
53. I
6.23
17.4
plants phi , PH2
-71-
-------
Table 35. Pickled herring process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
% of Total
Plow
% of Total
BOD
% of Total
Susp. Solids
a) scaler
53%
27%
45%
b) cutting table
45%
29%
31%
c) curing vat
2%
42%
21%
d) brine vat
1%
2%
2%
Total effluent average
PHI
15,500 1/kkg 21 kg/kkg
6 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) scales
b) heads
c) viscera and
fins
Wastes
% of Raw Product
42 - 45%
2-3%
10 - 12%
32 - 35%
5 - 10%
Average Production Rate, 42 kkg/day (46 tons/day)
-------
may be troublesome to treat because of the high salt content.
All wastewater was discharged to the waters of Chesapeake Bay.
One plant used settling basins prior to discharge.
The production rates were relatively high at these alewife
pickling plants with an average of 36 kkg/day (40 tons/day)
being observed. The product recovery did not vary appreciably
between the two plants and averaged about 42 to 45 percent. Both
plants collected their solid wastes for reduction.
1*4.9 Catfish Processes
Subcategorization for the catfish processing industry
was relatively straightforward, largely due to the fact that the
industry is in relative infancy and is much more homogeneous than
most of the other seafood processing industries.
As is the case with nearly all fish and shellfish proces-
sors, the catfish processors do not enjoy a constant supply of
raw product. Raw material availability is seasonal and a function
of such factors as the water temperatures in the immediate area,
rainfall frequency and intensity (affecting harvesting), develop-
ment of certain off-flavors (due to algae), and priority in work
scheduling on the farm. Recently, as the processing industry
has become more organized, the producers have been enticed to
harvest (although on a limited scale) through the summer months.
Some processors, furthermore, have entered the production business,
thereby assuring themselves more complete control over raw product
supply.
-73-
-------
Another consideration in subcategorization was condition
of raw product on delivery to the processing plant. In the cat-
fish industry, the farm-raised catfish are delivered either alive
in aerated tank trucks or packed on ice or "dry." The wastewaters
from the live haul are, of course, much greater in volume than
those from iced transportation and are contaminated mainly with
feces, regurgitated material, and pond benthos. The ice, on the
other hand, where used in packing the fish for transport, is
usually bloody and contains significant amounts of slime. Although
the two types of wastes differ in character and concentration,
it was felt that these differences were not sufficient to warrant
separate subcategories.
A third consideration in subcategorization was the variety
of species being processed. Although the most common variety
currently processed is the channel catfish, others are handled
by the plants in lesser amounts. The results of the analyses
of the samples gathered during the plant monitoring phase of
this study indicated that no significant difference in the nature
of the waters from the processing of various species existed
(Table 36).
Plant location and age were also considered. The catfish
industry is located in the central and southern states in areas
of similar climatic conditions (conducive to the raising of farm
catfish) in flat to moderate rolling terrain. In general, the
soils present no severe construction problems. High water tables,
in certain localities, present problems. Many of the plants are
located in rural areas on sufficient acreage to permit installation
of adequate treatment systems. Those with inadequate land in their
-74-
-------
Table 36. Catfish Process Summary (5 plants).
Coefficient cf
Standard Variation
Parameter Mean Deviation (s of r.ear.) ;-ai.gr-
3 1
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
2
Plow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
4
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Sclids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
116
(0.031)
22,586
(5416)
8.0
201
125
3.2
399
9.0
74
(0.020)
64.6
(64.f-)
79
(C.021 -
5 day BOD, mg/1 350
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 7.9
4
20 day BOD, mg/1 494
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg 11.2
COD, mg/1 695
COD Ratio, kg/kkg 15.7
Grease and Oil, mg/1 200
Grease and Oil Ratio, kq/kkg 4.53
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1 27
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg 0.62
Ammonia-N, mg/1 0.98
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg 0.022
7747
(I860)
10.0
263
233
2.1
244
1.2
512
3.4
107
0.83
16.5
0.08
0.81
0.016
34.
(34.
125
131
55.9
23.3
69.9
15.8
73.6
21.8
53.5
18.3
61.0
12.9
82 .7
74.0
13,710
(3288
0.45
7.1
124
2.5
332
7.5
17C
0.045)
31,491
7552)
24.7
651.4
126
3.9
509
11.5
244
5.5
344
7.2
456
10. 3
168
3.79 -
23
0.51 -
0.20 -
0.0045-
408
9.2
1101
15.1
780
17.6
246
5.55
33
0.75
2. 00
0.045]
pH
6.3
5. 8
7.0
1 day * 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 excluding the salt water processing plant
4 based on data from two plants
-------
possession currently either: 1) have access to other land (at
a price); or 2) are reasonably well suited for incorporation
into a nearby municipal system. As mentioned previously, age
of plant is not a significant factor in this industry.
For all the above reasons, the United States catfish
processing industry was placed into a single subcategory.
The samples on which this study is based were taken at
five processing plants during April, May and June of 1973<, Those
months are some of the poorer production months in the industry.
Because the peak production season does not come until late sum-
mer and fall, mostly small fish were being processed and the addi-
tional amount of time required to process smaller fish held the
production volume down. The major complication was the severe
flooding throughout much of the Mississippi Delta, which hindered
or prevented harvesting of the fish, along with other normal
industry operations.
Depending on the location of the particular plant, a
well or city water system supplied the raw water and a city sewer
system or local stream was called upon to receive the final ef-
fluent. Table 37 itemizes the flow sources. The three main flows
formed the effluent and its constituent waste loads. The flow
from the live holding tank area produced the largest volume of
water (59 percent) and contained the least waste. Conversely,
the cleanup flows contributed a relatively small volume of water
(7.5 percent), but contained the highest waste concentrations.
The processing flows were the third factor and they contributed
a medium volume of water with a medium-to-heavy waste concentra-
tion.
-76-
-------
Table 37. Catfish process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow*, 109 cu m/day (0.027 mgd) ^
Unit Operation %
of Averaqe Flow
Range, %
a)
live holding tanks
59.2
54.7 - 63.7
b)
butchering (be-heading,
eviscerating)
—
—
c)
skinning
4.1
7.3 - 2.1
d)
cleaning
13.8
18.3 - 9.1
e)
packing (incl. sorting)
3
4.7 - 1.5
f)
clean-up
7.5
9 - 5.1
g)
washdown flows
13.2
15.7 - 9.2
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 4.25 kkg/day (4.69 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 6 3
By Product 27 0-32
Waste 10 5-37
*Including clean-up water
^¦Based on figures from 3 plants
-77-
-------
Water reuse was limited to the holding tank and was not
a universal practice. Plant 4 retained water in holding tanks
for a week or more with an overflow of roughly 0o2 1/sec (3 gpm)
from each tank, and as a partial consequence, had the lowest total
daily flow of all the plants. Plant 2 had to drain each holding
tank completely each time fish were removed from it because of
the tank and plant design. Plant 2 had the highest total water
usage with over three times the flow of Plant 4, and used almost
exactly twice as much water per unit of product. The other plants
reused holding tank water in varying degrees.
Holding tank flows ran into the tanks from stationary
faucets and when the tanks were full the flow drained through
and pipe drainsp Clean-up flows came almost exclusively from
hoses, but processing flows were quite diverse in origin. Proces-
sing flows came from skinning machines, washers, chill tanks,
the packing area, and eviscerating tables and included water used
to flume solids out of the processing area.
The by-product solids were removed from the processing
area xn two ways. They were "dry-captured" in baskets or tubs
cincl
emoved by that means or flumed to a screening and collection
All of the plants sampled used the same type of skinning
machine, which was designed to operate with a small flow of water.
ns were washed out of the machine; there is no way to effect
d*y capture of the skins, short of redesigning the equipment.
While the holding tank flow waste load was mainly made
feces, slime, and regurgitated organic matter, the proces-
sing and clean-up waste loads were made up of blood, fats, small
-78-
-------
chunks of skin and viscera, and other body fluids or components.
A high waste load came from the tanks where the fish were washed,
and from the chill tanks. There was no way to "dry-capture"
this waste which was composed of blood, fats, and some particulate
organic materials.
1.4.10 Alaska Crab Process
Subcategorization for the Alaskan crab industry was rela-
tively complicated. In the course of the field work it became
evident that, although differences in the processes existed, the
variations in wastewater flow and content noted were not signifi-
cant when compared to the normal plant-to-plant and day-to-day
variations within each of the process groups (canning, freezing,
and sections).
The king, Dungeness and tanner crab processing industry
in Alaska were however, separated from the rest of the United
States for several reasons. These reasons were all based on
the assumption that a subcategory should be designated whenever
differences between plants would seriously affect the development
of:
1. treatment design configurations?
2. designation of expected effluent levels after
treatment; and/or
3. estimation of costs of treatment.
A very important item in the Alaskan crab processing indus-
try is the plant location. In this region of the country, perhaps
more than in any other, site specificity must be an over-riding
-79-
-------
concern in the development of waste management, treatment/ and
disposal alternatives. Most, if not all/ of the king, tanner
and Dungeness crab processing plants in Alaska are located south
of Bristol Bay in terrain which can most aptly be described as
"vertical.*1 Virtually every plant is built on piling because
of the lack of suitable real estate. Although most Alaskan crab
processing plants are isolated individual facilities located re-
motely from population centers, a few concentrations of processing
plants in populous areas exis-t. The most notable one is in the
city of Kodiak, Alaska, where 14 processing plants are located
either on pilings, on barges, or in reconditioned (floating or
grounded) ships along the Kodiak waterfront.
The fact remains, however, that the general location of
the Alaskan processors in an area of limited accessibility and
of inflated costs (the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Price
Index lists Kodiak, as 2.5, based on a national average of 1.0)
justifies the designation of a separate subcategory for these
processors.
For the above reasons the Alaskan Dungeness, king and
tanner crab processing industries were placed into a single sub-
category.
Each of the plants sampled in Kodiak, Alaska used city
water for processing and water volumes and flow rates were easily
obtained from water meter readings. Plants outside of Kodiak
used mostly salt water in processing except for the cooking opera-
tion which used local runoff waters.
-80-
-------
The average total wastewater flow and the itemization
per unit operation are listed in Table 38 for the section process,
and in Table 39 for the combined frozen and canned meat processes
without use of the grinder. This could be done since the grinders
only operated on an intermittent basis, as the solids in the but-
cher area accumulated to a certain point.
The water used in the sections process (Table 38) was
about 75 percent of that used in the frozen and canned meat pro-
cess. Most of the water came from the washing and cooling of
the sections (60 percent) and contributed a moderate amount of
waste. The butcher and cooking operations contributed low flows
and low-strength wastes. Most of the water in the frozen and canned
meat process (Table 39) came from the meat extraction and cooling
operations (57 percent) and contributed a moderate-strength waste.
The butcher and cook flows were high-strength but low in volume.
The pack, freeze and retort operations contributed a low-strength
waste which was about 25 percent of the total volume.
Tab £s 40 and 41 show the water flow breakdown for the
sections and combined frozen and canned meat processed when the
grinder was operating to dispose of the carapaces, viscera and
gills from the butcher area. It can be seen that the water flow
increased about 50 percent for the sections process and 25 percent
for the frozen and canned meat processes. A typical grinder used
170-225 1/min (45-60 gal/min). Most plants processing sections
used only one grinder while almost all frozen and canned meat
operations used two.
-81-
-------
Table 38. Material balance - Alaska tanner and king crab
sections process and Alaska Dungeness crab whole cooks
(without waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
*
Average Flow, 240 cu m/day (0.058 mgd)
Unit Operation
% of Average Flow
Range,%
a) butcher
5
2-8
b) precook and cook
15
10 - 20
c) wash and cool
60
50 - 70
d) sort, freeze, pack
10
5-15
e) clean-up
10
5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.09 kkg/day (14.40 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 64 57-69
By-product 34 20-40
Waste 2 1-15
* Including clean-up water used during eight hours of
processing.
-82-
-------
Table 39. Material balance - Alaska tanner crab frozen
and canned meat process (without waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow? 352 cu m/day (0.092 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) butcher 2 1-3
b) precook and cook 5 2-7
c) cool 20 15 - 30
d) meat extraction 37 30 - 40
e) sort, pack, freeze 11 8-20
f) retort 15 — - —
g) clean-up 10 5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 12.3 kkg/day (13.5 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 14 10-20
By-product 84 70-89
Waste 2 1-15
* Including clean-up water used during 8 hours of
processing at the plants using fresh water.
** Canning operation only.
-83-
-------
Table 40. Material balance - Alaska tanner and king crab
sections process (with waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow? 360 cu m/day (0.086 ragd)
Unit Operation
a) butcher and grinding
b) precook and cook
c) wash and cool
d) sort, pack, freeze
e) clean-up
% of Average Flow
26
19
36
9
10
Range, %
15 - 40
15 - 25
20 - 50
5-12
15 " 20
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.1 kkg/day (14.4 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
64
21
15
Range, %
57 - 69
15 - 30
10 - 30
Including clean-up water during eight hours of processing
-84-
-------
Table 41. Material balance - Alaska tanner crab frozen
and canned meat process (with waste grinding).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow* 439 cu m/day (0.116 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) butcher and grinding 30 25-45
b) precook and cook 3 1-5
c) cool 6 2-9
d) meat extraction 34 30 - 40
e) sort, pack, freeze 7 5-10
f) retort 10 5-15
g) clean-up 10 8-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 8.4 kkg/day (9.25 tons/day)
Output % of raw procuct Range, %
Food product 14 10-20
By-product 66 50-75
Waste 20 10 - 30
* Including clean-up water during 8 hours of processing.
** Canning operation only.
-85-
-------
Table 42 lists the combined averages obtained for the
total Alaska crab industry with grinders. The operation of the
grinder required an increase in water use of about 66 percent
and the waste loads were increased by a factor of about 5 on a
unit product basis. Tables 43 and 44 show the combined section
and the combined freezing and canning process respectively; it
can be seen that the freezing and canning processes used more
water and had higher waste loads than the section processes.
The reason for this is that much more solid waste is generated
in the freezing and canning process and there is typically one
grinder in the butcher area and one grinder in the meat separation
area while in the section process, there is just one grinder in
the butcher area*
104.11 West Coast Crab Process
Subcategorization for the Oregon, Washington, and Calif-
ornia tanner and Dungeness crab processing industry was developed
following much of the reasoning outlined in the discussion of
the Alaskan crab industry.
The major differences between the two regions' processing
industries were geographical, with one exception: the use of
the brine tank in the "lower 43," whereas, it was not generally
used in Alaska.
The geographical reasons alluded o above, of course,
included considerations of climate, topography, relative isolation
of the processing plants, land availability, soil conditions,
-86-
-------
Table 42. Alaska crab process summary (8 plants)
with grinding
Parameter
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
1% of mean)
Range
1
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
366
(0.096)
103
(0.027)
28
(28)
156
(0.041
-
507
0.134;
2
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
40,340
(9670)
21,040
(5060)
52
(52)
17,600
(4220
-
85,500
20,500)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
15.6
412
16.9
613
103
148
1.4
46.1
—
43. 7
1820
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
16,500
580
20,770
372
125
64
807
28
29,400
1220
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
1030
38
1140
20
110
53
201
20
-
1630
67
5 day BOD, mg/1
S day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
1480
51
1656
20
112
39
627
22
-
2520
89
3
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
2160
101
1470
133
68
131
763
31
-
4390
230
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
2440
84
1225
32
50
38
954
34
-
4540
142
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
345
13
241
11
70
85
79
4
-
754
31
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
217
7.6
101
3.4
47
44
92
3
-
350
13
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
5.7
0.22
2.7
0.09
47
43
2.1
0.09
-
8.7
0. 35
4
P«
7.5
0.38
5
7.1
-
7.9
1 day = 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 based on seven observations
4 based on five observations
-------
Table 43. Alaska crab section process summary with grinding (4 plants)
Coefficient of
Standard Variation
Parameter Mean Deviation (% of mean) Range
1
Flow Rate, cu m/day
330
124
37
156
439
(mgd)
2
(0.088)
(0.033)
(37)
(0.041 -
0.1]
Plow Ratio, 1/Jcfcg
29,000
12,260
42
17,600
43,400
(gal/ton)
(6970)
(2940)
(42)
(4220
10.400)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
16
17
107
1.4
37.7
Settleable Solids Ratio, lAkg
245
342
139
46
754
Screened Solids, mg/1
13,900
12,070
87
807
27,000
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
307
198
65
28
474
Suspended Solids, mg/1
904
597
66
201
1600
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
22
12
55
7
32
5 day BOD, mg/1
1525
1930
126
627
2520
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
36
10.5
29
22
44
3
20 day BOD, mg/1
1590
1327
83
781
3130
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
42
19
45
31
63
COD, mg/1
2620
1560
60
954
4540
COD Ratio, kgAkg
64
22.3
35
34
80
Grease and Oil, mg/1
304
152
50
79
400
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
8
5. 5
69
3
15
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
205
115
56
92
350
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
5
1.6
33
3.3
6. 0
Antmonia-N, mg/1
5.8
3.1
54
2.5
8.7
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
0.18
0.19
105
0.09 -
0. 31
4
pH
7.3
—
--
7.1
7. 5
1 day " 8 hrs
2 wight of raw product
3 based on three observations
4 based on two observations
-------
Table 44. Alaska Crab Frozen & Canned Meat Process Summary
without grinding (4 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(1 of mean)
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(¦gd)
2
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, lAkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
400
(0.106)
51,700
(12,400)
15.3
580
19,180
853
1158
54
1434
66
69.1
(0.018)
56,600
(13,580)
19.2
829
10,600
289
424
11.4
630
1.7
17
(17)
110
(110)
125
143
56
34
37
21
44
3
322
(0.085
32,800
(7870
1. 8
78
9000
517
661
45
656
54
507
0.134)
85,500
20,500)
43.7
1820
29,400
1220
1630
67
2160
89
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-*N Ratio, kgAkg
2590
144
2262
104
387
18
230
10
5.6
0.26
1602
75
983
26.5
329
13. 7
99
3.3
2.8
0.08
62
52
43
25
85
77
43
33
50
31
1280
60
1140
86
86
4
97
8
4390
230
3450
142
754
31
320
13
2.1
0.2
8.7
0.35
PH
7.6
0.81
0.11
7.3
7.9
1 day * 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 based on three observations
-------
and availability of unlimited water. All of these aspects then,
together with the significant difference in wastewater characteris-
tics (chloride) between the two regions, prompted designation
of different subcategories for the Alaskan industry versus the
Oregon, Washington, and California tanner and Dungeness crab pro-
cessing industry, for the purpose of designing and estimating
the cost of treatment systems and for developing recommended ef-
fluent standards and guidelines0
Table 45 lists the average waste loads without fluming
for all three plants sampled. These values were influenced by
both whole cook and meat picking processes; however, the meat
picking process was by far the largest operation. The time-averaged
waste load characteristics of a typical plant would be similar
to that generated by the meat picking process alone.
All of the plant sampled follow the same general pro-
cessing steps except for two unit operations. The first variation
was in the bleed-rinse step. After the crab were butchered the
pieces were either conveyed via belt below a water spray or packed
into large steel baskets and submerged in circulating rinse water.
In either case a continuous wastewater flow resulted. There was
no appreciable difference in the characteristics of the waste
streams from each method. The second variation in processing
was the cooling method employed following cocking. Some plants
employ a spray cool and others submerge a steel basket containing
the crabs in circulating rinse water. The waste characteristics
were unaffected by the cooling method.
Table 46 itemizes the flow from each unit operation as
a percentage of the total flow without fluming. The total average
-90-
-------
Table 45. West Coast Dungeness crab process summary
without shell fluming (3 plants).
Parameter
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(% of mean)
Range
Flow Rate' cu m/day^
(mgd)
4 2
55
(0.014)
(—)
(--)
("
—)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
19100
(4580)
3870
(670)
20
(15)
15,000
(3560
21300
5110)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
84
1604
12
447
14
28
70
1470
92
I960
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
—
—
—
—
—
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
146
2.7
26
0.5
18
20
122
2.6
177
2.9
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
412
8. Q
143
5.1
35
2.2
319
6.6
505
10.6
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
—
—
—
—
—
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
609
11.3
122
1.6
20
14
516
11.0
740
12.0
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kgAkg
—
—
—
—
—
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
86
1.61
12
0.35
14
22
68
1.41 -
95
1.99
Anmvonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
5.6
0.10
1.9
0.04
33
45
4.0
0.075 -
7.0
0.14
pH
7.4
0.5
7
7.3
7.7
1 day * 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 two values
4 five values
-------
Table 46. Oregon Dungeness crab whole and fresh-frozen
meat process (without fluming wastes)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow* 120 cu m/day (0.032 mgd)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Unit Operation
% of Average Flow
butcher (clean-up)
8
bleed rinse
25
cook
3
cool
30
pick (clean-up)
7
brine and rinse
27
Range, %
4-11
12 " 30
2-4
26 " 33
5-8
18 - 34
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 6.3 kkg/day (7.0 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
22
63
15
* Including clean-up water
Range, %
17 " 27
50 - 66
7-23
-92-
-------
flow observed for the three processes was about 120 cu m/day
(0.032 mgd). The only water from the butcher area was washdown
and contributed a relatively low flow and waste load. The cooking
flow was low in volume but high in strength. The flow from the
bleeding area was moderate and contributed relatively little waste.
The cooling water contributed a large flow but very little waste.
The major source of waste came from the brining operation which
produced a high salt load.
The use of fluming to remove solids from the butchering
and meat picking area increased the water flow by about 70 percent
and produced a moderately high waste load.
1.4.12. Blue Crab Processes
It was obvious that the blue crab industry had to be
broken down into two subcategories. The first encompassed the
conventional (hand picking) blue crab processing plant, and the
second included those blue crab processing plants employing the
Harris claw picking machine (or equivalent) for the removal of
meat from claws or from body sections or both.
The condition of the raw product on delivery to the pro-
cessing plant was of considerable concern in the blue crab pro-
cessing industry, especially with respect to dredged crab. Because
of the greater number of injured crab and large amount of silt
and mud carried into the plant it was felt that the process waste-
water from crabs harvested by dredging during the winter months
may have a higher waste load than that of crabs harvested during
other periods of the year.
-93-
-------
and subprocesses were impor-
The manufacturing processes ana su f
tant factors affecting subcategorization, as discussed above.
The utilization of the claw picXin, machine either for claws or
for bodies, or both, introduced significantly greater quantit
into the waste stream and at
of wastewater, BOD, grease, etc.,
. the waste stream through
the same time changed the characte
nf sodium chloride. Sodium
the addition of large quantities
chloride at the levels found in these blue crab processing plants
is inhibitory to many biological treatment systems. Its toxic
, ^ ^1. +-hat the machines are operated
effect is increased by the fact tha
^ ~ ner week, meaning that waste
on the average less than two days p
streams fluctuate from very low salinity to extremely high salin-
ity from day to day throughout the processing season. Indeed,
the treatability problems involving high strength brines (together
with other factors) prompted the designation of a separate sub-
«nuloYing claw picking machines,
category for blue crab processors emp
-.^^4-e aamDled used domestic water sup-
All conventional plants sampiea
. a_u from each unit operation as
plies. Table 47 itemizes the flow rro
mu ,«*-*oritv of the flow (50 percent) was
a percent of the total. The majority
making operations, but contributed
cooling water from continuous ice max y v
negligible organic waste loads. The washdown was an intermittent
source which contributed an average of 23 percent of the total
flow, but also contributed only a small waste load. The cooker
flow averaged 17 percent and contributed the greatest load to
j-w > ^ „ maw,i» 48 contains the process summary
the wastewater streams. Table cunt r
for the conventional process.
The mechanized process produced considerably more waste-
water than the conventional processes. Table 49 itemises the
-------
Table 47. Conventional Blue crab process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow* 2.52 cu m/day (o.00066 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) washdown
b) coo)
c) ice
23 17 - 26
b) cook 17 13 _ 2i
60
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 2.59 kkg/day (2.85 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food product 14 9-16
By-product 80 79 - 86
Waste 5
Including clean-up water
-95-
-------
Table 48. Conventional blue crab process summary (2 plants).
Parameter
Flew Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kgAkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
3
pH
Mean
2.52
(0.00067)
1190
(285)
4.6
5.2
667
1.2
4410
5.2
6420
7.5
216
0.34
790
0.94
53.3
0.065
7.6
Range
2.40
(0.0006
2.66
0.0007)
1060
(255
1315
315)
3.3
4.4
596
0.7
36 30
4.8
5480
7.2
204
0.22
611
0.80
47.6
0.063
7.2
5.8
6.2
739
1.5
5180
5.5
7360
7.8
228
0.39
969
1.03
59
0.068
8.0
1 day = 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 laboratory pH
-96-
-------
Table 49. Mechanized Blue crab process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow* 178 cu m/day (0.047 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a)
machine picking
90.5
b)
brine tank
0.5
c)
wash down
7.7
d)
cook
0.2
e)
ice making
1.1
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 4.8 kkg/day(5.3 tons/day)
Output
Food Product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product Range, %
14 9-16
80 79 - 86
5
* Including clean-up water
-97-
-------
flow from each operation. The cooking water, which had a high
organic concentration, was diluted considerably by the water from
the mechanical picker. The mechanical operation also produced
brine wastes from the flotation tanks and from the subsequent
meat washing. The brine tanks averaged about 1040 liters (275
gal.) and were dumped once per shift. The concentrations of sodiu^
chloride were very high, being about 100,000 to 200,000 mg/1 (as
chloride).
The proportions of the raw product going into food pro-
ducts, by-products and waste are listed on Tables 47 and 49 and
were about the same for both types of processes. About 14 percent,
of the crab is utilized for food (Soderquist, et al., 1970).
Up to 80 percent could be dry-captured for by-products, which
would leave about 5 percent entering the wastewater flow.
The maximum mechanized production rate is about 1.8
kkg/hr (2 tons/hr) on a raw product basis and the maximum conven-
tional rate is about 500 kg/hr (1100 lbs/hr). The average pro-
duction rates are about 2/3 the maximum for both processes. During
a day's operation the processing is continuous; however, the length
of the shift and the number of days the plants operate are inter-
mittent, due to fluctuations in the raw product supply.
Table 50 presents the combined mechanized plant waste-
water averages. The concentrations of all the parameters were
much higher for the conventional than the mechanized processes.
For example, the average BOD concentration from the conventional
plants was 4410 mg/1, but only 650 mg/1 from the mechanized
plants. However, this was due to the much greater water use
-98-
-------
Table 30. Mechanized blue crab process summary (2 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
178
(0.047)
76
(0.020
279
0.073)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
36,900
(8860)
2.5
92
331
11.7
650
22.7
1040
34
150
5.6
107
3.6
5.8
0.2
29,000
(6960
2.4
77
39 8
11.5
496
22.3
644
29
147
4.3
61
2.7
3.5
0.16
44,900
10760)
2.6
107
496
22.3
796
23.0
1450
42
154
6.9
153
4.4
8.3
0.24
PH"
7.0
6.8
7.2
1 day = 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 laboratory pH
-99-
-------
in the mechanized process, which diluted the waste. The volume
of water used per unit of raw product was about 30 times greater
in the mechanized than the conventional process. The waste loads
per unit of raw product were, therefore, much lower for the con-
ventional process. For example, the average BOD ratio from the
conventional process was 5.2 kg/kkg, compared to 22,1 kg/kkg from
the mechanized process.
1.4.13c. Alaskan Shrimp Process
The reasoning followed in the development of the Alaskan
shrimp subcategory paralleled in many respects the reasoning
followed in the designation of the Alaskan crab subcategory.
As is the case with the crab industry, the Alaskan shrimp indus-
try is characterized by large processing plants operating heavily
during the peak processing months of the year and only intermittently
during the remainder of the year. Raw material availability,
as with crab, is very much a function of weather.
Indications are that the condition of raw product on
delivery to the processing plant is a significant factor in de-
termining the character of the wastewater streams emanating from
the process. Unlike crab, shrimp are delivered to the plant on
ice and the age of the individual animals in a load will vary
from one day to one week. The degree of natural decomposition
(or degradation) varies correspondingly. As a general rule, the
older the mean age of the animals in a load, the greater will
be the total pollutant content of the processing waste stream.
-100-
-------
In addition to age in terms of numbers of elapsed days
since harvest, the biological age of the shrimp appears to be
an important factor in determining wastewater characteristics.
Although Phase I of this study was of insufficient duration to
determine the exact effect of maturity on wastewater character-
istics, previous investigation by the National Marine Fisheries
Service Technology Laboratory in Kodiak and by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle Laboratory indicate that a significant
difference in total waste loading exists between early spring
and late summer (Collins, 1973). Early indications are that as
the shrimp mature and become larger, the organic levels in the
waste streams decrease. The difference in organic load from pro-
cessing of mature versus immature shrimp has been indicated to
be as much as 50 percent.
The variable "manufacturing process and subprocesses"
applies to the Alaskan shrimp processing industry. Two main
types of peelers are used, Laitram Model A and Laitram Model
PCA (with steam precook). Furthermore, those shrimp to be canned
are subjected to a subsequent blanching step which is not a part
of the process for shrimp which are to be frozen. While these
variables are significant in the Alaskan shrimp processing indus-
try, their importance falls short of dictating that a separate
subcategory be established for Model A versus Model PCA peeled
shrimp. The differences between the two systems are mainly matters
of degree rather than of character.
"Location of plant" is a very important item in the Alaskan
shrimp processing industry and in large part justified designation
-101-
-------
of a separate subcategory. The arguments appropriate for this
decision are the same arguments presented earlier for Alaskan
crab and need not be reiterated in their entirety here. It is
sufficient to mention that those variables tied to the location
of the plant such as climatic conditions, terrain, and soil types
are unique to the Alaskan region and severely constrain the num-
ber of available waste management alternatives which can be con-
sidered in the development of proposed waste management alternatives,
Either seawater or fresh water is used for some steps
in processing, depending on plant location with regard to water
availability and quality. Seawater is commonly used in the remote
areas where good quality water is available. Those plants located
in high density processing areas generally use fresh city water.
One plant in the Kodiak area uses a salt water well. The plants
using seawater normally use more water than fresh water plants
because the city fresh water is metered.
Table 51 lists the percentages of water used in the
unit operations of a typical shrimp plant (either sea or fresh
water). Trash fish removal and shrimp storage are small contrib-
utors to the total plant flow, but add a moderate waste load.
Peelers are the biggest water user in the plant and the largest
waste load source. Washers and separators contribute 15 percent
of the water and a moderate amount of the waste load. . Meat
fluming and clean-up make up 25 percent of the water usage and
add a low to moderate load to the waste stream. Blanchers and
retort water (where applicable) are insignificant both in volume
and total waste contribution.
-102-
-------
Table 51. Alaska shrimp frozen and canned process
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow? 1340 cu m/day (0.356 mgd)
Unit Operation
a) fish picking and ageing
b) peelers
c) washers and separators
d) blanchers
e) meat flume
f) retort and cool'
g) clean-up
**
% of Average Flow Range, %
4 0-5
45 40 - 50
15 10 - 30
2 1-5
19 10 - 20
5 3-8
10 5-15
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 13.9 kkg/day (15.3 tons/day)
Output
Food product
By-product
Waste
% of Raw Product
15
65
20
Range, %
13 - 18
50 - 80
15 - 40
* Including clean-up water during ieght hours processing
** Included in canning process only
-103-
-------
Table 52 summarizes the data from the Model PCA peeler
plant using seawater and the data from the Model A peeler plant
using fresh water. The water flow per unit product was about
twice as high in the seawater plant. The BOD, COD, and screened
solids load per unit product were 20 to 50 percent greater at
the PCA peeler plant while the settleable solids (1/kkg) were
four times those of the Model A plant. The increased load from
the seawater plant was attributable to the additional fluming
used at this point.
1.4.14. West and Gulf Coast Shrimp
Subcategorization for the shrimp industry was relatively
complicated„
In the course of the field work it became evident that,
although differences in the processes existed, the variations
in wastewater flow and content were not significant when compared
to the normal plant-to-plant and day-to-day variations within
each of the processes. The major difference between larger Gulf
shrimp, South Atlantic and smaller West Coast, New England varie-
ties are geographical and species diversity.
Manufacturing processes and subprocesses, form and qual-
ity of finished product, and nature of operation showed variation
between the canning processes and breading processes. Analysis
of the sample data indicates that the West Coast canning process,
the Gulf Coast canning processes and the breaded shrimp processes
were each dissimilar enough so they should be considered separ-
ately.
-104-
-------
Table 52. Alaska frozen shrirtp process sunmary*' (plants SI & K2)
Parameter
Mean
Range
1 2
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
3
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
4
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
1173
(0.31)
7 3,370
(17,600)
4.8
546
8898
861
1727
207
1150
122
2330
171
2595
274
180
17
150
10.9
6.8
0.50
770
(0.204
58,300
(14,300
0.23
14.8
1030
246
1090
80
410
30
1160
85
1090
115
33
5
16
1.2
4.8
0.35
1582
0.418)
111,100
26,400)
10.8
1240
20,850
1530
2740
415
2930
220
3950
290
6340
465
750
55
297
21.8
10.2
0.75
PH
7.7
7.4
8.5
1 flow from plant SI neglected
2 day = 8 hrs—process water and clean up water
3 weight of raw product
4 wet weight
5 field pll
* Clean up water is included in this table.
-105-
-------
Perhaps the major point upon which to base a decision
to declare separate waste treatment facilities by region within
the contiguous United States is "location of plant." Certainly
climatic conditions, terrain, soil type, height of the water table,
etc., are significant considerations in the development of recom-
mended treatment designs, their cost, and the effluent levels
which can be reasonably expected from those designs. Differences
in these variables do exist between the northern and southern
stateso The southern states have a special problem regarding
high water tables, limited land availability suitable for lagoons
and similar waste treatment facilities, and limited dispersion
in nearby bayous.
Table 53 itemizes the water use by operation for a typi-
cal Gulf or lower East Coast canning process. Well water was
used in two of the three plants sampled for de-icing, peeling
and cooling of retorted cans. All other process waters (for belt
washers, etc.) were municipal. The COD and suspended solids
concentration in the well water averaged approximately 55 mg/1
eauho
The plants in metropolitan areas discharged their waste-
waters into sewage systems, whereas the other plants merely pumped
their waste to local receiving waters. The total flow rates aver-
aged about 790 cu m/day (0.20 mgd) and were similar for all the
unit processes. The largest flows were from the peelers, which
also caused the largest flow variations. Some days flows were
reduced on peelers. This was due to the shrimp being too fresh
(caught the night before) which made peeling more difficult.
-106-
-------
Table 53. Canned Gulf shrimp material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow* 788 cu m/day (0.208 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range/ %
a) peelers (Model A) 58.1 42.1 - 73.0
b) washers 8.8 8.0 - 9.9
c) separators 6.9 5.1 - 9.2
d) blancher 1*6 .006 - 2.5
©) de-icing 4.2 .005 — 7.4
f) cooling & retort 12.1 8.0 - 19.5
g) washdown 8.3 6.9 - 9.6
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 23.9 kkg/day (26.4 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 20 15-25
By Product 65 58 - 71
Waste 15 13 - 18
~Including clean-up water
-107-
-------
Flow was decreased so the shrimp would pass over the rollers at
a slower rate, thereby being cleaned more thoroughly. These peelers
usually averaged 170 to 225 1/min (45 to 60 gpm) per peeler, but
on days when a slow peel was desired, the flow was sometimes low-
ered to 55 to 75 1/min (15 to 20 gpm).
Table 54 itemizes the water use by unit operation for
a typical West Coast shrimp process, The two plants studied
were located either over water or partially over water, with
liquid wastes being discharged directly into adjacent waterways.
The average plant flow was 472 cu m/day (0*125 mgd). The largest
percentage of this flow (61 percent) was attributed to the mecha-
nical peelers. Water used in these plants for production was
all city water. Due to the use of a large number of peelers the
flow from Plant #2 (five peelers) was twice as large as that from
Plant #1 (two peelers). Plant #2 used PCA peelers, which blanch
the shrimp prior to peeling; Plant #1 used the Model A peeler,
which may be followed by blanching. Plant #2 recycled approxi-
mately 10 percent of the total water flow. The water from the
separators and washers was used to flume the incoming shrimp to
the peelers.
Table 53 itemizes the water use in each operation of
a typical breaded shrimp process. The two plants sampled utilized
both well and city water. The average flow was about 650 cu m/day
(0.173 mgd)c The Johnson (P.D.I. - peel, devein, inspect) peel-
ers averaged 31 percent of Plant #2's flow; this varied with the
number of machines operating. The Seafood Automatic peelers aver-
aged 12.8 percent of Plant #l*s flow for comparable production.
-108-
-------
Table 54. West Coast—Shrimp Canning
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow*, 4 72 cu m/day (0.125 mgd)
Unit Operation %
of Average Flow
Range,
%
a)
de-icing tanks
5.8
3.7
7.8
b)
peelers (PCA & Model A)
61.5
57.1
77.5
c)
washer & separator
11.9
10.1
12.8
d)
blancher
1.6
1.2
2.1
e)
grading line
1.7
1.5
1.8
f)
can washer
3.5
0.002 -
6.3
g)
retort & cooling
5.2
3.6
6.8
h)
washdown
8.8
4.2
9.5
Product Material
Balance
Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 9.0
kkg/day
( 9,9 tons/day)
Output % of
Raw Product
Range, %
Food Product
15
12 - 18
By
Product
70
65 - 75
Waste
15
12 - 17
~Including clean-up water
-109-
-------
However, the waste concentrations were very close between the
two makes of machines, even though three times as many Johnson
peelers were in operation as Seafood Automatic peelers0 This
would seem to indicate that the Seafood Automatic peelers generated
a higher waste load. Washdowns comprised one of the largest single
daily flows originating from these plants, averaging 50 percent
of the total. It appeared that this flow could be reduced signi-
ficantly with proper water management.
Table 53 shows that the product portion which could be
used for by-products was about 65 percent; however, not all plants
had an available rendering plant. Many plants hauled their solid
wastes to the local dump. All three plants sampled employed some
form of screening to remove their large solids. Two forms of
screening were used: vibratory and tangential* One of the plants
sampled used a tangential screen which has a piston drive solids
compressor installed. This ram squeezed the shells (eliminating
50 percent of retained water), and bagged them into 25 to 30 lb
plastic bags, which were then transported to the city dump.
West Coast shrimp (Table 54) are not beheaded at sea;
the only preprocessing done is to remove most of the debris and
trash fish from the catch. The debris and miscellaneous fish
comprise between 3 and 8 percent of the raw weight of the freshly
caught shrimp. The average raw product input was about 9.0 kkg/day
(10 tons/day) with the average shift length being 9 hourso The
percent of raw product utilized for food was less than obtained
from the Gulf and lower East Coast canned and breaded shrimp and
averaged about 15 percent (Table 54). The shrimp product, when
-110-
-------
it arrived at the plants, had seldom been held more than three
days* The older shrimp were processed first/ and from qualitative
observations there seemed to be a definite correlation between
shrimp age and amount of waste produced. A difference in waste
strength was anticipated because of the strong enzymatic action
(degradation) of shrimp as a function of time. However, due to
the plants processing different ages of shrimp on the same days,
the effect of age on wastewater strength could not be determined
for the data. The solid wastes which could be utilized for by-
product totaled about 70 percent of the input. These were cap-
tured either by vibrating screens or trommel screens. In many
cases the wastes were transported by truck to a rendering plant,
where they were dried and added to fertilizers or used as supple-
ments to various feeds low in calcium.
Since the breaded and fresh frozen shrimp were beheaded
at sea, the yield was substantially greater in this industry.
The range of the yield (Table 55) was 75 to 85 percent, depending
on type of breading, method of peeling, size of shrimp, etc.
The raw product was generally in very good condition on arrival;
if caught locally it was kept iced and in coolers until processed.
Frozen shrimp are sometimes stored, if space is available, until
all the fresh shrimp are processed. Most of the imported shrimp
at the time of this study came from India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico,
and Ecuador. On some days at Plant #1, over 50 percent of the
shrimp processed were of foreign origin. The actual working day
ranged from a low of seven hours to a high of eleven hours. Aver-
age raw product processed totaled 6.3 kkg/day (7.0 tons/day).
-Ill-
-------
Table 55. Breaded Gulf shrimp material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Average Flow*, 653 cu m/day (0.173 mgd)
Unit Operation % of Average Flow Range, %
a) hand peeling 4.8 2.8 - 6.8
b) thawing or de-icing 4.5 1.7 - 6.7
c) breading area 2.0 1.4 - 2.6
d) washdown 51.1 28.9-73.3
e) automatic peelers. 37.6 33.7-54.8
Product Material Balance Summary
Average Raw Product Input Rate, 6.3 kkg/day ( 7.0 tons/day)
Output % of Raw Product Range, %
Food Product 80 75-85
By Product 15 10 - 20
Waste 5 3-6
* Including clean-up water
-112-
-------
Table 56 lists the average flows and loadings from all
three of the Gulf Coast canning processes sampled. It can be
seen that the water flow per unit product was relatively uniform
with a mean of about 47,000 1/kkg and a coefficient of variation
of 21 percent. The COD loads were also uniform with a mean of
109 kg/kkg and a coefficient of variation of 18 percent. BOD was
available only from Plant #1 and averaged 46 kg/kkg.
Table 57 summarizes the wastewater characteristics from
the two West Coast processors sampled. The PCA peeler process
had a higher flow but lower waste load than the Model A peeler.
The West Coast Model A process had about the same flow per unit
product as the Gulf Coast Model A process; however, the West Coast
process waste loadings were higher than the Gulf Coast levels.
This may have been due to the condition and size of shrimp, which
are smaller on the West than the Gulf Coast and are harder to
peel.
Table 58 summarizes the wastewater characteristics from
the two breaded shrimp processors sampled. The wastewater flows
and the loadings per unit of raw product were very similar for
the two processes and quite similar to the Gulf nd lower East
Coast canned processes.
1.4.15. Clam Processes
Although there is a variety of clam processing operations,
the only factors which are considered to affect subcategorization
are the degree of mechanization and plant size.
-113-
-------
Table 56. Gulf shrimp canning process summary (4 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(% of wean)
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
2
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio. 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
788
(0.208)
46,900
(11,000)
13.9
520
802
37.7
927
(0.0245)
9800
(2350)
5.3
470
459
15.2
12
12
21
21
38
90
57
40
695
(0.184 -
905
0.239)
33,000
(7900
5.4
184
483
15.9
- 57,000
- 14,000)
31
978
1100
50.1
I
M
(-
¦U
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-W Ratio, kg/kkg
1081
46
2296
109
258
11.0
196
7.6
12
0.51
216
653
20
169
9.8
62
7.7
5.4
0.12
20
28
18
66
88
32
102
46
24
1008
43
1975
86
148
5.4
39
1.9
7
0.22
1432
61
2658
122
759
36.4
290
13.4
14
0.47
pH
6.7
6.5
7.0
1 day » 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 based on one plant
4 laboratory pH
-------
Table 57. West Coast canned shrinp process surrmary (2 plants).
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
2
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
3
pH
472
(0.124)
342
(0.0905-
602
0.159)
60,000
(14,000)
75.8
4000
968
54
2112
116
2530
152
3582
19 7
716
42
215
12.2
6.9
0.38
7.5
47,000
(11,000
33.4
2000
652
48
1310
96
1900
114
2233
163
605
39
164
12.0
4.4
0.32
- 73,000
- 18,000)
117.8
7070
1284
61
2915
137
3100
186
4932
232
827
44
266
12.5
7.3
9.5
0.45
7.6
1 day = 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 field pH
-115-
-------
Table 58. Breaded shrimp process summary (2 plants)
Parameter
Mean
Range
Flow Rate, cu m/day
(mgd)
2
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Settleable Solids, ml/1
Settleable Solids Ratio, 1/kkg
Screened Solids, mg/1
Screened Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids Ratio, kg/kkg
5 day BOD, mg/1
5 day BCD Ratio, kg/kkg
20 day BOD, mg/1
20 day BOD Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
COD Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N Ratio, kg/kkg
653
(0.173)
115
(28,000)
15.0
490
790
92
732
84
849
105
1209
138
50
5.8
1.0
0.11
656
(0.149
106,000
(26,000
13.7
461
720
76
700
81.3
648
. 60
1109
138
43
5.4
0.7
0.09
742
0.196)
124,000
30,000)
16.4
519
861
107
762
87
1133
140
1309
139
57
6.1
1.3
0.14
PH
7.81
1 day ¦ 8 hrs
2 weight of raw product
3 field pK
-116-
-------
A conventional clam process is defined as one where
the unit operations are performed essentially by hand and with
a relatively low water flow. A mechanized clam process is defined
as one where most of the unit operations are mechanized and where,
consequently, water flow is relatively high. Figure 14 summarizes
the wastewater characteristics for both the conventional and mech-
anized clam processes. Plant represented by codes HCL1, 2 and
3 are conventional hand-shucking operations, while plants FCL1,
2, 3 and CC12 are mechanized operations. Code CC01 represents
a conch canning process, which is conducted in conjunction with
a clam canning operation. It can be seen that the conventional
hand-shucking operations contribute much lower wastewater flows
and organic loadings than the mechanized operations.
The data from the three conventional plants are relative-
ly uniform; however, a greater range in the data from the mech-
anized plant is evidento The plant with code FCL1 shucked but
did not debelly the clams, resulting in lower waste loads. The
plant with code FCL3 was a highly mechanized plant with very high
water use due to considerable washing of the product. Plant FCL3
also steam cooked the clams to facilitate shucking and condensed
the clam juice, leading to higher waste loads from the evaporator
condensate.
All the conventional clam operations were included in
one subcategory; all the mechanized clam operations were included
in another subcategory for the above reasons.
Table 59 summarizes the waste characteristics from the
onventional clam plants. The large standard deviation of suspend-
ed solids was caused by the highly variable nature of the sand
-117-
-------
Figure 14. CONSENT IONAL OR MECHANIZED CLAM PROCESS PLOT.
z
3
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
S
Q G
G
s
Q G
G
s
Q 6
G
s
Q G
G
s
Q SG
G
s
QBSG
G
s
QBSG
G
s
S
BSG
Q G
s
P
BSG
Q G
s
P
BS
Q G
s
P
BS
G
Q G
s
P
BS
G
Q
s
P
BS
Q G
Q
s
P
BS
Q G
s
P
BS
Q G
s
P
BS
Q G
s
S
Q G
B
s
Q G
S
6 G
8 G
S
G
B G
B
S
B G P
BS
s
QB G
S
s
S
B GP
Q SG
S P
s
Qd
B GP
G
¦S
P
s
8 GP
Q G Q G
S P
P
s
P
QB G
6 P QB G
S P
Q
BS
p
HCL1
HCL2
HCL 3 FCL1
FCL2 FCL3
CCL2
CC01
(1)
(<~)
(1) (4»)
U> (5)
<71
(3)
SYMBOL
PARAMETER
scaling factor
Q
FLOW
1 UNIT * 10 000 L/KKG
8
5 OAY BOO
1 UNIT «
10 KG/KK6
a
SUSPENOED SOLIOS
1 UNIT »
5 KG/KK6
G
GREASE 5 OIL
1 UNIT «
0.2 KG/KKG
P
PROOUCTION
1 UNIT *
10 TON/HR
-118-
-------
Table 59. CONVENTIONAL CLAM PROCESS SUMMARY.
PA«AMe.TcR rtfcAN
PRODUCTION TON/HK 4.o8
PkuCtSa TIMt HR/DAY *.bM
FcOW L/S£C 5.37
(GAL/1INI ttd.l
FLOW RATIO L/KKG illu
(GAL/TON) 123*
stir. solios ml/l o.*»y
RATIO l/KKG 33.2
SGK. sJLlOi MG/u 73ii
KmTIO TO Qt1 5X NIN 95JC M4X
• w «» » mm m .
1.b3 2.28 8.5a
2.01 2*30 b.Jj
2.08 2.HI 1C.+
32.9 3d.2 165
2620 1770 li700
627 42 3 2810
4.»5 1.54 14 .J
23.3 7.88 93.3
<~02 233 1750
2.06 1.19 8,i7
1300 7 5640
b.o3 3.78 2b.i
299 57-» 1740
1.53 2.94 8.J7
519 6*9 2860
2. bs • 3 *~ 14. 6
19.7 6.90 82.j
0.101 U.045 0.422
47.8 92.7 276
0.244 0.h74 1.42
2.21 1.98 10.5
0.011 0«01(i 0.J53
0 * Jb6 6.91 7 . J4
PLANTS HCLlt HU.2» HCc3
-119-
-------
content in the effluent, especially during washdown. There is
little information available on the size range of hand-shucked
surf clam operations; however, investigations of the plants sampled
indicated that a large plant would be one which processed more
than 5000 tons of clams annually.
Table 60 summarizes the waste parameters from the mech-
anized clam plants. Plant FCL1 was not included, since it was
a hybrid operation and did not include the debellying operation.
The water for the clam plants was from fresh water wells
or municipal water supplies. Table 61 shows the wastewater bal-
ance for a typical clam canning operation and indicates that most
of the flow and waste load is due to the washing operations.
Typically, large amounts of water are used to wash the product
at different stages in the process. One plant (FCL3) used a total
of five drum washers, although two were more common. The wash-
down flow was also considerable at some plants and ranged from
22 percent to 45 percent at the plants observed.
The wastewaters are commonly discharged to receiving
waters; however, some plants discharged to municipal systems
and one plant located a few miles inland was using a spray irriga-
tion disposal system. Some plants use grit chambers to remove
sand and shell particles and one plant (FCL3) passed their effluent
through a tangential screen before discharge.
The production rates at the plants monitored were variable
and depended to a large degree on the combination of unit operations
^ployed. The plant which shucked but did not debelly (FCLl),
handled a large volume of clams, averaging 147 kkg/day (162 tons/day)
-120-
-------
Table 60. MECHANICAL CLAM PROCESS SUMMARY.
PA*AMLTcR MtrtN STD Oh\l 57. MIN 953C M4X
PRuOUCTION TON/HK 7.68
PROCESS TIMc. HR/OAY 7.11
FLOH L/ScC ?5.b
(GAL/UN) 681
flow katig l/kkg 2350u
(GAl/TON) 564il
SLTT. SOLIDS ML/l 3.72
RATIO »/KK G 87.4
aCR. SJi.I0S MG/l 2t>l
RATIO KG/KK6 5.91
SUbH. SOLIOS MG/l 315
KATIO KG/KKG 7.-*l
5 OA Y dJU MG/l 765
RATIO KG/KKG let. J
CuO MG/L 125o
RATIO KG/KKG 24. 5
GKtASt & OIl MG/L 22. 4
KATIO KG/KKG 0.526
OKGANIJ-N Mi/L 14,1
RATIO KG/KKG 2.36
AMMON1A-N MG/l 3.76
RATIO KG/KKG it, it69
PH 6.73
TtMP OtG C 2?*4
3.79 2.76 17.2
0.379 6.74 7.iu
58.9 o.97 209
934 110 3310
153jJ 6130 63300
366J 1<»7.i 15200
2.^0 u.758 11.J
68.2 17.6 266
246 36.1 696
5.76 0.849 21.1
255 60.8 985
b.00 1.43 23,1
395 262 1760
9.30 6.15 41.3
94 7 26 8 37 3C
22.3 6.3D 87.)
14.6 5.66 60.i
j.343 0.138 l.i2
45.1 "»0.u 213
1. U 6 0.941 5.J1
2.35 1.U4 9.12
0.055 0.024 0.231
0.549 6.1u 7.J6
9*86 17.4 36.4
Plants fo.2, fcl3, ccl2
-121-
-------
Table 61. Surf clam canning process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) iron man
b) first washer
c) first skimming table
d) second washer
e) second skimming table
f) washdown
% of Total
Flow
<1%
35%
<1%
16%
15%
33%
% of Total
BOD
<1%
31%
<1%
24%
32%
L3%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
<1%
52%
<1%
25%
15%
8%
Total effluent average
CCL2
21,000 1/kkg
13 kg/kkg
5.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) shell
Wastes
a) belly
% of Raw Product
10 - 15%
75 - 80%
7 - 10%
Average Production Rate, 38 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
The ratio between the weight of clams in the shell to clams before
debellying is about four to one. The average production at plants
whih shucked and debellied the clams was about 50 kkg/day (55
tons/day). The final food product without the bellies is about
10 to 15 percent of the weight in the shell. The clam bellies
are sometimes used for bait or animal food but are often discharged
to the receiving waters or ground up and discharged to the muni-
cipal sewer system. Clam shells are generally used for fill or
road beds, but are sometimes barged back to the clam beds. The
food product recovery for conchs is about 30 percent, which is
much higher than for clams. The conch shells are sold for souve-
nirs or used for fill or road beds.
Three conventional hand shucking clam processes were
monitored by the Environmental Associates, Inc. during September,
1973, in the mid-Atlantic region. The plants operate all year
on an intermittent basis. The conventional plants are generally
smaller than the mechanized plants.
It can be seen from Tables 59 and 60 that the flows and
loads are much lower, except for suspended solids, from the hand-
shucking operation than from the mechanized operations. The sus-
pended solids parameter is hard to sample accurately, especially
during washdowns, since the concentration of fine sand fluctuates
greatly at the beginning of the period.
The hand shucked clam plants are usually located in rural
communities or areas and obtain water from domestic supplies
or fresh water wells. Table 62 shows that most of the waste
flow and loads come from the washing operations after shucking
and debellying.
-123-
-------
The production rates at the three plants sampled aver-
aged bout 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day) which was about half the rate
of the mechanized plants and ranged from 7 kkg/day (8 tons/day)
to 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day). The yield of food product from
the hand shucked plants was similar to the mechanized plants.
The final product is shipped to other plants for further processing
into canned clams or chowder.
Table 62. Hand shucked clam process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total
Flow
83-92
8-17
% of Total
BOD
Unit Operation
a) first and second
washers
b) washdown
Total effluent
average 5100 1/kkg 5.3 kg/kkg
Average production rate: 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day)
65-97
3-34
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10-96
4-89
12 kg/kkg
1.4.16. Oyster Processes
The only factors which were considered to affect subcate-
gorization within the oyster industry were degree of mechanization
and plant size. Figure 15 is a summary plot of the wastewater
statistics for all the oyster processes sampled. Plants repre-
sented by codes HSOl and HS06 were East Coast hand-shucked oyster
operations; plants represented by codes HS08 through HS11 were
West Coast hand-shucked oyster operations; codes S01 and S02
-124-
-------
6
Figure 15. FR£SH/FROZEN, STcAHED, OR CANIcO oyster process plot.
EAST COAST
WEST COAST
STEAMED
NJ
U1
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
Q
0
09
09
9 G
Q
3 G
Q
06
Q
QB
QB G
OB GP
S
QB G
QB G
9
9 GP
QB G
s
B G
QB G
GP
B GP
OB GP
S P
P
BSG
Q
S
S P
S P
S
BS P
HSOl
HS 02
NS03
HSOt
HS05
HS06
tl)
(3)
U)
(5)
SOI
<5>
S02
C7I
C01
13)
C02
111
SYMBOL
PARAMETER
SCALING FACTOR
0
FLOM
1 UNIT
X
soott
L/KKC
B
5 OAV BOO
1 UNIT
m
20
KG/KKG
S
SUSPENDEO SOLIOS
1 UNIT
M
50
KG/KKG
G
GREASE AND OIL
1 UNIT
z
1
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
1 UNIT
*
0.5
TON/HR
-------
represent steamed oyster processes; code C01 represents a West
Coast canned oyster operation; and C02, a West Coast canned oyster
stew operation. It should be noted that the production is listed
in terms of the oyster meat after shucking. The reason for this
is that the measurement of final product in this case is much
more accurate, due to variable amounts of loose or empty shells
coming into the qlant.
It was noted that the waste loads from the steamed and
canned oyster processes were higher than those from the hand-shucked
operationso Therefore, it was decided that the oyster industry
be subcategorized into conventional hand-shucked oyster processes
and the more mechanized steamed or canned oyster processes.
Table 63 summarizes statistics from the steamed and
canned oyster plants sampled.
It appears that the waste loads from the West Coast
hand-shucked oyster processes were a little higher than those
from the East Coast processes. It was not considered necessary
to further divide the hand-shucked oyster subcategory, however,
since the total waste loads per day is quite small. The average
Pacific Coast oyster plant only produces about 30 kg of BOD/day,
which is very low when compared to other seafood commodities.
Table 64 shows summary statistics from the Pacific hand-shucked
oyster plants sampled.
Since the size range of the hand-shucked oyster industry
is quite large, it was divided into three size groups for the pur-
pose of determining treatment costs of a typical plant. Based
on investigations made in the field the large and medium size
-126-
-------
Table 63. aTtAMtJ Ok CANNtO OYSTER
PROCtSS SUMMARY-
PA^aMlTcR
MtAN
i»TO Ofctf
5X MIN
95* MAX
PRODUCTION fON/HK
ii. 679
0 . 3<*9
0.2JU
1. 36
PnOCfcSS TIMc. HR/OAY
7.12
1. 15
5.50
0.19
FlOH L/StC
(GAL/1IN)
Id. 7
170
5.*6
86.5
3.75
59. «~
2<».i
368
Fl U*l RAflO l/KKG
(GAL/TON)
7u 2u0
16 8C0
lb 30u
2<»6U
5220 0
125U0
92*»0G
22100
iuTT . iOLlJa ML/i
KATIO i./KK&
6* 65
<~61
J. 72
2bl
2.22
156
16.3
115L
SCR. SJulOS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
1 <*5>0
lul
lb6U
lib
158
11.1
5720
*01
SUiP. aJLlOS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
111b
7 o* 1
952
bb. o
198
13.9
3610
25*
t> OAY dOU MG/L
kATIO Ki»/K KG
565
39.7
17U
12. u
30 3
21. 3
96*
67.7
COO MG/u
KATIO Ko/KKG
1 Uto
73.1
137
9.»9
799
5b.1
1330
93.)
GRlA SC. & U1l MG/L
RATIO KG/KKi>
27.0
1.90
2 J . b
l.<»5
5.70
0.<»i)Q
81. 1
5. 59
uRGANIC-iN MG/L
RATIO Ku/K KG
72.3
5.08
17.6
1.23
H 3. 9
3.08
112
7.19
AMIONl A-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
3. 36
0.£38
1.05
d. 073
1.79
0.126
5. J5
0. <10
PH
6. *<~
0.150
6.76
7. J7
TlMP OiG C
15.U
5.75
10.00
2C.1
PLANTS SOI , S02 ,
COl , C02
-127-
-------
Table 64. hano shugklu oysters
PRuCLSS SUMMARY-
PARAMETtR MLAN STO OE. 0 3.18 19.* 31.)
COO MG/L 12lu 162 921 1550
RATIO KG/KKG h9.0 d.57 37.* 63.1
GRbASt '* Oil MG/l 36.b b.96 2*.9 52.J
RATIO KG/KKG l.*9 Lt.283 1*01 2*11
ORGANIC'N MG/l l9
-------
ranges were divided at 300 tons of finished product per year,
and the medium and small ranges at 150 tons of finished product
per year.
Table 65 shows the wastewater balance for a typical
steamed oyster process. It was noted that a large portion of
the flow and load is caused by the washdown at these plants. The
largest flow comes from the culler and shocker which is used to
clean and partially open the shell before steam cooking; however,
the BOD load is relatively small.
Table 66 shows the wastewater balance for typical East
and West Coast hand-shucked oyster processes. It can be seen
that the two sources of water are the blow tanks and the washdowns.
The blow tanks, which are used to wash and add water to the pro-
duct, are the major sources of wastewater and BOD loads. The
washdowns can be a major source of suspended solids from the fine
pieces of sand which are on or in the oyster shells.
In general, the wastewater loads were higher at the West
Coast plants than the East Coast plants. The reason for this
appears to be the difference in the type of oysters processed
and the flows used. The West Coast plants typically use more
water than the East Coast plants in washing the product. One
plant on the East Coast (HS05) breaded the oysters after shucking.
This operation was found to contribute about 50 percent of the
BOD load at that plant; however, the overall load was about average,
due to water conservation (see Table 67).
-129-
-------
Table 65. Steamed oyster process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) belt washer
b) shocker
c) shucker
d) blow tanks
e) washdown
% of Total
Flow
11%
43%
15%
7%
23%
% of Total
BOD
10%
9%
11%
6%
64%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
63%
26%
1%
<1%
10%
Total effluent average
S02
66.500 1/kkg
30 kg/kkg
137 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 6.8 kkg/day (7.5 tons/day)
(production for the oyster processes is measured in
terms of final product).
-------
Table 66. Hand shucked oyster process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary—East Coast
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
% of Total
Flow
71 - 94%
6 - 29%
% of Total
BOD
81 - 94%
6 - 19%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11 - 58%
42 - 89%
Total effluent average
37,000 1/kkg
14 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
Wastewater Material Balance Summary—West Coast
% of Total
Flow
45 - 68%
32 - 55%
% of Total
BOD
83 - 95%
5 - 17%
% of Total
Susp. solids
24 - 75%
25 - 76%
Total effluent average
41,000 1/kkg
25 kg/kkg
26 kg/kkg
-------
Table 67. Breaded oyster process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) breading
c) washdown
% of Total
Flow
71%
9%
20%
% of Total
BOD
38%
50%
12%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
8%
8%
84%
Total effluent average
HS05
37,00 1/kkg
14 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
-------
1.4.17. Sea Urchin Roe/Abalone Process
The sea urchin roe process and the abalone process, al-
though different, have similar waste loads per unit of production,
as shown in Figure 16. Since both the sea urchin and abalone
are relatively small industries and are located in the same areas,
it was determined that the processes be combined into one subcate-
gory. The summary statistics for the four abalone and sea urchin
processes sampled are shown in Table 68 and were used as the typi-
cal raw waste loads from these two industries.
Table 69 shows that the primary source of wastewater
in the abalone process is from the processing area and consists
of various small flows used to keep the area clean. These small
flows may be either continuous or intermittent at the discretion
of the plant personnel. The flat surfaces of the processing table
and the slicing machines are periodically cleansed to facilitate
handling as well as to rinse away accumulated wastes.
Washwater that is used to cleanse the foot muscle prior
to trimming was handled differently in each of the three plants
sampled. The largest plant, AB1, utilized recirculated washwater
which was dumped twice a day. Plant AB2 used a system which re-
circulated the washwater during a single wash cycle and then dis-
charged it, and plant AB3 used a continuous flow of water through
the washing mechanism during each wash cycle.
The production rates of abalone plants are quite low,
with an average of 0.183 kkg/day (0.202 tons/day). The input
also varies considerably due to fluctuations in raw product avail-
ability.
-133-
-------
Figure 16. ABALONE/SEA URCHIN PROCESS PLOV
G
GP
GP
GP
GP
3
GP
3
GP
9
P
j
P
SS
S
i P
Q3b
a P
J 3 b
o P
Q3b
a P
JdS
Xi
S P
i P
S3S
6
liS P
Q3S
3 P
Q0i»
S
3 P
UJb
Q0S
3 P
SG
G
UBS
P
SG
G
G
G-
P
F
Qes
Q0SG
Qd t,
Q 0 G
G
G
Q
0
A 01 A3 2
Ad3
U1
<*) (1)
(3)
(3)
i»Yr1tklL
PAKAMcTtK
sGAlInG FAolXrt
Q
FLOW
1
UNIT
s £ j uti u L / KKG
0
5 OAY 80J
1
UNIT
= 10 KG/KKG
b
SUSPtHULO SOulUS
1
UNIT
s &
-------
Table 68. ABALONE/SEA URCHIN PROCESS SUMMARY .
PA^AMiltK HfcAN S1L) Dfctf 5X NIN 95* MAX
PRODUCTION TOw/hR j.19o
PROCESS TIMc. rtK/OAY *.77
FtOW ^/otC (J. 537
(ijAL/ilN) a. t>d
FlOW KATIO L/KKG 3190J
(GAl/TON) 765*
SiiTT. SOLUS Ml/u D.^9
RATIO l/<«G 2&7
iuK» SJklO^ MG/L lai't
RATIO Ki>/9.9
Km TIO 5.38 7.19
11.u -* 20.6
PLANTS AB1 , Ad2 , AB3 , U1
-135-
-------
Table 69. Fresh/frozen abalone process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) wash tank
c) washdown
% of Total
Flow
49%
26%
25%
% of Total
BOD
50%
20%
30%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
39%
42%
19%
Total effluent average
ABl
47,100 1/kkg
27 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Product
Food Products
a) steaks
b) trimmings
(patties,
canned)
By-products
a) shell
Wastes
a) viscera
% of Raw Product
38 - 42%
34 - 36%
10 - 12%
10 - 12%
Average Production Rate, 0.34 kkg/day (0.38 tons/day)
-------
Table 69 shows the breakdown of raw product into food
product, by-product, and waste. The recovery of food product
varies with species and whether the abalone are packed whole or
prepared as steaks. The average recovery of sliced steaks is
approximately 38 to 42 percent. Good quality trimmings are re-
tained along with low quality steaks for the production of abalone
patties. The weight of trimmings is usually around the same as
the net weight of the steaks recovered.
The abalone shells are retained for sale to curio shops
and to producers of jewelry and gift items. These shells consti-
tute the only by-product recovery at present. The viscera are
collected as solid waste and turned over to the municipalities
for disposal.
One relatively large sea urchin plant in Southern Calif-
ornia was sampled during October of 1973. All process water,
excluding washdown, was fresh, unchlorinated sea water trucked
to the plant as needed. The use of sea water is an integral
part in the processing of sea urchin roe as fresh water cannot
be substituted if the processor is to still retain the desired
product form. Clean-up and other non-process waters are obtained
from domestic sources.
Table 70 shows the wastewater material balance. It can
be seen that the sea urchin process consists of two main unit
operations. Immediately after removal from the shell, the roe
is placed in tanks of sea water to avoid dessication prior to
brining. These tanks and the wash tanks, into which roe is sub-
sequently placed for further cleansing, constitute the "wash tank"
-137-
-------
Table 70. Sea urchin roe process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) wash tanks
b) brine tanks
% of Total
Flow
76%
24%
% of Total
BOD
90%
10%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
87%
13%
Total effluent average
U1
4270 1/kkg
19.4 kg/kkg
13.6 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
Food products 8 - 10%
Wastes
a) shell and
viscera 90 - 92%
Average Production Rate, 5 kkg/day (5.6 tons/day)
-------
unit operation. The wash tank flow is intermittent, since it
is changed about every 10 to 30 minutes. The "brine tank" unit
operation also produces an intermittent flow, being dumped four
times per day. The contribution of the washdown or clean-up is
unknown, as it was not sampled; however, it was not considered
to be very significant.
The average production rate observed was 5 kkg/day (5.6
tons/day), but was quite variable. This is due to problems in-
herent in a new industry, such as meeting stringent product qual-
ity requirements and experimentation to arrive at the most effi-
cient method of production. The usual shift length was around
8 to 12 hours since the raw product, when available, arrived in
large quantities.
Table 70 shows that the major portion of the sea urchin
is lost as waste with only about eight percent recovered as
finished product. At present, the egg skein or roe is used in
its entirety and is the only marketable product. In addition,
around 20 percent of the sea urchin roe is discarded because
of underdevelopment or discoloration. Prior to washing down
the butchering area, the waste solids are collected and retained
for disposal to the municipal system.
1.4.18. Scallop Process
The only factor which was considered to influence sub-
categorization of the scallop industry (excluding calico scallops)
was geographic location, since the processing operations are essen-
tially the same. It was determined that the processing operations
-139-
-------
in Alaska be separated from those outside of Alaska because of
greater costs. Figure 17 shows a summary plot of the wastewater
characteristics of two scallop processes in Alaska. It was noted
that the flows and waste loads were minimal. Table 71 shows the
average values of the wastewater parameters for the two plants.
There are no data for non-Alaska operations, since the two Alaska
plants were the only ones sampled. Other plants were observed
in the Middle Atlantic region using essentially the same process;
therefore, it should be a good assumption that the waste loads
would be similar.
Both plants sampled .used chlorinated municipal water
sources, derived from reservoirs and deep wells. The only waste-
water produced was in the washing operation; however, each plant
sampled had a different method. Plant SP1 used a two-stage con-
tinuous flow washing system in which a large volume of fresh water
was used. Plant SP2 used a non-flowing brine tank which was dumped
approximately every eight hours. The effluent was discharged to
the receiving water at one plant and to the municipal sewer system
at the other plant.
Production rates for the two plants were similar, aver-
aging about 9 kkg/day (10 tons/day) of finished product. Produc-
tion rates for the scallops were recorded in terms of finished
product since they are shelled and eviscerated at sea. The yield
is nearly 100 percent since the only wastes produced are small
scallop pieces not suitable for freezing, solid waste removed
during inspection, and small amounts of dissolved organic matter.
-140-
-------
Figure 17. ALASKAN SCALLOP PROCESS PLOT.
G
G
G
G
G
GP
GB GP
QB GP
08 GP
CB GP
08 GP
OB G
QB G
8 G
B G
G
G
G
G
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
SYMBOL
SPi
(6)
PARAMETER
SP2
(1)
SCALING FACTOR
0
0
S
G
P
FLON
5 OA Y BOO
SUSPENDED SOLIOS
GREASE < OIL
FROOUCTION
1
UNIT
= 9000
L/KKG
1
UNIT
= i
KG/KKG
1
UNIT
= 0.5
KG/KKG
1
UNIT
= 0.1
KG/KKG
1
UNIT
= 0.5
TON/HR
-141-
-------
Table 71. ALASKAN SCALLOP PROCESS SUMMARY e
PA^AMtTfcR M£«N
PkOOUCTION TON/HR i.27
PkO\itS>S TX Ml HR/dAV 6.63
FLOW L/StC 2.55
(GAL/1IN) 40. <~
FLcM KATIO l/KKG b*9d
(Gml/TON) lbfiu
it IT. sOlIOS 1l/l j.^63
KATIO l/KKG 6.31
SCk. SJLiDS MG/l 374
RATIO KG/KKG 6.IX
SUSP. iOLlOa MG/l 121
KATIO Ki»/KKG U.851
5 OAV JOO MG/l 453
kATIO KG/KKG 3.17
COD MG/l 58/
RATIO KG/KKG 4.11
GKcASl 6 OIL MG/L 19.5
KATIO KG/KKG J.106
OKGANIC-N MG/L 97.1
RATIO KG/KKG U.679
AMMONIA-N MG/L 4.5b
RATIO KG/KKG 3.332
Prt 6.98
TtNP OcG C 6.33
STO DEt 5Z MIN 95X MAX
tf.302 3.776 1.J5
4 . (i5 5.77 11 • i
3.46 U.2C2 11. J
55.2 3.20 176
941d i>oj 30600
2260 13b 7330
li • 41b d. 123 3.28
6.36 fl.862 22.j
.ft 23.5 361
U.o91 0.164 2,96
96.7 301 655
0.635 2*10 4.i8
$7,2 707
2u.l A*34 ob*2.
Q.l*l J.JU9 0.«.3
16.7 65.5 139
0,131 3.456 O.J70
1.04 t'T* 6,J9
(1,008 0.U19 O.J<»9
U.397 6.30 b.J6
3,93 5.56 11.1
plants *pi , SP2
-142-
-------
1.4o19. Lobster Process
The American lobster industry essentially involves holding
and shipping operations. The holding operation contributes little
or no waste load, as can be seen from Figure 18 which shows the
intake and discharge from holding tanks at two plants. Codes
Lll and L2I represent the characteristics of the intake water
at plants LI and L2, respectively; while codes LI and L2 repre-
sent the discharge from the holding tanks at these two plants.
It can be seen that the discharge was essentially the same as
the intake with the exception of the grease and oil levels (plant
Ll). This indicates that there was little or no waste discharge
from the holding tanks and that this aspect of the lobster indus-
try should not be included as a subcategory of the seafood pro-
cessing industry for the purpose of setting effluent limitations.
For American lobster plants that boil the product for the fresh
market, it was determined that they be included with the spiny
lobster process as a subcategory.
Figure 19 summarizes the characteristics of the waste-
water from two spiny lobster plants sampled in the Southern Calif-
ornia area. It was noted that the flow and loads were relatively
low per unit of production. Table 72 summarizes the characteris-
tics from the two spiny lobster plants sampled. These values were
used as the typical raw waste loads from cooked lobster processes.
The American lobster requires considerable volumes of
sea water to sustain life in the holding tanks. These waters
are pumped from the local estuary or harbor to live holding
tanks which are stacked in tiers such that the overflow from the
-143-
-------
Figure 18.
b.
m ""I c. K1C A in LObbTiiN fkuCLSS
FlCT.
p
b
P
p
fa
P
i p
b
F
3 jP
d
P
j GP
P
GP
b
P
GF
B
P
GP
b
P
¦j uP
Gt
P
5 j P
Qb
F
J bG P
U6 •
P
sG P
0
F
iij i
6G S
SG
s
G
G
G Q <¦»
G CI C
G U G 0
G d G 3
G b GP 6 GF
G P P
G 5 P 3 ?
G S 3
G S <3
G S 3
S ' 3
-1 LI I u2 U2I
(2) (2) (2) (2)
i>YM9'J L PARAMLTt* SCALING FACTCK
U
Flow
1
UNIT
= irtitiOO
l/KKG
8
5 JAY 300
1
UNIT
= J ¦ c
KG/KKG
i
aU aPtMOi. J bOLUS
X
UNIT
- u •?
Ko/ KKG
G
G-\tiASL $ U1l
1
UNIT
2
KG/KKG
P
PRODUCTION
A
X
UNIT
= u .1
TON/HR
-144-
-------
Figure 19. SPINY LOBSTER PROCESS PLOT.
G
0 0
P
P
9 B
s
6
SVM90L
L 3
parameter
L<4
scaling factcr
0
FLOW
1
UNIT =
5 CO L/KKG
0
5 OA Y 300
1
UNIT =
1 KG/KKG
S
SUSPtNDEO SOLIDS
1
UNIT =
0.5 KG/KKG
G
GREASfc < OIL
1
UNIT =
0*050 KG/KKG
P
FRCOUCTION
1
UNIT =
0.1 TCN/HR
-145-
-------
Table 72. spiny lobster process summary.
Pm RAMt Tt R MfciAH bTO 57. MIN 9&y. MAX
P*0JW,TI0N TuN/H* u.3b7 u . l> <»7 0.263 0. 467
P«OCl;>j Till Hrt/UAV c.*0u u.141 u.3iiG G.iJG
F..OW L/SlC *.193 d.02S> J.1<»9 0.
(U4L/ilN) j,ob d.393 2.36 3.10
FlGH k«TIO L/KKb 209J
(GAL/TON)
icTT. SOLIUM ML/l — -- "" ••
kATi U c/ KKL>
SC*. ailLlDi ilu/t. -- — —
KATIU 7 06
KATiO <»/Kw -- mm —
KmTIO Kb/KKu 3.23
COO Mo/. <>39il 10*. 20&J 2770
KATXO U 0.1.3b C.ibd
OKiiANlC-M MG/L 273 22.to 231 320
*»»Ti0 Kb/KKb v.5(>9 0.0^7 (J. <.83 o.aofl
A.1MJNI*-W *b/L i.j,2 *.U6 Ifc. i
kATICi <»/KKb d.Ui.9 u.du7 J.009 O.J3t»
PM 7.lu 0• 2d3 6.9w 7.JU
ItHP o •• •• ••
PcAnTS lJ ,
-146-
-------
top tank flows into the next lower tank. When the water leaves
the last set of tanks, it is discharged directly back to the re-
ceiving water.
The higher COD loadings can be attributed to the saline
nature of the process waters. Th*» ,. ,
ine average discharge BOD loading
was 0.6 kg/kkg; however, by comparing the discharge with intake,
the BOD loadings added by the holding tanks averaged only 0.1
kg/kkg.
Each of the spiny lobster operations sampled used city
water for processing. The main source of wastewater from the
spiny lobster process is the cooking water which is high in so-
dium chloride and dissolved organics.
Most parameters corresponded very closely between the
two plants except for grease and oil. This was due to sampling
problems caused by the high concentrations of grease and oil
which rise to the top of the cooking containers, making it dif-
ficult to obtain an accurate composite sample. The wastewaters
from the two plants sampled were discharged to municipal treat-
ment facilities.
The production rate at the two American lobster plants
sampled averaged about 2.0 kkg/day (2.2 tons/day). There is essen-
tially no solid waste producedr since the animals are usually
sold alive to restaurants and retail outlets. Some plants feed
the lobsters, which increases the waste loads slightly.
The production rates at the two spiny lobster plants
sampled averaged only about 135 kg/day (300 lbs/day), which was
-147-
-------
considered to be lower than normal due to the lack of product
during the sampling period. The percent of solid waste depends
on whether tails or whole lobsters are being cooked. When only
the tails are processed, the cephalothorax is removed prior to
cooking, which makes up about 20 percent of the raw product.
-148-
-------
2 WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
2 1 Introduction
Little of the technology currently available to the sea-
food processing industry has been demonstrated at the operational
level. Most processors have little if any significant wastewater
treatment at the plant As a result; most technologies which
might be found applicable in the future are presently unproven.
The methods currently available and thought to be most applicable
to the seafood industry are discussed below. The relative costs,
efficiency and practicality of each method vary significantly
with each subcategory of the industry and location of the plant
site The applicability of waste treatment technology to indivi-
dual sites is contingent on land availability, operational con-
tinuity, plant age, water source and other factors such as climate
and product which determine the most cost-effective technology.
2 - 2 Physical-Chemical Treatment of Wastewater
Physical methods of wastewater treatment include the
technologies to remove coarser wastes such as shell, viscera,
carcasses, etc , from the wastewater stream, The most common
method used to effect this type of removal is screening. Chemical
oxidation is an example of the use of chemicals only to remove
pollutants Air flotation and the various methods of sludge treat-
ment are examples of physical-chemical treatment.
-149-
-------
2 n 2 clo Screening
Screening is practiced in varying degrees throughout
the U.S. fish and shellfish industry for both marketable solids
recovery and to prevent solids from entering receiving waters
or municipal sewers,- Nearly all fish processors produce large
volumes of solids. Fish and shellfish solids have commercial
value as by-products only if they can be collected prior to signi
ficant decomposition, economically transported to subsequent pro
cessing locations, and marketed. The importance of capturing the
solids in dry form to help retard spoilage and minimize handling
expense has been recognized by many processors. Solids should
be separated from the process water as soon as possible to mini
mize leaching. A study (Riddle and Shikazi, 1973) of freshwater
perch and smelt processing, showed that a two-hour contact period
between offal and transport water increased the COD concentration
by 170 percent, while BOD and suspended solids increased about
50 percent.
Screens may be classified as follows:
a, revolving drums (inclined, horizontal and vertical
axes);
b. vibrating, shaking and oscillating screens (linear
or circular motion);
Co tangential screens (pressure or gravity fed);
d. inclined troughs;
e, bar screens;
f0 drilled plates;
go gratings;
-150-
-------
h belt screens; and
i basket screens„
Wire mesh screens are specified in terms of the number
of openings per inch ("mesh"). The specification of mesh or
mesh equivalents for screens often is ambiguous. At least two
standard series are used to define mesh size in terms of openings
and wire diameter U.S. sieve and Tyler screen scale sieve. The
200 mesh Tyler screen has been accepted by the U.S-. Bureau of
Standards Table 73 lists the equivalent sizes of U.S. series
screens for each Tyler screen. The larger the sieve number, the
finer the screen. Ordinary window screen is about (Tyler) #14
mesh (14 openings per inch)
Rectangular holes or slits are correlated to mesh size
either by geometry or performance data. Mesh equivalents speci-
fied by performance can result in different values for the same
screen, depending on the nature of the screen feed. For example,
a tangential screen with a 0.076 cm (0.030 in) opening may be
said to be equivalent to a 40 mesh screen. This is because the
slant of the screen and the nature of the waste may cause the
screen to retain particles larger than 0.417 mm diameter.
Revolving drum screens consist of a covered cylindrical
frame with open ends. The screening surface covering the frame
is either a perforated sheet or woven mesh. Of the three basic
revolving drums, the simplest is the trommel screen with the drum
axis slightly inclined. Wastewater is fed into the raised end
of the rotating drum. The captured solids migrate to the lower
end, while the liquid passes through the screening surface. A
catch basin is located below the screen.
-151-
-------
Table 73o Comparison of Tyler and U„S. sieve series
(Perry, 1950)»
Tyler Standard Sieve Series
___ U.S.Series
Opening
(in)
Opening
(nan)
Tyler mesh
Diameter of
wire (in)
approximate
equivalent
no.
0.312
7.925
2-1/2
0» 088
0.263
6*680
3
0.070
0.221
5.613
3-1/2
0.065
0.185
4.699
4
0,065
4
0.156
3.962
5
0o 044
5
0.131
3.327
6
0.036
6
0.110
2 o 794
.7
0.0328
7
0.093
2.362
8
0.032
8
0.073
1.981
9
0.033
10
0.065
1.651
10
0.035
12
0.055
1.397
12
0o 028
14
0.046
1.168
14
0.025
16
0.0390
0.991
16
0.0235
18
0.0328
0.833
20
0.0172
20
0o 0276
0.701
24
0.141
25
0.0232
0« 589
28
0.0125
30
0.0195
0.495
32
0.118
35
0.0164
0.417
35
0.0122
40
0.0138
0.351
42
0.0100
45
0.0116
0° 295
48
0.0092
50
0.0097
0.246
60
0.0070
60
0.0082
0.208
65
0.0072
70
0.0069
0.175
80
0.0056
80
0.0058
0.147
100
0.0042
100
0.0049
0? 124
115
0.0038
120
0.0041
0.104
150
.0.0026
140
0.0035
0.089
170
0.0024
170
0.0029
0.074
200
0.0021
200
0.0024
0.061
250
0.0016
230
0c 0021
0.053
270
0.0016
270
0.0017
0.043
325
0.0014
325
o.oois
0.038
400
0.0010
-152
-------
The horizontal drum screen usuallv •
uaiiy has the invent immersed
in the wastewater being held in the w •
j-n tne catch basin. The solids are
retained by ribs on the inside of *
the drum and conveyed upward
until deposited by gravity into a «««¦> ¦
y vicy into a centerline conveyor. Backwash
sprays are generally used to clean
° ciean the screen, a typical hori-
zontal drum is shown in Figure 20. claggett and Wong (1969) tested
this type of rotary screen on salmon canning wastewater and bail-
water from herring boats. The results are listed in Table 74.
Table 74. Northern Sewage Screen test results (34 mesh).
waste stream
Herring bailwater 48%
Inclined and horizontal drum screens have been used success-
fully in whiting processing operations, herring filleting processes,
and fish reduction plants.
At least one commercial screen available employs a drum rapid-
ly rotating (about 200 rpm) about a vertical axis. The wastewater
is sprayed through one portion of the cylinder from the inside.
A backwash is provided in another portion of the cycle to clear
the openings. Woven fabric up to 400-mesh has been used satis-
factorily. This unit is called a "concentrator" (see Figure 21)
because not all of the impinging wastewater passes through.
About 70 to 80 percent of the wastewater is treated effectively,
which necessitates further treatment of the concentrate. The
efficiencies of this, and other systems, in treating shellfish
-153-
-------
BACKWASH
WATER SPRAY
WASTE
WATER
tlWiU
%S®ltl
ROTARY SCREEN
UNDERSIZE
Figure 20. Typical drum rotary screen.
-------
Removable Screen Par**!*
;t©r
* PistrrbiitkHri Pans
.^otat'ng Screw Csg
-------
and seafood wastes have been investigated on a pilot scale in
the Washington State salmon industry ( > 1972) and Alaskan
crab and shrimp industries (Peterson, 1973b). The results of
these studies are shown in Table 75.
Table 75. SWECO Concentrator test results.
Percentage reduction
Waste
stream Parameter 165 mesh 325 mesh
Salmon Settleable solids —~ 100%
( , 1972)
Suspended solids 53% 34
COD 36 36
Shrimp peeler Settleable splids 99
(Peterson,
1973b)
Suspended solids 73
COD 46
Case history five further discusses the application of
the SWECO centrifugal wastewater concentrator.
Vibratory screens are more commonly used in the seafood
industry in plant processing operations rather than wastewater
treatment. The screen housing is supported on springs which
are forced to vibrate by an eccentric. Retained solids are driven
in a spiral motion on the flat screen surface and discharged at
the periphery. Other vibratory-type screens impart a linear mo-
tion to retained particles by eccentrics. With vibratory screens,
-156-
-------
blinding is frequently a problem when seafood wastewaters are
being handled. Salmon waste is probably the most difficult to
screen because of its fibrous nature and high scale content,
crab butchering waste, also quite stringy, is somewhat less diffi-
cult to screen.. Table 76 lists the results of the National Can-
ners Association's study on salmon ( , 1972). The vibrating
screen system produced lower solids removals than the tangential
screen system or the SWECO concentrator. Also, it was more sen-
sitive to flow variations and the solids content of the wastewater.
Table 76. SWECO vibratory screen performance
( , 1972).
Species: salmon
Screen mesh: 40
Parameter
Percentage reduction
Settleable solids
14%
Suspended solids
31
COD
30
Tangential screens are finding increasing acceptance because
of their inherent simplicity, reliability and effectiveness.
They consist of a series of parallel, triangular or wedgeshaped
bars oriented perpendicularly to the direction of flow. The
screen surface usually is inclined from 45 to 60 degrees. Solids
move down the face and fall off the bottom as the liquid passes
through the openings ("Coanda effect"). No moving parts or drive
mechanisms are required for the operation. The feed to the screen
face is via a weir or a pressurized nozzle system impinging the
-157-
-------
wastewater tangentially on the screen face at the topc The gravity-
fed units are limited to about 50 to 60 mesh (equivalent) in treat-
ing seafood wastes. Pressure-fed screens can be operated with
mesh equivalents of up to 200 mesh. Shrimp waste presents signi-
ficant blinding problems to tangential screens in a narrow mesh
range. Shrimp peeler waste is much more readily handled on tan-
gential screens with equivalent mesh sizes of 35 to 40 than 20
mesh.
Tangential screens have met with considerable acceptance
in the fish and shellfish industry. They appear to represent
the most advanced waste treatment concept that is currently being
voluntarily adopted by broad segments of the industry. One reason
for this wide acceptance has been the thorough testing history
of the unit, Data are available (although much is proprietary)
on the tangential screening of wastewaters emanating from plants
processing a variety of species. A summary of some recent work
appears in Table 77.
Coarse pre-screening is often desirable to prevent harmful
objects from entering the waste treatment system. Floor drains
are normally covered with a coarse grate or drilled plate with
holes approximately 0.6 cm (0.25 in) in diameter. A coarse grate
and a magnet are desirable to prevent oversize or unwanted objects
such as polystyrene cups, beverage cans, rubber gloves, tools,
nuts and bolts, or broken machine"parts from entering the treat-
ment system. Such objects can cause serious damage to pumps and
may foul the screening system.
-158-
-------
Table
77. Tangential screen performance.
Waste stream
Sardines
(Atwellfet al.,
1972)
Salmon
( ,1972)
Shrimp
(Peterson,
1973b)
Salmon
(Peterson,
1973b)
King crab
(Peterson,
1973b)
Salmon
(Claggett,1971)
Herring
(Claggett,1969)
Shrimp
(Environmental
Associates,1974)
~Pressure fed
Suspended 56
solids
COD 55
Settleable 83
solids
Suspended 62
solids
COD 51
Total
solids
Total
solids
Suspended 25
solids
COD 16
35% 86%
Percentage Reduction
30 40 40 100 150
Parameter mesh mesh mesh mesh* mesh*
Suspended 26%
solids
BOD 9
Settleable —
solids
Suspended
solids
COD
Settleable 88
solids
Suspended 46
solids
COD 21
Settleable 50
solids
15
36
13 25
93 83
43 58
18 23
56
48
-159-
-------
Some seafood processors utilize a perforated inclined
trough to separate large solids from the wastewaterr The waste-
water is fed into the lower end and conveyed up the trough by
a screw conveyor. The liquid escapes through the holes while
the solids are discharged to a holding area. Inclined conveyors
and mesh belts are commonly used throughout the fish and shell-
fish industry to transport and separate liquids from solid wastes.
A typical screening arrangement using a tangential screen
is shown in Figure 22. Various other screening devices may be
substituted in the arrangement. A sump is useful in dampening
brief periods of high flow that may overload the screen,, It also
helps mitigate the wastewater solids loads where batch processes
cause fluctuations, some form of agitator may be required to
keep the suspended solids in the sump suspended. Ideally, the
sump should contain a one-half hour storage capacity to permit
repairs to downstream components. The pump used is an important
consideration. Centrifugal trash pumps, of the open impeller type,
are commonly used. This type of pump tends to pulverize solids
as they pass through. During an experiment on shrimp wastes
the level of the settleable solids dramatically increased when
the wastewater was passed through a centrifugal pump (Peterson,
1973b), Positive displacement-or progressing cavity non-clog
pumps are recommended.
Screens should be installed with the thought that aux-
iliary screen cleaning devices may be required later. Blinding
is a problem that depends, to some extent, on the type of screen
employed, but to a greater extent on the nature of the waste
-160-
-------
WASTEWATER
SOLOS
RAW
WASTES
SUMP
INFLUENT
TANGENTIAL
SCREEN
SCREENEO WASTEWATER
TO NEXT TREATMENT SYSTEM
OR TO RECEIVING WATER
OR TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
WASTEWATER
POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
N0N-CL06 PUMP
CONVEYORS
SOLIDS FROM PLANT
SOLIDS
STORAGE
HOPPER
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
OR BY- PRODUCT
RECOVERY
Figure 22. Typical tangential screening system (Environmental Associates, Inc.).
-------
stream, Salmon waste is particularly difficult to screen-, One
processor has installed mechanical brushes over his tangential
screen, which reduces plugging by sweeping the face of the screen
(see Plate 1)„
Many of the screen types mentioned above produce solids
containing considerable excess water. In most cases, this water
will have to be removed either mechanically or during storage
by draining. A convenient place to locate a screen assembly is
above the storage hopper so that the solids discharge directly
to the hopper. However, hoppers do not permit good drainage
of most stored solids. If mechanical dewatering is necessary,
it may be easier to locate the screen assembly on the ground
and convey dewatered soiids to the hopper.
Processing wastewaters from operations in seafoods plants
are highly variable with respect to suspended solids concentrations
and the sizes of particulates. On-site testing is required for
optimum selection in all cases.
Some thought should be given to installing more than
one screen to treat different streams within the process plant.
Some types of screens are superior for specific wastewaters and
there may be economy in using expensive or sophisticated screens
only on the hard-to-treat portions of the waste flows. Micro-
screens (with screen openings as small as 0.010 mm) to effect
solids removal from salmon wastewaters in Canada have been tried.
They were found to be inferior to tangential screens for that
application. Microscreens and microstrainers have not, however,
been applied in the United States.
-162-
-------
11
It
II
Plate 1. Brush-cleaned screen at salmon cannery (courtesy
New England Fish Company).
|]
l -163-
-------
Screens of most types are insensitive to discontinuous
operation and flow fluctuations, and require little maintenance.
The presence of salt water necessitates the use of stainless steel
elementse Oil and grease accumulation can be reduced by spraying
the elements with a fluorocarbon coating.
Screens of proper design are a reliable and highly ef-
ficient means of seafood waste treatment, often providing the
equivalent of "primary treatment." The cost of additional solids
treatment, approaching 95 percent solids removal by means of pro-
gressively finer screens in series, must, in final design, be
balanced against the cost of treatment by other methods, including
chemical coagulation and sedimentation. Screened solids have
the advantage of Seldom: requiring additional dewatering before
transport {greater than 10 percent solids) to a reduction plant
or other ultimate disposal site.
Figure 23 depicts cost curves for installing screens,
together with operation and maintenance costs.
2.2.2. Air Flotation
Air flotation with appropriate chemical addition is a
physical-chemical treatment technology capable of removing heavy
concentrations of solids, greases, oils, and dissolved organics
in the form of a floating sludge. Flotation cells utilize the
buoyancy of released air bubbles rising through the wastewater
to lift materials in suspension to the surface. These materials
include substantial dissolved organics and chemical precipitates,
under controlled conditions. Floated, agglomerated sludges are
-164-
-------
30000
*5000
toooo
18000 ¦
10000 +
5000
SO
IFQS9.W. I *8000 * 5170Q
IFO ».W, • -It.MOt IN9
Q.L PER SEC
0, SAL KR MIN
IE.0
ISO
COO
280
IS.0
SOO
1000 -
8.00 -
I ¦ 18 + .OEI 0) T/IS
( T • PROCESSES HR8 PER DAY)
Q.L PER SEC
100 180
O.SAL PER I
SOO
Figure 23. Cost curves for tangential screen installation and
maintenance (Environmental Associates, Inc., 1974).
-165-
-------
skimmed from the surface, collected and dewatered. Adjustment
of pH to near the isoelectric point can effect appreciable removals
of dissolved protein from fish processing wastewaters (proteins
are least soluble at their isoelectric point; for fish proteins
these range from pH 4.5 to 5.0). The main differences between
flotation cells are the shape of the cell, the manner in which
the air is mixed with the water, and the amount of water pressurized.
Because the flotation process brings partially reduced
organic and chemical compounds into contact with oxygen in the
air bubbles, satisfaction of immediate oxygen demand is a benefit
of this process.
Present flotation equipment consists of three types of
systems for wastewater treatment: 1) vacuum flotation, 2) dis-
persed air flotation, and 3) dissolved air flotation.
2.2.2.1. Vacuum flotation
In this system, the waste is first aerated, either di-
rectly in an aeration tank or by permitting air to enter on the
suction side of a pump. Aeration periods are brief, some as short
as 30 seconds, and require only about 185 to 370 cc/1 (0.025 to
0.05 cu ft per gallon) of air (Nemerow, 1971). A partial vacuum
of about 0.6 atm (9 inches of mercury) is applied, which releases
some air as minute bubbles. The bubbles and attached solids rise
to the surface to form a scum blanket which is removed by a skim-
ming mechanism. A disadvantage is the expensive airtight struc-
ture needed to maintain the vacuum. Any leakage from the atmos-
phere adversely affleets performance. No known vacuum flotation
units are in use in the seafood industry.
-166-
-------
2.2.2.2. Dispersed air flotation
Air bubbles are generated in this process by the mech-
anical shear of propellers, through diffusers, or by homogeniza-
tion of gas and liquid streams. The provision of aeration tanks
in this process, for flotation of grease and other solids, usually
is ineffective. Heavy solids that settle to the bottom are col-
lected at a central sludge sump for removal. The floating mate-
rial is removed to a scum trough from which it is pumped. Some
success has been obtained on scum-forming wastes (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1972). Figure 24 depicts a typical dispersed air flotation
unit.
Table 78 lists removal efficiencies of a dispersed air
flotation unit treating tuna wastes. The conclusion of the study
was that the unit was ineffective without chemical additions.
While removal efficiencies for this process are not as high as
those for the dissolved air flotation unit, the price is con-
siderably less. A unit large enough to accommodate a 20.4 1/sec
(450 gpm) flow costs approximately $18,000.
2.2.2.3. Dissolved air flotation
In this process, the untreated wastewater or a recycled
stream is pressurized to 3.0 to 4.4 atm (30 to 50 psi) in the
presence of air and then released into the flotation tank. The
recycle stream is held in the pressure unit for about one minute
before being mixed with the unpressurized main stream just prior
to entering the flotation tank. Figure 25 contains a schematic
diagram of a typical dissolved air flotation system. Figure 26
shows a typical dissolved air flotation unit.
-167-
-------
The Hydrocleaner Aeration/Flotation Cycle
Upper portion of
rotor draws air
down standpipe for
dispersion
Disperser breaks
air into
minute bubbles.
O °
Oo
O O O O ®
o o o o Oi
,v.o«.y
000
Lower portion
of rotor draws
contaminants
upward
through rotor.
>000
0~0
O o„°
Larger Hydrocleaner
units include false
bottom to aid
contaminant flow.
Figure 24. WEMCO dispersed air flotation unit.
-168-
-------
WASTEWATER
SOLIDS
CHEMICAL
FEED AIR
SCREENED WASTEWATER
TO NEXT TREATMENT SYSTEM
OR TO RECEIVING WATER
OR TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
CENTRATE (IF USED)
FROM SCREENED
SOLIOS HOPPER
SPRAT DRYER
OR
CENTRIFIME
PRESSURIZED
RETENTION
TANK
FLOATED SOLIOS
H0LDM8 TANK
FLOTATION
TANK
DRY OR
CONCENTRATED
SOUOS
HOLDINO TANK
TO SOLIOS
OttPOML
OR BV-PMOUCT
RECOVERY
Figure 25. Typical dissolved air flotation system (Environmental Associates, Inc.)<
-------
SCREENED
WASTEWATER
O
!
RECYCLE LINE
INFLUENT
WITH AIR IN
SOLUTION "
INFLUENT WITH
AIR BUBBLES
SURGE TANK
SKIMMING ARM
SKIMMINGS HOPPER
¦life
DISCHARGE
PRESSURE CONTROL
VALVE
i
SKIMMINGS
DISCHARGE
COAGULATION
CHAMBER
BOTTOM
™\ SCRAPER ARM
i
CHEMICAL
FLOTATION
Figure 26. Carborundum Corporation dissolved air flotation system.
-------
Table 78. Removal efficiencies for the dispersed
air flotation unit ( . 1973).
Agency: Jacobs Engineering Company
Unit: Dispersed Air Flotation—WEMCO hydrocleaner
Operation: 5-10 minute retention time, pilot study
Species: Tuna
Additive
Parameter
Influent (mg/1)
Reduction (%)
Tretolite
BODc
4400
47
chemical
J
7-16 mg/1
G&O
273
68
SS
882
30
(averages
of 5 runs)
Drew 410
BOD_
211
47
3-14 mg/1
J
G&O
54
50
SS
254
30
(averages
of 8 runs)
The flotation system of choice depends on the character-
istics of the waste and the necessary removal efficiencies. Al-
though Mayo (1966) found recycle pressurization gave best results
for industrial waste and required less power, the design of flo-
tation units should proceed from pilot plant studies of the ac-
tual wastes involved.
Air bubbles usually are negatively charged. Suspended
particles or colloids may have a significant electrical charge
providing either attraction or repulsion to the air bubbles.
In treating industrial wastes with large quantities of emulsified
grease or oil, it is usually beneficial to use alum, or lime,
and an anionic polyelectrolyte to provide consistently good re-
movals (Mayo, 1966).
-171-
-------
Emulsified grease or oil normally cannot be removed
without chemical coagulation (Kohler, 1969). The chemical coagu-
lant should be provided in sufficient quantity to absorb completely
the oil present whether free or emulsified. Good flotation prop-
erties are characterized by a tendency for the floe to float with
no tendency to settle downward. Excessive coagulant additions
result in a heavy floe which is only partially removed by air
flotation. With oily wastewaters such as those found in the fish
processing industry, minimum emulsification of oils should result
if a recycle stream only, rather than the entire influent, were
passed through the pressurization tank. This would insure that
only the stream (having been previously treated) with the lower
oil content would be subjected -to the turbulence of the pressuri-
zation system, The increased removals achieved, of course, would
be at the expense of a larger flotation unit than would be needed
without recycle.
The water temperature determines the solubility of the
air in the water under pressurization. With lower water tempera-
tures, less recycle is necessary to dissolve the same quantity
of air. The viscosity of the water, however, increases with a
decrease in temperature, so that flotation units must be made
larger to compensate for the lower bubble rise velocity at low
temperatures. Mayo (1966) recommended that flotation units for
industrial applications be sized on a flow basis for suspended
solids concentrations less than 500 mg/1. Surface loadings should
not exceed 81 1/sq m/min (2 gal/sg ft/min). The air-to-solids
ratio is important, as well. Mayo (1966) recommended 0.02 kg
-172-
-------
of air per kg of solids to provide a safe margin for design.
Flotation is in extensive use for wastewater treatment
among food processors- Mayo (1966) presented data showing high
influent BOD and solids concentrations, each in the range of 2000
mg/1, Reductions reached 95 percent BOD removal and 99.7 percent
solids removals, although most removals were five percent to 20
percent lower„ The higher removals were attainable using appro-
priate chemical additions and, presumably, skilled operation.
Dissolved air flotation was installed in one tuna plant sampled
during the recent study conducted by Environmental Associates,
Inc. Additional flotation units are planned by other processors.
Demonstration-scale units have also been operated on shrimp, sal-
mon, menhaden and crab wastewaters, with variable success (Atwell,
et alo, 1972; . 1971; Mauldin, 1973; Peterson, 1973). Table
79 summarizes the results of these testsP
It appears that flotation in many instances can provide
treatment levels comparable to biological treatment (Jordan,
1973)o Good operation and correct chemical addition are prere-
quisites for high treatment efficiency. Air flotation systems
can also be operated at lower efficiencies to serve as "primary"
treatment steps prior to a physical-chemical or biological polish-
ing step, if that mode proves advantageous from the standpoint
of cost-effectiveness.
Figures 27, 28 and 29 show the cost of installation
and costs of operation and maintenance both with and without
chemical additives for the dissolved air flotation unite
-173-
-------
Table 79. Dissolved air flotation performance-
United States.
Waste stream
Additives
Parameter
Reduction
Sardines polymer, 2 mg/1
(Atwell, alum, 200 mg/1
et al., 1972)
Tuna lime, pH 10.0-10.5
(Jacobs Eng.,
1972) polymers:
cationic, 0.05 mg/1
anionic, 0.10 mg/1
Tuna lime, 400 mg/1
(Jacobs Eng., FeCl0 45 mg/1
1972) 1
Tuna NaA102
(Environmental 120 mg/1
Associates, polymer
1973)
Alum
polymer
Shrimp
(Peterson,
1973a)
alum, 200 mg/1
polymer
Menhaden bail acid, pH 5.0-5.3
water (Baker alum
& Carlson, polymer, anionic
1972)
Suspended
solids 95%
BOD 64
Oil & grease 80
Suspended
solids 66
BOD 65
Oil & grease 66
Suspended
solids 77
BOD 22
Oil & grease 81
COD 37
Suspended
solids 56
COD 58
Suspended
solids 65
Suspended
solids 77
COD 73
Settleable
solids 89
Suspended
solids* 87
COD
80
Oil & grease
^Nonstandard method
100
-174-
-------
>20
100
80
1000
>800
jjooi-
>400
S«200
IF Q <3.16, #• 15000 + 9510 Q + 38.5S
IF Q >3.16, *-35000+ 3170 Q* 38.53
( S» kg DRY SOLUS REMOVED PER DAY )
1 1
12
10
Figure 27. Installation costs of dissolved air
(Environmental Associates, Inc., 1<
l974)°.tat:Lon ^its
-------
50
m
n
H
•»
O
o
90
u
u
<
z
ui
»-
as
20
<
Z
0
z
o
5
0E
III
( T > PROCESSING HRS PER DAY )
a.
o
30.0
12 JO
«.o
24.0
Q,L PER SEC
0 100 200 300 400 900
Q, GAL PER MIN
Figure 28. Operating and maintenance costs for dissolved air flotation unit
operated with chemicals (Environmental Associates, Inc., 1974).
-------
<
a
te.
u
a.
25.00- •
* 20.00
to
l-
-------
2.2.3. Sedimentation and Clarification
Sedimentation is the separation of solids from a liquid
by means of gravity. Ancillary functions of sedimentation units
are grease flotation, flow equalization and (occasionally) BOD
reduction. Often the first step in a multiple sedimentation pro-
cess is the grit chamber which is a pretreatment basin for col-
lecting heavy particles. The clarifier (Plate 2) commonly incor-
porates the use of chemicals to convert a large amount of the
remaining particles into settleable solids, which are then removed.
The design of each unit is based primarily on 1) the
vertical settling velocity of discrete particles to be removed,
and 2) the horizontal flow velocity of the liquid stream. De-
tention times required in the settling basins range from a few
minutes for heavy shell fragments to hours for low-density sus-
pensions. The current absence of settling basins or clarifiers
in the fish industries indicates the need for simple on-site set-
tling rate studies to determine appropriate design parameters
for liquid streams undergoing such treatment.
Removal of settled solids from sedimentation units is
accomplished by drainoff, scraping, and/or suction-assisted
scraping. Frequent removal is necessary to avoid putrefaction.
Seafood processors using brines and seawater must consider the
corrosive effect of salts on mechanism operation. Maintaining
realibility in such cases may require parallel units even in small
installations.
Sedimentation processes can be upset by such "shock
loadings" as fluctuations in flow volume, concentration and,
-178-
-------
Plate 2. Surface view of a typical circular clarifier
-179-
-------
occasionally, temperature. Aerated equalization tanks may pro-
vide needed capacity for equalizing and mixing wastewater flows.
However, deposition of solids and waste degradation in the equal-
ization tank may negate its usefulness.
Major disadvantages of sedimentation basins include
areal requirements and structural costs as well as solids dispo-
sal problems. In addition, the settled solids normally require
dewatering prior to ultimate disposal.
Chemical coagulants, such as alum and ferrous chloride,
can be added to sedimentation processes to induce removal of
suspended colloids. Properly designed and operated sedimentation
units incorporating chemical coagulation can remove practically
all particulate matter. Dissolved contaminants, however, will
require further processing, to achieve the necessary removals.
The use of some coagulants in large quantities may render the
resulting sludge unusable as a by-product because of contamination.
Also, some flocculation agents are quite expensive.
Sedimentation tests run on a combined effluent from a
fresh water perch and smelt plant produced an average of approxi-
mately 20 percent BOD and nine percent suspended solids removals
after 60 minute detention (Riddle et al., 1972). The nature of
most fish and shellfish wastewaters requires that chemical coagu-
lants be added to sedimentation processes to induce removal of
suspended colloids.
A partially successful gravity clarification system
was developed using large quantities of a commercial coagulant
called F-FLOK. In a test on salmon wastewater, reported by
-180-
-------
Robbins (1973), the floe formed slowly, but sedimentation rates
of four feet (1.2 meters) per hour were achieved. Table 80 sum-
marizes the results of the test.
Table 80, Gravity clarification using F-FLOK coagulant.
Coagulant
Total
Protein
concentration
solids recovery
recovery
(mg/1)
(%)
(%)
5020
68
92
4710
60
80
2390
47
69
It is important to note that the gravity clarifiers
described above, when operated with normal detention times, may
release strong odors from rapid microbial action. This could
also produce floating sludge.
2.2,4c Chemical Oxidation
This method uses chemicals to oxidize the organic matter
present in the wastewater, thereby reducing the BOD load. Chlorine
and ozone are the most common oxidants, although chlorine dioxide,
potassium permanganate, and others are capable of oxidizing or-
ganic matter found in the process wastewater. This technology
-181-
-------
is not widely used because it lacks economic feasibility„
Chlorine could be generated electrolytically from salt-
waters adjoining most processors of marine species, and utilized
to oxidize the organic material and ammonia present (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1972)c Ozone could be generated on-site and pumped into
deaerated wastewater. Deaeration is required to reduce the build-
up of nitrogen and carbon dioxide in the recycle gas stream„
The higher the COD, the higher the unit ozone reaction efficiency.
Both oxidation systems offer the advantages of compact size0*
The operability of the technology with saline wastewaters, and
the practicality of small units, have not been evaluated in the
seafood processing industry (McNabney and Wynne, 1971).
The removal efficiency of chemical oxidation using chlor-
ine on domestic wastes is 10 to 35 percent ( , 1969). No known
treatment facilities of this type have been used in the seafood
industry.
2o2.5. Sludge Treatment
Sludges, floats, skimmings, and other slurries vary
widely in dewaterability. Waste activated sludges and floated
solids are particularly difficult to dewater. It is probable
that most sludges produced in treating fish processing wastes
would require conditioning before dewatering. Such conditioning
may be accomplished by means of chemicals or heat treatment.
Because of toxicity problems, anaerobic digestion to stabilize
sludges before dewatering is not feasible at plants employing
salt waters or brines. Aerobic digestion will produce a stabilized
-182-
-------
sludge, but not one which is easy to dewater. The amount and
type of chemical treatment must be determined in light of the
ultimate fate of the solid fraction. For example, lime may be
deposited on the walls of solubles plant condensers. Alum has
been shown to be toxic to chickens at 0.12 percent concentrations,
and should be used with care in sludges intended for feed by-
product recovery ( , 1970).
A large variety of equipment is available for sludge
dewatering and concentration, each unit with its particular ad-
vantages. These include vacuum filters, filter presses, gravity-
belt dewaterers, spray dryers, incinerators, centrifuges, cyclone
classifiers, dual-cell gravity concentrators, multi-roll presses,
spiral gravity concentrators, and screw presses. Such equipment
can concentrate sludges from 0.5 percent solids (5000 mg/1) to
a semi-dry cake of 12 percent solids (120,000 mg/1) with final
pressing to a dry cake of over 30 percent solids (300,000 mg/1).
Units are generally sized to treat sludge flows no smaller than
38 1/min (10 gpm). Because maintenance requirements range from
moderate to high, the provision of dual units is required for
continuity and reliability.
Except in meal plants, solids dewatering and concentra-
ting equipment is not presently employed in the fish industries.
The wide variety now available implies that workable equipment
exists which is suitable for moderately-sized installations [over
757 cu m/day (200,000 gpd)]. Sludge and float flows from smaller
installations could probably not be utilized in dewatering equi-
pment economically. This condition effectively favors the larger
processors.
-183-
-------
2 o 3 Biological Treatment of Wastewater
The term "biological treatment" encompasses the applica-
tions of living organisms to the reduction and/or removal of or-
ganic constituents and nutrients from wastewater. In practice,
this is accomplished by the assimilation of dissolved and colloidal
organic materials from the wastewater by the metabolic processes
of microorganisms.
By far the largest and most important group of micro-
organisms utilized in biological treatment are the bacteria.
To a lesser extent, molds, yeasts, protozoa, and rotifers are
important in certain phases of the treatment processes. One ad-
ditional group of organisms not generally considered with the
microorganisms, but important nonetheless in wastewater treatment,
are the algae, uni- and multicellular plants useful in some types
of treatment systems. As with most living systems, microorganisms
are very susceptible to environmental changes, especially abrupt,
"shock" changes, so careful control must be maintained in biologi-
cal treatment systems o assure the proper environment for effec-
tive microbial activity.
Microorganisms are classified by their specific environ-
mental requirements. One division.is based on the type of carbon
source required by the organism. Those able to utilize inorganic
carbon sources, specifically carbon dioxide, are termed autotro-
phic; those needing organic sources of carbon are termed heter-
otrophic.
-184-
-------
Another classification is determined by the oxygen re-
quirements of the organisms for growth0 Those organisms which
require the presence of free oxygen are called strict aerobes.
Organisms requiring a complete absence of free oxygen are labeled
strict anaerobes, Some organisms are capable of growth either
with or without free oxygen, and these organisms are termed facul-
tative.
The temperature range for growth is yet another factor
by which organisms are classified. Psychrophiles grow best at
low temperatures, but these organisms are of minimal importance
in wastewater treatment. Mesophiles grow in the wide range of
temperatures intermediate to the other groups. Thermophilic or-
ganisms grow at rather high temperatures not usually found in
waste treatment systems, but some of the anaerobic bacteria use-
ful in sludge digestion are of this type.
Other environmental parameters are bases for classifying
the microorganisms; these include salt tolerance, sugar tolerance,
osmotic pressure, etc. These categorizations are of limited im-
portance, however, in the discussion of biological wastewater
treatment.
In the actual treatment systems, many microorganisms
are present, and the influent wastewater provides the nutrients
and environment necessary for their growth. The organisms utilize
the dissolved and colloidal organic materials, the levels of which
are measured by the BOD test, for growth and reproduction, thereby
creating new cells. These cellular organisms often clump together
to form a slime or a mass, often called cultures, colonies, and
-185-
-------
biomass. The metabolic processes are efficient in removing con-
stituents from the wastewater, and the organisms are usually fairly
easy to remove from the water by sedimentation. Since the rate
of BOD uptake from the water by the organisms depends mainly on
the number of organisms, it is desirable to qaintain a fairly
large number of organisms in contact with the raw waste to optimize
the rate of BOD removals This is done in many systems by recycling
the settled organisms in the "sludge," thus, the origin of the
term, "activated sludge0M Treatment efficiency also depends heavily
on the maintenance of the proper environment for microbial growth.
In biological treatment, the major considerations for
BOD removal efficiency are the availability of oxygen to the
organisms and residence time in the system. Aerobic organisms
are much more versatile and resistant to slight environmental -
changes than anaerobic organisms, and are much faster in metabo-
lizing waste. They produce low-energy, relatively-inert end pro-
ducts (COj and water), and are thus the most desirable organisms
to utilize in treating wastewater. Anaerobic organisms are slower,
are usually thermophilic, or upper mesophilic, and often produce
reduced chemical compounds, many of which are highly-malodorous
and undesirable. However, they do play a role in certain phases
of wastewater treatment. The vast majority of biological treatment
is carried out by aerobic organisms in bio-oxidative metabolic
processes, which has led to the use of the term "biological oxi-
dation" to describe aerobic microbial treatment.
One additional consideration in biological treatment,
affecting mainly the treatment rate, is temperature,. The metabolic
-186-
-------
processes of the microorganisms are affected directly by tempera-
ture, Generally, as temperature increases, the metabolic rate
(and thus BOD removal rate) increases, and as temperature decreases,
the metabolic rate decreases. Usually an upper limit temperature
exists, above which the metabolic functions break down, but this
temperature is rarely, if ever, reached in typical treatment sys-
tems. Low temperatures are quite a problem in some areas of the
U.S., and near the freezing point of water, microbial metabolism
drops off nearly to zero. This is a very important consideration
in areas which experience cold weather during the year, and pro-
visions must usually be made to combat this problemc
At the present, biological treatment is not practiced
extensively in the U.S3 seafoods industry. Sufficient nutrients
are available in most seafood wastewaters, however, to indicate
that such wastewaters are amenable to aerobic biological treat-
ment. The salt found in nearly all wastewaters discourages the
consideration of anaerobic processes. Salt is toxic to anaerobic
bacteria and, although a certain tolerance to higher salt levels
can be developed and carefully controlled (constant input systems),
fluctuating loads continue to be inhibitory or toxic to these
relatively unstable systems. Aerobic biological systems, although
inhibited by "shock loadings" of salt, have been demonstrated
feasible at full scale for the treatment of saline wastes of rea-
sonably constant chloride levels. The effectiveness of many
forms of biological oxidation however, remains to be demonstrated
under the extreme variations common in the fish processing indus-
try o
-187-
-------
2.3d* Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process# an aerobic system, is
employed commonly in municipal wastewater treatment. It involves
suspending a concentrated microbial mass in the wastewater in
the presence of oxygen. Aeration (oxygenation) is accomplished
by diffusion or mechanical agitation. Growth occurs naturally
in the aerated organic wastes. The organisms floe or group to-
gether in highly active masses of living bacteria, food and higher
life forms. Organic carbonaceous material is converted to carbon
dioxide and water. Nitrogenous matter is concurrently oxidized
to nitratea The dissolved colloidal and suspended materials in
the wastewater are converted by. biological action to cell matter
and then transported to the clarifier. A sludge pump removes
the sediment and transports it to a sludge tank. The treated
supernatant from the clarifier discharged as effluent, while the
sludge is partially recirculated to maintain the high population
of microorganisms in the aeration tank. This is schematically
depicted in Figure 30.
By controlling the contact period and/or the concentra-
tion of recycled sludge, varying degrees of organic removal can
be obtained. If a large organic load is present in the wastewater,
higher sludge recycling rates, more air, and a longer contact
time may be necessary to obtain adequate BOD removals. Mainten-
ance of proper balance between these three critical criteria is
necessary to obtain optimum efficiency from the system.
The conventional activated sludge process is capable
of high levels of treatment when properly designed and skillfully
-188-
-------
BOILER
TREATED WASTEWATER
.TO RECEtVMQ WATER
10' BELOW MEAN TIDE
W-SPEED FLOATM6
AERATORS
E0UAU2ATVM
TANK
OPTIONAL
HEAT EXCHANGER
AERATION
TANK
RETURN SLUDGE
WASTE SUJMETO
FLOATATION UNIT
H0UMN9 TANK
ON OWPOtAL
Figure 30. Typical activated sludge treatment system
(Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973).
-------
operated. Flow equalization, by means of an aerated tank, can
minimize shock loadings and flow variations which are highly detri-
mental to treatment efficiency. Oily materials can have an adverse
effect. A recent study (Environmental Associates, 1973) concluded
that influent oil levels MLSS (petroleum based) should be limited
to 0.10 kg/day/kg. Toxic metal, organic nondegradable matter,
lack of nutrients required for biological oxidation, high temp-
eratures, and high or low pH can also upset the activated sludge
process.
The nature of the waste stream, complexity of the system,
and the difficulties associated with dewatering waste activated
sludge, indicate that for most application, the best actvated
sludge system for the seafood industry would be the "extended
aeration" modification. • The extended aeration process is similar
to the conventional activated sludge process, except that resi-
dence time in the aeration chamber is longer. The common deten-
tion time for extended aeration is one to three days, in contrast
to the conventional six hours. This prolonged contact between
the sludge and raw wastes provides ample time for the organic
matter to be assimilated by the sludge and also for the organisms
to metabolize the organics, allows for substantial removals of
organic matter. In addition, the organisms undergo considerable
endogenous respiration, which oxidizes much of the cellular bio-
mass. During this phase of the growth curve (see Figure 31),
metabolism plays a much more significant role than during the
"logarithmic growth" phase, when cellular reproduction is domi-
nant. Maintenance of significant endogenous respiration assures
-190-
-------
DECLINING
GROWTH
ENDOGENOUS PHASE
LOGARITHMIC
GROWTH
MICROORGANISMS
CONVENTIONAL
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
EXTENDED
AERATION
TIME
Figure 31. Phases of biological growth.
-------
minimum accumulation of excess biomass. As a result/ less sludge
is produced and little is discharged from the system as waste
activated sludge.
In extended aeration, as in the conventional activated
sludge process, it is necessary to have a final sedimentation
tank. The solids resulting from extended aeration are finely
dispersed and settle slowly, requiring a long period of settling
(hence larger sedimentation tanks)„ The system is relatively
resistant to shock loadings, provided the clarifier has sufficient
storage to prevent the loss of biomass during flow surges. Clari-
fiers can be built with additional storage area and adjustable
overflow wiers to absorb flow surges. Extended aeration, like
other activated sludge systems, requires a continuous flow of
wastewater to nurture the microbial mass. The re-establishment
of an active biomass in the aeration tank requires from several
days to a few weeks if the unit is shut down or the processing
plant ceases to operate for'significant periods of time.
Both treatment units are available in all size ranges.
It is unlikely that activated sludge will prove to be the most
cost effective treatment where 1) processing is intermittent,
or 2) plant flows are so large that alternative systems of suit-
able scale are available. The wide variation in quality of the
small package extended aeration systems now available dictates
careful selection of the equipment if the process is to approach
the removals now achieved by well-operated municipal systems.
Figure 32 contains cost curves for initial capital costs
of extended aeration systems. The curve was generated on the
-192-
-------
basis of flow (gpm) and daily processing time. Figure 32 also
shows the operation and maintenance costs of extended aeration
systems for various operating day lengths.
Depending on the efficiency of operation, extended aera-
tion systems can typically achieve 80 to 90 percent reductions
in BOD.
2.3.2. Rotating Biological Discs
The next biological treatment system to be discussed is
the Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC), or Biodisc unit. This
consists of light-weight plastic discs approximately 1.3 cm (0.5
in) thick and spaced 2.5 to 3.8 cm (1 to 1.5 in) on centers.
The discs, to 3.4 m (11 ft) in diameter, are mounted on a hori-
zontal shaft and partially submerged in a semicircular tank
through which the wastewater flows. Clearance between the discs
and tank wall is 1.3 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in). The discs ro-
tate slowly, in the range of 5 to 10 rpm, passing the disc surface
through the incoming wastewater. Liquid depth in the tank is
kept below the center shaft of the discs. Reaeration is limited
by the solubility of air in the wastewater and rate of shaft ro-
tation.
Shortly after start-up, organisms begin to grow in at-
tached colonies on the disc surfaces, and a typical growth layer
is usually established within a week. Oxygen is supplied to the
organisms during the period when the disc is rotating through
the atmosphere above the flowing waste stream. Dense biological
growth on the discs provide a high concentration of active organ-
-193-
-------
£ 120,000• ¦
¦0,000 ¦
T» 4
IFQO.M.I • (ttOOO + 9MMQIT/M
* 0>S.M,| >(111000 + 8070Q ) T/16
( T • PROCESSING HRS PER MV)
0,L PER 8CC
| 1 H 1 1 1— 1
0 50 100 ISO (00 ISO 300
0 , ML PER MIN
to -
18 -
3 10
i .
( T • PROCESSING HRS PER DAY )
Q,L PER SEC
80
-f-
•00
wo
Q, ML PER MM
too
—I—
(50
soo
Figure 32. Capital and operating/maintenance costs-for
typical extended aeration activated sludge
systems (Environmental Associates, Inc., 1974).
-194-
-------
isms resistant to shock loads. Periodic sloughing produces a
floe which settles rapidlyt the shear-forces developed by rotation
prevents disc media clogging and keeps solids in suspension until
they are transferred out of the disc tank and into the final
clarifier. Normally, sludge recycling shows no significant effect
on treatment efficiency because the suspended solids in the mixed
liquor represent a small fraction of the total culture when com-
pared to the attached growth on the disc.
Removal efficiency can be increased by providing several
stages of discs in series. European experience on multi-stage
disc systems indicates that a four-stage disc plant can be
loaded at a 30 percent higher rate than a two-stage plant for
the same degree of treatment. Because the BOD removal kinetics
approach those of a first order reaction (see Figure 33) the first
stage should not be loaded higher than 120 g BOD/day/sg m disc
surface. If removal efficiencies greater than 90 percent are
required, three or four stages, depending on the flow, waste
load, and disc surface area, should be installed. Mixtures of
domestic and food processing wastes in high BOD concentrations
can be treated efficiently by the RBC-type system.
Because 95 percent of the solids are attached to the
disc system, the RBC unit is less sensitive to shock loads than
activated sludge units, and for the most part is not upset by
variations in hydraulic loading. Waste loads high enough to de-
plete the dissolved oxygen in the water can stress aerobic organ-
isms; anaerobic conditions can result with production of malodorous
gases. This can be avoided by pre-aerating the wastewater.
-195-
-------
N0llVaiN30N00 aoa
-196-
-------
Secondary benefits of the pre-aeration tank would include the
dampening of pH, temperature, and organic peaks. During low flow
periods the RBC unit yields effluents of higher quality than at
design flow. During periods of no flow, effluents can be recycled
for a limited time to maintain biological activity.
Both the Rotating Biological Contactor and the trickling
filter process (discussed below) utilize an attached culture.
However, with the rotating disc the biomass is passed through
the wastewater rather than wastewater over the biomass. Contin-
uous wetting of the entire biomass surface also prevents fly
growth, often associated with conventional trickling filter oper-
ations.
The RBC process requires housing to protect the biomass
from exposure during freezing weather and from damage due to
heavy winds and precipitation. F.G. Claggett (1973) reported
COD removals greater than 50 percent with a RBC unit treating
salmon cannery wastewater.
2.3.3. High Rate Trickling Filter
Trickling filter consists of a vented structure contain-
ing a packed bed of media, which can be either rock, Fiberglas,
plastic, or redwood material on which a growth of microorganisms
develops (see Plate 3). Microbial growth is in th« form of a
slime. As wastewater flows downward over the structure the micro-
bial mass assimilates and metabolises the organic natter. The
biomass continuously sluffs and is readily separated from the
liquid stream by sedimentation. The resulting sludge requires
-197-
-------
trickling filter- biological action
WASTEWATER f
J V '
ROCK
\ •^-sloughing
J ' BIOLOGICAL !
I-SLIME--I
Magnified Sectioi
Portion of Filter
Plate 3. Trickling filter - biological action.
Plate 4. Surface view of a typical trickling filter with rock
media.
-193-
-------
further treatment and disposal, as described previously.
Artificial media promotes air circulation, and reduces
clogging, As a result, artificial media beds can be over twice
as deep as rock media beds and have correspondingly longer con-
tact timesc Longer contact times and recirculation of liquid
flow enhance treatment efficiencies. The recirculation of set-
tled sludge with the liquid stream is also claimed to improve
treatment.
Typical systems, pictured in Plates 4 and 5 are simple
to operate, the sole operational variable being recycle rate.
The treatment efficiency of a well-designed deep-bed trickling
filter tower of 14 feet or more with high recycle can be superior
to that of a carelessly-operated activated sludge system. The
system is not particularly sensitive to shock loadings, but is
severely impaired by wastewater temperatures below 7°C (459F).
Below 2°C (35°F), treatment efficiency is minimal. The effect
of grease and oil in trickling filter influent has not been eval-
uated; this would likely be detrimental. High-rate trickling
filters can provide up to 85 percent reduction of BOD and influent
wastewater- At this time, no cost data are available for high-
rate trickling filters for the seafood industry.
2.3.4. Ponds and Lagoons
Aerated lagoons and basins of significant depth, 6 to
12 feet, in which oxygenation is accomplished by mechanical (Plate
6) or diffused aeration units. Oxidation ponds and facultative
lagoons utilize natural aeration. The land requirements for ponds
-199-
-------
Plate 5. Trickling filter with synthetic media,
(courtesy of Surfpac).
-200-
-------
Plate 6. Aerated lagoon (courtesy Eimco Co.).
-201-
-------
and lagoons limit the locations at which these facilities are
practicable. Where conditions permit, they can provide reasonable
treatment alternatives.
Two types are in common use: 1) the completely mixed
aerobic basin, where the solids are maintained in suspension?
2) the non-agitated aerobic~anaerobic (facultative) basin where
the upper portion of the basin is aerobic, while the lower depths
are anaerobic. Naturally aerated lagoons, which are of the aerobic-
anaerobic type are termed oxidation ponds. Such ponds are 0.9
to 1.2 m (3 to 4 feet deep), with oxidation taking place chiefly
in the upper 0.45 meters (18 inches). Mechanically-aerated lagoons
are mixed ponds over 1.8 m (6 feet) and up to 6.1 m (20 feet)
deep, with oxygen supplied either by a floating aerator or a com-
pressed air diffuser system. Artificial aeration has the secon-
dary advantage of keeping the contents mixed, thus providing
maximum contact between the organic matter and the active biolo-
gical mass.
The design of lagoons requires particular attention to
local insolation, temperatures, wind velocities, etc., for criti-
cal periods. These variables affect the selection of design
criteria. Loading rates vary from 22 to 112 kg BOD/day/ha (20
to 100 lb/day/acre), and detention time, from 3 to 50 days.
Although not frequently used in the fish processing in-
dustry, lagoons are in common use in other food processing indus-
tries. Serious upsets can occur. The oxidation pond may produce
great quantities of algae and the aerated lagoon may turn septic
in zones of minimal mixing. Recovery from such upsets may take
202-
-------
weeks. The major disadvantage of lagoons is the large land re-
quirement. In regions where land is available and soil conditions
make excavation feasible, the aerobic lagoon should find application
in treating fish wastes, if the plant discharge does not contain
salt water, anaerobic and/or anaerobic-aerobic systems may also
be utilized. Aerated lagoons are reported to produce an effluent
suspended solids concentration of 260 to 300 mg/1 (mostly algae)
while anaerobic ponds produce an effluent with 80 to 160 mg/1
suspended solids (Metcalf and Eddy, 1972). Figure 34 shows the
costs versus flow relationship for aerated lagoons.
2.4. Land Disposal of Wastewater
"Zero-discharge" technology is practicable where land
is available upon which the processing wastewaters may be applied
without jeopardizing groundwater quality. The site; surrounded
by a retaining dike should sustain a cover crop of grass or other
vegetation.
Wastes are discharged in spray or flood irrigation sys-
tems by 1) distribution through piping and spray nozzles over
relatively flat terrain (see Plate 7) or terraced hillsides of
moderate slope; or 2) pumping and disposal through ridge-and-
furrow irrigation systems which allow a certain level of flooding
on a given plot of land. Pretreatment for removal of solids is
advisable to prevent plugging of the spray nozzles, or deposition
in the furrows of a ridge-and-furrows system, which may cause
odor problems or plug the soil.
-203-
-------
60000
* 48000
SO 000
19000 +
IFQ< J.IS
IFO> JJS
(t-pnocessins
8000 »14*83 Q) T/IS
moo* losaoiT/w
PEN DAY)
It
18
0
S
M
O.L PEN SEC
| 1 4 1 f r——. -I 1
0 80 100 ISO too (SO 300
0 , SAL PEN MIN
10.00
8.00
T- ~
I • (T»0.8IQ)T/IS
( T • PROCESSING HPS PER DAY )
O.L PER SEC
(— 1 > 1 " —>- 1
0 80 100 ISO tOO 180 300
0, SAL PEN MM
Figure 34. Capital and operating/maintenance costs for
typical aerated lagoon systems (Environmental
Associates, Inc., 1974).
-204-
-------
Plate 7. Spray irrigation disposal system (courtesy Cape
May Canning Co.).
-205-
-------
In a flood irrigation system the waste loading in the
effluent would be limited by the waste loading tolerance of the
particular crop being grown on the land. It may also be limited
by the soil conditions or potential for vector or odor problems.
Wastewater distributed in either manner percolates through
the soil where the organic matter in the waste undergoes biologi-
cal degradation. The liquid in the waste stream is either stored
in the soil or passed into the groundwater. A variable percentage
of the waste flow is also lost by evapotranspiration (the loss
due to evaporation to the atmosphere through the leaves of plants).
The following factors affect the ability of a particular land
area to absorb wstawater:' 1) character of the soil, 2) strati-
fication of the soil profile, 3) depth to groundwater, 4) initial
moisture content; 5) terrain and groundcover, 6) precipitation,
7) temperature, and 8) wastewater characteristics.
The greatest concern.in the use of irrigation as a dis-
posal system is the total dissolved solids content and especially
the sodium content of the wastewater. Salt-water waste flows
are incompatible with land application technology at most sites.
Limiting values for total dissolved solids (TDS) which may be
exceeded for short periods but not over an entire growing season
were estimated (conservatively) (Talsma and Phillip, 1971) to
be 450 to 1000 mg/1. Where land application is feasible it must
be recognized that soils vary widely in their percolation proper-
ties. Experimental irrigation of a test plot is recommended in
untried areas. Cold climate systems may be subjected to additional
constraints, including storage needs.
-206-
-------
The long-term reliability of spray or flood irrigation
systems depends on the sustained ability of the soil to accept
the wastewater. Problems in maintenance include 1) controlling
salinity levels in the wastewater; 2) compensating for climatic
limitations; and 3) sustaining pumping without failure. Many
soils are improved by spray irrigation. Certain nutrient accumu-
lations in the soil complex can be eliminated by physically re-
moving or harvesting crops.
Removal efficiencies for this type of treatment are
difficult to measure, but are assumed to be 100 percent by defini-
tion. Associated costs include pumps, piping, and spray nozzles.
Maintenance and operating costs are at a minimum with this system.
2.5. Solids Disposal Methods
Disposing of the solid waste, generated by screens,
biological systems, or one of the air flotation methods, is often
a problem. Where reduction or other solid fish waste processing
plants are not close by, other methods of solid waste disposal
must be considered. The methods thought to be most practical
for the seafood industry are sanitary landfill, land disposal,
deep sea disposal, and incineration.
2,5.1. Sanitary Landfill and Land Disposal
Land disposal has in one form or another (often simply
the open dump) been used as the mainstay of solid waste disposal
since solid wastes became a problem. The only acceptable form
-207-
-------
of land disposal, however, is the sanitary landfill. Few land
disposal operations across the U.S. today meet the criteria of
a sanitary landfill, although they may carry the name. Moreover,
many sites cannot meet the criteria without substantial design
modifications.
The use of land disposal for such highly putrescible
wastes as those from seafood processing requires sanitary land-
fills with daily cover and treatment of leachates. Without these
conditions, found in well-operated and designed sanitary landfills,
land disposal has substantial negative impacts on surrounding
lands through attraction of rodents nd insects, emission of odors,
and pollution of surface and subsurface waters. Land disposal
can be an economical option if careful site selection is practiced
and the site is properly engineered to take into account result-
ing environmental effects tDehn, 1974).
2.5.2* Deep Sea Disposal
In addition to placement in or on the land, another
ultimate disposal alternative is dispersion in the waters. Ocean
disposal itself has come under considerable scrutiny over the
past year. New federal legislation provides for closer supervision
of ocean disposal by the federal government. Whether through
an outfall directly from the cannery or via barging to deep sea
sites, arguments in favor of this option center around the fact
that it returns nutrients to the sea for the further support of
marine life. Deep-sea disposal is costly in terms of equipment,
particularly if large quantities of waste are involved and the
-208-
-------
cannery is distant from acceptable disposal areas. Grinding and
out-fall discharge to deep water is more economical and can achieve
adequate dispersion of solids to avoid substantial impacts on
dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters. No further solids
disposal is needed with either of these methods.
Grinding and disposing of wastes in shallow, quiescent
bays has been practiced in the past, but will undoubtedly be dis-
continued. Disposal depths of less than 13 m (7 fathoms), par-
ticularly in the absence of vigorous tidal flushing, may be ex-
pected to have detrimental effects on the marine environment and
the local fishery, whereas (generally) a deep disposal site would
not»
The identification of suitable sites for this practice
undoubtedly demands good judgment and detailed knowledge of local
conditions. Used in the right manner, however, deep sea disposal
is an efficient and cost-effective technique second only to di-
rect solids recovery and by-product manufacture.
2,5.3 Incineration
No known incineration of seafood solid wastes is current-
ly being practiced. Incineration by means of multiple hearth
furnaces has been effective with municipal wastes and sludges,
when operated on a continuous basis. Intermittent start-up and
shut-down is inefficient and shortens the useful life of the equip-
ment. A technique for incinerating solid wastes in a molten salt
bath is under development, with one unit in operation. The by-
products are C02, water vapor, and a char residue which is skimmed
-209-
-------
from the combustion chamber. This device may prove to be viable
in reasonably small units (Lessing, 1973)„ Pit incinerators
have been used for many solid and semi-solid wastes and may be
useful in disposing of seafood wastes,. The incinerators are
brick lined and have air supplies to aid particulate retention
and ensure complete combustion.' This disposal method is simple
to operate and especially adaptable to situations requiring batch
incineration (Nemerow, 1971).
Processing by incineration is popular for many types
of waste materials and can be economical if wastes are relatively
dry and contain substantial fuel, value. Neither of these condi-
tions is met by wastes from seafood processing, and additional
costs might be incurred in waste processing and use of supplemen-
tal fuel. More stringent air pollution regulations may require
costly additions to an incineration process for seafood wastes
to eliminate odors from waste stack gases„ Incombustible resi-
dues must still be landfilled or disposed at sea.
2.6. Waste Treatment Case Studies
Information on full-scale and pilot plant installations
of waste treatment systems in the seafood industry is not plenti-
ful. The main reasons for this are two fold: 1) many firms re-
gard their waste treatment system performance and cost data pro-
prietary; and 2) only a small percentage of firms processing
fish and shellfish in the U.S. practice wastewater treatment to
a significant extent.
-210-
-------
Whenever possible, the organizers of this Technology
Transfer Seminar attempted to arrange for the participation on
the program of individuals with intimate knowledge of specific
case studies. Accordingly, among the speakers at the seminar
(and authors in this document) are: 1) Mr, Frank Mauldin of the
engineering firm of Dominque, Szabo and Associates, Inc. (La
Fayette, Louisiana), discussing the performance of a dissolved
air flotation unit treating shrimp canning wastes at the Robinson
Canning Company in Westwego, Louisiana; 2) Mr. Fred Claggett
of the Canadian Environmental Protection Service, discussing tan-
gential screening and dissolved air flotation of salmon and her-
ring wastewaters at B.C. Packers' plant in Steveston, B.C.; and
3) Mr. Irving Snyder of the Carborundom Corporation discussing
dissolved air flotation treatment of menhaden wastewaters at the
Standard Products Company plant in Reedville, Virginia; dissolved
air flotation treatment of shrimp processing wastewaters at the
NEFCO plant in Kodiak, Alaska and dissolved air flotation treat-
ment of crab processing wastewaters at the Roxanne Seafoods plant
in Kodiak, Alaska. In the following paragraphs, additional case
studies are discussed.
2.6.1. Case Study Number 1: Tangential Screening of
Shrimp Processing Wastewater (Peterson, 1973b)
The National Marine Fisheries Service conducted a test
in mid-1972 to analyze the performance of gravity-fed tangential
screens in removal of solids from shrimp processing wastewaters
at a plant in Kodiak, Alaska. A plant was selected which incor-
-211-
-------
porated typical processing operations so that representative re-
sults could be obtained. The equipment selected consisted of Bauer
Hydrasieves with equivalent openings of 30 mesh (0.040 inch)c
One 6 ft wide and one 18 inch wide screen was used* Effluent
was pumped or flumed from discharge sumps or troughs,
The test was conducted at East Point Seafoods Company
on July 14, 1972, This plant used Laitram Model A peelers in
its shrimp canning operation (depicted in Figure 35). Plant flows
averaged 900 gpm of which all intake water was fresh water. The
6 foot wide screen was used, and the wastewater was added at the
top of the feed hopper (as opposed to the normal design of pump-
ing it in at the bottom)> The reductions obtained are tabulated
in Table 81„
Table 81. Screening study results -
shrimp processing wastewaters
(Peterson, 1973b)
Before
Screening
After
Screening
%
Reduction
Total COD
2734 mg/1
2360 mg/1
14
Total solids
2680 mg/1
1900 mg/1
29
Total susp., solids
1160 mg/1
720 mg/1
38
Settleable solids
50-55 ml/1
6 ml/1
85
Turbidity
200-230 jtu
180-207
10
2o6.2. Case Study Number 2; Dissolved Air Flotation
Treatment of Sardine Processing Wastes
In 1971 the Maine Sardine Council retained the Edward
C. Jordan Company (Atwell, et al.r 1972) to study sardine
-212-
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
UNLOAD
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
AGE
10R6ANCS] .
FISH PICKING
iFJ£HL ^
PEELERS
ji_SHELLj0ATE_R)
WASHERS
(SHELL .WATER)
SEPARATORS
(SHELL, WATER)
BLANCHER LiORSANIC§ 1 „
SHAKER
BLOWER
INSPECTION
(SHELL, WATER)
(MEAT)
SIZE
FILL
(MEAT)
SEAM
RETORT
(WATER)
BOX
+
OUTFALL PUMPED
TO SEVEN FATHOM DEPTH
Figure 35. Alaska and west coast shrimp canning process
(Environmental Associates, Inp., 1973).
-213-
-------
processing wastewater and evaluate treatment systems applicable
to such waste. Various systems were set up at the Stinson Canning
Company in Prospect Harbor, Maine to test its performance on sar-
dine packing wastewaters.
The plant selected utilized the typical sardine process.
The wastewater was characteristically high in grease and oil,
the principal source of which was the pre-cook operation. The
total composition of the plant's effluent is tabulated in Table
82.
Table 82. Sardine processing wastewater,
industry average (mg/1).
bod5
COD
Total solids
Susp. Solids
Oil and grease
750
1850
32,500
600
400
Wastewater quantities depend on in-plant conservation
practices from plant to plant. However, a working average is
from 135,000 to 155,000 gallons per day.
The initial investigation of the wastewater treatability
determined the presence of large quantities of large solid parti-
cles which could be easily screened from the flow. Preliminary
testing of several screen designs indicated that tangential screen
with 0o040 inch openings gave the most satisfactory results.
Removals of 16-37 percent of the suspended solids and 14 percent
of the BOD were achieved with this screen. Thus, a Bauer Hydra-
sieve tangential screen was incorporated in the test plant to
pre-treat the effluent before subsequent treatment.
-214-
-------
In attempting to find the most effective subsequent
treatment system, the consultants had to deal with several fac-
tors affecting the sardine industryo Sardines are very seasonal
and during the short season landings are erratic. Thus, waste
flows are highly variable from day to day. In addition, the pro-
cesses use large volumes of seawater, which severely affects bio-
logical treatment. It was decided, therefore, that a non-biological
system must be found which could handle the wide fluctuations
in waste flowc Based on these criteria, dissolved air flotation
was determined to be the system of choice.
Two models of equipment were erected at the sardine
plant, one designed by Pollution Control Engineering and one by
CE NATCO. During the testing, the PCE unit performed as expected.
The CE NATCO unit had mechanical difficulties and was not as
effective. Little work was done on optimization of chemicals
for most efficient removal. Alum was added at 200 ppm and a poly-
mer was used at 2 ppm during the tests. Table 83 indicates the
approximate removal efficiencies obtained during the tests.
Table 83. Dissolved air flotation and removal efficiencies
on sardine processing wastewatere
BOD
Susp. solids
Oil and grease
57-71%
91-98%
80%
In summary, it was found that air flotation equipment
was the most practicable method of treatment of sardine waste-
-215-
-------
water. Its ability to treat a wide range of waste flows and load-
ings, its relative insensitivity to saline wastes and "shock"
loads, its relatively low cost and minimal land requirements make
it the system of choice in the Maine sardine industry.
2.6.3. Case Study Number 3: Dissolved Air Flotation
Treatment of Tuna Processing Wastes
A study was conducted to evaluate various wastewater
treatment systems in treating tuna cannery wasteo Treated effluent
was to be brought to a level commensurate with government standards
imposed on the planto A short testing period was necessary to
get the plant operating as soon as possible within the imposed
limits, so the usefulness of the ata is somewhat attenuated by
its brevity.
The plant processed tuna through a fairly typical opera-
tion, as depicted in Figure 36. Wastewater was generated by the
operations depicted in the diagram. Several in-plant process
changes were considered to decrease water usage. These changes
were thought to change the total plant effluent character, so
for the purposes of these tests, butcher sump water was used.
In evaluating the treatment systems and equipment for
this project, several criteria were of primary importance. First,
space requirements had to be minimized due to a lack of sufficient
low-value land on which to construct a facility. Secondly, cost
had to be minimized while still retaining a high removal efficiency.
Since the treatment system was non-profitable to the plant, a
large expenditure could not be justified. Finally, the unit
-216-
-------
RAW FROZEN TUNA
FROM BOATS
RECEIVING
• ¦ PRODUCT FLOW
» WASTEWATER FLOW
FROZEN
STORAGE
— — — WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
r
(VISCERA)
(BLOOD, JUICES)
¦n
BUTCHERING
A WASHING
STICKWATER (OILS,SOLUBLE ORGANICS) f-Tl-
PRE COOK
(BLOOD, JUICES, SMALL PARTICLES)
( OILS, MEAT, BONE, ETC.)
I
| (HEAD,FINS,SKIN,BONE),
P
(REO MEAT)
¦-
CLEAN
(LIGHT MEAT)
CAN
^J^GET^EO^ME AT PARTICLES)
CAN WASHER
TT
(OILS, MEAT PARTICLES, SOAP)
-J
CAN WASHER
RETORT
ft COOL
(ORGANICS, SOAP)
L
RETORT
ft COOL
LABEL
S CASE
>j^REDUCTION PLANt|
I
|" SOLUBLES PLAN'
PRESS
LIOUOR
LABEL
ft CASE
(SCRUBBER WATER WITH ENTRAINED ORGANICS)
WASTEWATER
(CONDENSATE WITH ENTRAINED ORGANICS)
«¦,
FISH
MEAL
CONCENTRATED
SOLUBLES
PET FOOO
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
OCEAN
DISCHARGE
Figure 26. Tuna process (Environmental Associates, Inc., 1973).
-217-
-------
selected must be flexible to handle changing waste loads resulting
from future plant modification.
After preliminary investigation, the choice was narrowed
to either dissolved air flotation or dispersed air flotation.
Pilot scale equipment of each design was obtained and installed
at the plant to treat the effluent from the butcher sump. The
dispersed air flotation unit was a Depurator unit made by the
Wemco Division of Envirotech. The dissolved air flotation system
was a Flotator unit manufactured by the Eimco Division of Enviro-
tech. In these systems, various chemicals were added to promote
flocculation of suspended solids in the waste. For this study,
several combinations of chemicals, consisting of alum, lime,
ferric chloride and polymer products were tested on each system
by conducting several extended pilot runs, each time using a dif-
ferent chemical combination. The effluents from the equipment
were compared with the influent waste.
Based on three important wastewater parameters, (suspended
solids, BOD, and oil and grease) the dissolved air flotation unit
proved to be superior in terms of removal efficiency. It yielded
average total removals of 60-66 percent, depending on the chem-
icals used. The dispersed air flotation unit did not produce
similar results. Both systems produced highly variable and unsatis-
factory results when operated without chemical additions.
In conclusion, it was found that dissolved air flotation
would be the system of choice in this case due to its combination
of low space requirement, flexibility of operation, relatively
low cost, production of a more concentrated (and thus less volum-
-218-
-------
inous) sludge, and production of an oxygen saturated effluent.
5.6.4. Case Study Number 4: Biolonir^i T n1_ _
Oyster Processing Wastes V Treatment of
The Ray J. Jones Seafood Company of Wittman, Maryland,
in conjunction with the Maryland Water Resources Administration,
conducted an on-line commercial test of a biological treatment
system beginning in March of 1973. The plant processes hand-
shucked oysters, blue crab, and some clams, and the treatment
system was to be tested on the wastewater effluents from all
three processes during 1973. Preliminary results are available
for the oyster process and they indicate the system performs well.
The hand-shucked operation at the R.J. Jones plant is
fairly typical of small oyster processors. The blowdown tanks
and the shucking and washdown operations produce pracically all
the wastewater, which, on a typical day of processing, amounts
to approximately 2000 gal. This small waste flow makes most waste-
water treatment systems difficult to operate and prohibitively
costly to purchase.
For small processors such as this, treatment systems
must be found which can meet several important criteria:
1) low cost — large expenditures required for waste
treatment would simply put these processors out of
business;
2) ease of operation — constant monitoring and main-
tenance of a waste treatment system cannot be
economically justified by small processors, and
-219-
-------
3) small size - many processors have limited land on
which to construct treatment systems.
Preliminary analysis of the wastewater from the plant indicated
that it was amenable to biological treatment. A review of avail-
able equipment and system designs indicated that an extended aera-
tion system would probably be the design most capable of meeting
the requirements.
A small package plant mounted in a 32 foot van was manu-
factured by the Cromoglass Corporation for use in this test.
It consisted of a 900 gallon aerated "roughing" tank, a 1250 gal-
lon settling tank, and a small chlorine contact chamber. Chlorina-
tion was supplied by solid tablets (sodium hypochlorite) added
to the tankc Influent from the plant was screened through rough
basket screens and pumped into the system. The capital cost of
the system was $7000. Daily maintenance was minimal, requiring
only screen cleaning and chlorine tablet addition. The whole
unit was contained within the van.
Preliminary results indicate effective reduction of
waste loadings using this system. The prime waste consists of
dissolved and suspended organic matter, measured as BOD. Un-
treated effluent BOD levels of 400.to 1200 mg/1 (ppm) were com-
mon. After treatment, BOD levels averaged approximately 160 mg/1.
Overall BOD reductions averaged 80-90 percent.
This method of treatment fits the needs of small proces-
sors fairly well,, It might be used to treat economically a wide
variety of seafood wastes if conditions warrant its use.
-220-
-------
2.6.5o Case Study Number 5: Centrifugal Wastewater
Concentrator Treatment of Shrimp Wasteso
Environmental Associates, Inc., and the National Marine
Fisheries Service conducted a study using the SWECO centrifugal
wastewater concentrator at East Point Seafoods' South Bend Wash-
ington plant. The plant employs two Model A and two Model PCA
Laitram peelersQ
A positive displacement pump was used to pump the waste-
stream to the 0.020 inch Bauer Hydrasieve. Alum (220 ppm) and
lime (250 ppm) were added to the screened effluent in the contact
chamber. The slurry was then pumped through the SWECO concentra-
tor (400 mesh) and into a skimming trough. Approximately 20 percent
of the flow used to backwash the screen was discharged with the
solids. In the skimming trough, the highly aerated wastewater
was allowed sufficient retention time for the bubbles to float
the solids to the surface. These solids were removed by a skim-
ming mechanism.
The results of this study are shown in Table 84.
Table 84. Removal efficiencies of the screen, SWECO
wastewater concentrator and skimming tank
with and without chemical addition.
Influent-mg/1
Removal
. Efficiencies
(%)
Parameter
(includes
shell)
After
Sieve
After skimming trough
Without chem. With chem
Susp. Solids
1020
35
52
95
BOD
1320
18
24
81
COD
2160
13
28
75
Oil & Grease
80
—
—
85
Set* Solids
(ml/1) 45
84
99
—
-221-
-------
3. TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
3.1, Assumptions
Certain assumptions were necessary prior to development
of the cost analyses for the treatment systems. These assumptions,
the length of the processing day and processing season, the prod-
uction and water use rate, and the water used per unit of product,
are listed at the top of each table, Any deviations from these
assumptions would vary the costs correspondingly. Theoretical
effluent (BOD, suspended solids, and grease and oil) levels after
application of each treatment system are also listed in each table.
Plant location, plant and equipment age, variations in unit pro-
cesses and waste treatment systems presently in use are also per-
tinent to the costs and are enumerated briefly for each process/
product subcategory.
With respect to the tables, the costs of the treatment
systems 1, 2, 3, 4 are cumulative. That is, the costs listed
under number 2 are actually the costs of system 1 plus system
2. All cost data were based on the most recent Environmental
Associates' study (1974) of the seafood industry.
3.2. Industrial and Finfish
3.2.1. Fish Meal
Fish meal plants are found with and without solubles
plants. The large plants (those processing around 170,000 tons/
year) usually have a solubles plant that evaporates the stickwater,
-222-
-------
bailwater and washwater. These plants use available surface water
to draw a vacuum on barometric condenser. Presently, condenser
water usually is used for one pass only before discharge to the
source. If a cooling system is installed, the water can be re-
circulated through the system. A recirculation system with trick-
ling filter was priced for a typical plant at about $325,000
capital costs with annual 0 and M costs of $16,500. Table 85
estimates the costs to install and operate either an extended
aeration or aerated lagoon system at a fish meal with solubles
plant.
Some of the smaller fish meal plants evaporate the stick-
water but discharge the bailwater. Either the solubles plant
can be enlarged to facilitate the bailwater or the bailwater can
be treated separately. Table 86 shows the costs associated with
treating bailwater from a typical plant.
The small fish meal plants usually do not have a solu-
bles plant, these plants typically discharge both stickwater and
bailwater. Barging is a disposal option that costs $0.010425
per gallon based on a 50-mile round trip, if the stickwater
is barged, then only the bailwater requires treatment considera-
tion. If the stickwater is not barged, it too must be treated.
The strength of stickwater without pretreatment makes
the amenability of it to standard treatment very questionable.
The University of Wisconsin (Quigley, 1972) performed a laboratory
study on treatment of stickwater from the alewife reduction in-
dustry* They found coagulation with chemicals followed by fil-
tration to be a plausible system. They estimated the equipment
-223-
-------
TABLE 85. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : FISH MEAL WITH SOLUBLES PLANT
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY C0STS($)
OSM
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
22.0
HOURS
200.0
DAYS
38.6
TON/HR
35.0
KKG/HR
1500.0
GPM
94.7
L/SEC
2333.8
GAL/TON
9.7
CU M/KKG
1
2
892.
202.
71.
16.
89.
20.
158.
76.
1.
1.
192.
52.
RESULTING
i EFFLUENT
60
•
80.
0.
58
0.78
29
1 •
34.
0.
28
0.33
38
•
38.
0.
37
0.37
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
1 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
2 AERATED LAGOON
-224-
-------
Table 86. Water effluent treatment costs
canned and preserved fish and seafood
Subcategory: Fish meal without solubles plant
Operating day
Season
Production
Process flow
Hydraulic load
Treatment system
Initial investment ($1000)
Annual costs ($1000)
Capital costs @ 8%
Depreciation @ 10%
Daily costs ($)
0 & M
Power
Total annual costs ($1000)
22
200,
8
7
100
6
30,
0
1
564.
45.
56.
48.
1.
111.
hours
days
ton/hr
kkg/hr
gpm
1/sec
gal/ton
cu m/kkg
2
105.
10.
12.
145.
5.
51.
Parameter
BOD - mg/1
kg/kkg
TSS - mg/1
kg/kkg
G&O - mg/1
kg/kkg
Resulting effluent levels
11396.
1.42
2933.
0.37
793.
0.10
90.
2.90
28.
1.10
22.
0.69
Treatment systems (cumulative)
1. Flotation
2. Evaporator only
NOTE: Treatment 1 for bailwater only; treatment 2 for bailwater
and stickwater.
-225-
-------
costs for a plant processing 7 ton/hour to be about $30,000 (ex-
cluding drying). Chemical costs of $0,023/1000 lbs stickwater
for HC1 and $1.25/1000 lbs stickwater for glutenaldehyde were
considered recoverable by solids value. They estimated the costs
of anaerobic-aerobic lagoon system to handle the pretreated pro-
cess water (1400 gpm) at $12,000 per year annual costs based on
seven percent capital costs and ten percent depreciation.
We estimate that a double effort stickwater evaporator
for a plant processing eight to ten tons/hour would cost $200,000
to $250,000.
Any cost estimate should consider the following:
1) location—the larger plants are located on pilings
with a good deal of the plant extending onto the
land. The medium plants are mostly inland, while
the small plants are located on land near docking
facilities. Plants on the East Coast run from
Massachusetts to Florida, while on the West Coast
they are located along the Northwest and Southern
California coastline.
2) Plant age—the physical age of plants sampled runs
between 20 to 60 years while the processing
equipment varied from 20 years to new.
3) Plant production—the large plants produce nearly
170,000 tons per year, while small plants may
produce 32,000 tons per year.
4) Processing hours—most fish meal plants operate
almost continuously while fish are available. Some
downtime for evaporator cleaning is needed.
-226-
-------
5) Season—the processing season varies with location,
usually running somewhere between May and December.
6) Unit operations—the methods used to achieve the
saleable product are similar except that larger
plants recover a larger percentage of the raw
product with a solubles plant.
3.2.2o Salmon Canning
The costs associated with treatment in typical plants
in Alaska are shown on Table 87 through 91? costs for typical
plants in the Northwest are shown on Tables 92 and 93* A multi-
plier of 2.5 was used to adjust equipment costs to the Alaska
location while power costs were increased by a factor of 10.
Based on a five-year average a large Alaska cannery
produces over 80,000 cases annually, while a medium cannery (con-
sidered typical for treatment costs purposes} produces between
40,000 and 80,000 cases annually, and a small cannery averages
less than 40,000 cases annually.
Based on a five-year average a large Northwest cannery
(considered typical for treatment cost purposes) produces greater
than 20,000 cases annually, while a small cannery produces less
than 20,000 cases per year.
Salmon canning plants in Alaska are located near the
fishing grounds and are, therefore, usually placed in the remote
areas. Most plants are built on pilings to avoid rugged terrain
in many areas, to speed and ease fish unloading and to dispose
of wastes.
-227-
-------
TABLE 37; WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY > ALASKA SALMON CANNING - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
18.0 HOURS
SEASON
42.0 DAYS
PRODUCTION
8.3 TON/HR
7.5 KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
600.0 GPM
37.9 L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
4356.4 GAL/TON
18.2 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1 2
3
4
Ii.i TI J\L I ^VESTMENT ($ 10OO)
122. 838. 1687.
10L1.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1 GOO)
135.
CAPITAL CUSYS o; 8X
10. 67.
C7.
DEPRECIATION u 10%
12. 84.
16S-.
108.
daily costs uo
U&i,
21. HI.
200.
171.
POKER
4. 9.
19.
11.
TOTAL /wJNUAL C0STS($1000)
23. 157.
313.
202.
RESULTING EFFLUEN
T LEVELS
PARAMETER
DOD-HG/L
2918. 729.
109.
146
— f\G/ .\i\G
53.00 13.25
1.99
2.
T SS-nG/L
1541. 154.
60.
200
-KG/KKG
28.00 2.80
1.09
3.
G&O-MG/L
495. 50.
25.
25
—KG/rCKG
9.00 0.90
0.45
0.
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS'
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-228-
-------
TABLE 88. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY i ALASKA SALMON CANNING
- MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
18.0 HOURS
42.0 DAYS
5.0 TON/HR
4.5 KKG/HR
370.0 GPM
23.4 L/SEC
4477.4 GAL/TON
18.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
88.
558.
1200.
758
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS S> 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10X
7.
9.
45.
56.
96.
120.
61,
76,
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
15.
2.
98.
6.
139.
12.
120.
7.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
17.
105.
222.
142,
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
2839.
53.00
1500.
28.00
482.
9.00
710.
106.
142.
13.25
1.99
2.65
150.
60.
200.
2.80
1.12
3.73
48.
24.
24.
0.90
0.45
0.45
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-229-
-------
TABLE 89. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA SALMON CANNING - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
18.0
HOURS
SEASON
42.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
8.3
TON/HR
7.5
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
600.0
GPM
37.9
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
4356.4
GAL/TON
18.2
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 2 3 4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000) 122. 803. 1652. 1046.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS in 8% 10. 64. 132. 64.
DEPRECIATION a) 10% 12. 80. 165. 105.
DAILY COSTS($)
OSM 21. 51. 109. 60.
POWER 4. 9. 19. 11.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO) 23. 147. 303. 192.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
2918.
1750
262 ,
350
•
-KG/XKG
53.00
31.8
0.30
9.
54
TSS-MG/L
1376.
464
116
200
•
-KG/KKG
25.00
8.4
0.27
3.
63
G&O-MG/L
495.
50.
25.
25
•
-KG/KKG
9.00
0.90
0.45
0.
45
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-230-
-------
TABLE 90. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA SALMON CANNING -
MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
18.0
HOURS
SEASON
*~2.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
5.0
TON/HR
4.5
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
370.0
GPM
23.3
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
4477.4
GAL/TON
18.7
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
88.
537.
1179.
737.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
7.
43.
94.
59.
DEPRECIATION £ 10%
9.
54.
118.
74.
DAILY COSTS($)
02.M
15.
43.
83.
64.
POWER
2.
6.
12.
7.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
17.
99.
216.
136.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
2839.
1750
262 .
350 .
-KG/rsKG
53.00
31.8
0.30
9.54
TSS-MG/L
1339.
464
116
200.
-KG/KKG
25.00
8.4
0.27
3,73
G&O-MG/L
482.
48.
24.
24.
-KG/KKG
9.00
0.90
0.45
0.45
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-231-
-------
TABLE 91. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY •* ALASKA SALMON CANNING -
SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
18.0 HOURS
42.0 DAYS
1.1 TON/HR
1.0 KKG/HR
80.0 GPM
5.0 L/SEC
4356.4 GAL/TON
18.2 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS H 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
1
46,
4,
5.
9,
1.
2
212.
17.
21.
32.
2.
3
594.
47.
59,
50,
3.
4
358.
29.
36.
43.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
40.
109.
66.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L 2918. 1750. 262# 350.
-KG/KKG 53.00 31.8 0.30 9.54
TSS-'MG/L 1376. 464. 116. 200.
-KG/KKG 25.00 8.4 0.27 3.63
GSO-MG/L 495. 50. 25. 25.
-KG/KKG 9.00 0.90 0.45 0.45
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
AERATED LAGOON
-232-
-------
TABLE 92.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * NORTHWEST SALMON CANNING -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
8.0 HOURS
85.0 DAYS
5.0 TON/HR
*.5 KKG/HR
370.0 GPM
23.3 L/SEC
4477.4 GAL/TON
18.7 CU M/KKG
1
35.
3.
4.
7.
t.
2
157.
13.
16.
3
271.
22.
27.
1178.
22.00
536.
10.00
337.
6.30
4
192.
15.
19.
44.
62.
53.
2.
3.
3.
32.
54.
39.
' effluent
LEVELS
295.
60.
80.
5.50
1.12
1.49
54.
60.
200.
1.00
1.12
3.73
34.
17.
17.
0.63
0.32
0.32
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION -WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-233-
-------
TABLE 93. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED ANO PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * NORTHWEST SALMON CANNING - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
85.0 DAYS
1.9 TON/HR
1.7 KKG/HR
140.0 GPM
8.8 L/SEC
4484.5 GAL/TON
18.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000) 22.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3) 8% 2.
DEPRECIATION a) 10% 2.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M 4.
POWER 1.
TOTAL ANNUAL CQSTS($1000) 4.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L 1176.
-KG/KKG 22.00
TSS-MG/L 535.
-KG/KKG 10.00
G&O-MG/L 337.
-KG/KKG 6.30
2
90.
3
167.
4
117.
7.
13.
9.
9.
17.
12.
25.
35.
30.
2.
3.
3.
18.
33.
•
-a-
CM
, EFFLUENT
LEVELS
294.
60.
80.
5.50
1.12
1.50
53.
60.
200.
1.00
1.12
3.74
34.
17.
17.
0.63
0.32
0.32
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-234-
-------
Northwest salmon canneries are typically located in
small coastal towns of Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
They are built in much the same style as those in Alaska.
Plants are typically old in Alaska, with some structures
dating back to the 1920's, while in the Northwest they vary more
in age. Equipment, however, is continually updated by modifi-
cations, which tends to eliminate any effect age may have on the
waste characteristics. Treatment installation costs may be higher
at the older plants because of the probability of additional
plumbing. The cost estimates presented in Tables 87 through 93
wer averaged from a wide range in plant age. Plants that are
newer or older than the average should evaluate their individual
facility and adjust the estimate costs accordingly.
A typical plant probably averages eight hours per day
processing time., The hours vary from day to day and season to
season with the size of the catch. The season in the Northwest
appears to produce a more reliable catch than those in Alaska.
The season length also varies with the catch, Some
Alaskan canneries do not process during very poor seasons. We
estimate that canneries process on the average of 42 days per
year in Alaska, and 85 days per year in the Northwest,,
Unit operations are fairly consistent from plant to plant,
however, some small Northwest plants use hand pack operations.
Presently, many plants in the Northwest use coarse screens
to remove the larger solids which are used in by-product operations.
At least one plant has installed a tangential screen system«
A number of plants near major populations centers in Alaska are
-235-
-------
in the process of installing screening systems; however, canneries
located in the remote areas of Alaska usually grind the solids
and discharge to the surrounding water.
3.2.3. Fresh/Frozen Salmon
Table 94 through 101 lists the costs for typical plants
in Alaska and on the West Coast, respectively.
The larger plants observed have an estimated annual
throughput of 2500 tons of raw product. Smaller plants process
less than 2500 tons per year.
Many of the larger plants in Alaska are located near
major population centers, while small plants are often operated
in conjunction with canneries frequently established in remote
areas. The plants along the West Coast are scattered throughout
the coastal cities of Washington, Oregon and California.
Plants vary in age, however, the processing operations
are almost entirely manual and thus plant age has no noticeable
affect on effluent characteristics.
The processing hours vary with the availability of the
raw product* Most plants were observed working an eight hour
day; however, the large plants average a longer shift length than
the small because of a more consistent supply of raw product.
In Alaska the season is somewhat longer than the canning
season because the species processed are not necessarily the same
as those that are canned and a much smaller quantity of fish are
required in a fresh/frozen operation.
-236-
-------
TABLE 94. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA FRESH FROZEN SALMON -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12.0 HOURS
90.0 DAYS
4.4 TON/HR
4.0 KKG/HR
90.0 GPM
5.7 L/SEC
1225.2 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
47.
183.
443.
281.
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS S 82
4.
15.
35.
22.
DEPRECIATION S 10%
5.
18.
44.
28.
OAILY COSTS($)
O&M
6.
22.
34.
29.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
9.
35.
83.
53.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOO-MG/L
333.
233.
60.
80.
-KG/KKG
1.70
1.19
0.31
0.41
T SS-MG/L
176.
53.
60.
200.
-KG/KKG
0.90
0.27
0.31
1.02
G&O-MG/L
59.
9.
5.
5.
-KG/KKG
0.30
0.04
0.03
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-237-
-------
TABLE 95. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA FRESH FROZEN SALMON -
SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 10OO)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
12.0 HOURS
90.0 DAYS
1.1 TON/HR
1.0 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.7 L/SEC
1361.4
5.7
GAL/TON
CU M/KKG
1
2
3
4
27.
103.
242.
155.
2.
3.
8.
10.
19.
24.
12.
15.
5.
1.
20.
2.
29.
3.
26.
3.
5.
21.
46.
30.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
299.
1.70
210.
1.19
60,
0.34
80.
0.45
159.
0.90
48.
0.27
60.
0.34
200.
1.14
53.
0.30
8.
0.04
5.
0.03
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-238-
-------
TABLE 96. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNEO AND PRESERVE!) FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS & 8%
DEPRECIATION a> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1Q00)
1
16.
1.
2.
4.
U
4.
2
48.
4.
5.
10.
2.
10.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
366.
1.30
310.
1.10
37.
0.13
80.
0.28
200.
0.71
18.
0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-239-
-------
TABLE 97. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY s N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION 6) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
G&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
k.
1.
4.
2
95.
8.
10.
13.
2.
19.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
366.
1.30
310.
1.10
37.
0.13
60.
0.21
78.
0.27
18.
0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
-240-
-------
TABLE 98. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNEO AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * WEST COAST FRESH FROZEN SALMON -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
3.5 TON/HR
3.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1
INITIAL INVESTMENT$1000) 16.
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8% 1,
DEPRECIATION 5) 10% 2.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M 4.
POWER 1,
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000) 4,
2
62.
5.
6.
21.
2.
14.
3
HI,
11.
14,
30.
3.
29.
4
93.
7.
9.
27.
3.
20.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
366.
1.30
141.
0.50
37.
0.13
183.
0.65
14.
0.05
5.
0.02
60.
0.21
60.
0.21
5.
0.02
80.
0.28
200.
0.71
5.
0.02
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 . SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-241-
-------
TABLE 99. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON -
SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1.8 TON/HR
1.6 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 2
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000) 11. 21.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS £> 8% 0. 2.
DEPRECIATION S> 10% 1. 2.
DAILY COSTS($)
OSfi 2. 5.
POWER 1. 2.
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000) 2. 5.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
366. 80.
1.30 0.28
310. 200.
1.10 0.71
37. 18.
0.13 0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-242-
-------
TABLE 100. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNEO AND PRESERVED FISH ANO SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY s N/W FRESH FROZEN SALMON - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
1.8 TON/HR
1.6 KKG/HR
25.0 GPM
1.6 L/SEC
850.9 GAL/TON
3.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0$TS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
11.
0.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2
39.
3.
k.
7.
2.
8.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/;
-------
TABLE 101. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * WEST COAST FRESH FROZEN SALMON
- SMALL
OPERATING DAY
6.0
HOURS
SEASON
120.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
1.8
TON/HR
1.6
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
25.0
GPM
1.6
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
850.9
GAL/TON
3.6
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
J
2
3
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
11.
41.
69.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS ci 8%
0.
3.
6.
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
1.
*•
7.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
2.
11.
16.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
2.
9.
15.
RESULTING
1 EFFLUENT
LtVEl
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
366.
183.
60.
-KG/KKG
1.30
0.65
0.21
TSS-MG/L
141.
14.
60.
-KG/KKG
0.50
0.05
0.21
G&O-MG/L
37.
5.
5.
-KG/KKG
0.13
0.02
0.02
TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
4
51.
4.
5.
14.
3.
11.
80.
0.28
200.
0.71
5.
0.02
-244-
-------
On the West Coast, there are some salmon processed through
out the year; however, the majority of the processing occurs from
late spring to early fall.
Plants located near a by-products operation usually
collect the viscera, heads and fins, while plants in the remote
regions of Alaska usually discharge the solids to the surrounding
waters.
3.2.4. Herring Filleting
Tables 102 through 105 list the costs for the treatment
of alternatives at a non-Alaska and Alaska plant. The herring
filleting industry is located along the New England coast, and
in Southeastern Alaska.
The processing equipment used in the Alaskan plant was
new, while the New England plant sampled used machinery that was
built in Europe in the 1940's and just recently installed at the
New England plant which is much nearer the fishing grounds.
The newer equipment in Alaska gives that plant a poten-
tially larger capacity than the New England plant. However, the
Alaskan production rate has not yet been established. It has
been estimated that it may vary from a few tons per year to over
1000 tons per year, depending on the catch, comparative price
and demand for crab bait. The processing season in the two loca-
tions usually peaks in the spring and again in the fall. The
solids are screened and utilized in a reduction plant at the New
England plant,
-245-
-------
TABLE 102.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY •* NONAlASKAN HERRING FILLETING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12*0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
14.9 TON/HR
13.5 KKG/HR
520.0 GPM
32.8 L/SEC
2097.5 GAL/TON
8.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS S) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
G&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
44.
313.
520.
4.
25.
42.
4.
31.
52.
13.
84.
119.
1.
2.
3.
10.
65.
o
o
•
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
3659.
32.00
2630.
23.00
697.
6.10
915.
137.
8.00
1.20
263.
66.
2.30
0.58
70.
35.
0.61
0.31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
SCREENING
FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
-246-
-------
TABLE 103. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN HERRING FILLETING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000).
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
OAILY COSTS($)
O&l'i
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
12.0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
14.9 TON/HR
13.5 KKG/HR
520.0 GPM
32.8 L/SEC
2097.5 GAL/TON
8.8 CU M/KKG
1
2
3
44.
313.
520.
4.
25.
42.
4.
31.
52.
13.
32.
67.
1.
2.
3.
9.
60.
101.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
3659.
2196
329
32.00
19.20
2.88
2630.
789
197
23.00
6.90
1.72
697.
70.
35.
6.10
0.61
0.31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-247-
-------
TABLE 104. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY • ALASKA HERRING FILLETING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LCAl
12.0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
14.9 TON/HR
13.5 KKG/HR
520.0 GPM
32.fl L/SEC
2097.5 GAL/TON
8.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL IN VESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1UC0)
CAPITAL COSTS c< 8%
DEPRECIATION 3> 10%
DMLY COSTS($)
Goi i
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CDSTS($1000)
110.
9.
11.
2 3
781. 1300.
63.
78.
104.
130.
13.
84.
119
2.
5.
13
21.
150.
247
PARAMETER
UGD-MG/L
-KG/XKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/IvKG
G&G-MG/L
• * r J' ¦ *' c
"|\U/
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
3659.
915.
137.
32.00
8.00
1.20
2630.
263.
66.
23.00
2.30
0.58
697.
70.
35.
6.10
0.61
0.31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-248-
-------
TABLE 105. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA HERRING FILLETING
OPERATING DAY
12.0
HOURS
SEASON
100.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
14.9
TON/HR
13.5
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
520.0
GPM
32.8
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
2097.5
GAL/TON
8.8
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
110.
781.
130C.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1OCO)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
9.
63.
104.
DEPRECIATION d> 10%
11.
78.
130.
DAILY COSTS($)
C&M
13.
32.
67.
POWER
2.
5.
13.
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSfS($1000)
21.
144.
242.
PARAMETER
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
BOD-MG/L
3659.
2196
329
-KG/ i\KG
32.00
19.20
2.88
TSS-MG/L
2630.
789
199
-KG/KKG
23.00
6.90
1.72
G&C-MG/L
697.
70.
35.
-KG/KKG
6.10
0.61
0.31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-249-
-------
3.2.5. Tuna Canning
Table 106 shows the treatment alternative costs for the
tuna canning industry. The tuna industry is located along the
West Coast, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
The tuna canning process and equipment is basically the
same from plant to plant. Plants in southern California, Puerto
Rico, and American Samoa tend to be large and process the larger
species of tuna. The smaller West Coast plants typically process
the finer species (albacore).
Most tuna plants employ tangential or rotary screens
with drying facilities for the solids. In the larger plants,
the more concentrated wastewaters go to evaporator facilities.
Deep sea disposal of the wastewaters is practiced by all plants.
A pilot sized dissolved air flotation facility was installed at
one Terminal Island plant.
3.2.6. Sardine Canning
The treatment costs for representative plants are listed
on Tables 107 through 109. Presently the only plants in opera-
tion are located along the coast of Maine. The dramatic decline
in the fish populations along the West Coast has temporarily
halted California processing. Large sardine canning plants aver-
age an output of more than 60,000 cases annually; medium plants
can 30,000 to 60,000 cases annually; while small plants produce
less than 30,000 cases.
-250-
-------
TALiLE 106. WATER EhFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CAN WE L» AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : TUNA
OPERATING DAY
16.0 HOURS
SEASON
290.0 DAYS
PRODUCTION
23.2 TON/HR
21.0 KKG/HR
Pi\LiCk.oS PLOlrJ
17 00.0 GPM
278.2 L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
4408.2 GAL/TON
1 8. 4 CU M/KKG
TREATi ENT SYSTEM
1 2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
113. 606.
1 260.
766.
ANNUAL COSTS($1uOO)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
9. 49.
101.
61.
DEPRECIATION u) 10%
11. 61.
126.
77.
DAILY COST$($)
42. 308.
o&n
437.
370.
po;,er
1. 2.
3.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL Cl.STS( $ 1 000)
33. 199.
355.
246.
resulting effluemt LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
707. 177.
60.
80.
-kg/.;;
-------
TABLE 107. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SARDINE CANNING - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
8.3 TON/HR
7.5 KKG/HR
240.0 GPM
15.1 L/SEC
17^2.6 GAL/TON
7.3 CU h/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
28.
125.
218.
156.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
17.
CAPITAL COSTS o> 8%
2.
10.
12.
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
3.
12.
22.
16.
DAILY COSTS($)
46.
O&M
6.
33.
40.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
5.
25.
42.
31.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
1376.
344.
60.
80.
-KG/KKG
10.00
2.50
0.44
0.58
TSS-MG/L
922.
92.
60.
200.
-KG/KKG
6.70
0.67
0.44
1.45
G&O-MG/L
261.
26.
13.
13.
-KG/KKG
1.90
0. 19
0.10
0.10
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-252-
-------
TABLE 108. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY t SARDINE CANNING - MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
8.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
5.5 TON/HR
5.0 KKG/HR
160.0 GPM
10.1 L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
1742.6
7.3
GAL/TON
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
23.
99.
180.
128.
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS Q 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
2.
2.
8.
10.
14.
18.
10.
13.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
5.
1.
26.
2.
37.
3.
32.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
4.
20.
35.
25.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1376. 344. 60.
10.00 2.50 0.44
CO
• u\
o •
CO o
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
922.
6.70
92.
0.67
60.
0.44
200.
1.45
GSO-MG/L
-KG/KKG
261.
1.90
26.
0.19
13.
0.10
13.
0.10
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION " WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-253-
-------
TABLE 109. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SARDINE CANNING - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
8.0
HOURS
SEASON
60.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
2.1
TON/HR
1.9
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
60.0
GPM
3.8
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
1719.6
GAL/TON
7.2
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($]000)
17.
68.
132.
93.
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
1.
5.
11.
7.
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
2.
7.
13.
9.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
4.
18.
25.
22.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
3.
13.
25.
18.
RESULTING
, EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
1395.
349.
60.
80.
-KG/KKG
10.00
2.50
0.43
0.57
T SS-MG/L
934.
93.
60.
200.
-KG/KKG
6.70
0.67
0.43
J.43
G&G-MG/L
265.
26.
13.
13.
-KG/KKG
1.90
0. 19
0. 10
0.10
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-254-
-------
Plants are generally old, with most of them ranging
from 30 to 50 years in age. Equipment age varies from 10 to 30
years, depending on the date of renovation. Most plants run an
eight hour shift when the raw material is available. The season
length is variable depending on the availability of the raw prod-
uct. During a good year, the plants may operate 120 days per
year.
Most plants use much the same unit operations. Some
have replaced fish fluming with dry conveyance methods. Mechani-
cal eviscerating machines have recently been introduced in some
of the larger operations when the size of the fish merits their
employment. All of the plants sampled coarse screened the solids
which were collected and sold to by-products plants.
3.2.7. Jack Mackerel Canning
Jack mackerel plants are typically large and fall in
the production range of large sardine plants. All of the plants
are located in Southern California with the majority on Terminal
Island. Jack mackerel plants operate year round but only produce
for human consumption a couple of months each year. This produc-
tion is based entirely on market demand. The peak landings occur
in the spring and fall of the year.
A typical plant processes around eight hours per day;
however, this varies somewhat with the daily catch. The processing
equipment appears to be a conglomerate of old and new and ranges
from 15 to 50 years old. The plant site is usually old with one
-255-
-------
site dating from 1917. The plants studied use coarse screens
to remove solids which are then used in by-product recovery opera-
tions. The cost of waste treatment at a typical plant is depicted
on Table 110.
3.2.8. Conventional Bottom Fish
Tables 111 through 118 list the treatment alternative
and associated costs for plants in Alaska and the "lower 48,"
respectively. Processing plants in Alaska are typically located
in isolated towns such as Sand Point, Kodiak, Seward, Juneau,
Pelican, Sitka, Petersburg and Ketchikan. Bottom fish plants
are scattered along much of the coastline of the lower 48 states.
Bottom fish processing in Alaska is almost exclusively
halibut. Halibut processing is Usually done in conjunction with
various other fish and/or shellfish processing. Facilities vary
in age but most processing operations are manual and thus waste
load is unaffected by plant.age. The larger plants (handling
over 5000 tons raw product annually} freeze a large portion of
the fish whole; whereas, the smaller plants fillet more of the
product prior to freezing. . The filleting operation tends to
strengthen the waste load of the effluent.
Plants in the "lower 48'! process a wide variety of bot-
tom fish species and use a variety, of processing methods.
Large plants are those with a throughput of more than
4000 tons of raw product annually. Medium plants process between
2000 and 4000 tons of raw product annually. Small plants process
less than 2000 tons of raw product annually.
-256-
-------
TABLE 110.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : MACKEREL CANNING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
7$.0 DAYS
19.3 TON/HR
17.5 KKG/HR
1500.0 GPM
94.6 L/SEC
4667.6 GAL/TON
19.5 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
102.
469.
764.
542
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS oi 8%
8.
38.
61.
43
DEPRECIATION S 10%
10.
47.
76.
54
DAILY C0STS($)
O&M
19.
137.
195.
165
POWER
1.
2.
3.
3
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
20*
95.
152.
110
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
498.
9.70
339.
6. 60
77.
1.50
125.
2.42
34.
0.66
8.
0. 15
60.
1.17
60.
1.17
5.
0. 10
80.
1.56
200.
3.89
5.
0. 10
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-257-
-------
TABLE 111. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA BOTTOM FISH - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($JOOO)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
8.0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
13.2 TON/HR
12.0 KKG/HR
200.0 GPM
12.6 L/SEC
907.6 GAL/TON
3.8 CU M/KKG
1 2
3
4
63. 259.
476.
333.
5. 21.
6. 26.
38.
48.
27.
33.
5. 16.
1. 2.
28.
3.
23.
3.
12. 48.
89.
63.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
396. 277.
1.50 1.05
60.
0.23
80.
0.30
317. 95.
1.20 0.36
60.
0.23
200.
0.76
132. 20.
0.50 0.07
10.
0.04
10.
0.04
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-258-
-------
TABLE 112. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ALASKA BOTTOM PISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
100.0 DAYS
1.7 TON/HR
1.5 KKG/HR
16.0 GPM
1.0 L/SEC
580.9 GAL/TON
2.4 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
JNJTIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
23.
2.
2.
3.
1.
4.
2
86.
7.
9.
13.
2.
17.
3
155.
12.
15.
19.
3.
30.
4
110.
9.
11.
17.
3.
22.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
867. 607.
2.10 1.47
784.
1.90
41.
0.10
235.
0.57
6.
0.01
91.
0.22
60.
0.15
5.
0.01
121.
0.29
200.
0.48
5.
0.01
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-259-
-------
TABLE113. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IN i T IAL IN VESTriEKT ( $ 1 C CO )
ANNUAL COSTS( $ 1 GOG )
CM.- ITAL COSlS c, 8%
uEPRZCIATION S 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
GSf;
PC.hER
total annual ccsts($iooo.)
PARAMETER
BlD-MG/L
-KC/.\KG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/,;KG
G&OMG/L
-KG/.CKG
10.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
4.3 TON/HR
3.9 KKG/HR
100.0 GPM
6.3 L/SEC
1396.3 GAL/TON
5.8 CU M/KKG
1 2
3
4
19. 77.
1 66.
110.
2. 6.
2. 8.
13.
17.
9.
11.
5. 27.
1. 2.
37.
3.
33.
3.
5. 20.
3t.
27.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
601. 301.
3.50 1.75
60.
0.35
80.
0.47
309. 31.
1.80' 0.18
60.
0.35
200.
1.16
69. 7.
0.40 0.04
5.
0.03
5.
0.03
TREATI-,ENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE).
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-260-
-------
TABLE 114. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED ANO PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH
- large
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
4.3 TON/HR
3.9 KKG/HR
100.0 GPM
6.3 L/SEC
1396.3 GAL/TON
5.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&J-i
POKER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
19.
2.
2.
5.
1.
5.
2
53.
4.
5.
11.
2.
12.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
601.
3.50
412.
2.40
69.
0.40
120.
0.70
200.
1,16
34.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
SCREENING
AERATED LAGOON
-261-
-------
TABLE 115. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY s NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH -MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
9.0 HOURS
200.0 OAYS
2.5 TON/HR
2.3 KKG/HR
60.0 GPM
3.8 L/SEC
1420.6 GAL/TON
5.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 10C0)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
DAILY C0STS($)
OSM
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($1000)
1
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
65.
5.
7.
20.
2.
16.
3
138.
11.
14.
2£,
3.
4
94.
8.
9.
31,
25.
3.
23.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BODt-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
591.
3.50
304.
1.80
68.
0.40
295.
1.75
30.
0. 18
7.
0.04
60.
0.36
60.
0.36
5.
0.03
80.
0.47
200.
1.16
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-262-
-------
TABLE 116. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY: NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
9.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
2.5 TON/HR
2.3 KKG/HR
60.0 GPM
3.8 L/SEC
1420.6 GAL/TON
5.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
46.
4.
5.
9.
2.
10.
PARAMETER
JOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
591.
3.50
68.
0.40
118.
0.70
405. 200.
2.40 1.18
34.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-263-
-------
TAdLE 117. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
8.0
HOURS
SEASON
200.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
1.3
TON/HR
1.2
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
30.0
GPM
1.9
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
13
61.4
GAL/TON
5.7
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
12.
46.
86,
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS £> 8%
0.
4.
7.
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
1.
5.
9.
DAILY COSTS($)
L'&M
3.
15.
22.
POl.ER
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL ClSTS($1000)
3.
12.
21.
RESULTING
EFFLUENT
LEVE
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
617.
308.
60.
-KG/KKG
3.50
1.75
0.34
TSS-MG/L
317.
32.
60.
-KG/KKG
1.80
0.18
0.34
G&U-MG/L
-KG/KKG
70.
0.40
7.
0.04
5.
0.03
4
62'.
5.
6,
19.
3.
16,
80.
0.45
200.
1.14
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-264-
-------
TABLE 118. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY: NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM PISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
1.3 TON/HR
1.2 KKG/HR
30.0 GPM
1.9 L/SEC
1361.4 GAL/TON
5.7 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS S> 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
12.
0.
1.
3.
1.
3.
2
28.
2.
3.
7.
2.
7.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
617.
3.50
423.
2.40
70.
0.40
123*
0.70
200.
1.14
35.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-265-
-------
TA6LEH9.. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY: NONALASKAN CONV. BOTTOM FISH - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
180.0 DAYS
1.0 TON/HR
0.9 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
3025.3 GAL/TON
12.6 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IMTIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL CGSTS($1G00)
CAPITAL COSTS & 8%
DEPRECIATION a> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&ii
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
64.
5.
6.
14.
2.
14.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
793.
10.00
650.
3.20
1 66.
2. 10
475
6.00
146
1.85
17.
0.21
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
-266-
-------
Many bottom fish plants run a standard shift of eight
hours per day, if raw product is available, while others lengthen
the work day as the availability of the raw product increases0
During the sampling period the observed average shift length was
seven hours for plants outside Alaska and near eight hours in
Alaskac
The Pacific halibut season is regulated by the Interna-
tional Pacific Halibut Commission. Most of the catch occurs be-
tween March and October. Halibut carcasses and heads are usually
frozen and sold for bait, while the large solids from non-Alaska
bottom fish plants are utilized in by-product operations.
Most other bottom fish plants process year round; how-
ever, weather often hampers fishing operations during certain
parts of the year.
3.2.9. Mechanized Bottom Fish
Most plants are located on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
These plants are typically larger than the conventional plants
because of the high amount of mechanization results in a faster
raw product flow through. Many of the unit operations that are
done by hand in a conventional plant are done by machine in a
mechanized operation. Large plants process over 7000 tons of
raw product per year, whereas the smaller plants process less
than 2000 tons annually. Plant ages vary; however, the equipment
is usually periodically updated. The processing seasons are
generally shorter since few species of fish are utilized.
-267-
-------
Coarse screening and solids recovery systems are common.
Some plants employ primary clarifiers before discharging waste-
water. Solids are used in rendering plants or sold for bait.
The costs associated with treatment are listed in Table 120 through
Table 122.
3.2 10. Herring Pickling (Alewife)
The alewife processing industry is primarily based in
Virginia with a few plants located in North Carolina and Maryland.
Spring is the alewife season with the peak usually occurring, in
May. The plants only process about 20 days per year, Tables
123 and 124 list the treatment costs.
3o2,ll. Catfish Processes
Catfish processing plants are located in the Central
and Southern states in flat to moderately rolling terrain. Since
this industry is of recent origin, most of the plants are rela-
tively new. No significant variations in unit processes existed
in this subcategory. Waste solids are frequently dry collected
and taken to a reduction plant. Wastewaters from the holding tanks
are occasionally discharged to rearing ponds. The cost information
is shown in Table 125.
3.3. Shellfish
There are many operating conditions that apply to all
of the subcategories in this group. Plant age cannot be con-
-268-
-------
TABLE 120.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN MECH. BOTTOM FISH -
LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
PARAMETER
bod-mg/l
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
8.0 HOURS
180.0 DAYS
6.1 TON/HR
5.5 KKG/HR
180.0 GPM
11.4 L/SEC
1782
7
.2 GAL/TON
.4 CU M/KKG
1
2
3
4
24.
104.
188.
134.
2.
2.
8.
10.
15.
IS.
11.
13.
5.
1.
28.
2.
39.
3.
34.
3.
5.
24.
41.
31.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1346.
10.00
336.
2.50
60.
0.45
80.
0.59
807.
6.00
81.
0.60
60.
0.45
200.
1.49
283.
2.10
28.
0.21
14.
0. 11
14.
0. 1 1
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-269-
-------
TABLE 121.' WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : NONALASKAN MECH BOTTOM LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
180.0 DAYS
6.1 TON/HR
5.5 KKG/HR
180.0 GPM
11.4 L/SEC
1782.2 GAL/TON
7.4 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS d 8%
DEPRECIATION 3> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
24.
2.
2.
5.
1.
5.
2
104.
8.
10,
16.
2.
20.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
1346.
10.00
1103.
8.20
283.
2.10
806.
6.00
248
1.85
28.
0.21
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
-270-
-------
TABLE.122.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY J NQNALASKAf^ MECH. 30TTQM FISH -SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1COC)
CAPITAL COSTS « 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
DAILY COSTS<$)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CUST$($10QO)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KO/KKG
T$S-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&t-HG/L
-KG/iCKG
8,0
HOURS
180.0
DAYS
1,0
TON/HR
0.9
KKG/HR
50.0
GPM
3.1
L/SEC
3025.3
GAL/TON
12,6
CU M/KKG
1
2
3
4
16.
63.
126.
•
CO
UJ
1.
5.
10.
7.
2.
6.
'3#
9.
17.
24.
21.
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
15.
28.
20.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
793.
198.
60.
80.
10.00
2.50
0.76
1.01
476.
48.
60,
200.
6.00
0.60
0,76
2.52
166.
17.
8.
8.
2. 10
0.21
C. 11
0. 1 1
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION * WXTH CHBMIW.8
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
271-
-------
TABLE 123. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY •* HERRING PICKLING (ALEWIVES)
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
20.0 DAYS
6.1 TON/HR
5.5 KKG/HR
285.0 GPM
18.0 L/SEC
2821.8 GAL/TON
11.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
30.
128.
229.
161.
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
2.
3.
10.
13.
18.
23.
13.
16.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
6.
1.
37.
2.
52.
3.
45.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
6.
24.
42.
30.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
1385.
16.30
346.
4.07
60.
0,71
80.
0.94
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
31 A.
3.70
31.
0.37
60.
0.71
200.
2.35
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
5.
0.06
5.
0.06
5.
0.06.
5.
0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-272-
-------
TABLE 124.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY ' HERRING PICKLING (ALEWIVES)
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
20.0 DAYS
6.1 TON/HR
5.5 KKG/HR
285.0 GPM
18.0 L/SEC
2821.8 GAL/TON
11.8 CU M/KKG
treatment system
INITIAL INVESTMENT($10Q0)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS S 8%
DEPRECIATION d \Q%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
30.
2.
3.
6.
1.
6.
2
128,
10.
13.
18.
2.
23»
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1385.
16.30
314.
3.70
5.
0.06
833
9.80
93.
1.11
5.
0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
-273-
-------
TAoLE 125. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNEL AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : CATFISH
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
150.0 DAYS
0.6 TON/HR
0.7 KKG/HR
65.0 GPM
4.1 L/SEC
5056.5 GAL/TON
21.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITI/«L INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS( $ 1 CfCC )
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION Gi 10%
daily c:;sts($)
G£-M
PG;.ER
TC1AL ANNUAL CLSTS(SIOOO)
17.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
67.
5.
7.
18.
2.
15.
1 33.
11.
13.
26.
J I
2i.
4
93.
7.
9.
23.
3.
21.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
oOL-MG/L
-kg/.u
-------
sidered a factor influencing the waste strength especially in
hand-shucked operations where there is very little mechanization.
Age influence on mechanized operations is partially nullified
by periodic equipment modifications. Plant age can affect treat-
ment costs somewhat by the potential plumbing costs that exist
at some of the older plants. Most plants attempt to process
eight hours per day but it usually varies with raw product avail-
ability and therefore averages somewhat less than eight hours.
Clam, oyster and abalone plants salvage the shell. In
those mechanized subcategories where the shell is broken during
the meat removal operation, some plants have installed settling
basins to facilitate shell fragment removal. Other plants use
coarse screening for this purpose.
3.3.1. Alaska Crab
Table 126 shows the costs and removal efficiencies asso-
ciated with the various recommended treatment systems. Most crab
processing plants located in Alaska are either in remote areas
or in towns with concentrations of seafood processors such as
Kodiak and Petersburg.
The crab processing equipment is essentially the same
within each process (meat, sections and whole). The number of
processes employed varies from plant to plant. Most plants pro-
cess king, Dungeness and tanner crab.
Plants where solids recovery facilities are available
use tangential screens. By far the greatest portion of the Alaska
process grind and discharge their waste.
-275-
-------
TAiJLE 126. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CAMEL AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUuCATEGORY : ALASKA CRAU
OPERATINC DAY
SEAS U,\'
PKLDUCTIOli
FiUJCC-S FLOW
rIYuKALLIC load
16.C HOURS
100.C DAYS
1.7 TON/HR
1.5 KKG/HR
150.C GPH
343.6 L/SEC
5445.5 GAL/TON
22.7 CU M/KKG
TkcAT,.E;IT SYSTEM
IhITIAL INVESTMENT( $ 1 COO )
annual ccsts($koo)
CAPITAL COSTS u 8%
isL. P. > l. CI AT IG i '¦ <¦- 10/L
u/ULY C0STS($)
U£M
PGi.ER
TOTAL ANNUAL CcSTS($1OCO>
1
45.
4.
4.
9.
1.
9.
2
183.
15.
18.
51.
2.
38.
4 99,
4c,
so.
71.
> •
97.
PAHWETcU
uGL-MG/L
—!\C/NKG
T MG/ L
— i\G/.\i\L
CGL-MG/ L
-KG/XKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
467.
10.6C
225.
5.10
4C.
0.90
233.
5.30
22.
0.51
5.
0. 1 1
60.
1.36
60.
1.36
5.
u. 11
3
->
TkE/\T; EMT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)'
SCREENING
! FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AEfvATIGN
-276-
-------
3.3.2. West Coast Crab
Table 127 shows the recommended treatment systems and
their related removal efficiencies. Most crab processors are
located in small coastal towns.
The West Coast plants process both tanner and Dungeness
crab either as hand-picked meat or whole. Solid wastes are
generally screened and taken to a rendering plant. Little varia-
tions in processes exist between plants.
3.3.3. Blue Crab Processes
The blue crab industry was divided into "mechanized"
and "conventional" because of the increased water and waste loads
produced when a mechanical picking machine is used. The plants
are typically located in the coastal areas of the Atlantic and
Gulf regions of the United States. Regional variations in costs
exist in this large area but were not considered in constructing
the tables. Few waste treatment systems are presently in use.
Tables 128 and 129 list the costs of the respective
treatment systems for the conventional and mechanized blue crab
industry.
3.3.4. Alaska and Northwest Shrimp
Tables 130 and 131 show the treatment system costs for
an average Alaska and Northwest Coast shrimp plant. Alaska plants
are typically located in isolated regions or in remote towns while
Northwest plants are in small coastal towns.
-277-
-------
TAJLt 127. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : WEST COAST UUNGENESS CRAL
OPERATING DAY
10.0
HOURS
SEASON
200.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
0.9
TON/HR
0.8
KKG/HR
PKCCESS FLOW
67.0
GPM
287.8
L/SEC
HYDRAULIC LOAD
4560.6
GAL/TON
19.0
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
INITIAL I INVESTMENT ($1000)
17.
67.
149.
ANNUAL CUSTSU1300)
12.
CAPITAL COSTS a S%
1.
5.
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
2.
7.
15.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
5.
23.
32.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
4.
17.
34.
RESULTING
EFFLUENT LEVEl
PARAMETER
oOu-MG/L
421
•
210.
CO.
-KG/,;KG
8.
no
4.00
1.14
TSS-MG/L
142
•
14.
60.
-KG/KKG
2.
70
0.27
1.14
GSC-MG/L
5
•
5.
5.
—KG/i\KG
0.
10
0. 10
C. 10
4-
>•9,
8,
10.
29,
3,
24.
80.
1.52
200.
3.80
5.
0.10
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OP.
4 AERATED LAGCON
-278-
-------
TABLE 128. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CAKNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAt3
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
160.0 DAYS
0.3 TON/HR
0.3 KKG/HR
1.4 GPM
<0.1 L/SEC
254.1 GAL/TON
1.1 CU K/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
11 .1TIAL IK VE ST? iEN T ($ 10 00)
ANNUAL CUSTS($1G0C)
CAPITAL COSTS u 8%
DEPRECIATION 0 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
oa;:
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ( $ 1 000)
1
6.
0.
0.
4.
1.
2.
2
22.
2.
2.
16.
2.
7.
3
37.
3.
4.
23.
3.
11.
PARAMETER
oOL-MG/L
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
4907.
2454.
368.
-KG/i\i\G
5.20
2.60
0.39
TSS-MG/L
1 132.
113.
60.
-kg/,;kg
1.20
CM
•
O
0.06
G&O-MG/L
377.
3fi.
6.
-KG/KKG
0.40
0.04
0.00
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATILN
279-
-------
TABLE 129. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : MECHANIZED BLUE CRAB
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
annual costs($iooo)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION u) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&iS
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS(.$ 1000)
PARAMETER
I30D-MG/L
-KG/ivKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/XKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/i\KG
10.0
HOURS
160.0
DAYS
0.7
TON/HR
0.6
KKG/HR
98.0
GPM
6.2
L/SEC
8891*.3
GAL/TON
37.1
CU M/KKG
1
2
3
19.
76. 165.
2.
6.
13.
2.
8.
16.
5.
26.
37.
1.
2.
3.
k.
18.
36.
RESULTING
i EFFLUENT
levels
612
•
306.
60.
22.
70
11.35
2.23
315
•
32.
60.
11.
70
1.17
2.23
151
•
15.
5.
5.
60
0.56
0.19
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-280-
-------
TABLE 130.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED ANO PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY » ALASKA SHRIMP (KODIAK)
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
16.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
2.2 TON/HR
2.0 KKG/HR
646.0 GPM
1109.9 L/SEC
17588.9 GAL/TON
73.4 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL CCSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
103.
8.
10.
2
800.
64.
80.
3
1433.
115.
1.43.
o&r;
20.
47.
102
POWER
1.
2.
4
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($10U0)
23.
154.
279
PARAMETER
30L-MG/L
-KG/rsKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/XKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/iCKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1663.
122.00
2904.
213.00
232.
17.00
1164.
85.40
871.
63.90
35.
2.55
175.
12.81
131.
9.58
5.
0.38
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-281-
-------
TAULc 131.WATER EtFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CAMEL AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SuuCATEGORY : NORTHWEST SHRIMP
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
1.2 TON/HR
1.1 KKG/HR
258.0 GPN
805.9 L/SEC
12772.1 GAL/TOW
53.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEf,
INITIAL INVEST! :,ENT ( $ 1 000 )
annual ci;sts($igoc)
CAPITAL COSTS L 8%
OEPRECIAT I ON CO 10%
u/vILY COSTS($)
O&i'i
PCȣR
TOTAL ANNUAL CLSTS($1000)
1
29.
2.
3.
9.
1.
2
35.
11.
13.
26.
2.
30,
3
27 V.
22.
28.
47.
60.
A
1W.
15.
18.
37.
3.
41.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
uGL-HG/L
-kg/;;;
-------
The only variations in the processes are in the number
and type of peelers used and whether the peeled shrimp is canned
or frozen. Most of the processors in metropolitan areas screen
their wastewater? The solids are typically disposed of by further
processing for animal feed. Isolated processors in Alaska grind
and discharge or just discharge their waste without grinding.
3.3.5. Gulf Shrimp Processes
The gulf shrimp industry was divided into "canned" and
"breaded" subcategories, for the purpose of developing the cost
tables. Costs did not vary significantly within the Gulf coast
region. Within each of the subcategories, unit processes did
not vary enough to significantly alter the costs.
Tables 132 and 133 list the costs for waste treatment
systems for canned and breaded shrimp operations. Most processors
employed either tangential or rotary screens to treat their waste-
water before discharging to the receiving waters.
3.3.6. Clams
Most clam processing plants are located along the central
coast of the Eastern Seaboard. Large conventional plants produce
over 5000 tons of clam meat annually, while the majority of the
mechanized operations average around 7000 tons per year. The
processing season averages between 180 and 200 days per year.
Tables 134 through 143 show the treatment costs for a typical
mechanized and conventional plant, respectively.
-283-
-------
TABLE 132.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY :
CANNED GULF SHRIMP
OPERATING PAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
10.0
210.0
2.6
2.4
HOURS
DAYS
ton/hr
KKG/HR
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
433.0
27.3
962^.6
41.0
GPM
L/SEC
GAL/TON
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
IN IT IAL I^VESTMENT($ 1 COO)
39.
185.
34C.
232.
ANNUAL CGSTS($100C)
CAPITAL COSTS w 8%
DEPRECIATION C> 10%
3.
4.
15.
19.
27.
34.
19.
23.
daily custs($)
0G<\
PC..ER
9.
1.
25.
2.
50.
5 •
38.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL CLSTS(SieCO)
9.
39.
72.
50.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
uOL-MG/L
-KG/.CKG
1123.
46.00
786.
32.20
118.
4.83
157.
6.44
T^S-MG/L
»KG/ i\!\G
920.
37.70
276.
11.31
60.
2,46
200.
8. IS
G&L-HG/L
-iCC;/;-M%G
26G.
11.00
40.
1.65
6.
U.25
20.
0.82
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
-284-
-------
TABLE 133. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUbCATEGORY : BREADED GULF SHRIMP
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
10.0 HOURS
210.0 DAYS
0,8 TON/HR
0.7 KKG/HR
360.0 GPM
22.7 L/SEC
28005.4 GAL/TON
116.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL CCSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS £ 8%
DEPRECIATION Si 10%
DmILY COSTS($)
OSJ.
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS( $ 1 000).
1
35.
3.
3.
8,
1,
2
159.
13.
16.
23.
2.
34.
3
300.
24.
30.
45.
3.
64.
4
203.
16.
20.
35.
3.
45.
PARAMETER
UGD-MG/L
¦••KG/i\KG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/i\KG
G&C-MG/L
-KC/.xKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
719.
84.00
7 88.
92.00
5.
0.58
504.
58.80
236.
27.60
5.
0.58
76.
8.82
60.
7.01
5.
0.58
101.
11.76
200.
23.36
5.
0.58
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-285-
-------
TABLE 134. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633.6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%.
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
1
66.
5.
7.
12.
1.
15.
2
331,
27.
33.
3
530.
42,
53,
4
385.
31.
38.
• •
CO CM
00
124.
3.
106
3
CO
•
121.
91
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
2114. 1057.
14.40 7.20
881.
6.00
59.
0.40
88.
0.60
6.
0.04
159.
1.08
60.
0.41
5.
0.03
211.
1.44
200.
1.36
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WI'i'H CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-286-
-------
TABU 135., WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633,6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5» 8%
DEPRECIATION 3> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
66.
5.
7.
12.
1.
15.
2
265.
21.
27.
49.
3.
58.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
2114.
14.AO
881
6.00
59.
0.40
317.
2.16
220
1.5
29.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
-287-
-------
TABLE 136. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVEO FISH ANO SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY s MECHANIZED CLAMS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
33.1 TON/HR
30.0 KKG/HR
900.0 GPM
56.8 L/SEC
1633.6 GAL/TON
6.8 CU M/KKG
TREATNT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS <6 &%
DEPRECIATION c) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
0&< i
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
1
66.
5.
7.
12.
1.
15.
2
120.
10.
12.
30.
3.
28.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/i
-------
TABLE 13? . WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVEO FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * MECHANIZED CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 OAYS
9.8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.
9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
29.
133. 231.
166.
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION St 10%
2.
3.
11.
13.
19.
23.
13.
17.
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
6.
1.
35.
2.
50.
3.
43.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL CGSTS($1000)
7.
31.
52.
39.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT
2090. 1045.
14.40 7.20
LEVELS
157.
t.08
209.
1.44
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
871.
6.00
87.
0.60
60.
0.41
200.
1.38
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
58.
0.40
6.
0.04
5.
0.03
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
-289-
-------
TABLE 138. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : MECHANIZEO CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
9.8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 2
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000) 29. 128.
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5) 8% 2. 10.
DEPRECIATION of 10% 3. 13.
DAILY COSTS($)
G&i-i 6. 20.
POWER 1. 2.
TOTAL ANNUAL COSJS($1000) 7. 27.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L 2090. 314.
-KG/KKG H.40 2.16
TSS-MG/L 881 220
-KG/kKG 6.00 1.5
GSO-MG/L 58. 29.
-KG/i
-------
TABLE 139. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : MECHANIZED CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
9.8 TON/HR
8.9 KKG/HR
270.0 GPM
17.0 L/SEC
1652.0 GAL/TON
6.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS & 8%
DEPRECIATION cD 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CCSTS($1000)
1
29.
2.
3.
6.
1.
7.
2
62.
5.
6,
14.
2,
14,
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
2090.
14.40
881.
6.00
58.
0.40
418.
2.88
264
1.8
29.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-291-
-------
TABLE 140 . WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS -LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
5.7 TON/HR
5.2 KKG/HR
120.0 GPM
7.6 L/SEC
1256.7 GAL/TON
5.2 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS .& 8%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
21.
2.
2.
2
98.
8.
10.
3
126.
10.
13.
4.
23.
28.
1.
2.
3.
5.
23.
29.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
1259.
6.60
2481.
13.00
76.
0.40
630.
3.30
248.
1.30
8.
0.04
126.
0.66
200.
1.05
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 AERATED LAGOON
4 SCREENING + EXTENDED AERATION
4
96.
4.
5.
9.
2.
11.
19.
0.99
60.
3.84
38.
0.20
-292-
-------
TABLE 141. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY s CONVENTIONAL CLAMS _ SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
6.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TON/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL CQSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS oi 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
PPWER
TOTAL ANNUAL CQSTS($1000)
1
18.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
78,
6,
8.
19,
2.
18.
3
144.
12.
14.
26.
3.
32.
4
104.
8.
10.
23.
3.
24.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1287. 644.
6.60 3.30
2535. 254.
13.00 1.30
78.
0.40
8.
0.04
97.
0.50
63.
0.33
5.
0.03
129.
0. 66
200.
1.03
5.
0.03
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
4 AERATED LAGOON
-293-
-------
TABLE 142. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CONVENTIONAL CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TON/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS £> 4%
DEPRECIATION 5) 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS'* $1 000)
1
18.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
84,
7.
8.
11.
2.
18.
PARAMETER
BOC-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1287.
6.60
2145.
11.00
78.
0.40
193.
0.99
536.
2.75
39.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
-294-
-------
TABLE .143. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY s CONVENTIONAL CLAMS - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
3.4 TON/HR
3.1 KKG/HR
70.0 GPM
4.4 L/SEC
1229.6 GAL/TON
5.1 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS d 8%
DEPRECIATION 3 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
18.
1.
2.
4.
1.
4.
2
43.
3.
4.
8.
2.
10.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/. (KG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1287.
6.60
2145.
11.00
78.
0.40
257.
1.32
644.
3.30
39.
0.20
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 AERATED LAGOON
-295-
-------
3.3.7. Steamed and Canned Oysters
Steamed oyster plants are located along the coastline
of Chesapeake Bay. Canned oyster plants are known to be located
along the Gulf Coast and Washington State Coast. The season runs
through the fall to an early spring with approximately 160 days
per year of processing. Table 144 shows treatment cost for a
typical plant.
3.3.8. Hand-Shucked Oysters
Plants are usually found in small towns along the Pacific,
Eastern and Gulf Coasts. Processing methods are very similar
in each area. Treatment systems have been costed out for a typi-
cal operation in Tables 145 through 151.
3.3.9. Scallops
Scallops are caught and processed the year round in
Alaska. The costs for an Alaska operation are listed in Table
152. The costs for a non-Alaska plant are shown in Table 152.
3.3.10. Abalone and Sea Urchin
Plants studied are located near the waterfront in Southern
California. Plants usually vary in processing time from one to
eight hours per day; however, they probably only average three
hours per day. The abalone season is closed from the month of
February to August. All of the plants studied ran their wastewater
-296-
-------
TABLE 144.WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY » STEAMED OR CANNED OYSTERS
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.9 TON/HR
0.8 KKG/HR
220.0 GPM
13.9 L/SEC
14975.1 GAL/TON
62.5 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0ST5($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 5> 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
26.
2.
3.
5.
1.
5.
2
123.
10.
12.
31.
2.
26.
3
213.
17.
21,
44.
3.
44.
4
153.
12.
15.
38.
3.
32.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
641.
40.00
1249.
78.00
30.
1.90
160.
10.00
125.
7.80
5.
0.31
60.
3.75
60.
3.75
5.
0.31
80.
5.00
200.
12.49
5.
0.31
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1
2
3
OR
SCREENING
FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
EXTENDED AERATION
AERATED LAGOON
-297-
-------
TABLE 145. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : EASTERN HAND SHUCKED OYSTERS - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INIT IAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL CCSTS($1000) .
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION S 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/iCKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/XKG
8.0
HOURS
200.0
DAYS
0.4
TON/HR
0.4
KKG/HR
60.0
GPM
3.8
L/SEC
9335.1
GAL/TON
39.0
CU M/KKG
1
2
3
17.
65.
130.
1.
5.
10.
2.
6.
13.
4.
14.
21.
1.
2.
3.
4.
15.
28.
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVEL
360.
252.
60.
H.oo
9.80
2.34
283.
85.
60.
11.00
3.30
2.34
18.
5.
5.
0.70
0.19
0.19
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-298-
-------
TABLE 146. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY EASTERN HAND SHUCKED OYSTERS
- MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
8.0
HOURS
SEASON
200.0
DAYS
PRODUCTION
0.2
TON/HR
PROCESS FLOW
0.2
KKG/HR
25.0
GPM
HYDRAULIC LOAD
1.6
L/SEC
8508.6
GAL/TON
35.5
CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1
2
3
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
11.
41.
78.
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 8%
X.
3.
6.
DEPRECIATION S> 10%
1.
4.
8.
DAILY C0STS($)
O&M
3.
13.
19.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL ANNUAL CUSTS($1000)
3.
11.
19.
RESULTING EFFLUENT
LEVEI
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
395.
276.
60.
-KG/KKG
14.00
9.80
2.13
TSS-MG/L
310.
93.
60.
-KG/KKG
11.00
3.30
2.13
GSO-MG/L
20.
5.
5.
-KG/KKG
0.70
0.18
0.18
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
-299-
-------
TABLE 147. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER - LARGE
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.4 TON/HR
0.4 KKG/HR
115.0 GPM
7.3 L/SEC
15655.8 GAL/TON
65.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL I INVESTMENT ($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS
-------
TABLE 148. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER
- MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0,2 TON/HR
0.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
13613.7 GAL/TON
56.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS 3 8%
DEPRECIATION d 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
4.
1.
3.
2
79.
6.
8.
10.
2.
16.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&C-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
493.
28.00
229.
13.00
32.
1.80
74.
4.20
60.
3.41
16.
0.90
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDED AERATION
-301-
-------
TABLE 149. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY * PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTERS
-MEDIUM
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
110.0 DAYS
0.2 TON/HR
0.2 KKG/HR
50.0 GPM
3.2 L/SEC
17017.1 GAL/TON
71.0 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a) 8%
DEPRECIATION a) 10%
DAILY C0STS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
16.
1.
2.
4.
1.
3.
2
63.
5.
6.
14.
2.
13.
3
79.
6.
9.
11.
2.
15.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
395.
237.
60,
28.00
16.80
4.26
606.
182.
152.
43.00
12.90
10.70
25.
5.
12.
1.80
0.35
0.90
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 „ FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 0R EXTENDED AERATION
-302-
-------
TABLE 150. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HANO SHUCKED OYSTER - SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
90.0 DAYS
0.0 TON/HR
0.0 KKG/HR
13.0 GPM
0.8 L/SEC
17697.8 GAL/TON
73.9 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENTS 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS(SIOOO)
CAPITAL COSTS o) 8%
DEPRECIATION a 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
o&r,
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
8.
0.
0.
3.
1.
2.
2
33.
3.
3.
9.
2.
7.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
379.
28.00
176.
13.00
24.
1.80
60.
4.43
60.
4.43
12.
0.90
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 EXTENDEO AERATION
-303-
-------
TABLE 151. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : PACIFIC HAND SHUCKED OYSTER
- SMALL
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
TREATMENT SYSTEM
IHITIAL I INVESTMENT ($ 10 00)
annual costs($iogo)
CAPITAL COSTS ifi 8%
DEPRECIATION £> 10%
DAILY CGSTS($)
O&M
POWER*
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS('$ 1000)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
GSO-MG/L
—KG/i\KU
8.0
HOURS
90.0
DAYS
<0.1
TON/HR
<0.1
KKG/HR
13.0
GPM
0.8
L/SEC
17697.8
GAL/TON
73.9
CU M/KKG
1
2
8.
32.
0.
3.
0.
3.
3.
13.
1.
2.
2.
7.
RESULTING EFFLUENT
379.
228.
28.00
16.80
583.
175.
43.00
12.90
24.
5.
1.80
0.37
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
¦304-
-------
TABLE 152. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY « ALASKAN SCALLOPS
(NON-ALASKAN SCALLOP COSTS IN PARENTHESIS)
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
12.0 HOURS
60.0 DAYS
1.7 TON/HR
1.5 KKG/HR
55.0 GPM
3.5 L/SEC
1996.7 GAL/TON
8.3 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($ 1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($ 1000)
CAPITAL COSTS S 8%
DEPRECIATION 3> 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($lOOO)
1 2 3
42J17) 158.(63) 281.(113)
3.(1) 13.(5) 22.(9)
16.(6)
4.(2)
5.
1.
21.
2.
28.(12)
31.
3.
8.(4) 30.(12) 52.(23)
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
384.
3.20
108.
0.90
12.
0.10
269.
2.24
32.
0.27
5.
0.04
60.
0.50
60.
0.50
5.
0.04
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
3 SCREENING AND EXTENDED AERATION
-305-
-------
*-r> discharge into the muni-
through a small settling tank prior
.c 4-via +-r-^atment are shown in Table 153.
cipal sewer. The costs of the treatm
3.3.11. Lobster and Conch Canning
spiny lobster water effluent treatment costs are shown
in Table 154. Spiny lobster plants are located along the Southern
The Southern California spiny
California and Florida coastlines. Tne *
_ _ . j jvnrii to October. No treatment
lobster season is closed from April
fny thP American lobster plants since
was considered necessary for tne Amei.
no processing is accomplished.
Conch canning plants are located on the Eastern Seaboard.
There are no seasons on the harvesting of conchs, the majority
of the catch being caught incidently with clams. Conch canning
costs are shown in Table 155.
-306-
-------
TABLE 153. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : ABALONE/SEA URCHIN
OPERATING DAY
SEASON-
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAO
8.0 HOURS
200.0 DAYS
0.9 TON/HR
0.8 KKG/HR
10.0 GPM
0.6 L/SEC
680.7 GAL/TON
2.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS a 8%
DEPRECIATION S 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&M
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
1
26.
2.
3.
10.
1.
7.
2
4.
5.
15.
2.
12.
PARAMETER
80D-MG/L
-KG/KKG
TSS-MG/L
-KG/KKG
G&O-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1762.
5.00
423.
1.20
39.
0. 11
264.
0.75
106.
0.30
19.
0.06
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 FLOTATION WITHOUT CHEMICALS
2 EXTENDED AERATION
-307
-------
TABU 154. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVEO FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : SPINY LOBSTER
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
120.0 DAYS
0.4 TON/HR
0.3 KKG/HR
3.0 6PM
31.2 L/SEC
495.0 GAL/TON
2.t CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL IUVESTMENT($1000)
AiWUAL COSTS< $ I 000).
CAPITAL COSTS 5 8%
DEPRECIATION S tO%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&N
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS*$1000)
1
19.
U
2.
10.
1.
5.
PARAMETER
BOD-MG/L
-KG/KKG
T SS-MG/L
-KG/KKfi
G&n-MG/L
-KG/KKG
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
1085.
2.24
174.
0.36
19.
0.04
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 FLOTATION- WITH CHEMICALS
-308-
-------
TABLE 155. WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND SEAFOOD
SUBCATEGORY : CLAM/CONCH CANNING
OPERATING DAY
SEASON
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FLOW
HYDRAULIC LOAD
8.0 HOURS
200,0 DAYS
1.1 TON/HR
1.0 KKG/HR
250.0 GPM
859.0 L/SEC
13613.7 GAL/TON
56.8 CU M/KKG
TREATMENT SYSTEM
INITIAL INVESTMENT($1000)
ANNUAL COSTS($1000)
CAPITAL COSTS d 8%
DEPRECIATION Q 10%
DAILY COSTS($)
O&t i
POWER
TOTAL ANNUAL C0STS($1000)
1
28.
2.
3.
6.
1.
6.
2
116.
9.
12.
34.
2.
28.
3
211.
17.
21,
47.
3.
48.
4
148.
12.
15.
41.
3.
35.
PARAMETER
RESULTING EFFLUENT LEVELS
BOD-MG/L
722.
361.
60.
-KG/KKG
41.00
20.50
3.41
TSS-MG/L
173.
17.
60.
-KG/KKG
9.80
0.98
3.41
G&C-MG/L
19.
5.
5.
-KG/KKG
1.10
0.28
0.28
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(CUMULATIVE)
1 SCREENING
2 FLOTATION - WITH CHEMICALS
3 EXTENDED AERATION
OR
80.
4.54
200.
11.35
5.
0.28
AERATED LAGOON
-309-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was directed by Michael R. Soderquist,
P.E., assisted by Bruce A. Montgomery, and James M. Reiman.
The Project Manager for Sea Resources Engineering, Inc.,
Dr. George Pigott, was assisted by Dr. Om Agarwala and
Richard van Dyke. Also involved in the technical portion
of the seminars were Fred Claggett of Environment Canada,
Irvin Snider, Jr. of Carborundum Corporation and Prank
Mauldin of Dominque, Szabo and Associates, Inc.
Participants from the Environmental Protection Agency
included John Osborne, Edwin L. Coate, Dennis Cannon,
Dan Bodien and Kenneth Dostal. Other contributors in-
cluded Roy Martin, National Fisheries Institute; Charles
Marshall, J. A. Commins and Associates, Inc.; David Dressel
and Donald Whitaker, National Marine Fisheries Service; and
Walter Mercer, National Canners Association.
Special appreciation is extended to EPA Project Offi-
cer Dennis Cannon of the Office of Technology Transfer.
We wish to thank the Water Pollution Control Federation,
Wemco division of Envirotech Corporation, Eimco division of
Envirotech Corporation, SWECO, Surfpac, Carborundum Corp-
oration, New England Fish Company and the Cape May Canning
Company for the use of plates showing their equipment.
It goes without saying that the most valued contri-
butions of all in this endeavor came from the cooperating
industrial concerns and industry representatives themselves.
Although listing all of their names would be prohibitive,
their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
310
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1969. Basic Principles of Wastewater Treat-
ment Operations. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Washington, D.C. 206 pp.
. 1970. Turning Waste Into Feed. Chemical
Week, 107:24.
1971. Final Plan for Pollution Abatement
Program. Standard Products Co., Inc. Reedville,
Virginia. 38 pp.
. 1971. Seafood Cannery Waste Study. Phase I-
1971. Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield. Belle-
vue, Washington. 48 pp.
1972. Investigation of Screening Equipment
for Salmon Cannery Wastewater. National Canners
Association Northwest Research Laboratory. Seattle,
Washington. 26 pp.
. 1973. Unpublished data. National Marine
Fisheries Service. Pacific Technological Laboratory.
Atwell, J.S., R.E. Reed and B.A. Patrie. 1972. Water
Pollution Control Problems and Programs of the Maine
Sardine Council. Proceedings of the 27th Industrial
Waste Conference. Purdue University, p. 86.
Baker, D.W. and C.J. Carlson. 1972. Proceedings of 17th
Annual Atlantic Fisheries Technological Conference.
Annapolis, Maryland. 15 pp.
Claggett, F.G. and J. Wong. 1969. Salmon Canning Waste
Water Clarification, Part III. A Comparison of
Various Arrangements for Flotation and Some Observa-
tions Concerning Sedimentation and Herring Pump Water
Clarification. Circular Number 42. Fisheries Re-
search Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. 25 pp.
Claggett, F.G. 1972. The Use of Chemical Treatment and
Air Flotation for The Clarification oJ: Fish Processing
Plant Waste Water. Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Vancouver Laboratory. Vancouver, B.C. 13 pp.
Claggett, F.G. 1973. Secondary Treatment of Salmon Canning
Wastewater by Rotation Biological Contactor (RBC).
Tech. Report No. 366. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. 15 pp.
-311-
-------
Dehn, W.T. 1974. Personal Communication. Cornell,
Howland, Hayes, Merryfield and Hill. Bellevue,
Washington.
Environmental Associates, Inc. 1973. Draft Development Doc-
ument for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
of Performance for the Canned and Preserved Fish and
Seafoods Processing Industry (Phase I). Water Quality
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. 425 pp.
Environmental Associates, Inc. 1974. Draft Development Doc-
ument for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
of Performance for the Canned and Preserved Fish and
Seafoods Processing Industry (Phase II). Water Quality
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. (in press).
Jacobs Engineering Co. 1971. Pollution Abatement Study for
the Tuna Research Foundation, Inc. 120 pp.
Jordan, R.M. 1973. Personal Communication. University of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Kohler, R. Sept. 1969. Das Flotationsverfahren und seine
Anwendung in der Abwassertechnik. Wasser Luft und
Betrieb, 13, No. 9.
Lessing, L. July 1973. A Salt of the Earth Joins the War
on Pollution. Fortune. p. 138.
Mayo, W.E. June 1966. Recent Developments in Flotation for
Industrial Waste Treatment. Proc., 13th Ontario Indus-
trial Waste "Conference, pp. 169-181.
Mauldin, F. 1973. Personal Communication. Unpublished data
Canned Shrimp Industry. Waste Treatment Demonstration
in Louisiana Processing Plant.
McNabney, R. and J. Wynne. August 1971. Ozone: The Coming
Treatment? Water and Waste Engineering, 8. pp. 8, 46.
Metcalf, L. and H.P. Eddy. 1972. Wastewater Engineering.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 782 pp.
Nemerow, N.L. 1971. Li-quid Waste of Industry. Theories,
Practices and Treatment. Addison - Wesley Publishing
Company, p. 87.
Perry, J.H. (ed.) . 1950. Chemical Engineer's Handbook,
3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, inc. 1942 pp.
Peterson, P.L. 1973a. Treatment of Shellfish Processing
Wastewater by Dissolved Air Flotation. Unpublished
report. N.M.F.S., Seattle, Washington. 37 pp.
-312-
-------
Riddle, M.J., et al. 1972. An Effluent Study of a Fresh
Water FisK~Processing Plant. Reprint EPS G-WP-721.
Water Pollution Control Directorate, Canada. 33 pp.
Riddle, M.J. and K. Shikazi. 1973. Characterization and
Treatment of Fish Processing Plant Effluents in Canada.
Presented at 1973 National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes. Syracuse, New York. 30 pp.
Robbins, E. 1973. Personal Communication. Envirotech Corp-
oration. Menlo Park, California.
Soderquist, M.R., K.J. Williamson, G.I. Blanton, Jr., D.C.
Phillips, D.K. Law and D.C. Crawford. 1970. Current
Practice in Seafoods Processing Waste Treatment. Water
Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 117 pp.
Talsma, T. and J.R. Phillip (eds.). 1971. Salinity and
Water Use. Wylie-Interscience. New York, New York.
-313-
-------
Terms Applicable to Waste Treatment
and the Seafood industry
Activated Sludge Process; Removes organic matter from waste-
water by saturating it with air and biologically active
sludge.
Aeration Tank: A chamber for injecting air or oxygen into
water.
Aerobic Organism; An organism that thrives in the presence
of oxygen.
Algae (Alga): Simple plants, many microscopic, containing
chlorophyll. Most algae are aquatic and may produce a
nuisance when conditions are suitable for prolific growth.
Algorithm; Any mechanical or repetitive computational pro-
cedure .
Ammonia Stripping: Ammonia removal from a liquid, usually
by intimate contact with an ammonia-free gas, such as air.
Anadromous: Type of fish that ascend rivers from the sea
to spawn.
Anaerobic: Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
Aguaculture: The cultivation and harvesting of aquatic
plants andanimals.
Bacteria: The smallest living organisms which comprise,
along with fungi, the decomposer category of the food chain.
Bailwater: Water used to facilitate unloading of fish from
fishing vessel holds.
Barometric Leg; Use of moving streams of water to draw a
vacuum; aspirator.
Batch Cooker; Product remains stationary in cooker (water
is periodically changed).
Benthic Region; The bottom of a body of water. This region
supports the benthos, a-type of life that not only lives
upon but contributes to the character of the bottom.
Benthos.; Aquatic bottom-dwelling organisms. These include
7l)sessile animals, such as the sponges, barnacles, mussels,
oysters, some of the worms, and many attached algae; (2)
creeping forms, such as insects, snails and certain clams;
and (3) burrowing forms, which include most clams and worms.
-314-
-------
Bight: An indentation or recess in the shore of a sea; a
bay.
Biological Oxidation; The process whereby, through the
activity of living organisms in an aerobic environment,
organic matter is converted to more biologically stable
matter.
Biological Stabilization: Reduction in the net energy level
or organic matter as a result of the metabolic activity of
organisms, so that further biodegradation is very slow.
Biological Treatment; Organic waste treatment in which
bacteria and/or biochemical action are intensified under
controlled conditions.
Blow Tank: Water-filled tank used to wash oysters or clam
meats byagitating with air injected at the bottom.
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand): Amount of oxygen necessary
in the water for bacteria to consume the organic sewage. It
is used as a measure in telling how well a sewage treatment
plant is working.
BOD-5: A measure of the oxygen consumption by aerobic organ-
isms over a 5-day test period at 20°C. It is an indirect
measure of the concentration of biologically degradable
material present in organic wastes contained in a waste
stream.
Botulinus Organisms: Those that cause acute food poisoning.
Breading: A finely ground mixture containing cereal pro-
ducts, flavorings and other ingredients, that is applied to
a product that has been moistened, usually with batter.
Brine: Concentrated salt solution which is used to cool or
freeze fish.
BTU; British thermal unit, the quantity of heat required to
raise one pound of water 1°F.
Building Drain: Lowest horizontal part of a building drain-
age system.
Building Drainage System: Piping provided for carrying
wastewater or other drainage from a building to the street
sewer.
Bulking Sludge: Activated sludge that settles poorly be-
cause of low-density floe.
-315-
-------
Canned Fishery Products Fish, shell fish, or other aquatic
animals packed singlyor in combination with other items in
hermetically sealed, heat sterilized cans, jars, or other
suitable containers. Most, but not all, canned fishery
products can be stored at room temperature for an indefinite
period of time vithout spoiling.
Carbon Adsorption; The separation of small waste particles
and molecular species, including color and odor contaminants,
by attachment to the surface and open pore structure of car-
bon granules or powder. The carbon is "activated," or made
more adsorbent by treatment and processing.
Case: "Standard" packaging in corrugated fiberboard
containers.
Centrifugal Decanter: A device which subjects material in a
steady stream to a centrifugal force and continuously dis-
charges the separated components.
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand): A measure of the amount of
oxygen required to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic
compounds in water.
Chemical Precipitation: A waste treatment process whereby
substances dissolved in the wastewater stream are rendered
insoluble and form a solid phase that settles out or can be
removed by flotation techniques.
Clarification: Process of removing undissolved materials
from a liquid. .Specifically, removal of solids either by
settling or filtration.
Clarifier: A settling basin for separating settleable
solids from wastewater.
Coagulant: A material, which, when added to liquid wastes
or water, creates a reaction which forms insoluble floe par-
ticles that adsorb and precipitate colloidal and suspended
solids. The floe particles can be removed by sedimentation.
Among the most common- chemical coagulants used in sewage
treatmeint are ferric chloride, alum and lime.
Coagulation: The clumping together of solids to make them
settle out of the sewage faster. Coagulation of solids is
brought about with the use of certain chemicals such as
lime, alum, or polyelectrolytes.
Coefficient of Variation: A measure used in describing the
amount of variation in a population. An estimate of this_
value is S/5c where "S" equals the standard deviation and X
equals the sample mean.
-316-
-------
Coelom: The body cavity of a specific group of animals in
which the viscera is located.
Coliform: Relating to, resembling, or being the colon
bacillus.
Comminutor: A device for the catching and shredding of
heavy solid matter in the primary stage of waste treatment.
Concentration: The total mass (usually in micrograms) of
the suspended particles contained in a unit volume (usually
one cubic meter) at a given temperature and pressure; some-
times, the concentration may be expressed in terms of total
number of particles in a unit volume (e.g., parts per mil-
lion) ; concentration may also be called the "loading" or
the "level" of a substance; concentration may also pertain
to the strength of a solution.
Condensate; Liquid residue resulting from the cooling of a
gaseous vapor.
Contamination: A general term signifying the introduction
into water of microorganisms, chemical, organic, or inor-
ganic wastes, or sewage, which renders the water unfit for
its intended use.
Correlation Coefficient: A measure of the degree of close-
ness of the linear relationship between two variables. It
is a pure number without units or dimensions, and always
lies between -1 and +1.
Crustacea: Mostly aquatic animals with rigid outer cover-
ings^ jointed appendages, and gills. Examples are crayfish,
crabs, barnacles, water fleas, and sow bugs.
Cultural Eutrophication: Acceleration by man of the natural
aging process of bodies of water.
Cyclone: A device used to separate dust or mist from gas
stream by centrifugal force.
Decomposition: Reduction of the net energy level and change
in chemical composition or organic matter because of actions
or aerobic or anaerobic microorganisms.
Denitrif1cation: The process involving the facultative con-
version by anaerobic bacteria of nitrates into nitrogen and
nitrogen oxides.
Deviation, Standard Normal: A measure of dispersion of
values about a mean value; the square root of the average
of the squares of the individual deviations from the mean.
-317-
-------
Digestion; Though "aerobic" digestion is usedr the term
digestion commonly refers to the anaerobic breakdown of
organic matter in water solution or suspension into simpler
or more biologically stable compounds or both. Organic
matter may be decomposed to soluble organic acids or alcohols,
and subsequently converted to such gases as methane and car-
bon dioxide. Complete destruction of organic solid materials
by bacterial action alone is never accomplished.
Dissolved Air Flotation: A process involving the compres-
sion of air and liquid, mixing to super-saturation, and
releasing the pressure to generate large numbers of minute
air bubbles. As the bubbles rise to the surface of the water,
they carry with them small particles that they contact.
Dissolved Oxygen (P.O.): Due to the diurnal fluctuations of
nyyg^m |n atreamsf the minimum dissolved oxygen
value shall apply at or near the time of the average concen-
tration in the stream, taking into account the diurnal
fluctuations.
Echinodermata; The phylum of marine animals characterized
by an unsegmented body and secondary radial symmetry, e.g.,
sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea lilies.
Ecology: The science of the interrelationship between liv-
ing organisms and their environment.
Effluent: Something that flows out, such as a liquid dis-
charged as a waste; for example, the liquid that comes out
of a treatment plant after completion of the treatment
process.
Electrodialysis: A process by which electricity attracts
or drawB the mineral salts from sewage.
Enrichment: The addition of nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon
compoundsand other nutrients into a waterway that increases
the growth potential for algae and other aquatic plants.
Most frequently, enrichment results from the inflow sewage
effluent or from agricultural runoff.
Environment: The physical environment of the world consist-
ing of the atmosphere', hydrosphere, and the lithosphere.
The biosphere is that part of the environment supporting
life and which is important to man.
Estuary: Commonly an arm of the sea at the lower end of a
river. Estuaries are often enclosed by land except at
channel entrance points.
Eutraphication: The normally slow aging process of a body
of water as it evolves eventually into a terreatiral state
as effected by the enrichment of the water.
-318-
-------
Eutrophic Waters: Waters with a good supply of nutrients.
These waters may support rich organic productions, such as
algal blooms.
Extrapolate: To project data into an area not known or
experienced, and arrive at knowledge based on inferences of
continuity of the data.
Facultative Aerobe: An organism that although fundamentally
an anerobe can grow in the presence of free oxygen.
Facultative Anaerobe: An organism that although fundament-
ally an aerobe can grow in the absence of free oxygen.
Facultative Decomposition: Decomposition of organic matter
by facultative microorganisms.
Fish Fillets: The sides of fish that are either skinned or
have the skin on, cut lengthwise from the backbone. Most
types of fillets are boneless or virtually boneless; some
may be specified as "boneless fillets."
Fish Meal: A ground, dried product made from fish or shell-
fish or parts thereof, generally produced by cooking raw
fish or shellfish with steam and pressing the material to
obtain the solids which are then dried.
Fish Oil: An oil processed from the body (body oil) or
liver (liver oil) of fish. Most fish oils are a by-product
of the production of fish meal.
Fish Solubles: A product extracted from the residual press
liquor (called "stickwater") after the solids are removed
for drying (fish meal) and the oil extracted by centrifug-
ing. This residue is generally condensed to 50 percent
solids and marketed as "condensed fish solubles".
Filtration: The process of passing a liquid through a
porous medium for the removal of suspended material by a
physical straining action.
Floe: Something occurring in indefinite masses or aggre-
gates. A clump of solids formed in sewage when certain
chemicals are added.
Flocculation: The process by which certain chemicals from
clumps of solids in sewage.
Floe Skimmings: The flocculent mass formed on a quiescent
liquid surface and removed for use, treatment, or disposal.
Flume: An artificial channel for conveyance of a stream
of water.
-319-
-------
Grab Sample: A sample taken at a random place in space and
time.
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the earth's
surface inan aquifier or soil that forms the natural reser-
voir for man's use.
Heterotrophic Organism: Organisms that are dependent on
organic matter for food.
Identify; To determine the exact chemical nature of a
hazardous polluting substance.
Impact: (1) An impact is a single collision of one mass in
motion with a second mass which may be either in motion or
at rest. (2) Impact is a word used to express the extent or
severity of an environmental problem; e.g.* the nurhber of
persons exposed to a given noise environment.
Incineration: Burning the Sludge to remove the water and
reduce the remaining residues to a safe, non-burnable ash.
The ash can then be disposed of safely on land/ in some
waters, or into Caves or other underground locations.
Influent: A liquid which flows into a containing space or
process unit.
Ion Exchange: A reversible chemical reaction between a solid
and a liquid by means of which ions may be interchanged be-
tween the two. It is in common use in water softening and
water deionizing.-
Iron Chink: A machine used in the salmon processing indus-
try to butcher salmon.
Kc[: Kilogram or 1000 grams, metric unit of weight.
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: A measure of the total amount of nitro-
gen in the ammonia and organic forms.
KWH: Kilowatt-hours, a measure of total electrical energy
consumption.
Lagoons: Scientifically .constructed ponds in which sunlight,
algae,and oxygen interact to restore water to a quality
equal to effluent from a Secondary treatment plant.
Landings, Commercial: Quantities of fish, shellfish, and
other aquatic plants and animals brought ashore and sold.
Landings pf fish may be in terms of round (live) weight or
dressed .weight. Landings of crustaceans are generally on a
live weight basis except for shrimp which may be on a heads-
on or heads-off basis. . Mollusks are generally landed with
the shell on but in some cases only the meats are landed
(such as scallops).
-320-
-------
Live Tank: Metal, wood, or plastic tank with circulating
seawater for the purpose of keeping a fish or shellfish
alive until processed.
M: Meter, metric unit of length.
Mm: Millimeter = 0.001 meter.
Mg/1: Milligrams per liter; approximately equal parts per
million; a term used to indicate concentration of materials
in water.
MGD: Millions galls per day.
Mesenteries: The tissue lining the body cavities and from
which the organs are suspended.
Microstrainer/microscreen; A mechanical filter consisting
of a cylindrical surfaceof metal filter fabric with open-
ings of 20-60 micrometers in size.
Milt: Reproductive organ (testes) of male fish.
Mixed Liquor: The name given the effluent that comes from
the aeration tank after the sewage has been mixed with acti-
vated sludge and air.
Municipal Treatment: A city or communitydowned waste treat-
ment plant for municipal and, possibly, industrial waste
treatment.
Nitrate, Nitrite: Chemical compounds that include the NO3-
(nitrate) and NO2- (nitrite) ions. They are composed of
nitrogen and oxygen, are nutrients for growth of algae and
other plant life, and contribute to eutrophication.
Nitrification: The process of oxidizing ammonia by bacteria
into nitrites and nitrates.
Organic Content: Synonymous with volatile solids except for
small traces of some inorganic materials such as calcium
carbonate which will lose weight at temperatures used in
determining volatile solids.
Organic Detritus: The particulate remains of disintegrated
plants and animals.
Organic Matter: The waste from homes or industry of plant
or animal origin.
Oxidation Pond: A man-made lake or body of water in which
wastes are consumed by bacteria. It is used most frequently
with other waste treatment processes. An oxidation pond is
basically the same as a sewage lagoon.
-321-
-------
Pelagic Region; The open water environment of the ocean
consisting of water both over and beyond the continental
shelf and which is inhabited by the free swimming fishes.
Per Capita Consumption: Consumption of edible fishery pro-
ducts in the United States, divided by the total civilian
population.
pH: The pH value indicates the relative intensity of acidity
or alkalinity of water, with the neutral point at 7.0.
Values lower than 7.0 indicate the presence of acids; above
7.0 the presence of alkalies.
Phylum; A main category of taxonomic classification into
which the plant and animal kingdomes are divided.
Plankton (Plankter); Organisms of relatively smail size,
mostly microscopic, that have either relatively small powers
of locomotion or that drift in the water with waves, cur-
rents, and other water mbtion.
Polishing: Final treatment stage before discharge of efflu-
ent to a water course, carried out in shallow, aerobic
lagoon or pond, mainly to remove fine suspended solids that
settle very slowly. Some aerobic microbiological activity
also occurs.
Pondingt A waste treatment technique involving the actual
holdup of all wastewaters in a confined space with evapora-
tion an4 percolation the primary mechanisms operating to dis-
pose of the watet.
Pound net: A net" laid perpendicularly out from the shore-
line with a circular impoundment at the seaward end.
Ppm: Parts per million, also referred to as milligrams per
liter (mg/1). This is a unit for expressing the concentra-
tion of any substance by weight, usually as grams of sub-
stance per million grams of solution. Since a liter of
water weighs one kilogram at a specific gravity of 1.0, one
part per million is equivalent to one milligram per liter.
Press cake: In the wet reduction process for industrial
fishes, the solid fraction which results when cooked fish
(and fish wastes) are passed through the screw presses.
Press Liquor: Stickwater resulting from the pressing of
fish solids.
Primary Treatment: Removes the material that floats or will
settle in sewage, it is accomplished by using screens to
catch the floating objects and tanks for the heavy matter
to settle in.
-322-
-------
Process Water: All water' than comes into direct contact
with the rawmaterials, intermediate products, final pro-
ducts, by-products, or contaminated waters and air.
Processed Fishery Products; Pish, shellfish and other aqua-
tic plants and animals, and products thereof, preserved by
canning, freezing, cooking, dehydrating, drying, fermenting,
pasteurizing, adding salt or other chemical substances, and
other commercial processes. Also, changing the form of fish,
shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals from their
original state into a form in which they are not readily
identifiable, such as fillfets, steaks, or shrimp logs.
Purse Seiner: Fishing vessel utilizing a seine (net) that
is drawn together at the bottom, forming a trap or purse.
Receiving Waters; Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water
courses that receive treated or untreated wastewaters.
Recycle: The return of a quantity of effluent from a speci-
fic unit or process to the feed stream of that same unit.
This would also apply to return of treated plant wastewater
for several plant uses.
Regression: A trend or shift toward a mean. A regression
curve or line is thus one that best fits a particular set
of data according to some principle.
Retort: sterilization of a food product at greater than
284°F with steam under pressure.
Re-use: Water re-use, the subsequent use of water following
an earlier use without restoring it to the original quality.
Reverse Osmosis: The physical separation of substances from
a Water stream by reversal of the normal osmotic process,
i.e., high pressure, forcing water through a .semi-permeable
membrane to the pure water side leaving behind more concen-
trated waste streams.
Rotating Biological Contactor: A waste treatment device in-
volving closely spaced light-weight disks which are rotated
through the wastewater allowing aerobic microflora to accumu-
late at each disk and thereby achieving a reduction in the
waste content.
Rotary Screen: A revolving cylindrical screen for the sepa-
ration of solids from a waste stream.
Round (Live) Weight: The weight of fish, shellfish or other
aquatic plants and animals as taken from the water; the com-
plete or full weight as caught.
-32 3-
-------
Sample, Composite: A sample taken at a fixed location by
adding together small samples taken frequently during a
given period of time.
Sand Filter: Removes the organic wastes from sewage. The
wastewater is trickled over a bed of sand. Air and bacteria
decompose the wastes filtering through the sand. The clean
water flows out through drains in the bottom of the bed.
The sludge accumulating at the surface must be removed from
the bed periodically.
Sand Tray: Basin in sewage line for collection of high den-
sity solids, specifically sand.
Sanitary Sewers: In a separate system, are pipes, in a city
that carry only domestic wastewater. The storm water runoff
is taken care of by a separate system of pipes.
Sanitary Landfill: A site for solid waste disposal using
techniques which prevent vector breeching, and control air
pollution nuisances, fire hazards and surface or groundwater
pollution.
Scatter Diagram: A two dimensional plot used to visually
demonstrate the relationship between two sets of data.
Secondary Treatment: The second step in most waste treat-
ment systems in which bacteria consume the organic parts of
the wastes. It is accomplished by bringing the sewage and
bacteria together in trickling filters or in the activated
sludge process.
Sedimentation Tanks: Help remove solids from sewage. The
wastewater is pumped to the tanks where the solids settle to
the bottom or float on top as scum. The scum is skimmed off
the top, and solids on the bottom are pumped out to sludge
digestion tanks.
Seine: Any of a number of various nets used to capture fish.
Separator: Separates the loosened shell from the shrimp
meat.
Settleable Matter (Solids); Determined in the Imhoff cone
test and will show the quantitative settling characteristics
of the waste sample.
Settling Tank: Synonymous with "Sedimentation Tank."
Sewers: A system of pipes that collect and deliver waste-
water to treatment plants or receiving streams.
-324-
-------
Shaker Blower: Dries and sucks the shell of with a vacuum,
leaving the shrimp meat.
Skimmer Table: A perforated stainless steel table used to
dewater clams and oysters after washing.
Shock Load: A quantity of wastewater or pollutant that
greatly exceeds the normal discharged into a treatment sys-
tem, usually occurring over a limited period of time.
Sludge; The solid matter that settles to the bottom of
sedimentation tanks and must be disposed of by digestion or
other methods to complete waste treatment.
Slurry: A solids-water mixture, with sufficient water con-
tent to impart fluid handling characteristics to the mixture.
Sliming Table: Fish processing vernacular referring to the
area in which fish are butchered and/or checked for complete-
ness of butcher.
Spatial Average: The mean value of a set of observations
distributed as a function of position.
Species (Both Singular and Plural): A natural population or
group of populations that transmit specific characteristics
from parent to offspring. They are reproductively isolated
from other populations with which they might breed. Popula-
tions usually exhibit a loss of fertility when hydridizing.
Standard Deviation: A statistical measure of the spread or
variation of individual measurements.
Steam Box; A form of cooker which precooks the product with
the use of steam in order to remove oils and water from
fish.
Stickwater: Water and entrained organics that originate
from the draining or pressing of steam cooked fish products.
Stoichiometric Amount: The amount of a substance involved
in a specific chemical reaction, either as a reactant or as
a reaction product.
Stop Seine: A net placed across a stream or bay to catch
or retain fish.
Stratification: A partition of the universe which is useful
when the properties of sub-populations are of interest and
used for increasing the precision of the total population
estimation when stratum means are sufficiently different and
the within stratum variances are appreciably smaller than
the total population variance.
-325-
-------
Sump; A depression or tank that serves as a drain or recep-
tacle for liquids for salvage or disposal.
Suspended Solids; The wastes that will not sink or settle in
in sewage.
Surface Water: The waters of the United States including
the territorial seas.
Synergism: A situation in which the combined action of two
or more agents acting together is greater than the sum of
the action of these agents separately.
Temporal Average: The mean value of a set of observations
distributed as a function of time.
Tertiary Waste Treatment: Waste treatment systems used to
treat secondary treatment effluent and typically using
physical-chemical technologies to effect waste reduction.
Synonymous with "Advanced Waste Treatment."
Troll Dressed: Refers to salmon which have been eviscerated
at sea.
Total Dissolved Solids (TPS): The solids content of waste-
water that is .soluble and is measured as total solids con-
tent minus the suspended solids.
Trickling Filter: A bed of rocks or stones. The sewage is
trickled over the bed so the bacteria can break down the
organic wastes. The bacteria collect on the stones through
repeated use of the filter.
Viscera: The internal organs of the body, especially those
of theabdominal and thoracic cavities.
Viscus (pi. Viscera): Any internal organ within a body
cavity.
Water Quality Criteria: The levels of pollutants that
affect the suitability of water for a given use. Generally,
water use classification includes: public water supply;
recreation; propagation of fish and other aquatic life; agri-
cultural use and industrial use.
Weir: A fence, net, or waffle placed across a stream or bay
to catch or retain fish. In engineering use it is a dam
over which, or through a notch in which, the liquid carried
by a horizontal open channel is constrained to flow.
Zero Discharge: The discharge of no pollutants in the waste-
water stream of a plant that is discharging into a receiving
body of water.
-326-
-------
APPENDIX A
List of Equipment Manufacturers
Automatic Analyzers
Hach Chemical Company, P. 0. Box 907, Ames, Iowa 50010.
Combustion Equipment Association, Inc., 555 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022.
Martek Instruments, Inc., 879 West 16th Street, Newport
Beach, California 92660
Eberbach Corporation, 505 South Maple Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48106
Tritech, Inc., Box 124, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue, S.W., Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Wilks Scientific Corporation, South Norwalk, Connecticut 06856
Technicon Instruments Corporation, Tarrytown, New York 10591
Bauer - Bauer Brothers Company, Subsidiary Combustion
Engineering, Inc., P. 0. Box 968, Springfield, Ohio
45501
Centrifuges
Beloit-Passavant Corporation, P. O. Box 997, Jonesville,
Wisconsin 53545
Bird Machine Company, South Walpole, Massachusetts 02071
DeLaval Separator Company, Poughkeepsie, New York 12600
Flow Metering Equipment
Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division,
100 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 95005
Laboratory Equipment and Supplies
Hach Chemical Company, P. O. Box 907, Ames, Iowa 50010
Eberbach Corporation, 505 South Maple Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48106
National Scientific Company, 25200 Miles Avenue, Cleveland,
Ohio 44146
-327-
-------
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue S.W., Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Precision Scientific Company, 3737 Cortland Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60647
Horizon Ecology Company, 7435 North Oak Park Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 60648
Markson Science, Inc., Box NPR, Del Mar, California 92014
Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, 7425 North Oak Park Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60648
VWR Scientific, P. 0. Box 3200, San Francisco, California 94119
Sampling Equipment
Preiser Scientific, 900 MacCorkle Avenue S.W., Charleston,
West Virginia 25322
Horizon Ecology Company, 7435 North Oak Park Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 60648
Sigmamotor, Inc., 14 Elizabeth Street, Middleport, New
York 14105
Protech, Inc., Roberts Lane, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
Quality Control Equipment, Inc., 2505 McKinley Avenue,
Des MoinesIowa 50315
Instrumentation Specialties Company, P. O. Box 5347,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68505
N-Con Systems Company, Inc., 410 Boston Post Road, Larchmont,
New York 10538
Screening Equipment
SWECO, Inc., 6033 E. Bandine Blvd., Los Angeles, California
90054
Bauer-Bauer Brothers Company, Subsidiary Combustion
Engineering, inc.,.P. O. Box 968, Springfield, Ohio
45501
HydrocycIonics Corporation, 968 North Shore Drive, Lake Bluff,
Illinois 60044
Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, 961 N. 4th Street, Columbus,
Ohio 43216
-328-
-------
Dorr-Oliver, Inc., Havemeyer Lane, Stanford, Connecticut
06904
Hendricks Manufacturing Company, Carbondale, Pennsylvania
18407
Peobody Welles, Roscoe, Illinois 61073
Clawson, F.J. & Associates, 6956 Highway 100, Nashville,
Tennessee 37205
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 1126 S. 70th Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214
DeLaval Separator Company, Poughkeepsie, New York 12600
Envirex, Inc., 1901 S. Prairie, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186
Liak Belt Environmental Equipment, FMC Corporation,
Prudential Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60612
Productive Equipment Corporation, 2924 W. Lake Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Simplicity Engineering Company, Durand, Michigan 48429
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Cromaglass Corporation, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
ONPS, 4576 SW 103rd Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon 97225
Tempco, Inc., P. 0. Box 1087, Bellevue, Washington 98009
Zurn Industries, Inc., 1422 East Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania
16503
General Environmental Equipment, Inc., 5020 Stepp Avenue,
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division,
100 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 95005
Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, 961 N. 4th Street, Columbus,
Ohio 43216
Carborundum Corporation, P. 0. Box 87, Knoxville, Tennessee
37901
Graver, Division of Ecodyne Corporation, U.S. Highway 22,
Union, New Jersey 07083
-329-
-------
Beloit-Passavant Corporation, P. 0. Box 997, Janesville,
Wisconsin 53545
Black-Ciawson Company, Middletown, Ohio 54042
Envirex, Inc., 1901 S. Prairie, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186
Environmental Systems, Division of Litton Industries, Inc.,
354 Dawson Drive, Camarillo, California 93010
Infilco Division, Westinghouse Electric Company, 901 S.
Campbell Street, Tuscon, Arizona 85719
Keene Corporation, Fluid Handling Division, Cookeville,
Tennessee 3 8501
Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, Peapack, New
Jersey 07977
Permutit Company, Division of Sybron Corporation, E. 49
Midland Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652
-330-
-------
Conversion Table
Conner¦sion Table
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
by
TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
English Unit
Abbreviation
Conversion
Abbreviation
Metric Unit
acre
ac
0.405
ha
hectares
acre - feet
ac ft
1233.5
cu
m
cubic meters
British Thermal Unit
BTU
0.252
kg
cal
kilogram - calories
British Thermal Unit/pound
BTU/lb
0.555
kg
cal/kg
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic feet/minute
cfm
0.028
cu
m/min
cubic meters/minute
cubic feet/second
cfs
1.7
cu
m/min
cubic meters/minute
cubic feet
cu ft
0.028
cu
m
cubic meters
cubic feet
cu ft
28.32
1
liters
cubic inches
cu in
16.39
cu
cm
cubic centimeters
degree Fahrenheit
°F
0.555(°F-32)*
°c
degree Centigrade
feet
ft
0.3048
m
meters
gallon
gal
3.785
1
liters
gallon/minute
gpm
0.0631
1/sec
liters/second
horsepower
hp
0.7457
kw
kilowatts
inches
in
2.54
cm
centimeters
inches of mercury
in Hg
0.03342
a tin
atmospheres
pounds
lb
0.454
kg
kilograms
million gallons/day
mgd
3785
cu
m/day
cubic meters/day
mile
mi
1.609
km
kilometer
pound/square inch (gauge)
psig
(0.06805 psig+1)*
atm
atmospheres (absolute)
square feet
sq ft
0.0929
sq
m
square meters
square inches
sq in
6.452
sq
cm
square centimeters
tons (short)
t
0.907
kkg
metric tons (1000 kilograms)
yard
y
0.9144
m
meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SEMINAR
"UPGRADING SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES
TO REDUCE POLLUTION"
"DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION TREATMENT OF SEAFOOD WASTES"
BY
IRVIN F. SNIDER, JR.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
CARBORUNDUM ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
-------
1' DESCRIpTION OF DISSOLVED AIR FLQTATTOM PROCESS
Dissolved air flotation is quite different from the
vacuum and froth flotation processes previously mentioned.
The earliest mass application of dissolved air flotation
was about 25 years ago in the petroleum production fields
for separation of small amounts of oil from large amounts
of water. This helped to make dissolved air flotation a
universally accepted means of recoving oil from waste streams
with the accent on recovery rather than pollution control.
Several years later, a leading red meat processor dis-
covered that one hog in every ten put through their process-
ing plant was going down the drain — and about 70 percent
of that hog was grease. So they decided to recover this
material as it represented potential profit. Since grease
naturally floats on water, it was found that dissolved air
flotation would aid in increased grease recovery. To date
we have 40 such installations for this company which not
only recover 90 percent of the grease but also serve as a
means of pollution control.
Dissolved air flotation utilizes "Henry*s Law" to obtain
solubility of gas in a liquid.
The amount of gas which a liquid can dissolve at a given
temperature is determined by Henry's Law, which states that
the partial pressure of a gas in equilibrium with a solution
is equal to a constant times its concentration in the solu-
tion or: P = CX. The constant "C" is different for each
-333-
-------
system and for each temperature. The liquid can be saturated
with dissolved air under pressure, and when the pressure
is released under proper hydraulic conditions, the air comes
out of solution in minute bubbles or molecular form. We
see this regularly in carbonated beverages; before being
opened the presence of gas is not visually apparent but re-
moval of the cap and subsequent loss (or equilization) of
pressure permits the gas to burst from solution and rise
to the surface in bubble form* The combined matri, due to
its reduced combined specific gravity, floats to the surface.
A gas coming out of solution from a liquid will preferen-
tially form a bubble on a finite nucleus. In accordance
with the nucleus theory, molecules tend to attach themselves
to a nucleus, which, in wastewater treatment, is the contami-
nant. In seconds, a sufficient number of molecules have col-
lected to form "life-savers" around the contaminant nuclei
and float them to the surface* The combined air solids mass
has a specific gravity less than the liquid, and material
that would eventually settle or perhaps remain in suspension
can be easily removed from the top of the separator tank.
The basic flotation system operates as follows: (See
Figure I)
1. Raw or pretreated (screened, clarified, etc.)
wastewater enters the wet well.
2. Wastewater (influent) from the wet well is pumped
to the retention tank, air is introduced into the
system by venturi action.
- 334-
-------
I
UJ
OJ
I
HOW
RACIFIC
FLOTATION
WORKS
INC0MM6 R«*
WATER (INFLUENT)
SKIMMWGS HOPPER
EFFLUENT
( SYSTEM BALANCE )
RECYCLE LINE
i
FLOTATION CELL-
PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE
i ¦ . T 1 M] r
\\f •! *
t*
RECYCLE VALVE
RETENTION TANK
COAGULATION CHAMBER
PROCESSED WATER
( EFFLUENT)
INFLUENT WITH AIR IN SOLUTION
EFTUJENT
RISER
FLOAT
I NT DENT WTTH AIR BUBBLE
©
-------
3. As the mixture enters the retention tank, pressure
forces the air into true solution with the liquid.
4. The solution then passes into the open coagulation
chamber where, with pressure relieved, air comes
out of solution as pinpoint effervescence.
5. Tiny air particles, thus released, immediately attach
themselves to particles of contamination and float
them to the top of the flotation cell.
6. The accumulated mass of contamination (or "float") is
continuously swept from the surface by the top
scraper arm and deposited into a sludge hopper.
7. Treated effluent exits through risers from near the
bottom of the cell. Effluent is recirculated as
necessary to .maintain flooded suction on the influent
pump and balance variable influent flows.
Generally speaking, dissolved air flotation is capable
of 90 percent insoluble solids reductiont Dissolved air
flotation is not a BOD or soluble solids remover as such.
Any BOD reduction attributed to dissolved air flotation oc-
curs as a result of removing the insoluble organic solids
and their associated BOD. Flotation, therefore, is strictly
an insoluble solids remover.
Likewise, dissolved air flotation normally will not re-
move soluble solids. But should the soluble portion be made
insoluble by some means (such as chemical coagulation), then
they can be removed.
Figure 2 will serve to graphically illustrate the flo-
tation principle. The first beaker shows a picture of a
336
-------
0 sec 10 sec
Figure fl.
-------
sample of wastewater containing chemicals just after the
pressure has been relieved and it begins to come out of solu-
tion. The next picture shows the same beaker 10 seconds
after the floe has formed and is beginning its upward path.
The next picture is taken 10 seconds after the previous one
and shows that most of the insoluble 'solids have arrived
at the top and are a distinct skimmings layer. The final
picture is taken after one minutes total elapsed time. Near-
ly all of the insoluble solids have been removed and are
neatly compacted on the surface for removal.
338
-------
II. MODES AND CONFIGURATIONS
There are three basically different modes of dissolved
air flotation systems in which the foregoing separation may
be employed for industrial wastewater treatment, all of which
are dependent on Henry's Law.
The systems differ in mechanical design and piping arrange-
ment but the successful performance of any system is more
dependent on proper application and careful evaluation of
the waste stream than on the mode of operation.
These three types of dissolved air flotation are:
1. Total pressurization
2. Partial Pressurization
3. Recycle Pressurization
Full flow pressurization is just what the term implies.
The total plant flow with air injected into it is pressurized
and held in the retention tank before entering the flotation
cell. The flow is straight through and single pass.
As opposed to full flow pressurization, partial pressuriza-
tion indicates that only part of the total plant flow is
pressurized and the remainder of the plant flow enters the
separator, bypassing the air and dissolution system. Recycle
is employed only to protect the process pump during low flow
and plays no significant role in the process. This water
make up line is not necessarily a part of either partial
pressurization or recycle pressurization.
339
-------
FULL FLOW PRESSURIZATION
RECYCLE
AIR
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
H
PUMP
RETENTION
TANK
SURGE ^ WET
TANK OK WELL
FLOTATION
CELL
PARTIAL PRESSURIZATION
RECYCLE
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
CONTROL
SURGE TANK
OR
WET WELL
FLOTATION
CELL
AIR
RETENTION
TANK
RECYCLE PRESSURIZATION
FLOTATION
\ CELL
SURGE V
WET WELL
EFFLUENT
CONTROL
VALVE
AIR
PUMP
RETENTION
TANK
-340-
-------
This type permits a smaller process pump where gravity
flow is possible and smaller pressure system. However,
the system must operate at higher pressures in order to
achieve an air to liquid ratio comparable to total pressuriza
tion.
Recycle pressurization represents the most significant
deviation from the previous modes. Clarified effluent is
recycled for the purpose of adding air and then injected
into the raw wastewater.
In this system, a stream of the effluent, usually 20
to 50 percent of the incoming flow, is pressurized with
air added usually by a compressor; maybe air ejector. The
recycled flow is blended with the raw flow either in the
flotation cell or in an inlet manifold.
-341-
-------
III. DESIGN INFORMATION
There are three design parameters involved in sizing
of flotation equipment, and these are:
1. Hydraulic loading
2. Solids loading
3. Air to solids ratio
Hydraulic loading is simply the flow rate of water through
the flotation cell in gallons/minute divided by the surface
area in ft.2 of the flotation cell. As an example, let us
2
assume that we have a flotation cell with 50 ft of flota-
tion area handling 100 gpm of waste. The hydraulic loading
can be found by dividing the flow rate (100) by the surface
o
area (50). This results in a hydraulic loading of 2 gpm/ft .
Normal hydraulic loading design criteria for flotation cells
2
run from 1 to 2 gpm/ft .
In comparing these figures with other types of equipment
it should be noted that clarifiers are sized based on 1
gpm/ft or less because the flow must be slowed to provide
a relatively still condition to allow settling.
In addition to sizing to handle for flow rate through
the unit some allowance must be made for the insoluble solids
that are to be removed. For this we use the term pounds
2
of insoluble solids/hour/ft to quantify the solids loading
to the unit. As an example, let's assume that the influent
to the system contains 1000 ppm of insoluble solids and is
flowing at 500 gpm. This is 4.17# of solids per minute or
-342-
-------
250 pounds per hour. We therefore have 250 pounds per hour
2
or solids to be removed in a flotation cell of 283 ft .
Dividing the 250 pounds/hour by the 283 ft we arrive at
a solids loading of 0.88#/hour/ft2.
The third design parameter, the air to solids ratio,
is used to insure that sufficient air is added to float the
solids. This term is derived by dividing the amount of air
being added/hour by the solids loading (#/hour). Most ap-
plications call for an air/solids ratio of approximately
0.01 to 0.1.
To further illustrate the parameters we have just de-
fined, let's take an example for a system treating 500 gpm
of plant waste. Figure 4 shows a flotation system with a
750 gpm process pump and a flotation cell with 283.5 ft2
(19' diameter) of flotation surface area. The design para-
meters are easily calculated and are fairly self-explanatory.
Again I would like to emphasize that successful perfor-
mance of any system is more dependent on proper application
and careful evaluation of the waste stream than on the mode
of operation.
-343-
-------
19
PUMP
500
M00CL 1000
750 OPM
INFLUENT
500 OPM
AT 1000 PPM
AIR " (4% BY VOLUME) 4 CFM
DESIGN CONDITIONS
1. Hydraulic loading - 750 GPM/ 283.5 sq ft - 2.64 GPM/ sq ft
2. Solids/hour - 8.34#/1000 Gallons of 8.43#/min x 60 minutes = 250.2#/hour
3. Solids loaking - 250.2#/hour/ 283.5 sq ft = 0.88#/hour/sq ft
4. Air/hour - 4 CFM x 0.08#/cu ft = 0.32#/min or 0.64#/1000 gallons
5. Air/solids ratio - 0.64#/1000 gallons r 8.34#/1000 gallons = 0.077
-------
IV. ECONOMICS
Now that we have discussed equipment sizing, we should
turn our attention to the costs involved.
Let's take the case of a shrimp processor whose plant
effluent has a maximum peak flow of 300 gpm. The basic
equipment cost would be approximately §48,000. This includes
flotation cell, retention tank, process pump plus one stand-
by, 2 chemical addition systems, pH control, skimmings pump
and tank, screen, freight, and erection. To pipe, wire,
and pour the necessary concrete work to complete the system
might cost an additional $45,000.
For the case of a shrimp processor who has twice the
flow as in the previous example, the total equipment cost
for a 600 gpm system is about $62,000. To complete the sys-
tem might cost another $55,000. It is important to note
that because the size of the flow doubled, the total cost
of the total system did not double but only increased by
25 percent. These examples are two specific cases. To apply
them to your specific plant would require some modification
to fit your particular labor and materials situation.
In addition to the above capital costs, the following
operating costs should be considered:
Chemical Costs: 3$ - 8C/1000 gallons (depending on
waste concentration)
Operator Labor: 4-8 man hours/day (depending on operator
ability, compatability
of system design)
Maintenance: $300 - $1200/year
-345-
-------
The single most important element which will determine
the success or failure of any system is the operator. If
he doesn't care if the system operates properly then it will
not. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to
the proper selection of an operator. I don't mean to imply
that he should have a degree, but should be mechanically
inclined and above all interested in making the system work.
-346-
-------
V. CASE HISTORIES
During the past four years I have been involved in treat-
ing wastes from several seafood processing plants and have
enjoyed some measure of success. I would now like to give
a brief description of each.
A. Shrimp Processing - New England Fish Co* - Kodiak, Alaska.
The study was performed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle Laboratory, in July and August of 1972.
Based on an average (see Figure 5) the flotation system
after screening achieved 76.9 percent suspended solids
removal and 73.4 percent COD removal. Problems noted
were as follows:
1. Proper screening prior to flotation is required.
2. pH control should be provided so as to attain
consistent results.
3. High salt content of processing water will effect
ultimate COD discharge levels.
B. King Crab Processor - Roxanne Co. - Kodiak, Alaska.
This study was also performed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle Laboratory, in August of 1972.
Only three test runs were made due to lack of time and
supply of raw product. Because of the high degree of
variability of plant effluent and the short time
available for testing, the results are somewhat in-
conclusive. Problems encountered were as follows:
-347-
-------
Figure 5. SHRIMP PROCESSING ~ NEW ENGLAND FISH CO. - KODIAK, ALASKA
AS REPORTED BY MR. PALMER PETERSON, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, SEATTLE
Parameter
COD (mg/1)
Before
Flotation
4227
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 1090
+ 1177
- 825
+ 285
- 190
After
Flotation
1123
252
+ 347
- 367
+ 198
- 112
Average %
Reduction of
Screened Liquid
73.4
76.9
Approximate
% Overall
Reduction
80
90
Settleable Solids (mg/1) 22.1
+ 5.2
- 8.8
2.5
88.8
96
Protein (%)
Turbidity (FTU)
201
500
.114
100
43.3
80
NOTE: Raw processing water contained 500-600 ppm of COD.
-------
1. Insufficient means of collecting the plant wastes
at one central collection point prevented treatment
of waste more in line with actual waste discharge.
2* Variable flow conditions pointed out need for pre-
cise chemical control.
Figure 6. KING CRAB PROCESSOR - ROXANNE CO. - KODIAK, ALASKA
AS REPORTED BY MR. PALMER PETERSON,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Suspended Solids Cqd
ISl Out In Out
3130 — 180 710 — 47 2680 — 105 940 — 95
% Reduction* 68.9% 64.8%
~Average for 3 runs
C. Shrimp Processor - American Shrimp Canners Association -
New Orleans^ Louisiana. This study was conducted under a
Federal Water Pollution Control grant and was conducted
at th6 Robinson Canning Co. in West Wego, Louisiana. Mr.
Mauldin will cover the study in more detail. However,
in general, he found that approximately 70 percent BOD,
65 percent COD, and 80 percent suspended solids removal
was possible (See Figure 7),
-349-
-------
FIGURE 7. SHRIMP PROCESSORS - AMERICAN SHRIMP CANNERS ASSOCIATION - WEST WEGO, LA
AS REPORTED BY MR. FRANK MAULDIN; DOMINGUE, SZABO S> ASSOCIATES
BODg COD Suspended Solids
In Out In Out In Out
1200 240 3200 1150 625 110
% Reduction 80.0 64.1 82.4
-------
D. Menhaden Processing Plant - National Marine Fisheries
Service Reedville, Virginia. This study was run
from June 13 to July 25, 1972# at the Standard Products
Plant in Reedville, Virginia. Tests were run on bailwater,
stickwater, and several other miscellaneous streams.
As a result of this work, it was found that dissolved
air flotation treatment was effective in reducing the
solids and oil from the bailwater. It was also demon-
strated that stickwater could be treated in the same
way. Test results for processing of bailwater appear
in Figure 10 and are similar to those of treating stick-
water „
During the 1973 season a full-scale system was in-
stalled at the Standard Products Plant in Reedville,
Virginia for the purpose of treating bailwater and with
provisions for treating stickwater as permitted. By
the end of the season the water in the system had been
used for approximately one month and had unloaded some
18 million fish. Also at the end of the season stick-
water was run through the system with apparent excellent
results.
Problems encountered with the system are as follows:
1. Improper screening of the solids out of the
bailwater resulted in operating problems.
2. During the hotest months of the season when
the fish are unloaded in an advance state of
-351-
-------
Figure 8., MENHADEN - REEDVILLE, VIRGINIA
AS REPORTED BY MR. DAN BAKER, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, GLOUCHESTER LAB.
In
Out
% Reduction
Insoluble Solids
30,000
2,800
91
Soluble Solids
20,000
10,000
50
COD
83,000
16,000
81
Protein
20,000
7,200
64
Oil and Greade
13,480
560
97
BOD = 547
-------
degradation an occasional phenomenon known as
"foaming" occurred. This was a problem because
it was impossible to contain the water as it
would climb the walls of the vessel. Several
attempts to reduce the foaming were only mod-
erately successful. It is felt that refriger-
ation would go a long way to pervent degradation
of the raw product and eliminate "foaming".
E. Salmon Plant - B.C. Packers - Stevston, B.C., Canada.
This study was begun back in 1969 by the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Test results for that work
appear in Figure 9. This work has been quite success-
ful as not only was it shown that flotation was
effective in cleaning the water, but it also demon-
strated that the recovered material (skimmings and
screenings) could be reused and represented potential
profit.
-353-
-------
Figure 9. SALMON - B.C. PACKERS
AS REPORTED BY FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA; TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 286
In Out % Reduction
Insoluble Solids 959 61 92
Soluble Solids 1,590 1,075 28
COD 5,635 15 84
Protein 1,545 567 61
Oil and Grease 360 20 94
-------
CASE STUDY
TREATMENT OF
GULF SHRIMP PROCESSING
AND CANNING WASTE
By:
A. Frank Mauldin
A. J. Szabo
Domingue, Szabo & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Lafayette, Louisiana
Prepared For:
Technology Transfer Seminar
UPGRADING SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES
TO REDUCE POLLUTION
Environmental Protection Agency
National Fisheries Institute
National Canners Association
Seattle# Washington
April 2 and 3, 1974
-------
CASE STUDY
TREATMENT OF
GULF SHRIMP PROCESSING AND CANNING WASTE
INTRODUCTION
The American Shrimp Canners Association sponsored this
study for the purpose of seeking to develop an economical,
practicable method of effectively and efficiently, treating
the waste waters from shrimp canning plants. The association
consists of twenty-two member firms. The joint efforts
through the association were aimed at accomplishing that
which many small, individual canners could not individually
do.
The shrimp canning plants generally process from ten
(10) to twenty (20) tons of raw shrimp per day on a single
shift basis. The largest plants are capable of processing
up to sixty (60) tons per day with a two-shift operation.
These plants receive their raw shrimp from small commercial
fishing vessels of two or three-man size and a few larger
vessels headquartered between Key VIest, Florida and Browns-
ville, Texas. In the central Gulf area alone, there are
more than 10,000 registered small commercial fishing boats.
These represent the livelihood of more than 30,000 families.
The canning plants themselves employ more than 4,000 workers
during the peak operating season. Some of these fishermen
and plant workers live in remote coastal areas where can-
neries represent the principal or, in some cases, the only
-356-
-------
employment available. These shrimp canning plants, many of
which are remotely located, are now discharging wastes into
rivers, bayous, bays or other adjacent waterways. Some are
located in communities where public sewer systems receive
the wastewater.
The shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico has been for
years one of the most valuable in the United States. Raw
shrimp production in Louisiana alone has increased from
approximately 5,000 tons at the turn of the century to over
500,000 tons annually in some recent years. Catches of white
shrimp (Penaeus setiferous), brown shrimp (Penaeus astecus),
and pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) are the most common in
the Gulf of Mexico. These shrimp spawn during* the spring
and summer. Eggs are deposited directly into the waters
where they drift with tides and currents. The eggs hatch
into tiny creatures similar to mites or ticks which grow to
about one quarter of an inch size and begin to move into the
shallow waters of the bays and bayous. These inside waters
serve as nursery grounds for the young shrimp. They grow
rapidly as the water begins to warm and migrate to larger
bodies of water, eventually reaching the Gulf of Mexico and/
or the Atlantic. Because of this continuing cycle, the size
of the individual shrimp in a catch varies constantly with
the larger sizes occurring in the outside waters.
Shrimp are caught primarily in coastal waters using
trawls drawn on the floor of the water body. Most of the
shrimp are dead when brought to the surface and the remainder
-357-
-------
die shortly thereafter. Continued refrigeration (usually
with ice) is necessary to preserve this very perishable com-
modity. Of necessity, the raw shrimp processor must locate
close to the fishing grounds and must be able to process the
catch rapidly when it is docked. Much of the Gulf Coast
catch is handled as a raw product directly to markets and
consumers* some is processed and frozen, and up to 50 percent
is canned.
The canning of shrimp was first successfully done in
1867 by George W. Dunbar, an enterprising New Englander who
settled in New Orleans and operated a cannery after the
Civil War. From this difficult and trying beginning, an
industry has developed which consists of approximately 70
slirimp canners in the United States, 25 of which are located
on the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Coast Canneries
are primarily in Louisiana and Mississippi on bays, or bayous
or within short trucking distance of the docks. These canning
plants have for many years been and most remain family enter-
prises. The canneries compete for the available supplies of
raw shrimp and generally obtain and process the smaller sizes.
Therefore, the economical operating period is generally dur-
ing the short spring and fali seasons when shrimp may be
taken in the regulated coastal, waters. Because of the con-
trolled seasons, the variables of supply and the market
price, the competition for the raw shrimp is great and no
plant is assured that it will operate on a continuous sche-
dule, Nevertheless, each plant whicji operates must be able
-358-
-------
to handle its perishable raw shrimp supply in a short time.
Therefore* plants have developed along the same, most effi-
cient mechanical operating basis. Most of the equipment is
of the same or similar manufacture and the wastes created by
the operating units have very similar characteristics.
SHRIMP PROCESSING AND CANNING WASTEWATERS
The operations in a shrimp cannery are basically the
same the world over as shown in Figure 1. Raw shrimp are
first thoroughly washed and separated from debris or trash
and unsuitable materials. The raw shrimp are peeled and de-
veined with mechanical devices developed especially for the
shrimp industry. Heads and hulls are removed, pieces of
shell and legs are separated and the remaining tail meat is
separated from the waste.
The average wastewater characterization from the peel-
ing operation is shown in Table 1. As can be seen the
greatest percentage of pollutants discharged originate at
the peeling operation. Miscellaneous operations include
canning wastewaters, gravity flume dumps and miscellaneous
washdowns during the processing times. The values shown in
Table 1 do not include washdown.
In the deveining operation the back of the shrimp is
split by a unique razor edge device. The shrimp with the
exposed vein then drops into a rotating drum with inside
"fingers" which remove the veins. The veins are then washed
out of the drum and discharged with the wastewater. The
-359-
-------
Figurt I
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEMATIC
SHRIMP CANNING
PISH , DEBRIS, WATER
HEADS, SHELLS, WATER
SHE
ER
SEPARATING
SHRIMP MEAT, VEINS .WATER
DEBRIS, SHRIMP MEAT
S HRIMP MEAT,SALTWATER
BLANCHING
SHRIMPMEAT, DEBRIS
SALTWATER
HOT WATER
WATER
PACKING
CLEANING
RECEIVING
WEIGHING
DEVEINING
PEELING
GRADING
COOLING
CANNING
INSPECTION
PINAL INSR
=~ PRODUCT FLOW
-~ WASTE FLOW
-360-
-------
TABLE 1
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP PROCESSING AND CANNING
BOD-5
lbs/100
lbs Shrimp
«
Total
Discharge
Suspended
Solids
lbs/100
lbs Shrimp
%
Total
Discharge
Peeling
4.89
72
2.63
68
Deveining
0.51
7
0.45
12
Blanching
0.15
2
0.19
5
Receiving & Raw
Washing
0.66
10
0.25
6
Miscellaneous
0.62
9
0.35
9
Total Discharge
Processing
Only (No
Washdown)
6.83
100
3.87
100
-361-
-------
deveining operation is generally not used on all shrimp pro-
cessed but only on the larger shrimp. From Table 1 it can
be seen that the deveining operation contributes a signifi-
cant percentage of the total discharged pollutants.
After deveining the shrimp are pre-cooked or blanched
for approximately 3 minutes in a boiling brine solution which
curls the meat, extracts moisture and solubles and develops
the pink or red color of the finished product. Blanching
can either be a batch process where the blanching water is
dumped several times daily or continuous where the shrimp
are fed through the.tank on a conveyor and brine water is
continuously added and washed from the tanks.
After cooling, drying, further inspection and grading,
the shrimp are packed, on a scaled weight basis into the
appropriate size can, then mechanically sealed and retorted
for 12 minutes at 250°F. After cooling, the cans are labeled
and are ready for shipment to market.
TREATMENT BY SCREENING
The purpose of the screening tests was to evaluate the
efficiency and ease of operation of several types of screens.
Several of the larger canners.had obtained experience in
screening the shells and heads from their peeler wastewater
with vibrating screens. These screens operated satisfac-
torily performing this function. None of the canners, how-
ever, had experience in screening the total wastewater from
a plant, which it was hypothesized would be harder to screen
-362-
-------
than the peeler wastewater. The total wastewater would con-
tain shrimp veins, meat fragments and small shell fragments
which would tend to blind a screen much quicker than the
larger shells and heads* It was felt that ease of operation
and economical maintenance should be a prime consideration
in evaluating the pilot screens.
Pilot testing work was performed on raw peeler waste-
water and total discharge wastewater with raw peeling water
prescreened. The test plant screened the raw peeler waste-
water with a plant scale vibrating screen so the testing of
total discharge wastewater with unscreened peeler water in-
cluded was impossible.
The following screens were tested with raw peeler waste-
water:
1. Vibrating Screen
2. Rotating Screen
3. Tangential Screens A, B and C from three different
manufacturers.
A description and evaluation of each of these screens
follows:
Vibrating Screen. This screen was 48" in diameter with
a 20 mesh (approximately 0.84 mm opening) screen fabric.
This screen is circular, mounted on coil springs, and waste-
water enters from the top. The underflow passes through the
screen and the screened solids are vibrated with a spired
rolling notion to the sides of the screen where they are dis-
charged through two ports 180 degrees Apart. The vibrations
-363-
-------
are caused by an electric motor whose shaft is eccentrically
loaded. This screen was a permanent installation at the
test plant. Wastewater from eight peeling machines and four
separators was pumped by centrifugal pumps to the screen.
With eight peeling machines operating (the usual practice)
the flow to the screen was approximately 500 gpm.
This screen removed suspended solids very efficiently;
the removal efficiency approached 40%. The screen, however,
was not nearly as efficient in removing settleable solids;
the removal was less than 60% leaving a mean settleable solids
residual of approximately 20 ml/1 in the underflow. BOD-5
and total solids removal appear to be average at around 15%
removal. The screened solids were fairly dry with an average
value of 84% moisture.
Rotating Screen. The screen had a diameter of 25 inches
and a length of 24 inches. The unit had a screen opening of
0,5 mm (32 mesh equivalent). The cylindrical screen had the
appearance of well screen with a wedge wire grid. The unit
was equipped with a weir influent box for even influent dis-
tribution to the screen. The water passes through the screen
openings on the top of the screen, falls through the center
of the cylinder and passes through the screen openings again
on the bottom, thus backwashing any solids trapped in the
screen. The solids are carried on the top surface of the
screen to a scraper bar where the solids are removed.
The removal of suspended and settleable solids was
somewhat less for this screen than for the vibrating screen
-364-
-------
even though the screen opening for the rotating screen (0.5
mm) was less than for the vibrating screen (0.84 mm) . The
screened solids, however, were fairly dry. One sample was
tested at 22% dry solids.
Tangential Screen A. This pilot screen was 18 inches
wide and 33.5 inches high. The test screen was supplied with
four different screen openings: 0.020 inches (32 mesh),
0.030 inches (22 mesh), 0.040 inches (16 mesh) and 0.060
inches (11 mesh).
This screen had a headbox and an influent weir for even
influent distribution and had a mechanism to feed the waste-
water on the screen tangentially. The screen bars were
wedgewire and run transverse across the screen. The wedge-
wire bars curved downward between the vertical supports to
cause the flow to divide into separate streams between the
vertical supports. The manufacturer claims this helps pre-
vent clogging and blinding.
This screen was tested as a primary screen on raw peeler
wastewater. All the screen openings available were tested
3
at 50 gpm (0.00315 m /sec). The evaluation was limited, how-
ever, because only one short run was made with each screen
opening. These results indicate that the 0.020 inch (0.50
mm) opening screen produced the best results. This screen,
jaowever* tended to blind fairly quickly with a slime build-
up. This unit with a 0.030 inch (0.75 mm) opening screen
performed excellently during the short test run. Residual
settleable solids in the under-flow was only 14'-ml/1. The
-365-
-------
other screen openings (1.0 nun and 1,5 mm) also performed
without blinding problems but solids removal was inferior to
the 0.75 mm opening screen. The screened solids were extre-
mely wet when first leaving the screen but tended to gravity
drain very quickly. The screenings were 92% moisture at the
point of leaving the screen. This was due probably to a
noticeable amount of water continuously trickling from the
end of the screen. The test unit was probably several years
old and the seals between the sides of the wedge wire screen
iand frame were worn causing water to channel down the inside
walls. This was the major cause of wet screening solids.
Tangential Screen B. This pilot screen was 12 inches
wide and approximately 6 feet tall. Test runs with screen
openings of 0.5 mm, 0.71 mm, and 1.0 mm were made. The velo-
city across the face of the screen was very fast and as a con
sequence a slight blinding of the 0.5 mm screen caused a com-
plete failure because of water discharged at the end of the
screen. With the 0.71 mm opening screen residual settleable
solids of only 13 ml/1 in the underflow was tested. The 1.00
mm opening had a residual settleable solids of 18 ml/1. No
indication of blinding was observed with these two screens.
The screened material had approximately 82% moisture when
leaving the screen.
Tangential Screen C. This screen was also tested with
raw peeler wastewater. This screen was similar in design to
the Tangential Screen A but with several differences, which
include: the screening surface was actually three separate
-366-
-------
screens, all at slightly different angles to the vertical;
the influent weir did not direct the water tangentially to
the screen but was actually a small jump; and the screening
surface of the screen test unit was about one foot longer
than the Screen A. Tangential Screen C unit was also appar-
ently new and in excellent condition.
The differences in the screen design was apparently
significant. The residual settleable solids in the under-
flow was 22 ml/1. This was considerably higher than the
Tangential Screen A. However, screened solids from the
Screen C screen were approximately 18% dry solids when leav-
ing the screen. This was due to the solids staying on the
screen much longer and also no noticeable amount of water
was observed trickling from the end of the screen. Only
one test run was made with this screen and a 0.020 inch
(0.5 mm) screen opening was used at 50 gpm. No blinding
problems were observed during the test run.
Figures 2 and 3 show a comparison of effluent and
screening quality with the screens tested with raw peeler
wastewater.
The following screens were tested with total composite
discharge wastewater:
1. Tangential Screen A
2. Centrifugal Screen
An evaluation of this testing follows:
Tangential Screen A. This unit was used for pretreat-
ment of wastewaters for the DAF pilot plant. The wastewater
-367-
-------
Fig lift 2
PILOT SCREEN EVALUATION
WITH
PEELER WASTEWATER
ROTATING
TANGENTIAL C
TANGENTIAL B
VIBRATING
TANGENTIAL A
70 80 80 90
SCREENINGS MOISTURE (%)
368-
-------
Figure 3
PILOT SCREEN EVALUATION
WITH
PEELER WASTEWATER
TANGENTIAL A
TANGENTIAL B
ROTATING
VIBRATING
TANGENTIAL C
5 10 15 20
EFFLUENT SETTLE ABLE SOLIDS ml/I
-369-
-------
screened at this location was total composite process waste-
water. Therefore, the tangential screen was operating as a
secondary screen in series with the vibrating screen for
peeler wastewaters and operating as a primary screen for the
remainder of wastewaters produced in the plant (deveining,
fluming, blanching, canning and raw receiving). The average
results are shown in Table 2.
The results indicate a very poor removal efficiencies
of COD, total solids and suspended solids but fairly good
removal of settleable solids. The average results above are
all from runs using a 0.040 inch (1.0 mm) screen opening.
Trials were made with a 0.020 inch (0.5 mm) opening screen
but severe blinding resulted.
Centrifugal Screen. This screen was a 12-inch diame-
ter centrifugal type. With this unit wastewater is pumped
to the middle of a spinning cylindrical screen. The liquid
is spun through the screen and is removed as effluent. The
solids too large to pass through the screen drop out and are
removed as concentrated solids. The manufacturer claims
that the screens rotational velocity in combination with the
impingement velocity of the influent results in a vector
velocity that allows the screen to remove particles smaller
in size than the wire openings.
The unit was tested on total composite discharge waste-
water during plant processing. The operating variables
available were: interchangeable 400 mesh (0.035 mm opening)
and 165 mesh (0.097 mm opening) screens and flow rate. Seven
-370-
-------
TABLE 2
TANGENTIAL SCREEN EVALUATION
POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
TOTAL PLANT DISCHARGE3
Parameter
Mean
Removal
%
Mean
Removal
%
Mean
Removal
%
COD
4.4
36.0
0
Total Solids
4.7
40.0
0
Suspended Solids
0
47.0
0
Settleable Solids
55.6
80.0
39.0
a Peeler water prescreened with 20 mesh vibrating screen.
TABLE 3
CENTRIFUGAL SCREEN EVALUATION
TOTAL PLANT DISCHARGEa
Parameter
Mean
Removal
%
Mean
Removal
«
Mean
Removal
'%
BOD-5
8.6
16.7
0.0
Suspended Solids
17.2
37.6
3.4
Settleable Solids
89.0
93.3
84.7
a Peeler water prescreened with 20 mesh vibrating screen.
-371-
-------
test runs were made in which operating conditions were
varied on each. Average results are shown in Table 3.
On screening peeling wastewaters, the following comments
are offereds
Of the three types of screens the tangential
screens produced the best effluent with the lowest
residual settleable solids concentration in the eff-
luent. The rotating screen produced the worst eff-
luent and the driest screenings and the vibrating
screen performed midway to the other two types for
both criteria..
The tangential screens consumed no power, there-
fore, were best for this category. The vibrating
screen was the worst and the rotating screen which
required only a fractional horsepower motor was mid-
way. The rotating screen was only slightly behind
the tangential screens in this respect because it was
much lower than the tangential screens and the pumping
heat required would be lower.
In ease of operation the rotating screen was best.
During a short evaluation it showed no tendency to
blind or clog. The vibrating screen required a fre-
quent water hosing and was midway in this category.
The tangential screens required frequent hosings and
periodic brushing with a steel brush.
In anticipated operating cost, the rotating
screen appears to be the best because no operator
-372-
-------
would probably be required and maintenance should be
minimal. The tangential screen should be midway in
this category even though no maintenance costs are
likely but an operator will probably be needed. The
vibrating screen because of its mechanical nature is
last because of expected high maintenance costs and
the need for an operator.
On screening total composite wastewater the following
comments are offered:
The centrifugal screen produced the best effluent
with a residual settleable solids concentration of
about 1.0 ml/1. This screen, however, removed only an
average of 8.6% of BOD-5 and 17.2% suspended solids so
the residual concentrations in the screened effluent
were still very high. The disadvantage of this screen
was the very voluminous concentrate flow. This flow
would need to be treated separately. Treatability of
the concentrate flow was not evaluated.
The tangential screen removed settleable solids
to a residual of about 10 ml/1, removed an average of
4.5% of BOD-5 and on an average removed no suspended
solids. The screenings tended to be very wet because
of a continual blinding problem which resulted in water
discharged off the end of the screen. The screen tended
to blind because of a slime layer which could only be
removed with a wire brush.
-373-
-------
TREATMENT BY DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (DAF)
The DAF pilot plant evaluation was made during the sum-
mer, 1973 canning season. Objectives were to intensely
evaluate the operational variables of the DAF process while
treating shrimp canning wastewaters.
The ultimate objective of pilot plant studies is to
develop design criteria for full scale plants. The purpose
of a DAF treatment system is to separate and concentrate
suspended and colloidal particles in the feed wastewater.
Larger particles of the settleable solids size should be re-
moved prior tto DAF treatment by screens and cyclones if high
density particles are present. Separation of small suspended
and colloidal solids depends more on their structure and sur-
face properties than on their size and density. Therefore,
DAF treatment plants cannot be designed theoretically or
rationally by mathematical equations but by the use of labo-
ratory (bench scale) and pilot scale studies. Factors of
greatest importance in designing DAF plants are as follows:
1. Chemical coagulants.
2. Feed solids concentration.
3. Quantity of pressurized air used.
4. Overflow rate.
5. Retention Time.
6. Recycle/Pressurization Mode.
A schematic of the DAF pilot plant is shown in Figure
4. A total pressurization, circular type DAF plant was used
-374-
-------
Figure 4
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
PILOT PLANT SCHEMATIC
AND SAMPLING STATIONS
SCREENED
SOLIDS
TANGENTIAL
SCREEN
SCREEN INFLUENT *
SCREEN
TANK
ACID
PILOT
PLANT
INFLUENT
(5"
SURGE
TANK
ACID ©
COAGULANT
TREATED EFFLUENT
O SAMPLING
STATIONS
SLUDGE
COLLECTION
PRESSURIZATION
TANK
PRESSURE
RELEASE
VALVE
POLYMER
BASKET CENTRIFUGE
SLUDGE CONCENTRATION
Jf. RAW CANNERY WASTEWATER
^ AFTER SCREENING THROUGH
20 MESH V0RATING SCREEN
-375-
-------
for the testing program. The unit contained chemical injec-
tion pumps for coagulants and pH control; an automatic pH
controller; a sludge scraper and drive; and a sludge collec-
tion hopper and sludge pump.
Table 4 shows the average operating conditions of the
DAF unit used during the testing program. Several test runs
were made with chemical coagulants, pH, injected air and in-
fluent flow rate being varied in order to determine optimum
conditions.
The pollutant removal efficiencies of the DAF pilot
testing is shown in Table 5.
With the test runs alum coagulant dosages ranged from
150 mg/1 to 50 mg/1 and polymer dosages from 10 to 0.5 mg/1.
Best pollutant remo.vals were obtained at alum and polymer
dosages of 75 mg/1 and 2 mg/1 respectively. A pH of 5.0 ±
0.2 was maintained for most runs, a pH of 9.0 was maintained
for one run and extremely poor treatment resulted. For three
runs pH values from 6.1 to 6.5 were maintained and poor treat-
ment resulted.
The effluent with good runs was almost crystal clear
with a turbidity of less'than 20 units. A small amount of
floe carryover persisted and caused this small amount of
turbidity. The effluent was visually crystal clear between
floe particles. The effluent BOD-5 for good runs was below
400 mg/1, the effluent COD was below 1200 mg/1, the effluent
suspended solids was below 100 mg/1 and the effluent protein
was below 600 mg/1.
-376-
-------
TABLE 4
DAF PILOT PLANT
AVERAGE OPERATING CONDITIONS
Flow:
Pressurization:
Air/Solids:
Cell Solids Loading:
Acid Addition:
Alum Addition:
Polymer Addition:
50 gpm
40 psig
0.14
0.33 lbs/hr./ft
Surge Tank
Screen Tank
Flotation Cell Influent
TABLE 5
DAF PILOT PLANT EVALUATION
Pilot Plant Phase, Summer, 1973
Pilot Series 1 - Chemical Optimization
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Parameter
Mean
Removal
%
Maximum
Removal
%
Minimum
Removal
%
BOD-5
65.1
80.0
50.0
COD
59.0
69.5
43.5
Total Solids
14.9
42.9
0.0
Suspended Solids
65.6
85.8
7.0
Protein
52.5
91.1
25.7
Turbidity
83.0
97.5
61.9
Ortho Phosphate
27.5
38.2
15.4
Total Organic Carbon
61.4
62.8
60.0
-377-
-------
Three runs were made for the purpose of optimizing the
solids loading rate. All of the runs were performed with
optimum chemical dosages developed previously. Three runs
were completed with influent flow rates of 25 gpm, 50 gpm,
and 75 gpm. The influent suspended solids concentration for
each run was slightly different so, therefore, flow and
solids loading were not directly proportional. The results
are shown in Figure 5.
From Figure 5 it appears that optimum cell solids load-
ing is approximately 0.25 lbs/hr./ft2 and for the particular
pilot unit tested, the optimum influent flow is approximately
40 gpm.
Several values of air/solids ratios were computed from
similar runs made during the testing program. The results
of these computations are shown in Figure 6 where A/S ratios
are plotted against removal of suspended solids. From Figure
6 it appears optimum A/S ratios are within the range of 0.10
and 0.15.
The concentration and flow rate of the flotation sludge
was measured for most of the pilot runs. Mean results are
shown in Table 6.
SLUDGE DEWATERING BY CENTRIFUGATION
The flotation sludge skimmed from the top of the DAF
pilot plant was concentrated in a basket type pilot centri-
fuge. The centrifuge had the following characteristics:
-378-
-------
Figure 5
PILOT DAF PLANT EVALUATION
SOLIDS LOADING VS. TURBIDITY REMOVAL
0.70-1
0.60-
INPUIBNT PLOW
T» wm
0.50-
£ 0.40-
IN FLUENT PLOW
•0 %tm
0.30-
0.20-
INPLUKNT PLOW
it
0.10
100
95
85
90
80
75
TURBIDITY (% REMOVAL)
-379-
-------
Figure 6
PILOT DAF PLANT EVALUATION
A/S RATIO VS. SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
0.25-1
0.20-
0.15-
<0
s
<
OJO-
0j05-
©
0.00
50
—T"
60
—T-
70
~1—
80
90
SUSPENDED SOUDS (% REMOVAL)
-380-
-------
Method of Feed:
Feed Volume:
Basket Type:
Material Removal Method
Average results obtained are
Batch
2.5 gallons (9.47 liters)
Solid
Skimmer
shown in Table 7.
-381-
-------
TABLE 6
DAF PILOT PLANT EVALUATION
Flotation Sludge Characteristics
Parameter
Units
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Dry Solids
%
2.98
4.02
1.58
Flow
gpm
4.28
5.97
1.17
Protein
mg/1
15,819
26,318
6,963
TABLE 7
PILOT CENTRIFUGE EVALUATION
Mean Results
Parameter
Mean
% Dry Solids
Mean
Volume
(qallons)
Feed Sludge
3.36
2.50
Centrifuge Cake
6.23
0.58
Centrate
1.05
0.98
Air
0.0
0.94
-382-
-------
Figure 7
PROPOSED
SHRIMP CANNING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
DC WATERED
I 1
WASTE MMMN« 1
+ I MCKA«M«
MEAL' *
^MARKETINOJ
r
DRYM9
L
DEVKTEREO
SUlStE
I
r
I SCREEMNSS L
OCWATERMO'
i I
RECYCLEj
I
I
PLANT "1 f f
WASTE T L^U
WATER PROCESS " P\
I CHANOESJ [
LANDFILL
RECYCLEj
SCRCENM8S
SCREENING
1
1
DAF
SCREENED
WAS IE
WATER
%
w
5
n.
n
CHEMICAL
I coag.a I
| ACID TO I
1 m M j
T
I
I
4
I
ir
M
i!
NEUTRALIZED
WASTEWATER
SdtfARGE.
-I
S
2
5
n
CHEMICAL
CAUSTIC |
T0 I
PH «.0+ I
I
DISCHARGE OF
SELECTED PROCESS
WASTEWATERS
LEGEND
~ BASIC TREATMENT UNITS
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT UNITS
ALTERNATIVE PH
ADJUSTMENT WITH
UNTREATED WASTE-
WATERS.
r 1
LJ
-383-
-------
Treatment Technology in Canada
- Physical Treatment (Screening)
by
F. Claggett
Technical Advisor
Technical Service and Abatement Section
Pacific Region
Environmental Protection Service,
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
-------
1. SCREENING
Water is widely used in the fish processing industry,
and consequently various methods have evolved for separation
of the coarse fish solids prior to discharge. Studies have
shown that the longer the solids are in contact with water,
the more highly contaminated the water will become due to
leaching of blood, oil and soluble protein. Plant design
should include methods of dry handling and rapid separation
of coarse solids wherever feasible. For achievement of the
latter, a knowledge of the types of coarse and fine screens
applicable to the fish processing operation is required.
2. SCREENING SIZES
In discussing screen sizes, the term "mesh" is fre-
quently used to designate the screen size. Where mesh is
referred to as a number, the reference is to the number of
openings per linear inch. The mesh is determined by start-
ing from the centre of one wire and counting the number of
openings in a specified length. If applicable, a fraction
may be included.
The actual opening between the wires is "space", and is
a much better way of specifying the ability of fine screens
to remove suspended material. Thus, 0.25 inch space, 0.135
wire will adequately define a screen. For fine screen, the
space is often given in thousandths (e.g. 0.030) or in
millimeters (e.g. 0.71 mm).
-385-
-------
2.1 Coarse Screens
Up to the present time, most screening devices are only
used to remove coarse solids, hence the space is seldom less
than 0.25 inch (0.6 cm). Attempts at using conventional
screens in finer sizes have failed due to the ability of raw
protein and fish oil to blind fine screens. The raw protein
is easily forced into screen openings, preventing passage of
further solids and water. Where solids are large enough to
pull free of the screen during inversion, no problems develop.
Since the protein is quite "sticky", fine particles do pre-
sent a special problem, and are required to be removed by
sprays or brushes..
Oil adds a further dimension to the problem. Droplets
will spread over a fine screen opening, and the surface ten-
sion of the drop will prevent passage of water or solids.
Proper choice of flow patterns across the screen surface will
greatly reduce this tendency.
One of the simplest dewatering devices used is the
screw drain. Here a rotating screw carries the solids and
water through a perforated or slotted pipe. The close fit
between the screw and sleeve is supposed to ensure that the
perforations are kept clean.. This system works best where
large volumes of water must be removed from relatively few
coarse pieces (i.e. crab shells, etc.).
The most widely used coarse screening device is the
rotary trommel screen. Water and solids are discharged into
-386-
-------
a perforated cylinder which rotates at speeds of up to 15
RPM. The trommel surface is usually a stainless steel mesh
wrapped on a frame. The screen sizes are typically of four
to 10 mesh. The water passes through the screen and is col-
lected in troughs while the solids are carried to the end of
the cylinder by gravity or by flights. Water sprays are
often mounted to keep the screen surfaces clean.
In some plants coarse solids are also separated from
water by the use of wire mesh belts. The water easily
passes through the belt, while the larger solids collect and
are carried to a discharge chute where the belt passes
around a roller which inverts the screen surface.
2.2 Fine Screens
The type of fine screen most familiar to the industry
is the vibrating screen, such as is supplied by SWECO or
CAISSON. These are typically of 60 to 100 mesh or finer.
This type has proven of value where the solids have been
heat-denatured (such as in press liquor treatment) or in
screening waste from shrimp and crab operations. Although
satisfactory for the latter treatment, maintenance costs are
generally high. Many thousands of dollars have been spent
in numerous attempts to separate raw fish waste from water,
with little or no success reported.
The SWECO (Southwest Engineering Company) has recently
introduced a centrifugal concentrator, which has been tested
-387-
-------
on several types of fish processing effluent. In general it
has proven capable of concentrating solids present in the
effluent into a flow of about one quarter of the original
volume. It is slightly more successful on shrimp waste. It
does not, however, appear to be as applicable as the other
types detailed.
3. STATIC OR SIDE-HILL SCREENS
During the past several years, a substantial number of
"static" screens have been installed in many processing
operations to recover suspended matter from liquid flows.
Highly successful applications have been made in meat pack-
ing, tanning, canning, textile and paper products, as well
as in domestic sewage treatment.
The primary function of a static screen is to remove
"free" or transporting liquid. Several types have developed,
which have proven themselves in numerous applications.
3.1 DSM Screen
A concavely curved screen developed and patented in the
1950'a for mineral classification by Dutch States Mines
Corporation has been applied by Dorr-Oliver for use in the
process industries. This design employs bar interference
to the slurry, which knives off thin layers of the flow as
it cascades over the curved surface.
By far the most data for screening of fish processing
plant effluent are available for this type of screen, since
- 388-
-------
it was the type chosen for use in the demonstration waste
treatment plant at Steveston, B.C. A similar screen has
been in use for some time at a New England Pishing Company
plant in Washington State.
Two 6-foot Dorr-Oliver 45° DSM screens were chosen for
the demonstration plant. The screened surfaces have 0.7 and
1.0 mm (0.3 and 0.4 in.) aperatures (corresponding roughly
to 25 and 18 mesh) in 304 stainless steel. The box was of
mild steel. The initial installation also had installed a
battery of cone-jet nozzles for cleaning purposes.
A 1500-gallon (56781) equalization tank stabilizes the
feed to the screens at about 720 GPM (45.4 1/sec). From the
tank a 4-inch (10 cm) centrifugal pump transports the water
to a manifold feeding the two screens. The flow pattern to
each is controlled by positioning of butterfly valves. A
manually-adjusted by—pass valve connects the pump discharge
to the tank. Cracking of this valve ensures that the pump
impeller is kept wet at all times.
The screened liquid flows by gravity to a wet well from
where it is pumped either to the treatment plant or to the
river outfall. The oversize solids are carried by screw
conveyor for transfer to the reduction plant.
Shortly after startup of this plant, some blinding pro-
blems developed, and modifications were made to the spray
system to enable the maintenance of an automated spray flush-
ing of the screen surface, consisting of a 30-second burst
-389-
-------
every three minutes. Results obtained over a two-year
operating period are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Treatment of fish processing effluent by DSM
screens.
Waste-
water
Optimum flow
GPM/ft
(1/sec/cm)
Oversize flow
GPM
(1/sec)
Dry solids
recovery
lb/hour
(kg/hour)
Suspended
solids
reduction
(%)
Salmon
60
4
20
(0.13)
(0.25)
(9.1)
40
Ground-
90
1
15
fish
(0.19)
(0.06)
(6.8)
35
Herring
48
10
1000
Roe
(0.1)
(0.63)
(454)
75
Experimentation continues with the screens, and two
late developments appear interesting. On one screen the
pattern spray has been replaced by an ordinary garden oscil-
lating sprinkler, and appears to be working well. On the
other screen a brush has been installed, and is doing an
adequate job without increasing the wastewater flow. In
both cases the solids coming off the screens are do dry that
water is being added to them to enable them to be pumped.
3.2 The Hydraseive
Beginning in 1969, U.S. and foreign patents were allowed
on a three-slope static screen made of specially coined
curved wire. This concept used the Coanda or wall attachment
phenomena to withdraw the liquid from the underlayers of a
slurry stratified b£ controlled velocity over the screen.
Construction of the screen is detailed in Figure 4.
-390-
-------
This screen has been tested on shrimp and crab plant
effluents in Alaska and Louisiana, and successful installa-
tions have been made at the Omstead Plant, Wheatley, Ontario,
and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board plant in Winnipeg. A
similar installation operating on effluents from a Maine sar-
dine plant has had steam jets installed to assist in prevent-
ing blinding.
3.3 The Hydrocyclonics Hydrascreen
This screen is basically a combination of the previous
two. Bar interference is used on three separate sloping sur-
faces. Tests have been performed on effluents from a salmon
hand-butchering operation with very encouraging results.
In general, any of these screens appear useful for fish
processing effluent screening. It might be advisable to pur-
chase the screen chosen without either sprays or brush, and
add these as needed, unless it has been shown in a very simi-
lar installation that either a brush or spray system will be
needed.
4. THE HYDROCYCLONICS ROTOSTRAINER
A recent entry into the field of fine screens appears
to offer promise to the screening of fish processing plant
effluents. The rotostrainer comprises relatively few moving
parts: a fractional horsepower motor, variable speed gear
reducer, and a cylindrical screen. All parts are made of
-391-
-------
stainless steel. The head box is designed to minimize in-
fluent turbulence and to ensure a steady flow over the weir.
The water to be screened passes over the weir and
through the slowly rotating screen. The solids which cannot
pass through the screen spaces ride over the top of the
screen and are removed by a wiper system. The wiper blade
is designed to channel the dewatered solids away from the
screen into the collection and removal system.
The effluent, meantime, passes through the top of the
sqreen, falling through its interior, and exits through the
mesh at the bottom. In doing so it effectively backwashes
the screen, thereby providing a reliable self-cleaning action.
Rotation of the screen is variable between one and 10
KPM with increasing rotational velocity allowing greater
throughput at the expense of water carryover in the solids.
Tests have been performed on the 24-inch (61 cm) model
u*ing 0.030 inch (0.07 cm) screens at B.C. Packers Imperial
Plant, Steveston, B.C. and at the Bumblebee Seafoods Plant
in Bellingham, Washington. In the latter case, the test was
concluded to be highly satisfactory, while in the former,
modifications to the location of the wiper blade were felt
to be necessary to ensure that the solids which are removed
from the screen are immediately carried away so as to not
interfere with subsequent wiper operation. Flows as high as
150 GPM per foot (0.315 1/sec/cm) of screen appear quite pos-
sible, with removal efficiencies similar to those reported
for the static screens.
-392-
-------
5. CHEMICAL TREATMENT AND AIR FLOTATION
5.1 Introduction
Fine screening is able to achieve considerable reduction
in settleable solids, but does little to reduce the levels of
suspended and soluble solids. Various chemicals may be used
to flocculate emulsified and colloidally dispersed solids,
and pH adjustment can lower the solubility of proteins.
Gravity separation may then be used (Pavia and Tyagi, 19th)
to separate the solids. Since the effluents from many fish
processing operations have fat associated with the proteins,
a three-phase separation is necessary. Separation of the
phases under these conditions, is slow, and anaerobic condi-
tions, due to bacterial action, may develop, leading to odour
problems. Proper selection of the chemicals, combined with
dissolved air flotation, was shown by us to allow a rapid
separation of the solids and fat fractions as a single phase.
6. CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Various chemicals and combinations thereof have been
used to flocculate suspended organic materials (Kato and
Ishikawa, 1969; Touseth and Berridge, 1969; Schultz, 1956).
Among those tested by us in the laboratory and pilot plant
were ferric chloride, sodium alluminate, aluminum sulphate,
each of the above with various polyelectrolytes, and pH ad-
justment using acids.
-393-
-------
\jq also investigated the use of lignosulphonic acid
(LSA) to separate soluble proteins, as reported by Touseth
and Berridge. Under laboratory conditions exceptional re-
sults could be obtained with this system. The system was
discontinued after pilot plant tests due to the following
conclusions:
1. The reaction requires a fairly definite LSA:protein
ratio, which requires either an extensively buffered
system, or development of a system capable of monitor-
ing protein levels.
2. The floe resulting from the protein:LSA interaction is
very fragile, forcing the use of recycle pressurization,
and hence oversized- flotation equipment.
3. The system operates at a pH of 4, requiring the use of
corrosion-resistant materials.
Best results in our studies were obtained using alum-
inum sulphate, either with added alkalinity, or anionic poly-
electrolytes. The mode of action of the aluminum sulphate
(alum) can be postulated as follows:
As alum is added to the wastewater, the cations are
attracted to the charged particles, thus coating them
and forming microflocs. If alkalinity is present, the
excess alum reacts to-form a voluminous hydroxide floe*.
The microfloc, which has a positive charge in the acid
ranger agglomerates to this floe, or may be physically
enmeshed along with other colloids or particles. Surface
-394-
-------
adsorption is also active. The high molecular weight
anionic polyelectrolytes of the polyacrylamide type are
also effective in agglomerating microflocs. The floe
of either type is easily separated by air flotation,
resulting in a good, dense sludge blanket.
Our pilot plant studies were conducted using alum and
sodium hydroxide (Claggett and Wong, 1969), as was the first
year of operation of a demonstration unit (Claggett, 1971).
We were able to show (Table 2) that not only could a good
clarification be achieved, but that the sludge solids could
be recovered for safe use in poultry feeds.
7. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
This unit operation utilizes the buoyant effect of air
bubbles to float suspended solids and oil. Some or all of
the wastewater is mixed with air and pressurized to force an
air-water solution. When the pressure is released, the air
comes out of solution as pin-point bubbles, gathering on any
available interface. A further study of air flotation prin-
ciples may be found in the work by Vnablik (1937).
The equipment normally used for total flow pressuriza-
tion is shown in Figure 1. Water from the collection tank
is pressurized by a centrifugal pump and control valve to
about three atmospheres. Air is metered into the pump suc-
tion at about two percent by volume, using either an aspira-
tor or a compressor. A retention tank with a residence time
-395-
-------
of about one minute allows intimate air—water contact, en-
suring a maximum solution of the air. The control valve pro-
vides a rapid pressure drop which decreases the air solubi-
lity. It also causes extreme turbulence, so floe formation
should take place downstream of this point. The air bubbles
coming out of solution attach themselves to the solids pre-
sent, and as the mixture enters the flotation cell, carries
the solids to the tank surface. Here a paddle arrangement
carries away the solids. Clarified water is removed from
the bottom of the cell by standpipes.
Table 2. Operating data on flotation cell, 1971, using
caustic alum on salmon canning effluent.
Stream
Suspended
solids
(mg/1)
Soluble
solids
(mg/1)
COD
(mg/1)
Oil
(mq/1)
Tirbi-
dity
(JCU)
Influent
956 ± 360
1590 ± 2498
5635 ± 2498
360
2500
Effluent
61 ± 28
1075 ± 155
815 ± 125
20
200
Removal
92 ± 5
28 ± 16
84 ± 6
Sludge volume flow was
2 to 3% of
cell flow
Sludge average solids
content was
7.2%
Alum was
235 mg/1
The flotation cell may be circular or rectangular.
Both types were tested on a pilot plant scale with similar
results. Based on these results, it was decided to install
a full-scale demonstration .unit.
-396-
-------
WASTE WATER FLOW
SCREEN DEVICE
SLUDGE SKIMMER
SLUDGE
r\
FLOTATION
SEPERATOR
EFFLUENT
PRESSURE
CONTROL
VALVE _
CLOSED
RETENTION
TANK
SUR6E TANK
AIR
INJECTOR
BOTTOM A)
ePPABFB '—'V
CHEMICAL
PUMP
INFLUENT
PUMP
DRAM
Figure 1. Total flow pressurization.
-------
8. THE AIR FLOTATION DEMONSTRATION UNIT
8.1 Plant Design
In a cooperative effort between the Fisheries Associa-
tion of British Columbia and Environment Canada (Fisheries
Research Board, and the Industrial Development Branch of
Fisheries Service), a demonstration wastewater treatment
plant was designed and erected, based on the results of our
pilot plant studies. The system was sized to handle an esti-
mated flow of 900 GPM (57 1/sec) originating from either the
salmon cannery or groundfish operation of B.C. Packers Im-
perial Plant. The flotation cell was designed at an over-
2
flow rate of 2 g/sq ft/min (7032 1/cm /min). Other design
criteria may be found in our Technical Report Number 14
(qlaggett, 1970).
Although much existing plant equipment was utilized in
the construction in order to minimize the capital investment,
the plant was designed to allow calculation of capital and
operating costs as well as to solve problems expected to be
encountered in operating a demonstration unit.
A flow diagram of the plant is shown in Figure 2. The
chemical addition system included a 1000 gal. (3785 1)
Koroseal-lined caustic tank, a 6000 gal. (22710 1) Fiberglas
alum tank, and two 200 gal .(757 1) polyelectrolyte tanks. A
Milton-Roy diaphragm duplex pump rated at 80 U.S. gal. per
min. (5 1/sec) was used for the 30 percent alum and an 18
-398-
-------
CAUSTIC
CANNERY WASTE
WATER i-|
RECYCLE LINE
COLLECTION
TANK
POLY ELEC-
TROLYTE
ALUM
SURGE TANK
TO REDUCTION
PLANT
SKIMMER
RETENTION TANK
DRAIN
COAGULATE
CHAMBER
TO REDUCTION /'
AIR INJECTOR
FLOTATION
v TANK
CONTROL
VALVE
SCRAPER
4 l
DRAIN
Figure 2. Flow diagram of demonstration plant.
-------
gal. per min. single head pump for the 50 percent sodium
hydroxide. The polyelectrolyte addition was made from a 0.5
percent solution by a rotary vane pump rated at 5 gal. per
min. (0.3 1/sec) of water.
The Beckman pH monitoring system is shown schematically
in Figure 3. It included two Series III flow chambers con-
taining a standard glass and a Lazaran reference electrode
connected through a manual electrode switch to a Model 940
Beckman pH analyzer. This system allowed the checking of
either the caustic addition or the pH of the incoming water
as well as the amount of pH depression obtained from the
addition of the 'alum. Most of the chemical and water lines
in this system were of 1/2 or 3/4 inch (1.3 or 1.9 cm) poly-
ethylene tubing with stainless steel fittings. Subsequent
testing indicated that the alum addition could be automated
by pH control, with alum added through signal from the pH
analyzer to position the plunger on a Minton-Roy control
diaphragm pump. The desired pH appears to be about 5.4 for
most wastewaters.
The flotation cell was equipped with two sludge scrapers
to handle the heavy volume of sludge encountered in various
wastewaters. Sludge was.discharged through a hopper into a
3-inch (7.6 cm) line leading to a 3-inch Viking gear pump
equipped with a 5 HP motor.- The solids were pumped about
100 years through a 3-inch (7.6 cm) line to the reduction
plant for sludge recovery.
-400-
-------
CANNERY
WASTE
POLY-ELECTROLYTE ALUM
CAUSTIC
WATER
pH SENSOR
FLOTATION
CELL
SENSOR
SURGE TANK
ELECTRODE SWITCH
pH ANALYZER
MODEL 940 MODEL 2040
Figure 3. pH monitoring system
-------
Problems encountered with air-locking in the Viking
gear pump indicates that a diaphragm pump such as supplied
by Marlow would be a better choice.
The results obtained in the first year of testing with
the caustic-alum combination are detailed in Table 3. Al-
though the sludge could be recovered as a 15 percent solids
cake in a basket centrifuge after heat treatment, the re-
covery is difficult. When the alum is flocculated with an
anionic polyelectrolyte, the solids content of the cake can
increased to 20 percent, with a recovery of about 90 per-
cent. Preliminary tests indicate that a decanter (horizon-
tal bowl) centrifuge might be applicable and a small Super
D-Canter will be* tested in the spring of 1974.
Table 3. Operating data on flotation cell, 1972, using
alumanionic polyelectrolyte on salmon canning
effluent.
Suspended Soluble Turbi-
Stream ,?0D„, ,«¦«*
Influent
1450 ±
520
1850 ± 360 6120 ± 1880 440
2500
Effluent
200 ±
40
1280 ± 170 960 ± 300 30
350
Removal
86 ±
6
30 ± 20 84 ± 8
Sludge
volume flow as 3 to 4 percent of cell
flow
Sludge
average solids was 4.9 percent
Using the alum-polyelectrolyte combination, the data
obtained are detailed for effluents from groundfish, salmon
canning and herring roe operations in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
-402-
-------
Table 4. Operating data on flotation cell, 1972, using alum-
polyelectrolyte on groundfish filleting effluent.
Stream
Suspended solids
(mg/1)
Soluble solids
(mg/1)
COD
(mg/1)
BOD
(mg/1)
Influent
265
448
1295
500
Effluent
55
312
550
245
Removal
95%
34%
58%
51%
Sludge volume flow was about 1 percent of cell flow
Alum usage averaged 20 mg/1
Polyelectrolyte usage averaged 0.5 mg/1
Table 5. Operating data on flotation cell, 1973, using alum-
polyelectrolyte on herring roe recovery effluent.
Suspended solids Soluble solids COD
Stream (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Influent 1240 6337 5087
Effluent 344 4823 1774
Removal 74% 24% 66%
Sludge flow is 6 to 7 percent of cell flow
Alum usage is 180 mg/1
Polyelectrolyte usage is 4 mg/1
Table 6. Polyelectrolyte sources and costs.
Polyelectrolyte trade name Supplier Price per lb
Polyfloc 1200 Beta Laboratories $1.80
Magnafloc 835A Cyanamid 1.95
Magnafloc A-100 Cyanamid 1.25
-403-
-------
8.2 Applicable Poly**1 ftctrolytes
The only polyelectrolytes found to be effective in our
tests are the anionic polyacrylaminde copolymers with mole-
cular weights of 5 to 15 million. Table 6 shows the ones
found to be satisfactory, their suppliers, and approximate
price. Similar materials are available from other polyelec-
trolyte polymers.
Although the dosages are in the one to five mg/1 range,
the polyelectrolyte is concentrated in the sludge with a
potential level of 500 mg/1 being possible. A supplier of
the material states that toxicity studies on rats have
proven negative, "and that materials with this high a molecu-
lar weight would hot be absorbed by the stomach of animals.
Approval of the recovered sludge solids has been approved by
the Canadian Department of Agriculture, based on feeding
trials performed on., poultry at the University of British
Columbia*
9. OUTFALLS TO MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
The success of an outfall depends mainly on the ability
of the receiving water to assimilate or disperse the waste
discharge. This, in turn, is dependent on such factors as
tide, wind, wave and current action. The ability to predict
adverse effects of an outfall also requires a knowledge of
th« uses to which the receiving water may be put, such as
recreation, bathing, shellfish growing and the like,
-404-
-------
Tidal currents are the water movements which accompany
the tide changes. These are periodic in nature, and vary
widely with the geography of each area.
Since floating material from an outfall will move faster
than the effluent discharged at an outfall due to wave and
wind action, a knowledge of these is important.
Coastal currents are major sustained movements of water,
often parallel to the coast. Their effect near shore is
usually minimal, but occasionally an eddy or counter current
may be induced which can greatly assist in proper effluent
discharge.
Density, salinity and temperature of the receiving
water can markedly effect the dispersion of wastes. A den-
sity gradient at the outfall can prevent the effluent mix-
ture from reaching the surface.
Submarine outfalls which discharge relatively untreated
waste« will have some effect on the marine environment, at
least near the outfall. Proper design of an outfall, using
knowledge of the previously mentioned factors, can greatly
minimize deleterious physical, chemical and biological
effects.
The physical effects depend mostly on the location of
the outfall and the degree of treatment. Deposition of
significant amounts of solids in the discharge area is com-
mon for fish processing plants at present. Fine screen will
significantly reduce this effect. Temperature changes due
-405-
-------
to the discharge will be of little importance due to the
large dilution available.
Submarine outfall disposal of naturally occuring organic
wastes will have little effect on the chemical characteris-
tics of the receiving water. The change in salinity is only
marked in the close proximity to the outfall. Oxygen defi-
ciency resulting from the biochemical utilization of the
wastes may occur where dilution is restricted for any rea-
son. This is not normally of significance for properly
located outfalls.
The suitability of a particular ocean outfall may be
governed by its proximity to marine shellfish beds. Because
certain shellfish concentrate bacteria, restrictions are re-
quired on either the location of outfalls in proximity to
the beds, or in the harvesting of such shellfish.
Since the effluent from fish processing operations is
not either as noxious or as liable to contain pathogens,
outfalls should be designed more for aesthetics than from
public health consideration. Consequently, the restrictions
on outfalls listed by the Pollution Control Branch, B.C.
Government in the October, 1971 policy statement for munici-
pal discharges may be too restrictive. If these were
applied, however, plants discharging over 10,000 gpd (37850
1/day) would require an outfall located 50 feet (15 m) be-
low low-water, and at least 100 feet (30 m) from shore.
-406-
-------
CHARACTERIZATION AND TREATMENT OF
CANADIAN FISH MEAL. AND CRAB PROCESSING
PLANT WASTEWATERS
Report Presented at the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Technology Transfer
Seminars on Upgrading
Seafood Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution
by
M. J. Riddle
Food and Allied Industries Division,
Water Pollution Control Directorate,
Canadian Environmental Protection Service.
Seattle, Washington
April 2 and 3, 1974
-------
EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION
1 i
The Environmental Protection Service of Environment
Canada has undertaken a number of studies to characterize
the effluents from fish processing plants. Of interest to
the attendees at this seminar would be the results from crab
processing and fish meal operations.
Crab Processing
The process flow diagram for crab processing is illus-
trated in Figure 1. The crab are unloaded live from the
holds of the vessels into tubs and then trucked to holding
rooms at the processing plant. Once in the holding rooms
they are packed in ice or held in refrigerated rooms prior
to processing. The first stage of crab processing is butch-
ering which involves removal of the legs and shoulders from
the main body of the crab. The main body is flumed to a
disposal pit, while the legs and shoulders are flumed to a
continuous cooker. After the legs and shoulders of the crab
have been cooked, they are flumed to shaking tables where
meat and shell are separated. The fluming not only trans-
ports the crab, but also serves to cool them as the crab
leave the cooker. At the shaking tables the meat is removed
from the shell by any means possible, usually by persistent
pounding. After inspection, the crab meat is dipped in a
-408-
-------
SHELLS
LAND
DISPOSAL
SHELLS
STORAGE PRIOR
TO PROCESSING
BRINE DIP
STORAGE PRIOR
TO SHIPMENT
BUTCHERING
COOKER
PACKAGING
FREEZING,OR CANNING
ICE SUPPLY
SHAKING
TABLES
Figure 1. Process flow diagram
crab processing plant.
-409-
-------
brine solution to preserve and maintain the natural taste of
the meat and is then packed for shipment to the consumer mar-
ket. It is sold in either a frozen or canned state.
Wastes in the crab processing industry originate at the
butchering stations, the cooker, the shaking tables, and
general clean-up; and are usually flumed to discharge via a
system of floor drains. Prior to direct discharge into the
receiving water, however, the bodies of the crab remaining
after butchering and the leg shells from the shaking tables
are removed and disposed of on land using normal sanitary
land-fill techniques.
Two plants freezing queen crab were sampled for a five
day period. Samples of plant effluent were taken every 30
minutes. Flow proportioned composites were made twice
daily, one set of "composite samples for the morning opera-
tion and one for the afternoon. All samples were taken
prior to the discharge of the waste through screens. Tables
1, 2 and 3 show the results of this study.
Table 1. Waste characteristics of the queen crab process
expressed as concentrations.
Concentration
Characteristic Range Average
BOD5 320 - 1000 mg/1 676 mg/1
SS 135 -• 661 mg/1 301 mg/1
Oil 0.01 - 0.09% 0.03%
-410-
-------
Table 2. Waste characteristics of the queen crab process
expressed as pounds of waste produced per pound
of product.
Characteristic
lb/1000 lb Product
Landed Produced
BODt
SS
Oil
40
19
21
270
84
93
Table 3. Water consumption per pound of product in the
queen crab process.
Gal/1000
lb Product
Water Source
Landed
Produced
Fresh
739
3,312
Salt
5447
24,567
Fiah Meal Operations
In the processing of most species of fish for food pur-
poses from 30 to 80 percent of the raw material is wasted.
Efforts are made by most plants to recover all edible por-
tions/ and the recent introduction of deboning machines
promises greater utilization in the future. Still, much of
the fish poses a disposal problem and one practice has been
to produce a protein concentrate for poultry feed. Oil may
also be recovered from oily species.
The waste material, termed offal, is normally conveyed
wet or dry to the fish meal plant and stored in pits until
enough is accumulated to warrant operation. Solids recovered
-411-
-------
by screening of off-loading and processing waters are also
sent to the fish meal plant. During storage some liquid is
drained or pressed from the offal. This stream, called
bloodwater, is not large in volume but is very strong in
terms of organic content. Some plants attempt to recover
this, but most discharge the stream with the plant effluent.
The general flow for fish meal production is shown in
Figure 2. The offal is hashed by machine if large pieces
are present, and then cooked in direct or indirect continuous
steam cookers for up to 10 minutes. Non-oily offal may be
added directly to driers, while oily species are pressed to
expel most of the water and oil prior to entering the drier.
In the latter case the press liquor undergoes a fine
solids separation using vibrating screens or decanting cen-
trifuges followed by oil separation in nozzle centrifuges.
The oil is further clarified in polishing centrifuges before
sale as either an edible oil or animal oil. The aqueous
phase may still contain up to five or six percent organic
solids and is termed stickwater. At one time this was dis-
carded, but now many plants employ multiple effect evapora-
tors to concentrate these solids. The resultant product is
termed condensed fish solubles and contains from 30 to 50
percent solids. It is marketed as a poultry or animal feed,
a specialty fertilizer, or is recycled back to the driers
for incorporation into the meal. The condenser water used
in the evaporators does pick up volatile solids and gases,
-412-
-------
WATER DISCHARGE
, WATER TO
|—1CENTRFUGE)—~ DISCHARGE
I WATER GAS TO ATMOSPHERE
BUOODWATER
STEAM
WATER TO
DISCHARGE
NON OILY SPECIES
rJ Lrrh OILY ,
I 8PECE8
PRESSUQUOR
ER
SOUDS
¦OILTO STORAGE
•WATER TO DISCHARGE
CONDENSER WATER TO DISCHARGE
SOLUBLES TO MARKET
SOLIDS
REMCMU-
OIL
POLISHING
OFFAL
STORAGE
VAPOR
SCRUBBER
DISCHARGE
Figure 2. Flow diagram for fish meal production.
-413-
-------
the extent depending on the degree of freshness of the offal
and the manner of operation of the evaporators.
The fish meal driers are usually rotary kilns, with
heat being supplied by direct flame heating of the air, or
by indirect heating using steam. The solids are dried to
between 5 to 10 percent moisture content, ground to pass 10
mesh screens and sold in either 100 lb bags or in bulk. The
steam and odors generated during the drying of the meal can
be very obnoxious and most plants employ some sort of direct
water scrubbing to these vapors prior to release. Large
volumes of water are employed for this, and the scrubber
effluents will contain a significant quantity of organic
material.
Many fish processing plants in Canada combine a number
of the above-mentioned operations. For instance, many plants
on the West Coast have the capability of processing both
groundfish and salmon. These operations might also be linked
to a fish meal plant. The resulting wastes from the fish
processing plant are usually flumed together and discharged
as one effluent, after removal of the offal.
The processing of fish meal can lead to the discharge
of high strength wastes. A review of Table 4 indicates the
advisability of limiting the direct discharge of bloodwatfer
and stickwater to receiving waters. Many plants do in fact
recover both their bloodwater and stickwater, producing fish
meal, condensed solubles and oil from these waste products.
-414-
-------
Such recovery practices should be encouraged in those plants
which presently discharge their waste directly to the receiv-
ing water.
Table 4. Average effluent characteristics from fish meal
processing.
BOD,
ss
Waste Stream
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Ether Soluble Oil
(mg/1)
Non-oily bloodwater 120,000
Oily bloodwater 80,000 15,000
Deodorizer water 20 100
Condenser water 10 80
Stickwater
Groundfish 120,000 10,000
Herring 70,000 30,000
Perch and smelt 160,000 66,000
Pumpout water 34,000 8,000
3,000
300
5,000
1,200
500
Biological Treatment
Batch biological studies were carried out on the perch,
amelt and combined perch and smelt wastewater. The charac-
terization data for these process are shown in Tables 5 and
6. Sampling and analyses of the contents of the batch reac-
tors were performed daily. The batch reactors used were
filled with 15 liters of fish waste and 2 liters of liquor
from the aerated lagoon. It was assumed this lagoon liquor
would provide the source of acclimatized micro-organisms
-4:5-
-------
Table 5. Average effluent characteristics
Process
bod5
(mg/1)
COD
(mg/1)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
Perch effluent
1867
3350
935
Smelt effluent
1152
1965
599
Combined effluent
3044
4796
1397
Table 6. Combined perch and smelt '
tics. (units pounds/1000
processed)
wastewater
pounds of
characteris-
landed fish
Statistic
bod5
COD
6.S.
Mean
4.5
8.0
2.3
Standard deviation
±2.0
±3.6
±1.3
Coefficient of
variation
45.4%
47.7%
58.7%
Number of samples
29
27
29
necessary for each, batch test. Air was supplied to the
reactor at a rate of 3,5000 c.c. per minute.
Figure 3 indicates the percentage of filtered BOD^ re-
maining in the reactor for perch, smelt and combined waste-
water. As the best fit could be obtained by a straight line
on arithmetic paper for-the three wastes considered, the
reactions were considered to be "zero-order" with respect to
the degradation of filtered BOD,..
Stickliquor was added to the three reactors to monitor
its effect on the biological degradation of the waste
-416-
-------
iia e.nnisc ofrrvri r |©B00.-FILTERED SLUDGE RECYCLEDOAY \. „„„„
SLU06E ^CYCLE p B00 u|)FlLTERED SLUDGE AGE (DETENTION 1 ? 2ftn» T,!SrlM?l2cn
1 TME=7.5 HOURS I • »OD«.UNF»JE«ED
SLUDGE RECYCLE-3 DAY (D BOD. FILTERED
SLUDGE AGE (DETENTION }° UNFUTFRFn
100™
-------
material. The addition of stickliquor did not appear to
alter the "rate" of the various reactions monitored.
The batch studies of perch, smelt and combined waste-
water indicated removals of 90 percent of BOD^ and in excess
of 65 percent of soluble organic carbon during 10 days of
aeration. Further aeration time would not substantially
increase the removal efficiency. The addition of stickliquor
markedly affected the biological system, causing a drop in
treatment efficiency. It was concluded that the batch reac-
tor did not reach a steady state in the 20 days following
stickliquor addition.
Following batch studies, continuous reactors having de-
tention times £>f 7.5 and 15 hours, 5, 10 and 15 days were
employed. The 5, 10, and 15 days detention time reactors
had no sludge recycle and the sludge age equaled the deten-
tion time. (Sludge age is defined as the total active mass
divided by the mass withdrawn daily from the treatment sys-
tem.) The 7.5 and. 15 hour detention time reactors initially
had a 3-day sludge age which was subsequently increased to 5
days by varying the amount of sludge recycled from the clari-
fier to the reactors.
Figure 4 is a plot of average percent removal of unfil-
tered and filtered BOD,, against sludge age. It is a com-
bination plot derived from data obtained from each continu-
ous reactor. The figure gives mean percent removals and the
standard deviations. Figure 4 indicates that a sludge age
-418-
-------
in excess of 3 days is required for maximum percentage re-
moval of BOD^I both filtered and unfiltered.
Figure 4 incorporates data from reactors with a short
detention time and sludge recycle and data from long deten-
tion time reactors with no sludge recycle. Examination of
figure 4 indicates that increasing sludge age above 3 days
with or without sludge recycle did not markedly affect the
percent removal of filtered and unfiltered BOD,.. The removal
for filtered BOD,- was approximately 80 percent for each
sludge age tested, whereas the removal dropped to approxi-
mately 45 percent for unfiltered BOD5. Maximum BOD5 removal
could be achieved by either a short detention time reactor
(7.5 hours) with sludge recycle and 3-day sludge age, or a
larger detection time reactor (5 days) with no sludge re-
cycle .
Table 7 gives the residuals and percentage removals of
BOD,. for a batch reactor operated for 20 days. The percent
removals of unfiltered and filtered BOD,, in the batch reac-
tor are 89 and 98 percent, respectively, for combined waste-
water. These compare with 40 to 45 percent and 80 to 90 per-
cent removals for unfiltered and filtered BOD5 respectively
in the continuous reactors.
If a 5-day detention time reactor is used for biologi-
cal treatment of the combined wastewater, the nutrient con-
centrations in the effluent will be in the order of 140 mg/1
for total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 30 mg/1 for unfiltered
-419-
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
COMBINED WASTEWATER A
SMELT WASTEWATER *
PERCH WASTEWATER ©
SMELT
BINED
PERCH
^ 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIME - DAYS
22
4. Batch reactor studies-filtered BODt
-420-
-------
Table 7. Residuals following biological treatment and per-
cent removal of BOD5 of the combined wastewater.
(Batch reactors operated for 20 days.)
Process
BOD5
Filtered
(mg/1)
Unfiltered
(mg/1)
Percent Removal of BOD5
Filtered
Unfiltered
Perch
wastewater
Smelt
wastewater
Combined
wastewater
10
40
9
150
150
190
97
94
98
92
88
89
phosphate. Increasing the detention time to 10 days would
reduce the effluent concentration of total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen to about 85 mg/1, while having little effect on the
phosphate concentration. A further increase in detention
time to 15 days produces an effluent with approximately the
same nutrient concentration as from the 10-day detention
time reactor.
-421-
------- |