EPA 910/9 83 115 ynjted Stat0s Regfon 1Q P B85" 1 7 5 1 1 5
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue
Agency Seattle WA 96101
Water January 1964
&ERA Environmental
Assessment
Alternative Seafood Waste Disposal
Methods at Akutan Harbor, Alaska
-------
wmw
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 910/9-83-115
4. Title and Subtitle
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SEAFOOD WASTE DISPOSAL
METHODS AT AKUTAN HARBOR, AIASKA
A Recipient's Accession No.
PB8 5 175 1 1 5 /«
5. Report Data
January 1984
7. AuthoKs)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Neme and Address
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
1802 136th PI NE
Bellevue, M. 98005
>0. Protect/Task/Work Unit No.
li. Contract(C) or Qrant(G) No.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF
ALTERNATIVE SEAFOOD
WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
AT AKUTAN HARBOR, ALASKA
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
Under Contract No. 68-01-6613
Work Assignment No. 9
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
1802 136th Place NE
Bellevue, WA 98005
and
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1900 116th Avenue NE
Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 27, 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY 1
Alternatives 1
Initial Waste Quantity Reduction 3
Direct Outfall Discharge Without Treatment 3
Direct Outfall Discharge with Grinding 3
Outer Harbor Outfall Discharge with Grinding 4
Screening with Barging of Solids for Ocean Dumping 5
Screening with Landfilling of Solids 5
Screening with Aerobic Digestion and Discharge 6
of Solids
Screening, Centrifuging, and Incineration of Solids 6
Screening with Production of Seafood Meal and Oil 6
from Solids
Screening with Production of Fish Silage from 7
Solids
Screening with Production of Chitin/Chitosan 8
from Crab Solids
Screening with Recovery of Other Fish By- 8
Products from Solids
Constraints on Implementation 8
Impact Summary 9
CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION 11
Need for EPA Action 11
Objectives 12
CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES 19
Initial Waste Quantity Reduction 19
Treatment Without Solids Separation 20
Direct Outfall Discharge with Grinding .20
Outer Harbor Outfall Discharge with Grinding 21
Solids Separation and Treatment 21
Solids Disposal 22
Screening with Barging of Solids for 23
Ocean Dumping
Screening with Landfilling of Solids 26
Screening with Aerobic Digestion and 2 8
Discharge of Solids
Screening, Centrifuging, and Incineration 28
of Solids
Solids Reuse 29
Screening with Production of Seafood Meal 30
and Oil from Solids
Screening with Production of Fish Silage 40
from Solids
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Screening with Production of Chitin/Chitosan 42
from Solids
Screening with Recovery of Other Fish By-products 44
from Solids
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING 47
Akutan Island 47
Akutan Harbor " 48
Water Quality and Sediment Quality 48
Biological Characteristics 50
Terrestrial Resources 50
Freshwater and Marine Resources 50
Recreational and Subsistence Harvests 52
Commercial Seafood Harvest and Processing 53
Regional Overview 53
Seafood Processing at Akutan Harbor 53
Bottomfish Resources 54
Salmon and Herring Resources 56
Shellfish Resources 56
Seafood Demand Conditions 57
Resource Outlook 57
Markets for Seafood Processing By-Products 58
Fish Meal and Oil 58
Fish Silage 61
Chitin 62
Other Fish By-Products 62
Constraints on Implementation 63
Regulatory Constraints 65
CHAPTER 5 - IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 69
Water and Sediment Quality Impacts 69
Benthic Accumulations 69
Projections for Trident Waste Pile 70
Water Quality Impacts from Discharge 7 8
Water Quality Impacts from Benthic Accumulations 80
Additional Wastewater Discharges 82
Waste Disposal Impacts on Biological Communities 82
Marine Communities 82
Terrestrial and Freshwater Communities 86
Impacts on Beneficial Uses of Harbor 87
Impacts on City of Akutan 87
Impacts on Seafood Processing Industry 88
CHAPTER 6 - COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 91
Community Contacts 91
Processor Contacts 91
i <>
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 7 - BIBLIOGRAPHY 93
Literature Cited 93
Personal Communications 96
APPENDIX A - SEPTEMBER SURVEY REPORT
A-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page
Summary of Relative Impacts of Seafood Waste 10
Disposal Alternatives
Estimated Cost of Waste Disposal via Barging 25
for Ocean Disposal at Akutan
Example Areal Requirements for a 136-metric-ton 32
per Day Fish Meal Facility
Estimated Annual Capital Costs for 150-metric-ton 34
per day Fish Meal Facility at Akutan
Estimated Energy Costs per Metric Ton of Meal for 35
Akutan Fish Meal Facility
Estimated Annual Net Economic Value of 150-metric- 3 7
ton Fish Meal Production Plant at Akutan
Break-even Fish Meal Market Values for Akutan Fish 38
Meal Plant
Cost Estimation for Chitin/Chitosan Process at 45
Akutan Harbor
Domestic Catch Statistics for Fish and Shellfish 55
that are Potentially Available to Akutan
Harbor Seafood Processors, 1974 - 1982
Body Weight Ratios for Cod 73
Sensitivity Analysis 75
Predicted Maximum Depth and Areal Coverage after 77
10 years Discharge
Waste Loads for Seafood Processing Subcategories 79
Estimated Annual Loadings of BOD, TSS, and Oil 81
and Grease for Akutan Harbor for Screened
Alternatives
Number of Benthic Species and Codominant Species 84
at Akutan Harbor and Akutan Bay
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Geographic Location of Study Area 2
2 Process Diagram for Fish Meal Processing 31
3 Process Diagram for Fish Silage Production and 41
De-Oiling
4 Process Diagram for Chitin/Chitosan Production 43
-------
Chapter 1
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment evaluates alternative methods
of disposing of seafood processing wastes produced at Akutan
Harbor, Alaska. It evaluates the impacts of these alternatives
on water quality, harbor sediments, benthos, biology, beneficial
uses of the harbor, the village of Akutan, and the seafood
processing industry.
The sheltered harbor at Akutan, an island in the Aleutian
chain of Alaska, offers protected waters for processing ships
(Figure 1). One large land-based processing plant was built on
the harbor in 1982 by Trident Seafoods Corporation. It burned
to the ground in June 1983; the owners plan to rebuild. No
NPDES permit has ever been issued for the plant. One objective
of this Environmental Assessment is to provide information to
EPA that can be used to assist in developing permit conditions
for the Trident plant and in reviewing permits for floating
processors.
Alternatives
The alternatives addressed in this Environmental Assessment
are those potentially available to seafood processors operating
in Akutan Harbor. EPA can impose permit conditions that allow
or require specific alternatives (e.g., grinding and outfall
discharge, screening and barging of processing solids to deeper
water) or can set conditions on the quality of the discharge
that, in turn, place the responsibility for selection of accept-
able treatment alternatives on the processors.
Generally, the waste handling alternatives addressed in
this document can be grouped into four categories:
o initial waste quantity reduction
o treatment without solids separation
o solids separation and disposal
o solids reuse
The alternatives generally do not address treatment of the
liquid fraction of the waste stream.
1
-------
• 'v :
"\
AKUTAN, ALASKA
VICINITY MAP
f. »•:•.-• -••••.¦¦: ....
' -.I.- . ~: ... -
WZmiSsm,
^ W r-,
¦ Aku-^idinc
Xx"^^ [ r^ .i^
lc;y^C2> RooWte-ano »"•»**»< ¦*>'•«
UNIMAX ISLAND
kreniizin islands
U.-ai3«>;a
NwtfxHwJ^ •
UNMAK
[SLAND
Open Bicht
HcKSprir>gs&ay
FOX ISLANDS
HC!Spnncs
Akutan V: Jaqe
AkutanHartor
Peak 4.270
+
Roc-f 3iof'
Reef Pcir
AKUTAN
ISLAND
FlaiTop Pro* 3,445
G'ccn
3ighc
Dry C Am,tar Gc. ro'ty
3fcad [Jjgh!
Can^Mofcan
. • . 0A(tcy Poir.
SOURCE: CITY OF AKUTAN 1982.
FIGURE 1. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF STUDY AREA.
2
-------
The following sections briefly describe these alternatives,
address relative effectiveness, estimate costs, and describe
environmental impacts.
Initial Waste Quantity Reduction
Maximum utilization of the raw product during seafood
processing would result in smaller quantities of waste, thus
reducing additional treatment needs. The majority of crab
processed in Akutan Harbor is frozen as sections, which produces
a minimum amount of waste. The majority of cod processed at
Trident's land based plant is wet salted; however, some fillet-
ing occurred. Minced meat recovery has been successfully
applied to filleting lines and can recover approximately
3 5 percent additional product. Additional product recovery can
include fish heads, roe, milt, and organs. Other seafoods
processed at the Trident plant undergo efficient processing
techniques.
No costs are estimated for this alternative, since costs
are highly specific to each processor's operations.
Environmental benefits would accrue through decreased
solids discharges. Water quality, sediment quality, and marine
benthos would be less affected by decreased solids discharges.
Direct Outfall Discharge Without Treatment
Direct discharge without at least grinding the waste is not
an allowable alternative for remote areas of Alaska under
current federal regulations (40 CFR 408). The impacts of such a
discharge include the accumulation of larger size waste parti-
cles and decreased decomposition rates, compared to grinding.
Cost impacts on processors would be the least of any of the
alternatives.
Direct Outfall Discharge with Grinding
One option would be to continue the current practice of
grinding seafood waste prior to discharge to Akutan Harbor. The
effluent guidelines and standards for canned and preserved
seafood (40 CFR 408) require that processors in remote areas of
Alaska grind seafood waste to 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) diameter before
discharge. Grinding increases the surface area and decomposi-
tion rate of waste in an oxygenated environment. The BOD
loading from a seasonal discharge with grinding is thus exerted
over a shorter time period than without grinding. Grinding,
however, also increases the dispersive character of the waste,
spreading the BOD loading over a larger area.
3
-------
For the Trident plant a significant waste pile would
develop. About 11 acres of bottom was covered by the pile in
March 1983 after less than one year of operation (Evans Research
Group, Inc., 1983). If the plant operates at full capacity, the
pile could cover 22-93 acres in four years, depending on the
assumptions used. Pile depth could increase from about 8 meters
(March 1983) to 11-23 meters or more. The pile would stabilize
in size after about 4-5 years due to decay.
Another problem exists at the Trident waste pile in that
the outfall continually discharges fresh wastes up through the
center of the waste pile, not unlike a volcano. This discharge
will mix with the interstitial waters of the waste pile that,
under anoxic conditions, will have significant dissolved concen-
trations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and possibly methane.
This will degrade the quality of the effluent that eventually
enters the water column, but may increase the decomposition rate
of the disturbed wastes.
Quantification of the impacts of discharging effluent
through a decomposing waste pile are difficult to estimate.
Factors that need to be considered include: waste depth, dis-
charge frequency and duration, discharge volume, interstitial
volume, decomposition rate and processes, and waste characteris-
tics. Qualitatively, the potential for effluent of very low
quality exists when effluent must flow through an anaerobic
waste pile. A water quality impact would be greatest when
discharge commences after a period of no discharge.
In summary, the impacts of this alternative include adverse
effects on water quality, sediment quality, marine benthos, and
marine vertebrates. The alternative imposes costs on the
seafood processors consistent with current conditions.
Outer Harbor Outfall Discharge with Grinding
Extending discharge pipes to better flushed areas may
result in better dispersal and less environmental impact. Such
an outfall at Akutan would most likely need to extend to the
mouth of the harbor for adequate flushing and waste dispersal.
Large accumulations could develop if flushing is not adequate.
Care must be taken in placing the discharge so that navigation
is not impaired and that the pipe will not be broken by boat
activity, including anchoring.
Costs are high for such underwater pipe extensions, and the
impacts on water quality, sediment quality, and marine benthos
depend on the degree of dispersion and any resulting benthic
accumulations.
4
-------
Screening with Barging of Solids for Ocean Dumping
Removing solids from the waste stream removes a significant
percentage of the total solids, BOD, and COD. The most common
method of solids separation uses screens of various types and
sizes. Other methods of solids separation include settling,
centrifuging, and initial dry separation on the processing line.
The solids can then be conveyed by barge to deeper water for
dumping. Barging for Akutan is expected to cost from about
$290,000 to $350,000 per year, including amortization of capital
costs and operations.
Barging at Akutan would require year-round operation for
the Trident facility but only seasonal operation for the float-
ing crab processors. A viable option for processing in the
harbor would involve a cooperative barging system with collec-
tion of all wastes into one barge.
Selection of an appropriate ocean dumpsite would be neces-
sary prior to dumping. Site criteria should be such that
minimal impacts would result from bottom accumulations and
pollutant loadings.
The advantages of seafood waste disposal via barging to
deeper water for the Akutan Harbor area include removal of
wastes from the protected inner harbor, flexibility in deposi-
tion area, and implementation of a relatively simple and proven
procedure. Disadvantages associated with this alternative
include: the possible need for storage during inclement weather;
attraction of vermin during filling? odor during storage;
handling, and transport; no revenue product generated; and the
need for designation of a dumping site.
Impacts on water quality, sediment quality, and marine
benthos would be decreased. The possibility of odor impacts
would exist, and the processors would have to bear the cost of
barge purchase and operation.
Screening with Landfillinq of Solids
Solids could also be disposed of by landfill burial. No
landfill exists on Akutan Island, so this alternative would
require landfill construction, as well as solids separation,
collection, transport, and landfill operation and maintenance.
Collection would depend on the mode of transportation. Wastes
could be transported via barge vessel, truck, or possibly pipe.
The landfill would require vehicles for moving and covering the
wastes. Over 6 acres/year of land could potentially be impacted
by landfill disposal.
Land is scarce, transportation would require both boat and
land vehicles (or pumping), significant odor problems are
5
-------
possible, landfill leachates could affect surface water resour-
ces, and the cost impact on the seafood processors would be
greater than for barging.
Screening with Aerobic Digestion and Discharge of Solids
This alternative would involve screening followed by-
grinding and active mixing of solids in a digestion tank
followed by discharge to marine waters. This process has been
successfully applied to organic sludges produced from wastewater
treatment plants (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979) . Its application
to seafood wastes has not been tried but is theoretically
possible. About 35 acres of land would be needed; it is not
available at the Trident facility. Thus transport would also be
required, increasing the. cost significantly above barging to
open ocean.
The major advantage of this alternative would be the
reduction in solids and BOD loading. This would result in less
accumulation on the harbor bottom. Disadvantages include the
required land area, unproven technology on seafood wastes,
energy consumption, possible odors, and no new product recovery
or offsetting revenues.
Screening, Centrifuging, and Incineration of Solids
This alternative would require screening and centrifuging
of solids prior to combustion in a furnace. A multiple hearth
furnace has been used successfully on municipal wastes and
sludges (Environmental Associates, Inc. 1974). Environmental
Associates (1974) concluded that seafood wastes are too wet and
of too low fuel value to render this alternative economical.
A cost estimate for fuel requirements alone yields a cost
of §240,000 to burn one year's waste. Additional cost would
include capital cost of the incineration facility, skilled
labor, and ash transport. There would be no product recovery
and offsetting revenues; although the solids would be converted
to an inert ash, odor impacts could occur. Impacts on water
quality, sediment quality, and marine benthos would be
substantially reduced assuming ocean disposal of the ash.
Screening with Production of Seafood Meal and Oil from Solids
Seafood meal and oil can be produced from seafood wastes by
solids separation, cooking, drying, packaging, and transporta-
tion. The separation of fish oil is a necessary step in the
fish meal process and yields a marketable product and a waste
fraction called stickwater. Adding the stickwater to the solids
for drying increases the solids recovery and is termed a whole
fish meal process. Bagging the final meal product is necessary
6
-------
when bulk transportation is not available. A deodorizer reduces
air pollution and odor impacts.
A capital investment of about $5.0 million and about 1 to 2
acres of land would be needed to construct a fish meal plant in
Akutan, with a total annual operating cost (including
amortization of capital and transportation to market) estimated
to range from $2.6-$5.4 million, depending on amount of
processing, oil yields, energy efficiency, and financing.
Market values of end products indicate that revenue generated
could range from $2.7-$6.7 million, depending on processing
volume and yields. A potential annual operating profit for an
energy efficient plant with 18 percent financing and 2 percent
oil recovery is shown to range from $71,000 to $1.3 million,
depending also on amount processed. Annual profits could reach
$2.37 million if oil recovery approaches 8 percent.
Shellfish wastes could also be processed to yield crab
meal. When processed as a separate product, crab meal would not
be profitable; it would require a subsidy of $50-$110 per ton to
be marketable in Seattle. This is primarily due to the
relatively low protein content of crab meal (30 percent) as
compared to fish meal (60 percent) . It may be possible to
incorporate some crab wastes to produce a mixed meal product
with a sufficiently high protein content to be profitable.
The advantages of meal and oil production from seafood
wastes include removal of solids from the marine environment,
proven technology, product recovery and revenue, and profit
potential. Disadvantages associated with this alternative
include high capital investment, distance to market, potential
for odor problems, and energy consumption.
Screening with Production of Fish Silage from Solids
The Trident plant could undertake the production of fish
silage, a form of liquified fish wastes, using either acid
preservation or fermentation. The process requires solids
separation, mincing, storage, and transportation.
This alternative was evaluated by Brown and Caldwell (1983)
for Dutch Harbor, Alaska. It was concluded that fish silage
could not be economically transported more than about
400 kilometers, eliminating any market for Akutan-produced
silage. A fish silage facility at Akutan Harbor could produce
approximately 25,500 metric tons annually and at a current
market value of $100 per metric ton (approximately 20 percent of
the market value of an equivalent volume of fish meal).
Transportation costs to Seattle would make such an alternative
economically unattractive.
7
-------
Screening with Production of Chitin/Chitosan from Crab Solids
Chitin and its derivative, chitosan, is a natural polymer
derived from shellfish wastes. The production of chitin is
currently in the pilot stage of development. The variety of
potential applications of chitin as a coagulant, for film
forming, and as animal food makes commercial production possible
in the near future, however. The conversion of shellfish wastes
into chitin requires grinding, separating, acid demineraliza-
tion, caustic deproteination, rinsing, drying, and transport.
The quantity of shellfish waste at Akutan Harbor is highly
variable and has significantly decreased from the 1980 high.
This waste is only produced for a short time during the crab
season, but plant size would need to be based on daily waste
production. Some storage of waste may be possible but final
product quality ftiay decrease. Therefore, a large plant would be
necessary that would not operate for a major portion of each
year.
A total annual cost of up to $1.1 million would be required
to amortize capital investment and operate such a plant.
Possible revenues are estimated at up to about $374,000, indica-
ting a loss of about $750,000 per year.
Advantages of processing chitin/chitosan from crab wastes
at Akutan Harbor include removal of seasonal shellfish wastes
from the marine environment, and recovery of a marketable
product. Disadvantages include unproven commercial technology,
limited product market, odor potential, no reuse of the fish
wastes produced at the Trident plant, and adverse economics.
Screening with Recovery of Other Fish By-Products from Solids
Other technologies exist for the conversion of seafood
processing wastes into usable products. These products include
hydrolyzed fish products, fish protein concentrates, pet food,
insulin, pearl essence, and fish glue.
The economics of these options are not fully explored in
this document. The fish meal plant alternative is the most
comparable in terms of environmental impacts. Economic implica-
tions of recovering other by-products are more complex and
beyond the scope of this assessment.
Constraints on Implementation
When evaluating the alternatives, it is necessary to con-
sider special circumstances imposed by the remoteness of Akutan.
The island's distance from centers of commerce adds several
constraints to industrial activities that are not always present
8
-------
in the lower 48 states. These constraints include: lack of
land for facilities; distance from any market (except possibly
bait); lack of energy source; cold, wet weather conditions;
limited fresh water supply; high cost for materials; lack of
skilled personnel; high turnover rate; and high labor costs.
The evaluations in the assessment attempt to recognize these
constraints, particularly in costs.
Impact Summary
A summary of the relative impacts of seafood waste disposal
alternatives is presented in Table 1. Fish meal production and
production of other fish by-products appear to offer both
economic and environmental advantages while disposing of seafood
wastes. Screening of effluent with barging also offers environ-
mental benefits, but does not offer economic return to offset
capital and operations costs to the industry. These alterna-
tives would reduce impacts on water and sediment quality and
biological resources compared to the current practice of grind-
ing with outfall discharge. The fish meal production and
production of other fish by-product alternatives could be
beneficial to the seafood industry and to other harbor uses if
the by-products are profitable and if the by-products encourage
additional business exchange without further adverse impacts to
the harbor (e.g. odors, fuel spills from boats).
9
-------
Table 1. Sutmary of Relative Impacts of Seafood Waste Disposal Alternatives
IMPACT/ALTERNATIVE
Direct outfall discharge
W/0 treatment
Direct outfall discharge
w/grinding
Outer Harbor outfall dis-
charge w/grinding
Screening w/barging of
solids for ocean dimrping
Screening w/landfilling
of solids
Screening w/aerobic diges-
tion & discharge of solids
Screening, cantrifuging &
incineration of solids
Screening w/production of
seafood meal & oil from solids
Screening w/production of
fish silage fran solids
Screening w/production of
Chitin/chitosan frcm solids
Screening w/recovery of other
fish by-products frcm solids
WATER
QUALITY
SEDIMENT
QUALITY
MARINE
BENTHOS
MARINE
VERTEBRATES
FRESHWATER &
TERRESTRIAL
BIOTA
OOtftCRCIAL
FISHERIES
SEAFOOD
INDUSTRY
+/-
HARBOR
USE
cm of
AKITTAN
+»-
+,-
+ Beneficial Impact
0 Ho impact
Minor adverse inpact
Major adverse inpact
+,- range of possible impact
-------
Chapter 2
INTRODUCTION
Akutan, an island in the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska
(Figure 1) , has become a major center for seasonal floating
seafood processors. A sheltered harbor on the east side of the
island offers protected waters for processing in proximity to
fishing vessels in Bristol Bay crabbing areas. As many as 13
processors operated in the harbor in 1980; only a handful
operated in the harbor in 1983 due to substantially decreased
crab harvests.
In 1982 a major land-based processing plant was constructed
by Trident Seafood on Akutan Island on the north side of the
harbor. The plant had the capacity to process daily 600,000
pounds (272 metric tons) of salted split codfish and cod
fillets, as well as some crab, herring, and salmon. The plant
had processed 9.1 million pounds (4,100 metric tons) of finished
codfish products and 1.4 million pounds (600 metric tons) of
other products as of March 1983. The plant was destroyed by
fire on the night of June 9, 1983; bunkhouses and other support
facilities remain, and the owners plan to rebuild the plant.
The harbor and some of the processing facilities are
illustrated in Plates 1-7 at the end of this chapter.
Need for EPA Action
The Trident plant operated without a permit during its
existence. The owners applied for a permit after the plant had
been in operation for some months. EPA issued a Section 309
order directing Trident to provide certain data on the plant's
discharge; most data were never provided to EPA, and the agency
has deferred permit issuance until adequate data could be
obtained. It became necessary for EPA to study environmental
conditions with its own resources. Although the Trident plant
was destroyed, the owners plan to rebuild.
There is also a need to review permit conditions imposed on
other operators in Akutan Harbor in light of the cumulative
impacts of substantially increased total waste loading. This
Environmental Assessment and the Water Quality Analysis Report
have been prepared to provide factual information and to assist
EPA in drafting permit conditions for the Trident plant and
other processors in the harbor.
11
-------
Objectives
EPA issued a work assignment under Contract 68-01-6613 to
obtain information needed to issue new or revised permits to the
processors to protect water quality and harbor resources.
The objectives of the work are to:
o Determine flushing action and consequent residence time
of seafood processing wastes.
o Assess the impacts of seafood processing wastes on local
water and sediment quality.
o Evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative seafood
processing waste disposal methods.
The Water- Quality Assessment Report describes the field work
undertaken to meet the first two objectives.
Investigations of Akutan Harbor water quality were carried
out by Jones & Stokes Associates in May and September 1983. The
objective of the investigations was to assess existing water
quality and sediment quality in the harbor and to evaluate the
impact of seafood waste discharges and waste piles. Trident was
processing only crab, not cod, during the June 1983 investiga-
tions, and only one other vessel was processing at the time.
During the September 19 83 studies only one floating processor
was operating. Thus, there was no opportunity to obtain field
measurements of impacts on water quality due to high volume
processing. Some estimates of flushing and residence time have
been developed.
This Environmental Assessment is intended to address the
second and third objectives. EPA may impose permit conditions
on the processors that require implementation of specific waste
management alternatives. The agency could also set environ-
mental standards for discharges that would require a processor
to choose a new waste management method in order to achieve such
standards. This assessment describes possible alternatives,
explores economic and market implications, and evaluates the
impacts of the alternatives on the environment and on the
processors.
12
-------
PLATE 1. VIEW OF THE VALLEY AT THE HEAD OF AKUTAN HARBOR LOOKING WEST.
-------
PLATE 2. M/V DEEP SEA (CENTER) , MOORED AT
THE HEAD OF AKUTAN HARBOR.
14
-------
WMSBmI
PLATE 3. M/V ALASKA SHELL, MOORED ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF AKUTAN HARBOR.
-------
KrT-,
PLATE 4. TRIDENT SEAFOODS, INC., VIEW LOOKING WEST
-------
..... -
V-«\*. : -T.
* I— mm
PLATE 5. TRIDENT SEAFOODS, INC., VIEW LOOKING EAST
/
-------
PLATE 6. EFFLUENT PLUME VISIBLE ON SURFACE AT TRIDENT
OUTFALL DURING CRAB PROCESSING IN JUNE 1983. WHITE
BUOY TO RIGHT OF SURFACED PLUME MARKS THE OUTFALL.
PLATE 7. VAN VEEN GRAB SAMPLE FROM TRIDENT WASTE
PILE (SEDIMENT STATION 20).
-------
Chapter 3
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives addressed in this Environmental Assessment
represent those potentially available to seafood processors
operating in Akutan Harbor. EPA can impose permit conditions
that allow or require specific alternatives (i.e., grinding and
outfall discharge; screening and barging of processing solids to
deeper water) or can set conditions on the quality of the
discharge which in turn places the responsibility for selection
of acceptable treatment alternatives on the processors. This
chapter is intended to describe these options and their relative
costs and set the stage for evaluation of impacts.
The alternatives for handling seafood wastes at Akutan Harbor
cover a wide range of technically feasible options. Economic
and environmental consequences of some options may deem them
unacceptable. Generally, waste handling alternatives can be
grouped into categories:
o initial waste quantity reduction.
o treatment without solids separation.
o solids separation and disposal.
o solids reuse.
o liquid waste treatment.
The alternatives generally do not address treatment of the
liquid fraction of the waste stream.
The following sections describe these options, address
their relative effectiveness, and estimate their costs.
Initial Waste Quantity Reduction
The reduction of waste produced during seafood processing
can be a significant part of a total waste management plan.
Modification of the production line and recovery of marketable
products prior to waste designation will result in smaller
quantities of waste, thus reducing additional treatment needs.
The efficiency of the production line in recovering the
main seafood product has a direct relationship to waste reduc-
tion. Crab processing can be improved by producing sections and
19
-------
by recovery of tail meat. Efficient deheading and filleting
methods can be used to recover the maximum finfish product
possible. Nonfilleting processes, such as salting, utilize a
significantly larger percentage of the raw weight.
The majority of crab processed in Akutan Harbor is frozen
as sections, which produces a minimum amount of waste. The
majority of cod processed at Trident's land based plant was wet
salted; however, some filleting occurred. Other seafoods
processed at the Trident plant used efficient sections or whole
processes.
After filleting, the remaining fish is composed of bones
and approximately 50 percent of the original meat (Pigott 1981) .
A portion (about 25 percent) of this remaining meat can be
recovered as minced meat, creating a new product and decreasing
the waste load. Also, small fish unsuitable for filleting can
be partially recovered (about 50 percent of total weight) as
minced meat. Additional product recovery includes fish heads,
roe, milt, and organs. Foreign markets exist for consumption of
salted fish heads (Dragoy pers. comm.), or heads could be
collected and used as bait. Removal of fish heads, which
constitutes 22 percent of the raw cod fish (Kizevetter 1971),
could significantly reduce the wastestream. Salmon roe is
currently recovered by some Alaskan processors and sold in
foreign and domestic markets. The market for cod roe is not
established. Milt is also recovered and marketed in Europe.
The collection of cod livers and production of cod liver oil or
paste would further reduce the wastestream.
The remaining wasted seafood parts (tails, carapaces, and
viscera) could be sold as bait or, with additional treatment,
transformed into a viable product.
Treatment Without Solids Separation
This category of, waste management alternatives encompasses
grinding and dispersal technologies. The main objective of
treatment without solids separation is to aid in the natural
decomposition capacity of the discharge area.
Direct Outfall Discharge with Grinding
One option would be to continue grinding of seafood waste
prior to discharge to Akutan Harbor. The effluent guidelines
and standards for canned and preserved seafood (40 CFR 408)
require that processors in remote areas of Alaska grind seafood
waste to 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) diameter before discharge. Grinding
increases the surface area and decomposition rate of waste in an
oxygenated environment. The BOD loading from a seasonal dis-
charge with grinding is thus exerted over a shorter time period
than without grinding. Grinding, however, also increases the
20
-------
dispersive character of the waste, spreading the BOD loading
over a larger area.
The grinding and discharge of seafood processing wastes at
Akutan has resulted in the buildup of waste on the harbor bottom
near the discharge points. The decomposition rate and minimal
dispersive action in the harbor have not been sufficient to
avoid this impact.
Outer Harbor Outfall Discharge with Grinding
Flexibility exists in the location of the wastewater
outfall and, with proper placement, decreased environmental
impacts may result. Extending the discharge pipe to better
flushed areas may result in better dispersal and less environ-
mental impact. Such an outfall at Akutan would most likely need
to extend to the mouth of the harbor to achieve improved flush-
ing and waste dispersal. Care must be taken in placing the
discharge so that navigation is not impaired and to ensure that
the pipe will not be broken by boat activity including anchor-
ing.
Solids Separation and Treatment
The remaining categories of alternatives include a solids
separation step. This process is discussed below and would be
used in conjunction with the remaining alternatives. These
alternatives address only the treatment or reuse of the solids
fraction. It is assumed that the liquid fraction will be
discharged following separation.
Solids removal from the wastestream removes a significant
percentage of the total solids, BOD and COD. The most common
method of solids separation uses screens of various types and
sizes. Other methods of solids separation include settling,
centrifuging, and initial dry separation on the processing line.
The wastewater stream passes through the separating device,
which splits the waste into liquid and solid fractions. Further
treatment can then be carried out on the two fractions more
efficiently.
Screens can be classed as static, moving, and centrifugal
(Green and Kramer 1979). Static screens filter the wastestream
as it passes through under hydraulic head. The solids are
collected and removed for handling. Occasional backwashing is
necessary to prevent screen blockage. Moving screens assist the
solids separation by vibrating or physically moving the parti-
cles from the water. These screens, though more complicated, do
not clog as easily as static screens and are able to process
larger volumes of wastewater. Centrifugal screens use centrifu-
gal force to pass the wastewater through the screen, thus
achieving high processed volumes.
21
-------
A simple static screen, which has been used successfully in
the seafood industry, is the tangential screen (Environmental
Associates 1974). These screens use bars or meshing placed at
an angle to the flow with a sloping surface. Wastewater flows
over the screen with water passing through and solids moving
down the screen face by gravity. Solids can easily be collected
in a hopper placed at the screen's end.
Settling requires relatively passive storage of the waste-
water to allow the solids to settle. Settling tanks, also known
as clarifiers, are mainly used to provide this primary treat-
ment. An advantage of clarifiers is the ability to remove fine
particles that cannot be easily screened from the wastestream.
Disadvantages include the need to dewater the removed solids,
space requirements for solids storage, and settling time.
Solids separation using dry methods on the processing line
can be very advantageous. Large solids, such as heads and
carapaces, can easily be mechanically transported to collection
areas, eliminating the need to remove them from the wastestream
later. This also has the advantage of preventing additional
leaching from these pieces that would decrease possible reuse
value and decrease quality of wastewater.
Several alternatives exist for further handling of the
solids and liquids once they have been separated. The solid
reuse and disposal alternatives are discussed below along with a
brief discussion of additional treatment for the liquid waste-
stream.
Brown and Caldwell (1983) estimated the cost of screening
seafood processing wastes at Dutch Harbor. Based on that
estimate, a tangential screening facility for the Trident plant
would have a capital investment of approximately $68,000.
Maintenance costs would be minor.
Solids Disposal
Disposal of waste solids can range from a relatively simple
process to very complicated and energy-intensive processes.
Alternatives include:
o collection and barging to open ocean, deep water dis-
charge area.
o collection and transport to landfill.
o controlled digestion with subsequent discharge to
receiving waters.
o incineration with land or ocean disposal of ash.
22
-------
These four alternatives are discussed below as they might relate
to seafood processing at Akutan.
Waste quantities have been estimated based on past process-
ing records of Trident Seafoods, ADF&G shellfish production
records, average final product recovery rates, and average body
part weights. <
The previous Trident facility had a production capacity of
600,000 pounds (272 metric tons) raw weight per day. Approxi-
mately 30-35 percent of the raw weight was processed into the
final product, meaning that 65-70 percent or 390,000-420,000
pounds (177-190 metric tons) per day of maximum production would
be waste requiring disposal. Assuming 15 production days per
month year-round, 31,800-34,300 metric tons of liquid and solid
waste would be discharged from the Trident facility. Shellfish
production records between 1978 and 1982 indicate that an
average of 7.4 processors operated in the harbor each year with
2,000 metric tons of raw product per processor. Assuming
40 percent waste for section processing (Brown and Caldwell
1978), an annual average of 6,100 metric tons of shellfish waste
would be generated.
The total annual solid waste fraction of this waste would
be approximately 29,000 metric tons. This waste quantity
converts to approximately 24,500 cubic meters of cod waste and
3,800 cubic meters of crab waste using densities of 1.06 and
0.8 metric tons per cubic meter, respectively. During maximum
production, approximately 144 metric tons of solid waste would
be produced daily by the Trident facility. This is a maximum
daily solids volume of 136 cubic meters.
Based on historical shellfish production, and assuming 30
production days, an estimate of 102 metric tons of crab waste
solids per production day are generated. This is a production
day solids volume of 85 cubic meters from all shellfish process-
ing. Crab waste is directly proportional to the number of
floating processors and this number has markedly decreased since
1980. In 1982 crab waste was estimated at only 40 metrib tons
of solids, equivalent to 33 cubic meters, per day. The sea-
sonality of the crab harvest will govern the timing of crab
waste generation, thus concentrating the required disposal/reuse
effort into short periods in September-October and March-May.
This varying level of waste production is not expected from the
Trident facility except for possibly a lower production rate
during the spring codfish spawning period.
Screening with Barging of Solids for Ocean Dumping
The disposal of seafood processing wastes by barging for
ocean dumping requires solids separation, conveyance to barge,
and barge transportation and dumping. Screened solids could be
collected in hoppers to be emptied onto the barge periodically,
23
-------
or an automatic conveyer could be used for direct waste deposit
onto the barge. Either self-propelled barge vessels or a
towboat would be necessary to transport the wastes to a des-
ignated dumping site.
Brown and Caldwell (1983) investigated seafood waste
alternatives for Dutch Harbor, including barging, using various
vessels and cost estimates. Costs were divided into capital,
operation and maintenance, towboat, and moorage. It is reason-
able to directly apply these capital costs for the barge vessel
to Akutan due to Akutan's proximity to Dutch Harbor. Operation
and maintenance are also likely to be similar and are used in
this analysis. The option of renting a towboat is not available
for Akutan unless a processor would supply one, which could be
used by other processors. Therefore, this cost category will
differ for Akutan. The last cost of moorage is taken as zero
for Akutan Harbor due to the ability of vessels to moor next to
the floating processors or existing docks and buoys. Table 2
gives estimated barging costs based on the Brown and Caldwell
investigation.
Caution is required in direct application of these cost
estimates. Prices for equipment will vary with time, new or
used condition, financing, special arrangements, and case by
case. Savings may also be possible if personnel already em-
ployed can absorb the labor tasks. The small quantity of crab
waste would also decrease the cost.
Barging at Akutan would require year-round operation for
the Trident facility but only seasonal operation for the float-
ing crab processors. A practical option for processing in the
harbor would involve a cooperative barging system with collec-
tion of all wastes into one barge. Individual processors would
be responsible for waste transport to the common barge and would
share proportionally in the associated costs. This would
decrease costs but would require cooperation between competing
processors.
Selection of an appropriate ocean dumpsite would be "neces-
sary prior to dumping. Site criteria should be such that
minimal impacts would result from bottom accumulations and
pollutant loadings.
The advantages of seafood waste disposal via barging to
deeper water for the Akutan Harbor area include:
o removal of wastes from protected inner harbor.
o flexibility in deposition area.
o implementation of relatively simple and proven
procedure, compared to other alternatives.
o medium cost.
24
-------
Table 2. Estimated Cost of Waste Disposal via
Barging for Ocean Disposal at Akutan
CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST
Menhaden Vessel* $200,000
or Self-Propelled Barge 325,000 $ 37,000 - 62,000
or Barge ~ 200,000
and Towboat 100,000
(17 percent; 15-year life)
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Fuel & Oil
($200-300/trip x 150 trips) $ 30,000 - 45,000
Maintenance
Engines 16,000
Hull & Deck (12% of value) 17,000 - 34,000
Insurance (5% of value) 7,000 - 14,000
Labor (4 personnel) 182,000
Total $289,000 - 353,000
1
2
Source: Brown and Caldwell 1983. Costs exclude screening of
solids.
Estimated purchase price.
25
-------
Disadvantages associated with this alternative include:
o possible need for storage during inclement weather,
o attraction of vermin during filling,
o odor during storage, handling, and transport,
o no revenue product generated,
o need for designation of dumping site.
Screening with Landfilling of Solids
The disposal of seafood wastes by landfill burial would
require solids separation, collection, transport, and landfill
operation and maintenance. Collection would depend on the mode
of transportation. Wastes could be transported via barge
vessel, truck, or possibly pipe. The landfill would require
vehicles for moving and covering the wastes.
A barge vessel could collect the wastes, as described
above, then transport them to an unloading facility near the
landfill. The unloading facility could pump the waste from the
barge directly to the landfill or into a truck which would then
proceed to the landfill. Storage would be needed at each
processing location. Individual floating crab processors handle
approximately 12 cubic meters per processing day. Storage would
need to be provided for some fraction of this volume depending
on transit time and storage logistics.
The Trident facility could use trucks to collect and
transport the wastes, assuming a road could be constructed with
permission of the City of Akutan. Thirteen to 26 trips per day
from Trident to a landfill would be required using 5-10 cubic
meter capacity trucks. A minimum of two trucks would be re-
quired. Snow cover in the winter and steep slopes along the
shore would make such a land-based transport system very diffi-
cult.
Pumping of wastes to the landfill may be feasible for
processors close to the landfill. Screening would occur at the
landfill to remove excess water needed for pumping. Floating
processors would need to take precautions to prevent pipe
breakage due to boat traffic.
Land available for landfill is scarce in Akutan Harbor.
The terrain is steep along the majority of the harbor, with very
little beach. At the head of the harbor is a small valley,
approximately 370 acres in size, which contains a potential
landfill site previously studied by the City. Careful siting
and design would be necessary to prevent leachate pollution and
to meet state requirements. The annual waste volume of
26
-------
approximately 28,300 cubic meters would cover, at a 1 meter
depth, 28,300 square meters or 7.1 acres. The majority of the
near valley is owned by the Native Corporation (City of Akutan
1982) and would have to be obtained before land disposal of
seafood waste could begin.
Various landfill alternatives were analyzed for the City of
Akutan's municipal solid waste (Peratrovich, Nottingham, and
Drage, Inc. 1982). It was determined that sufficient topsoil
existed at the head of the bay for a landfill providing about
10,550 cubic meters of disposal volume. While the site would
have a life of 4 to 8 years in accommodating municipal refuse
and some processor trash, it is evident that seafood processing
waste would fill the landfill in much less than one year.
Other areas of Akutan Island have not been studied for
landfill development potential. In the Aleutian Islands gen-
erally, less than 5 feet of topsoil is present except in allu-
vial deposits from rivers (COE 1983, Dames and Moore 1980). It
is likely that topsoil requirements (for cover as well as
mixing/bulking material) for landfill disposal of seafood
processing wastes could be met only by importing soils from
offsite. In this case, substantially more than 6 acres per year
of land could be disrupted.
A road from the unloading facility to the landfill would be
necessary. Also, buildings for personnel and equipment mainte-
nance are needed.
Cost estimates for a barging to landfill alternative would
include costs for barging to open ocean and additional costs
for:
o
unloading facility.
o
truck transport to site.
o
land acquisition.
o
landfill design.
o
landfill equipment.
o
associated buildings and roads.
o
maintenance of facilities.
A detailed cost estimate has not been conducted due to this
alternative's disadvantages, compared to barging to open ocean,
and ADEC's general policy of not encouraging the landfill of
seafood wastes (Brown and Caldwell 1983).
27
-------
Advantages of landfilling seafood waste are limited to:
o the removal of the marine pollutant loading,
o containment of the wastes.
Disadvantages include:
o consumption of as much as 6.25 acres/year prime Akutan
land.
o conflict with City-designated seafood processing
center in landfill area.
o possible leachate problems.
o attraction of vermin.
o odors.
o possible gas production resulting from waste
decomposition.
o no new product recovery.
Screening with Aerobic Digestion and Discharge of Solids
This alternative would require grinding and active mixing
of solids in a digestion tank followed by discharge to marine
waters. This process has been successfully applied to organic
sludges produced from wastewater treatment plants (Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. 1979). Its application to seafood wastes has not
been tried but is theoretically possible. Based on design
criteria given by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (1979), and increasing
residence time to 30 days, a capacity of about 425,000 cubic
meters would be needed for the Trident waste. This is equiva-
lent to 35 acres at 3 meters deep and thus would require sig-
nificant land not available at the Trident facility. Thus,
transport would also be required, which would increase the cost
significantly above.that for barging to open ocean.
The major advantage of this alternative would be the
reduction in solids and BOD loading. This would result in less
accumulation on the harbor bottom. Disadvantages include the
required land area, unproven technology on seafood wastes,
energy consumption, possible odors, and no new product recovery
or offsetting revenues.
Screening, Centrifuging, and Incineration of Solids
This alternative would require screening and centrifuging
of solids prior to combustion in a furnace. A multiple hearth
furnace has been used successfully on municipal wastes and
28
-------
sludges (Environmental Associates, Inc. 1974) . Environmental
Associates (1974) concluded that seafood wastes are too wet and
of too low fuel value to render this alternative economical.
Also, air pollution control devices and disposal of residual ash
would be necessary. Approximately 1,400 metric tons of ash
would be produced per year by the Trident facility. Some of
this ash would be dispersed into the air as particulate matter.
A cost estimate for fuel requirements alone has been
computed. Based on an estimated 26,000 metric tons of annual
seafood waste from the Trident facility, 81 percent moisture
(Kizevetter 1971), 3 percent oil, 7,000 cal/g oil, 10,000 cal/g
fuel (Marks M.E. Handbook 1951), 100 percent heat transfer, and
$l/gal fuel yields a cost of $240,000 to burn one year's waste.
Additional cost would include capital cost of the incineration
facility, skilled labor, and ash transport.
The municipality of Metropolitan Seattle evaluated the cost
of incineration for sludge disposal for their Renton wastewater
treatment plant (Metro 1983). This plant was sized for 70,000
metric tons of 18 percent solids annual sludge input. Two
incinerators were included in the Metro system at $4 million
each. Capital costs of an incineration facility at Akutan
Harbor would likely include one incinerator of the same size and
cost.
Advantages of incineration as a disposal option are:
o major weight and volume reduction of the wastes,
o conversion into a sterile ash.
o possible disposal of additional solid wastes.
Disadvantages include:
o energy consumption,
o potential air pollution.
o no new product recovery and ^no offsetting revenues.
Solids Reuse
Reuse of solid seafood wastes is defined for this report as
any process that results in the recovery of a usable product.
Alternatives include:
o seafood meal and oil.
o seafood silage.
29
-------
o other fish by-products.
o chitin.
These alternatives are discussed below as they would relate
to seafood processing at Akutan. Waste quantities were dis-
cussed previously in the Solids Disposal section.
Screening with Production of Seafood Meal and Oil from Solids
The production of seafood meal from seafood wastes requires
solids separation, cooking, drying, packaging, and transporta-
tion. Windsor and Barlow (1981) present an extensive discussion
of the fish meal production process. Figure 2 from Windsor and
Barlow (1981) presents a generalized diagram of the fish meal
process. Processing wastes could be deposited directly into the
storage unit prior to cooking. The separation of fish oil is a
necessary step in the fish meal process and yields a marketable
product and a liquid waste fraction called stickwater.
Adding the stickwater to the solids for drying increases
the solids recovery and is termed a whole fish meal process.
Bagging the final meal product is necessary when bulk trans-
portation is not available. A deodorizer reduces air pollution
and odor impacts. The actual processes available may vary
slightly from this generalized description because of improving
technology and site-specific requirements.
A fish meal plant at Akutan would need to be designed for
year-round processing of fish wastes and possible seasonal
processing of crab wastes. The Trident facility operating at
capacity (600,000 pounds/day or 272 metric tons/day) for 15 days
per month would generate approximately 144 metric tons of solid
wastes per processing day. This is equivalent to 71 metric tons
per day, 365 days a year. A 100-metric-ton per day fish meal
plant would meet the average waste processing needs, but would
require that wastes be stored during peak production periods. A
150-metric-ton per day facility would not require extra storage
for maximum production at Trident. The actual number of maximum
production days per month will determine the appropriate size
for a fish meal facility.
Provision could be made to incorporate shellfish waste
processing in the plant. Floating shellfish processors produce
a seasonal waste that would require transport to the facility
and an auxiliary dryer. The 1982 daily estimated crab waste of
40 metric tons would require a 50-metric-ton per day auxiliary
dryer for the assumed 30 production days.
Land requirements for a fish meal facility will vary based
on actual plant design and warehousing needs. Considerable
flexibility exists for plant layout including possible barge
construction and vertical structures. Approximate areal re-
quirements for a 136-metric-ton per day facility obtained from a
plant manufacturer are given in Table 3 (Swafford pers. comm.).
30
-------
FISH
STORAGE
UJ
^•Q
OO—
0-J
in
CONCENTRATE
SOLIDS
h-
<
O
FISH
OIL
FISH
MEAL
BAGGING
MILL
COOKER
DEODORISER
SEPARATOR
CENTRIFUGE
DECANTER
CENTRIFUGE
DRYER
PRESS
EVAPORATOR
FIGURE 2. PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR FISH MEAL PROCESSING
SOURCE: WINDSOR AND BARLOW 1981
-------
Table 3. Example Areal Requirements
for a 136-metric-ton per Day Fish Meal Facility
COMPONENT
SQUARE METERS
feeding hopper
plant, including walk around
30
140
10
20
oil tanks (2)
meal handling
warehouse
varies
To approximate warehouse needs, a 136-metric-ton per day
facility produces 27 metric tons of meal per day. This would
fill 800 34 kilogram capacity bags and, based on 0.2 cubic meter
per bag, occupy 160 cubic meters. Stored 3 meters high, and
accumulated for a month, a warehouse of about 3,000 square
meters would be required. Considering plant components,
warehousing, handling space, conveyors, maintenance, energy
system, and administration facilities, a minimum land area of
slightly less than 1 acre is required. For comparison purposes,
the fish meal facility at Kodiak, an 8-ton (7.3-metric-ton) per
hour plant, is sited on less than 2 acres with significant
expansion room and raw product unloading facilities (Gesko pers.
comm.). Therefore, a 13 6-metric-ton per day facility at Akutan
would require about 1 to 2 acres of land, with 2 acres providing
a very spacious facility.
The advantages of meal and oil production from seafood
wastes include:
o removal of solids from marine environment.
o proven technology.
o product recovery and revenue.
o profit potential.
Disadvantages associated with this alternative include:
o high capital investment.
o distance to market.
o potential for odor problems.
o energy consumption.
This.alternative has been investigated for Alaska {Edward
C. Jordan 1979; Development Planning & Research Associates
32
-------
[DPRA] 1980) and Dutch Harbor in particular (Brown and Caldwell
1983). The Edward C. Jordan and DPRA reports present cost
estimates for several Alaskan sites including Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Cordova, Kodiak, and the Kenai Peninsula area.
Three of these site evaluations indicated possible profit before
taxes. The Dutch Harbor evaluation indicated that a fish meal
plant at that location would not be profitable. Cost estimates
in the above studies included capital, operation, maintenance,
and product transportation. Revenue was based on meal and oil
production and market prices. Revenue from fish oil was not
included in the Dutch Harbor study.
Capital Costs. Edward C. Jordan (1979) estimated the cost
of a 150-metrxc-ton meal facility equipped with a 70-metric-ton
auxiliary dryer sited at Kodiak at $2,800,000 (1979 dollars).
This facility is most applicable to Akutan Harbor. Brown and
Caldwell (1983) estimated the cost of a 150-ton (13 6-metric-ton)
meal facility sited at Dutch Harbor at $5 million. Based on
these estimates, capital, operation and maintenance, and product
transport costs have been estimated for a 150-metric-ton meal
facility with a 50-metric-ton auxiliary dryer at Akutan.
Capital costs for a similar facility at Akutan Harbor would
most likely be higher than the above estimates due to remoteness
and lack of a sufficient resident labor force. Also, additional
power generating facilities would be needed at Akutan, which
would increase the necessary capital expenditure.
The remoteness of Akutan Island will require that the plant
provide independent means of protection from certain hazards.
In the case of fire, aid from Dutch Harbor can be several hours
away during which time considerable damage may occur if insuffi-
cient local protection exists. Other hazardous conditions that
may be of concern are volcanic activity, earthquakes, and high
winds. Design and construction of facilities will need to
recognize these hazards.
Edward C. Jordan (1979) used a construction cost factor for
Kodiak relative to Seattle of 2.15. Assuming a factor of 3 for
Akutan would result in a capital investment of $3.9 million
(1979 dollars) based on Edward C. Jordan's data. When adjusted
to 1983 dollars by the Engineering News-Record Index for
construction costs, this capital investment is estimated at $5.4
million. A capital cost range of $5.0-$5.4 million (1983
dollars) has been selected for evaluation purposes.
The annual cost of amortizing the initial capital invest-
ment is a function of useful life and interest costs. The
option of leasing the equipment also exists but is not explored
in this report. To estimate annual capital costs, an interest
rate which reflects the degree of investment risk and historical
financial considerations of the investor must be used. With the
prime interest rate currently at 11 percent, the minimum rate
for obtaining plant financing likely would be 14 percent. If
the venture is considered high risk because of potential
33
-------
variable harvests, widely fluctuating market prices, or other
risk factors, a higher rate, such as 18 percent, would be
appropriate. Assuming that the initial investment is amortized
over 20 years, annual capital costs at 14 percent and 18 percent
interest rates are estimated in Table 4.
Table 4. Estimated Annual Capital Costs for
150-metric-ton per day Fish Meal Facility at Akutan
INITIAL CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST
at 14% at 18%
interest interest
$5,000,000 $754,930. $ 934,099
$5,400,000 815,324 1,008,827
Operation and Maintenance Costs. Direct operation and
maintenance costs included in the Edward C. Jordan report are
operating labor, electrical power, fuel for steam generation and
heat, equipment and building maintenance, and transport of final
product to Seattle, Washington. This annual cost was estimated
at $1,100,000 (1979 dollars). Subtracting the transportation
fraction yields $530,000. This portion of the Kodiak facilities
cost was for operation at about 50 percent capacity on an annual
average. Based on average production at 71 metric tons per day,
the Akutan facility would also operate at about 50 percent
capacity. Maximum production year-round by Trident would
utilize 95 percent of the fish meal plant's capacity, increasing
the total direct operation and maintenance costs but reducing
these costs on a per-ton basis. Operation and maintenance costs
will be higher at Akutan because of remoteness and increased
energy costs. Using the same ratio assumed for construction
cost factors (2.15:3) and a linear increase due to higher
utilization of capacity yields annual operation and maintenance
costs of $1,018,000 and $1,934,000 (1983 dollars) for processing
71 metric tons and 144 metric tons per day, respectively.
The operation and maintenance cost per metric ton of meal
produced is estimated as $183-$196. Brown and Caldwell (1983)
estimate the operation and maintenance cost to be $152 per ton
of meal ($167 per metric ton) plus a fixed annual operating
labor cost of $174,000. At a 71-metric-ton per day capacity
this fixed labor cost would add $33. 50 to each metric ton of
meal for a cost of $200 per metric ton; at 144 metric tons per
day capacity, this would be a $16.50 increase or $184 per metric
ton. These values agree with the estimated annual operating and
maintenance costs of $1,018,000 and $1,934,000 ($183 and $196
per metric ton meal) for eac-h respective production level.
34
-------
The lack of surplus power facilities on Akutan means that a
fish meal facility would need to generate its own electricity
and heat. A separate energy evaluation was conducted to verify
the above estimated operating costs. Estimates of fuel required
to dry 1 metric ton of meal range from 50-66 gallons (Alfa-Laval
1983, Brown and Caldwell 1983). At $1-$1.25 per gallon, fuel
costs for drying range from $50-$83 per metric ton. Electricity
consumption estimates range from 180 kilowatts to 1,565
kilowatts (Alfa-Laval 1983, Brown and Caldwell 1983). Based on
10,000 calories/gram diesel fuel, 7 pounds per gallon, and 34
percent efficiency, 13-114 gallons per metric ton of meal or
$13-$143 per metric ton of meal would be consumed.
Energy costs for an Akutan fish meal facility range from
$63-$226 per metric ton of meal depending on plant efficiency,
generator efficiency, and fuel cost. Table 5 summarizes the
fuel costs and assumptions.
Table 5. Estimated Energy Costs per Metric Ton of Meal for
Akutan Fish Meal Facility
FUEL
PRICE
PER GALLON
$1.00
$1.25
COST
OF FUEL
REQUIRED
FOR DRYING +
$50-$66 +
$64-$83 +
COST OF
MINIMUM
ELECTRICITY
REQUIRED or
$13
$17
or
or
COST OF
MAXIMUM
ELECTRICITY
REQUIRED
$114
$143
TOTAL
ENERGY
COSTS
$63-$180
$81-$226
Adding fixed labor, variable labor, and bagging costs as es-
timated by Brown and Caldwell (19 83) to the energy costs in
Table 5 brings the total operation and maintenance cost per
metric ton of meal to $142-$304 at the 71-metric-ton daily
processing rate and to $124-$286 at the 144-metrie-ton daily
processing rate.
Therefore, the previously estimated operating cost of
$183-$196 per metric ton is reasonable for a new energy-
efficient fish meal facility. The effect of operating an
energy-inefficient plant at $286-$304 per metric ton of meal is
also presented in this evaluation.
Transportation Costs. Transportation of the finished
product is an additional cost for a fish meal facility. Trans-
portation costs (including terminal charges) to Seattle,
Washington based on current rates from Sea Land Services, Inc.
are $95.25 and $172.50 per metric ton for fish meal and oil,
respectively.
35
-------
Revenues. Annual revenues would result from the sale of
fish meal and oil. Windsor and Barlow (1981) report yields of
21 and 11 percent of raw weights for meal and oil, respectively,
while the Edward C. Jordan data indicate only 7 and 2 percent
yields. The DPRA report used percentages of 20 and 8 for salmon
meal and oil based on published sources, equipment manufactur-
ers, and existing Alaskan fish meal processors. Using percent-
ages of 20 and 2-8 for fish meal and oil yields, the meal
facility at Akutan would produce 5,180 metric tons of fish meal
and 520-2,070 metric tons of oil at the 71 metric tons per day
production rate. This would increase to 10,500 metric tons of
fish meal and 1,050 to 4,200 metric tons of oil at the
144-metric-ton per day production rate. With the current market
value of fish meal at $478 per metric ton and oil at $396 per
metric ton the annual revenue generated ranges from $2,682,000
to $6,682,000.
Cost Summary. Table 6 summarizes the annual costs and
revenues in 1983 dollars for six combinations of assumptions for
a fish meal plant using waste from the Trident Seafoods plant at
Akutan. The values used in the evaluation are approximate and
are based on Edward C. Jordan's 1979 report, transportation
rates from Sea Land Services, Inc., and market value estimates
from the Wilbur Ellis Company. The annual net economic value is
positive for an energy-efficient fish meal facility operating at
50 percent capacity. The facility would have to operate at
33-44 percent capacity to amortize the annual capital cost of
$5.4 million at 18 percent interest and defray operating
expenses. Factors that aid in the economic feasibility of this
alternative are:
o year-round processing.
o fish by-products instead of crab, yielding a higher-
value product.
o improvements in fish meal production technology.
The economic feasibility of a fish meal facility is a
function of the market value of its products. A decrease in the
market value of fish meal or oil will decrease the revenue
without changing the associated costs and thus decrease profits.
Conversely, an increase in market value will result in an
increase in profits.
In order for revenues to at least offset costs, the market
value of product sold must be sufficiently high to equal the
annual capital cost plus operation, maintenance, and transporta-
tion costs. Table 7 presents the break-even market values
necessary for 12 sets of assumptions on the 71- and 144-metric
ton per day facilities, assuming a constant oil market value of
$396 per metric ton. At the current fish meal market value of
$478 per metric ton, losses would result from .the last two sets
of assumptions.
36
-------
Table 6. Estimated Annual Net Economic Value of 150-Metrie-Ton Fish Meal Production
Plant at Akutan (1983 dollars)
ASSUMPTIONS
Capital Cost*
Interest Hate
2
Plant Production Level
Energy Efficiency
Oil Yield
Operation & Maintenance^
CASS 1
5.0
14%
144
High
8%
183
CASE 2
5.4
18%
144
High
2%
183
CASE 3
5.0
14%
71
High
8%
196
CASE 4
5.4
18%
144
Lw
2%
286
CASE 5
5.4
18%
71
High
2%
196
CASE 6
5.4
18%
71
Lew
2%
304
POST ANALYSIS
Capital Amortization
Operation & Maintenance
S 755,000 $1,008,000 $ 755,000 $1,008,000 $1,008,000 $1,008,000
$1,934,000 $1,934,000 $1,018,000 $2,989,000 $1,018,000 $1,578,000
Total Annual Production Costs 52,689,000 $2,942,000 $1,773,000 $3,997,000 $2,026,000 $2,586,000
Transportation to Seattle
$1,740,000 $1,191,000 $ 854,000 $1,191,000 $ 585,000 $ 585,000
Total Annual Costs Tb Market $4,429,000 $4,133,000 $2,627,000 $5,188,000 $2,611,000 $3,171,000
Projected Annual Revenues $6,682,000 $5,435,000 $3,296,000 $5,434,000 $2,682,000 $2,682,000
Projected Annual Profit (Loss) $2,253,000 $1,302,000 $ 669,000 $ 246,000 $ 71,000 $ (489,000)
Million Dollars. Excludes costs for screening solids
Metric tons per day
Operation and iraintenance costs in dollars per metric ton
37
-------
Table 7. Break-even Fish Meal Market Values For Akutan Fish Meal Plant
PLANT PLANT
CASE (FROM
TABLE 6)
CAPITAL
OOSTi
INTEREST
RATE
PRODUCTION
LEVEL
ENERGY
EFFICIHCY
OIL
YIELD
OSM3
BREAKEVEN
VALUE
Case 1
5.0
14%
144
High
8%
183
262
5.0
18%
144
High
a%
183
286
5.4
14%
144
High
2%
183
329
Case 3
* 5.0
14%
71
High
8%
196
348
Case 2
5.4
18%
144
High
2%
183
353
5.4
18%
71
High
8%
196
397
5.4
18%
144
Low
8%
286
407
5.0
14%
71
High
2%
196
415
Case 5
5.4
18%
71
High
2%
196
464
Case 4
5.4
18%
144
Lew
2%
236
474
5.4
18%
71
Low
8%
304
505
Case 6
5.4
18%
71
Lew
2%
304
572
1 Million dollars. Excludes costs for screening solids
2
Metric tons per day
3 Operation and maintenance costs in dollars per metric ten
4
Dollars per metric ton at Seattle
38
-------
Additional cost saving measures that could be implemented
include substituting recovered fish oil for fuel oil, using a
lower quality fuel oil, bulk transport of finished product, and
transport to closer markets.
Inclusion of Shellfish Waste. The reduction facility could
also process shellfish waste produced by the floating
processors. This would require transport to the reduction
facility and unloading equipment. Costs would be similar to the
floating processors portion of the barging alternative plus meal
production and transportation costs. Crab wastes require drying
and grinding for meal production. The auxiliary dryer included
in the fish meal plan evaluated above could also be used for
shellfish processing. Additional operation and maintenance
costs would consist of fuel for drying, electricity for grind-
ing, bagging, and perhaps additional labor. Approximately 50-66
gallons per metric ton of meal are consumed in the drying
process. This represents a cost of $50-$83 per metric ton of
crab meal. The electricity required to grind the meal is
assumed equal to 25 percent of the electricity required to
operate the complete facility; 45 kilowatts to 391 kilowatts are
estimated to be consumed by the grinder. Using a 34 percent
efficient generator, 3-29 gallons per metric ton of crab meal
would be required, adding $3 to $36 to the cost of each metric
ton of this product. Bagging costs have been estimated (Brown
and Caldwell 1983) at $16.50 per metric ton, resulting in a cost
of $70-$135 per metric ton of crab meal, assuming no additional
labor costs are involved. Transportation costs are estimated to
be the same as for fish meal, or $95 per metric ton, bringing
the crab meal cost to $165-$231 per metric ton at Seattle. The
value of crab meal at Seattle is about $110 per metric ton,
which indicates a net loss for this product of $55-$120 per
metric ton. If crab meal is added to fish meal, the retail
value of the mixture decreases from that of fish meal, since
protein content determines retail value. Crab meal contains
approximately 30 percent protein compared to 60 percent protein
in fish meal. The current market price is equivalent to $8.00
per metric ton per percent protein. Assuming this relationship
holds true for a 5 4 percent protein fish-crab meal, a quarter
metric ton of crab meal could be added to 1 metric ton of fish
meal producing 1.25 metric tons at 54 percent protein for a
value of $538. This would increase the effective crab meal
value from $110 to $238 per metric ton. Thus, processing crab
wastes mixed with fish meal might allow a positive economic
recovery from the crab waste fraction.
Crab wastes produced at Akutan Harbor in 1982 are estimated
at 1,200 metric tons. Meal recovery is approximately 20 per-
cent, yielding about 242 metric tons of crab meal from this
quantity of wastes. A 4:1 mixture would require 967 metric tons
of fish meal or about 9 percent of the plant capacity. Some
storage and remixing may be required to yield a suitable meal
mixture depending on peak production of crab and fish.
39
-------
Screening with Production of Fish Silage from Solids
The Trident plant would undertake the production of fish
silage, a form of liquified fish wastes, using either acid
preservation or fermentation methods. Fish silage can be used
as a protein component in animal feed and has some advantages
over fish meal. The process requires solids separation,
mincing, storage, and transportation. Raa and Gildberg (1982)
and Windsor and Barlow (1981) present detailed introductions to
this process. Figure 3 from Windsor and Barlow (1981) presents
a generalized diagram of a fish silage process. Processing
wastes could be deposited into the storage unit prior to mincing
or, during steady processing, could be added directly to the
mincer. A de-oiling step is necessary for oily fish wastes.
This process may not be necessary for cod wastes if the liver is
separated from the waste stream prior to mincing.
This alternative was evaluated by Brown and Caldwell (1983)
for Dutch Harbor, Alaska. It was concluded that fish silage
could not be economically transported over 400 kilometers.
Applying this same distance to Akutan would eliminate any market
for the product. A fish silage facility at Akutan Harbor would
produce approximately 25,500 metric tons annually at a current
market value of $100 per metric ton (approximately 20 percent of
the market value of an equivalent volume of fish meal). This
value would not exceed the transportation costs to Seattle.
•
The capital costs for a fish silage production facility
would be relatively small. The existing grinder at Trident
could function as the mincer. Acid could be added during grind-
ing to provide a well mixed solution. Storage units would be
needed to allow for curing of the silage. This process ranges
from 5 to 10 days for fresh white fish offal at 15°C (59°F).
Heating the silage shortens this period but requires an energy
source. Storage units must be acid resistant. Windsor and
Barlow (1981) state that concrete tanks treated with bitumen are
suitable for storing large quantities. A storage volume for 10
days of production at the Trident facility would be about 2,500
cubic meters. A tank 3 meters deep would cover 850 square
meters of land.
Maintenance costs would also be low due to the simplicity
of the system. Use of formic acid yields a superior product
over other acids; approximately 3.5 percent by weight is re-
quired. This corresponds to roughly 900 metric tons annually.
Purchase and transportation costs of this acid represent a major
expense.
Advantages of this alternative include:
o removal of solids from marine environment,
o relatively simple process,
o low capital investment.
40
-------
h-»
FISH
STORAGE
WHITE
FISH
SILAGE
FISH
OIL
DE-OILED
FISH
, SILAGE,
MIXER
FORMIC
ACID
MINCER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
LIQUEFACTION TANK
3-PHASE DECANTER
OR
DECANTER AND CENTRIFUGE
FIGURE 3. PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR FISH SILAGE PRODUCTION AND DE-OILING
SOURCE- WINDSOR AND BARLOW 1981
-------
o marketable product,
o low energy consumption.
Disadvantages associated with this alternative include:
o high transportation costs,
o unestablished market,
o shellfish waste not utilized.
Screening with Production of Chitin/Chitosan from Solids
The conversion of shellfish wastes into chitin requires
grinding, separating, acid demineralization, caustic deproteina-
tion, rinsing, drying, and transport. Chitosan production
requires an additional processing step (deacetylation) that
changes some of the chemical properties of chitin. Figure 4
from Hattis and Murray (1977) is a diagram of the Chitin/
Chitosan process. After shell separation, the nonshell stream
can be further processed to recover a shellfish protein meal. A
protein meal can also be processed from the deproteination
liquid slurry. The acidic waste stream from the deminerali-
zation step is high in salt and can be further processed for
salt recovery. Therefore, several products can result from this
alternative. Auerbach (1981) states that 1 ton (2,000 pounds or
910 kg) of shells will produce approximately 100 pounds (45 kg)
of chitin or 80 pounds (36 kg) of chitosan, 200 pounds (91 kg)
of protein meal, 300 pounds (136 kg) of impure calcium chloride,
and 50 pounds (23 kg) of sodium acetate.
The quantity of shellfish waste at Akutan Harbor is highly
variable and has significantly decreased from the 1980 high. As
discussed earlier, crab waste solids averaged approximately 100
metric tons per day in 1980 with a 1982 daily waste of about 40
metric tons. This waste is only produced for a short period of
time during the crab season but plant size would need to be
based on daily waste production. Therefore, a large plant would
be necessary but would not operate for a major portion of the
year. Approximately 60 metric tons of chitin or 48 metric tons
of chitosan, and 120 metric tons of protein meal would be
produced from crab wastes at 1982 generation rates.
DPRA, Inc. (1980) evaluated the alternative of chitin/-
chitosan production for Alaska. Two model plants were devel-
oped, one for Seattle, Washington, that would process shellfish
meal generated in Alaska, and one on the east coast that would
process raw crab wastes. A cost estimate is presented below
based on DPRA (1980) data for the east coast plant. Capital
costs have been increased by a construction cost factor of 3 to
approximate the cost of building at Akutan.
42
-------
WET SHELL WASTE
GRINDER
ACIDIFICATION
AND CAKE
SEPARATION
MEAT, BONE
SEPARATOR
FLESH. ETC.
BY-PRODUCT
SLURRY
CLEANEO
SHELL
ANIMAL FEED
SUPPLEMENT
66% PROTEIN
DRYING
DRYING OR
FREEZING
SHELL WASTE
RESIDUAL
DEMORALIZATION
IN DILUTE ACID
RECYCLE
OPTIONAL
PROCESSING
AND SALT
RECOVERY
ACIDIC
SALT
SOLID, LIQUID
SEPARATOR
SOLUTION
LIQUID
DEPROTEINATION
IN 1% ALKALI
(DISPENSABLE STEP
IF CHITOSAN IS THE
ULTIMATE PRODUCT)
RECYCLE
LIQUID SLURRY
ALKALI
PROTEIN
ACIDIFICATION
AND CURD
SEPARATION
SOLUTION
WASTE
PROTEIN
RECOVERY
AND
FINISHING
H20 RINSE
HIGH-NITROGEN
PROTEINACEOUS
BY-PRODUCT
LIQUID
CHITIN
CHITOSAN
# H20 RINSE
DRYING
DEACETYLATION
IN 40-50%
CAUSTIC SODA
^ LIQUID
OPTIONAL RECOVERY
OF CAUSTIC AND/OR
ACETATE
FIGURE 4. PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR CHITIN/CH1TOSAN
PRODUCTION
SOURCE: HATTIS AND MURRAY 1977
43
-------
The capital costs {10-year life) at 14 percent are assumed
to be amortized over 10 years at 14 percent interest. Annual
operating costs in the DPRA study ranged from $.65-$1.17 per
pound ($1,430-$2,580 per metric ton) of chitin and $.95-$2.10
per pound ($2,100-$4,630) per metric ton of chitosan. This cost
has been inflated by a factor of 3 to allow for Akutan
conditions. Annual maintenance costs are taken as 3 percent of
the building and equipment costs. This yields a total annual
cost of approximately $986,600-$l,106,600, excluding transporta-
tion costs, as summarized in Table 8.
Transportation costs for the final product are estimated at
$110 per metric ton between Akutan and Seattle. Sixty metric
tons of chitin would add $6,600, 48 metric tons of chitosan
would add $5,300, and 120 metric tons of meal would add $13,200.
Revenues are also estimated using DPRA data of $2 per pound
($4,400 per metric ton) of chitin and $3 per pound ($6,600 per
metric ton) of chitosan. Revenues from the protein meal are
approximated at $478 per metric ton. No other revenues were
assumed. This yields an annual revenue of about $321,400 for
chitin and $374,200 for chitosan. Both estimates include
protein meal revenues.
The resulting annual estimated loss for chitin/chitosan
production at Akutan Harbor is $685,000-$750,900. This cost is
approximate and should only be considered a rough estimate.
Transportation from the floating processors to the chitin/
chitosan plant has not been included in this analysis. Losses
would decrease if more crab production occurred in the harbor
and the plant was able to process the wastes.
Advantages of processing chitin/chitosan from crab wastes
at Akutan Harbor include:
o removal of seasonal shellfish wastes from the marine
environment.
o marketable product.
Disadvantages of this alternative include:
o unproven commercial technology.
o limited product market.
o no reuse of fish wastes.
o limited use of plant due to short season.
Screening with Recovery of Other Fish By-Products from Solids
Other technologies exist for the conversion of seafood
processing wastes into usable products. These products include
44
-------
Table 8. Cost Estimation for Chi tin/Chi tosan Process at Akutan Harbor1
ANNUAL COSTS
Capital Costs
Building
Equipment
Operation Costs
Chitin 2.73/pound ( 6.00 per kg)
Chitosan 4.58/pound (10.00 per kg)
Maintenance Costs
Total Annual Production Costs
Transportation to Seattle
Total Annual Cost to Market
Projected Annual Revenues
Projected Annual Profit (Loss)
$ 825,000
2,000,000
2,825,000
CHITIN
$541,600
360,000
85,000
$986,600
19,800
$1,006,400
321,400
($685,000)
CHITOSAN
$541,600
480,000
85,000
$1,106,600
18,500
$1,125,100
374,200
($750,900)
1 Based on data fran Development Planning & Research Associates (1980) using 1977 dollars, inflated by a
factor of 3 to represent Akutan cost. Interest at 14 percent amortization in 10 years.
Estimates exclude costs for screening of solids and delivery of solids to processing plant.
-------
hydrolyzed fish products, fish protein concentrates, pet food,
insulin, pearl essence, and fish glue. A brief discussion of
each product is presented below.
Hydrolyzed fish products are produced by adding enzymes to
the wastes and controlling the resulting breakdown. The end
product, a fine powder, is soluble in water, unlike fish meal
and fish protein concentrate. The waste is digested at 25-70°C
for about 15 minutes. The liquid protein solution is then
removed, leaving a solid waste consisting mostly of bones and
skin. This waste would require additional handling for disposal
or reuse. The liquid fraction is pasteurized and then dried.
Oil removal may be necessary to prevent the product from having
a fishy flavor.
This product process at Akutan would be similar to the fish
meal process. Added costs would be incurred for the enzyme
additive and additional solids disposal.
Fish protein concentrates are produced for human consump-
tion. The process is essentially the same as fish meal produc-
tion except that equipment must be fabricated from suitable
material, i.e. stainless steel, that can be easily cleaned and
sterilized. To yield a nonfishy product the oil content must be
less than 1 percent. Solvent extraction is normally necessary
to achieve this level, further complicating the process. A
substantial marketing effort would be required for this product.
Seafood processing wastes can also be used for pet foods.
Most products are canned, but some use of fish meal and wet
wastes has occurred (Windsor and Barlow 1981). The production
of pellet food for fish hatcheries has the advantage of an
Alaskan market. The Seward and Petersburg plants have produced
food for hatcheries.
Insulin, for diabetes treatment, can be extracted from fish
viscera quite successfully. The process involves chemical
fixation, extraction, and refining. The resulting, insulin can
easily be of high purity and concentration. The process,
however, would not reduce the amount of solid wastes by a high
percentage.
The same is true for the production of pearl essence. This
substance is derived from fish scales and is used for imitation
pearls and decorative lacquers. Several methods are available
for extracting the essence.
46
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
This chapter describes existing environmental conditions in
Akutan Harbor and regulatory constraints that affect seafood
waste handling options. The chapter sets forth the setting for
evaluation of the alternatives. It also includes a discussion
of seafood processing activities in the region and in Akutan? a
discussion of potential markets for seafood processing by-
products; and an evaluation of special constraints on industrial
activities at Akutan.
Akutan Island
Akutan Island is one of the Krenitzen Islands within the
Fox Island Group, part of the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska
(Figure 1) . Unalaska is 35 miles (56 km) to the west and
Anchorage is approximately 800 air miles (1,280 km) to the
northeast. The island is of volcanic origin and Akutan Volcano
is active with the last eruption occurring in 1978. The island
is about 18 by 12 miles (29 by 19 km) in size with rugged
terrain. The treeless vegetation consists of arctic-alpine
species and is concentrated below the 1,000-foot (300 meters)
elevation. The climate is maritime, characterized by mild
winters and summers with a mean temperature range between 25°F,
(-4°C) and 56°F (13°C). Annual precipitation is estimated to be
about 30 inches (760 cm) with snowfall occurring year-round
except for September. Several small streams drain the island.
The island's only settlement, the City of Akutan, is
located on the northern shore of Akutan Harbor, a sheltered
inlet on the eastern side of the island. The village was
established before 1900 and has a current population of about
100. The principal economic activity on the island is seafood
processing carried out by floating vessels and the Trident
shore-based plant. These processors support a transient popu-
lation of up to 1,000 during peak production. Little inter-
action occurs between the villagers and the processing popu-
lation, although several villagers are employed by the proces-
sors .
The village was incorporated in 1979 and has published a
Comprehensive Plan (City of Akutan 1982) . Public services
provided include: education, public safety, phone service,
health service, postal service, library, public recreation, and
47
-------
fire protection. Electricity is provided by a small hydroelec-
tric system using a creek east of the village and some private-
ly-owned diesel generators. A replacement diesel plant has
recently become operational. The village water supply is
obtained from another creek east of the village. A new sewage
treatment system was recently installed that provided community
septic tanks and an offshore discharge. Many of the villagers
have recently occupied new housing units.
Akutan Harbor
Akutan Harbor is located on the eastern side of the island.
The harbor opens up into Akutan Bay and is just north of Akun
Strait. The harbor is relatively small, 4 miles (6.5 km) long
with a width varying from 0.6 mile (0.9 km) to 2.3 miles (3.7
km) , and is generally "U"-shaped in plan view and in cross
section. Average water depth is greater than 100 feet
(30 meters) and the maximum diurnal tidal range is approximately
4 feet (1.2 meters).
The harbor is the focal point of all transportation and
shipping to the village. Amphibious aircraft and boats provide
the only access to the village. Recreational use of the harbor
is generally confined to boating, swimming, fishing, and hunt-
ing.
The sheltered nature of the harbor has encouraged several
floating seafood processors (up to 13) and Trident Seafoods to
establish processing bases within the harbor. The harbor and
its environs provide shelter and processing waters (both salt
and fresh) to the processors, and allows them to be close to the
fishing grounds. No recreational use of the harbor by the
temporal population is known. It is also unknown whether
commercial harvesting of fish or shellfish occurs in the harbor.
The biological resources associated with the harbor are
important elements of the cultural heritage of the native
residents. A small pink salmon run occurs in a stream at the
northwest corner of the harbor. Pink salmon, herring, Dolly
Varden, and codfish- have been harvested for subsistence, al-
though codfish in the harbor are no longer vised because of an
increase in occurrence of parasitic worms in the muscle tissue.
Clams are harvested from some areas in the harbor, and a few
birds and marine mammals are also included in the subsistence
harvest.
Water Quality and Sediment Quality
Water and sediment quality investigations of Akutan Harbor
have been conducted in May 1978, May 1982, March 1983 , June
1983, and September 1983. Detailed results of these investiga-
tions are presented in the following reports:
48
-------
o Reconnaissance investigations of four floating crab
processor waste disposal sites in Akutan Harbor, May
25-26, 1978. K. K. Imamura. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
o Akutan Bay water quality analysis, Pre-preliminary
draft. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
1982.
o Biological and physical survey of Trident Seafoods waste
discharge site in Akutan Harbor, Alaska. Evans Research
Group, Inc. 1983.
o Effects of Seafood Waste Deposits on Water Quality and
Benthos, Akutan Harbor, Alaska. Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc. 1983.
Water quality conclusions from these investigations are
similar. No quality problems were observed and the water column
was well mixed. It is necessary to keep in mind that processing
levels were low at the time of all investigations and therefore
may not reflect temporal water quality problems associated with
major processing periods.
Flushing of the harbor is dominated by wind. This
phenomenon is therefore difficult to assess accurately since the
forcing mechanisms are erratic and resulting circulation
patterns can be very complex. Based on drogue movements in June
and September 1983, the residence time of the surface layer
(10 meters and less) may generally be a few days, but may be a
few weeks for deeper water. Again, it must be emphasized that
circulation in Akutan Harbor,-and therefore the residence time,
will be highly variable because of the importance of wind on
harbor circulation. Stratification of the water column, which
could cause water quality problems, may occur during summer
months, although the June and September surveys reported a well
mixed water column.
Sediment character of the harbor reflects its protective
environment, seasonal variations in plant life, and use for
seafood processing. The outer harbor is subject to more scour-
ing and dispersive actions than the inner harbor as evidenced by
the grain size and large-scale sand waves. Total organic carbon
(TOC) levels were found to vary seasonally and possibly reflect
the accumulation of plant debris after the summer growing
season. Sediment impacts from seafood processing include
accumulation of processing wastes near those waste piles that
are not easily dispersed, and elevated levels of hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia, TOC, and organic nitrogen.
49
-------
Biological Characteristics
Terrestrial Resources
Vegetation in the Akutan Harbor area is primarily moist
tundra and alpine tundra/barren ground (Crayton 1983) . Commonly
occurring vascular plants include lupine, cow parsnip, monks
hood, orchids, Indian paint brush, chocolate lily, numerous
types of asters, wild geranium, ferns, and several species of
grasses. A large wetland habitat is located at the head of
Akutan Harbor and a smaller wetland area is located near the
south shoreline across the bay from the town of Akutan.
The red fox (Vulpes fulva) is one of the few terrestrial
mammals inhabiting the island (Crayton 1983). At one time, a
small cattle ranch operated near the head of Akutan Harbor.
Freshwater and Marine Resources
The freshwater stream at the head of Akutan Harbor is
cataloged by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as an
anadromous fish stream (Sundberg pers. comm.). The stream is
small (approximately 20 cfs in June) and highly sinuous. In
August 1982, 10,500 adult pink salmon were observed in the
stream. Fewer pink salmon are expected during odd-numbered
years. Coho salmon and Dolly Varden are also reported to spawn
in the stream. Based on pre-emergence studies in the Shumagin
Islands, pink salmon fry probably begin to emerge from the
gravel and enter the estuary in early April. Although the
stream is a relatively minor producer of salmon, it apparently
is important for local sport and subsistence use.
The intertidal zone in Akutan Harbor is a relatively narrow
band of marine habitat influenced by a tidal range of 1.2 meters
(3.9 feet, mean lower low water to mean higher high water)
(National Ocean Survey 1983) . The substrate of the upper
intertidal zone is generally cobble/boulder mixed with gravel
except for the rock/bedrock substrate near Akutan Point. The
upper zone is dominated by barnacles (Balanus spp.), limpets
(Acmaea spp.), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), rockweed (Fucus
sp.), and sea lettuce (Ulva/Monostroma) (Crayton 1983). The
middle intertidal zone is covered by a brown alga (Laminaria
sp.) and/or sea colander (Agarum cribrosum). Beneath the canopy
of algae is a sandy/gravel substrate with scattered aggregates
of boulders. Nuttall's cockle (Clinocardium nutallii), a soft
shelled clam (Mya truncata), and hermit crabs (Pagurus spp.;
Elassochirus spp.) are common in the middle zone. The substrate
of the lower intertidal zone is more silty, and is inhabited by
seastars (Pycnopodia helianthoides, Evasterias troschelli), and
an anemone (Metridium senile). Factors that influence the
species composition of the intertidal zones include the degree
of wave shock, substrate composition, and tidal exposure.
50
-------
The subtidal habitat of Akutan Harbor is characterized by a
steep slope along the harbor perimeter and a relatively flat,
soft bottom throughout most of the harbor. Four benthic commu-
nities have been identified: a community occupying fine
(silt/clay) sediments in the inner harbor; a community occupying
fine sand in the outer harbor; a sand dollar community occupying
uniform fine sands along the south (exposed) shore of the outer
harbor; and a kelp community located in a shallow rock/bedrock
area south of Akutan Point and along the south shore of the
outer harbor (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983; Crayton 1983).
Although overlap in species composition occurs between the
four communities, differences occur in the dominant species of
each community. Polychaetes (Ninoe simpla; Boccardia poly-
branchia) are the numerically dominant taxonomxc group of the
inner harbor, whereas bivalves (either Macoma moesta or Axinop-
sida orbiculata) tend to be more abundant than polychaetes in
the outer harbor (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983). The sand
dollar community is unique to Akutan Harbor in that sand dollars
(Echinarachnius parma) and crustaceans (Amphipoda) were abundant
here, and few polychaete species were present. Dominant epiben-
thic species of the rocky subtidal community include kelp
(Alaria spp.), sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis),
seastars (Henricia leviuscula; Leptasterias hexactis, anemones
(M. senile; Tealia crassicornis; Anthopleura artemisia), and
hermit crabs (Pagurus spp.; Elassochirus spp.) (Crayton 1983).
Commercially important Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi)
were observed by underwater video camera to be abundant during
the June and September 1983 field survey. As noted elsewhere in
the southeast Bering Sea, Tanner crab may play an important role
in the food web of the harbor (Jewett and Feder 1981) , as well
as providing an important fishery resource. A pod of juvenile
king crab (Paralithodes camtschatica) were observed in the
harbor during July 1983 (Crayton 1983) . King crab may be
abundant seasonally as king crab are believed to utilize coastal
embayments for spawning and rearing (NOAA unpubl.). Akutan
Harbor is at the western margin of known major crab fishing
grounds.
Sampling of fishes in Akutan Harbor is limited to the
shallow littoral zone. During July 1983 juvenile pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus),
an important forage species, were the major species captured in
beach seines (Crayton 1983). Other fishes included coho salmon
(0. kisutch), Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus), flatfishes
(Pleuronectidae), sculpin (Cottidae), and Dolly Varden (Salve-
linus malma) In the deeper, soft bottom areas of the harbor,
daubed shanny (Lumpenus maculatus) were observed by underwater
video camera to be abundant. Based on subsistence harvests, it
is known that herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) and Pacific cod
(Gadus macrocephalus) inhabit the harbor area (Gross pers.
comm.).
51
-------
The most numerous and readily observed wildlife resources
in the Aleutian archipelago are birds, especially pelagic bird
species. No major nesting colonies are located along the shore
of Akutan Harbor, but a major black-legged kittiwake (Rissa
tridactyla) colony occurs along the northeast shore of Akun
Island, and a large tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata) colony occurs
south of Akun Strait on Rootok Island (Sowls et al. 1978). The
so-called "North Island" of Akun Strait has a high density
nesting colony of tufted puffin (Nysewander et al. 1982). This
islet is 8 km due east of Akutan Harbor and was occupied by
approximately 41,000 tufted puffin burrows in 1980.
On Akutan Island, the largest nesting colonies occur on the
north and west shores, and are comprised primarily of cormorants
(Phalacrocorax spp.). The largest nesting colony near Akutan
Harbor is on Akutan Point. This colony was occupied by approxi-
mately 322 cormorant nests and 2,000 tufted puffin burrows
(Nysewander et al. 1982). Waterfowl and shorebirds are also
likely to be abundant in Akutan Harbor. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) are common throughout the harbor and reportedly
nest near Akutan Point (Crayton 1983).
Marine mammals in Akutan Harbor are primarily harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina richardii), sea lions (Sumetopias jubatus), and
sea otters (Enhydra lutri's) (COE 1982? Gross pers. comm.) . Sea
lion haul-out areas near Akutan Harbor include: an islet off
the north shore of Rootok Island, Akun Head on the north shore
of Akun Island, North Head, Reef Bight to Lava Point, and Cape
Morgan on Akutan Island (Figure 1) . Sea otters occur in the
kelp beds at the mouth of the harbor and along Akun Strait (COE
1982; Nysewander et al. 1983; Gross pers. comm.). Whales and
dolphins may occasionally be sighted in coastal waters and in
Akun Strait.
Recreational and Subsistence Harvests
Recreational fishing in Akutan Harbor is probably minor and
limited to commercial fishermen staying in the harbor and
seasonal workers at the seafood processing plants. Dolly
Varden, salmon, flatfishes, sculpin, and Pacific cod are the
fishes most likely to be harvested.
Although the Akutan community is based on a cash economy,
subsistence harvests are important as a cultural and supplemen-
tary resource. Subsistence harvests of fish in or near the
harbor include sockeye salmon, which are migrating through the
island waters, and pink salmon returning to spawn in Akutan
Island creeks (Gross pers. comm.). Other harvested fishes
include Pacific cod, sculpin, herring, and small halibut. Fewer
Pacific cod are presently taken because of an increase in
nematodes in the flesh of locally caught cod. Clams and sea
urchins (sea eggs) are harvested along the shoreline of the
52
-------
inner harbor. The clam population has declined and is period-
ically tainted with diesel oil flavor (Stepetin pers. comm.;
McGlashan pers. comm.). Tainting of clam flesh may be caused by
fuel residues, oil, or discharges from boat traffic. Other
subsistence harvests include birds (e.g., puffins, golden eyes
and scaups) and an occasional marine mammal (e.g., sea lions,
seals, and sea otters).
Commercial Seafood Harvest and Processing
Regional Overview
Much of the finfish and shellfish harvested domestically in
Alaskan waters of the eastern Bering Sea and the Aleutian
Islands area is processed at three ports located in the Aleutian
Island chain. Two of the ports, Dutch Harbor and Akutan Harbor,
are centrally located in the Aleutian chain, whereas the third
port, Sand Point, is located 275 miles (440 km) east of Dutch
Harbor.
By far the largest of the Aleutian ports, Dutch Harbor is
one of the largest (in terms of the dollar value of fish sales)
harvesting and processing port communities in the U.S. Four
on-shore processing plants and 13 permanently moored processing
vessels operate in the Dutch Harbor area (Centaur Associates
1982). By comparison, processing facilities at Akutan Harbor
and Sand Point are much smaller. The distance from Sand Point
to the resource-rich fishing grounds of the Bering Sea limits
its use as a processing port. Secondary services such as
layover accommodations and minor vessel repairs are provided at
Sand Point.
In addition to port processing facilities, much of the
fishery resources harvested in more distant waters of the Bering
Sea are processed at sea. Through joint ventures, U.S. harvest-
ers and foreign processors utilize catcher/processing vessels at
distant fishing grounds.
Important fishery resources processed domestically at
Aleutian ports include crab, shrimp, salmon, cod, perch,
pollock, herring, and other groundfish. In general, groundfish,
which are processed into both blocks and fillets, are shipped
for domestic consumption. Shellfish, primarily crab, are
processed mainly in sections and are supplied to foreign as well
as domestic markets.
Seafood Processing at Akutan Harbor
Akutan Harbor, which is located approximately 3 5 miles
(56 km) east of Dutch Harbor, provides permanent and seasonal
53
-------
seafood processing facilities. Two shore-based processing
vessels operate out of Akutan year-round. In addition, as many
as 13 floating processors operated in the harbor during the 1980
and 1981 crab seasons. According to one recent study (Centaur
Associates 1982), the number of seasonal floating processors
operating in Akutan Harbor depends on the volume of seafood
being harvested in the region because during peak harvest years
much of the seasonal processing at Akutan is overflow activity
from Dutch Harbor.
The land-based Trident Seafood processing plant, con-
structed in 1982, was destroyed by fire in June 1983. The
owners plan to rebuild. The plant was primarily a cod process-
ing plant, with a maximum seafood processing capacity of 600,000
pounds (272 metric tons) per day. Products were mainly salted
split cod and salted cod fillets, although crab and other
shellfish were brined, frozen, and packed as sections. Herring,
salmon, and other species of bottomfish also were processed, but
in smaller quantities.
As of March 1983, the Trident plant had processed approxi-
mately 9.1 million pounds (2,760 metric tons) of finished
codfish products and 1.4 million pounds (600 metric tons) of
other seafood products including crab, salmon, and herring
(Soderlund pers. comm.). Most Pacific cod processed at Akutan
was harvested locally, near Unalaska and Akutan Islands
(Blackburn pers. comm.). Herring is brought to Akutan Harbor
from locations as far as Togiak (Bristol Bay) and Prince William
Sound, whereas salmon processed at Akutan are harvested within a
two-day boat run of Akutan Harbor (Cloe pers. comm.). The
several species of king and Tanner crab processed at Akutan
Harbor are harvested throughout the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands (Cloe pers. comm.; Eaton pers. comm.).
With the reconstruction of the Trident Seafood processing
plant, future processing activity in Akutan Harbor is likely to
include both seasonal and year-round processing facilities. The
extent of future processing activity will depend on market
conditions, some of which are discussed below.
Bottomfish Resources
As shown on Table 9, the domestic harvest of bottomfish in
the Eastern Bering Sea/Aleutian Island region has developed only
recently. Prior to 1980, bottomfish (which includes cod,
flounder, pollock, sablefish, rockfish, and others) were har-
vested in significant numbers only by foreign fishermen. In
1980, 38,800 metric tons were harvested domestically, represent-
ing approximately 3 percent of the estimated harvest by foreign
fleets. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1982). In 1981, the
domestic harvest of bottomfish increased to 87,300 metric tons.
The 1981 harvest, although a significant increase over 1980
levels, was still only a small percentage of the foreign harvest
54
-------
Table 9. Dcinc-stic Catch Statistics (Metric Tons) for Fish and Shellfish that are Potentially Available to Akutan Harbor Seafood Processors, 1974 - 1982.
74
75
76
77
YEAR
78
79
80
FINFISH (Eastern Bering Sea and
Aleutian Island Areas)
Ui
ui
81
82
Pollock
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
41,937
ND
Flounder
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
21,990
ND
Pacific Cod
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
18,048
ND
Atka Mackerel
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
1,633
ND
Sablefish
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
180
ND
Rockfish
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF •
NF
8
ND
Ocean Perch
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
2
ND
Other
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
3,538
ND
Total
NF
NP
NF
NF
NF
NF
38,800
87,336
ND
Herring (Sac roe, food, bait)
Western Region (ADF&G)
37
51
0
2,550
7,061
9,128
21,123
3,538®
ND
Central Region (ADF&G)
9,039
9,310
6,761
5,333
3,513
6,723
10,580
25,458
Salmon (Alaska Peninsula,
CMgnik, Aleutian
Islands)
4,398
3,512
14,648
15,959
24,133
31,335
40,509
43,494
ND
LLFISH (Aleutian Islands, Bering
Sea, Bristol Bay)
King Crab
28,413
30,693
37,392
37,273
47,453
60,182
74,545
26,227
12,
Tanner Crab
2,552
3,231
22,938
24,172
32,133
34,955
35,182
37,818
19,
Korean llair Crab
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
24
1,091
409
Shriitp
2,613
406
1,668
2,091
3,028
1,455
1,091
955
ND
136
NF - No fishery, except for bait fishery.
ND - Data not available.
a - Bristol Bay District managed under the Central Region after 1980.
SOURCES: II. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1982, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
-------
and significantly below the Northern Pacific Fishery Management
Council allocation for domestic annual harvests (DAH). The 1982
DAH for bottomfish in the eastern Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
area was 189,300 metric tons or 12 percent of the total optimum
yield for the area.
It should be noted that of the 87,300 metric tons of
bottomfish harvested domestically in the eastern Bering Sea/-
Aleutian Islands area in 1981, only 11 percent was delivered to
U.S. processors. Pacific cod represented over 95 percent of
these deliveries (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1982) . The
remaining domestic catch was delivered to foreign processors
through joint venture arrangements.
The potential for expansion of the domestic bottomfish
fishery appears good, even though an unusually large year class
of Pacific cod in the eastern Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area
is experiencing a natural decline (Blackburn pers. comm.).
According to one recent study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1982), an estimated 200,000 metric tons could be harvested
annually by a fleet of vessels operating from Akutan Harbor.
Salmon and Herring Resources
Other finfish important to Akutan seafood processors are
salmon and herring. As shown in Table 9, salmon harvests have
increased significantly in recent years primarily due to greater
abundance. Many of the salmon harvested in the Aleutian Islands
passages are returning to spawning grounds near Bristol Bay.
The present condition of salmon stocks is considered strong
(Rogers pers. comm.)
In terms of volume (Table 9), herring has developed into an
important fishery in the region in recent years. Although
considered a relatively low value fish, herring processed at
Akutan Harbor has been brought from locations as far away as
Togiak (Bristol Bay) and Prince William Sound. Recent increases
in the herring harvest are a result of a greater fishing effort
in the Togiak region. Potential herring fishing areas also
exist in the Aleutian Islands and along the south side of the
Alaska Peninsula; the size and condition of these stocks,
however, are unknown.
Shellfish Resources
As shown in Table 9, domestic harvests of shellfish have
declined considerably since the peak harvest years of 1978 and
1979. In 1982, shellfish harvests were only 30 to 40 percent of
the peak harvest years. All shellfish stocks are presently
depressed with the exception of one species of Tanner Crab
(Chinocetes opilio), which is considered stable (Eaton pers.
comm.). The decline in the shellfish fishery may be caused by
56
-------
increased predation or disease, warmer water temperatures, and
overfishing (Otto et al. 1983). The future availability of
shellfish is uncertain.
Seafood Demand Conditions
Future demand for shellfish and fish products processed at
Akutan Harbor will be determined by developments in U.S. and
foreign markets. Shellfish products processed at Akutan are
currently shipped to both foreign and domestic markets. Domes-
tic consumption of shellfish products is primarily in restau-
rants, whose sales tend to mirror overall economic conditions.
During the most recent economic downturn, demand for shellfish
products was steady, even while prices increased due to supply
reductions (Centaur Associates 1982). Based on per capita
consumption of and market demand for shellfish products in
recent years, future demand can be expected to remain strong.
Potential markets for bottomfish processed at Akutan,
however, are somewhat less certain. At present, nearly all
domestically processed bottomfish are delivered to U.S. markets
(Centaur Associates 1982). Domestic markets, which consist of
primarily retail stores and restaurants and, to a lesser extent,
institutions, are shipped mostly frozen fillets (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 1982) . High domestic processing costs enable
foreign processors to capture a major share of the U.S. market.
These higher domestic processing costs, in conjunction with
tariffs, quotas, and other less formal restrictions, also limit
U.S. entry into foreign markets.
Resource Outlook '
The proximity of Akutan to the resource rich waters of the
eastern Bering Sea and Bering Islands area should provide
considerable opportunities in the future to processors in Akutan
Harbor. Shellfish and salmon harvests should continue to
generate seasonal demand for processing. If currently low
stocks of shellfish persist, seasonal activity on floating
processors in the harbor will be limited.
In the future, U.S. vessels are expected to harvest an
increasing share of bottomfish resources in the eastern Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands area. The extent to which domestic
processing activity will also increase is less certain. To some
extent, fishing restrictions and catch quotas on some major
importers are likely to reduce inventories available for U.S.
buyers. Also, increased demand for bottomfish products in other
countries likely will further limit supplies available to U.S.
buyers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1982).
If these effects, however, do not sufficiently increase
domestic processors' share of the U.S. market, it would appear
57
-------
that foreign markets such as in Japan, other Asian countries,
and Europe will need to be developed; otherwise, U.S. participa-
tion in the bottomfish processing industry may continue, pri-
marily as joint ventures between U.S. harvesters and foreign
processors (Centaur Associates 1982).
Fishery resource fluctuations could have an influence on
the success of a fish reduction facility. Factors such as
resource depletion, variable harvest levels associated with
market demand, exposure to natural hazards, and the premium
commanded by capital suppliers in light of these risks may all
affect the economics of such a facility. Reductions in bottom-
fish resources of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska would not
likely affect domestic bottomfish harvests because of tremendous
fish biomass relative to domestic harvests and domestic process-
ing capabilities. Presently, most domestic fishermen sell their
bottomfish catch to foreign processors because of the lack of
domestic processors (Morris et al. 1983) . The effect of vari-
able harvests is anticipated to have less impact on a fish meal
venture due to the flexibility of the process to handle differ-
ent species as whole fish or fish processing wastes.
Markets for Seafood Processing By-Products
Several of the alternatives introduced in Chapter 3 include
the processing of seafood waste to recover usable by-products.
Market conditions for such by-products are an important factor
in evaluating the practicality of seafood waste reduction and
by-product reuse.
The market feasibility of seafood waste reduction in Alaska
has been the focus of several studies in recent years (Edward C.
Jordan 1979; Development Planning and Research Associates [DPRA]
1980; DPRA 1980a). In general, the lack of local markets and
the remoteness from major domestic markets significantly limit
the marketing potential of seafood processing wastes from
Alaska. Production and marketing costs reflect high capital,
labor, energy, and transportation costs.
As described in the Alternatives chapter, important pro-
ducts recoverable from seafood processing wastes include: 1)
fish meal and oil; 2) fish silage; 3) other fish by-products;
and 4) chitin. In this chapter, potential uses of and markets
for these products are examined.
Fish Meal and Oil
Fish and shellfish processing wastes can be dried and
ground into fish meal. This process involves separation of fish
oil, which is also a marketable product. Fish meal and, to a
lesser extent, oil are valued primarily for their protein value,
58
-------
although other characteristics such as sulfur amino acid,
lysine, and methionine are important in product marketing.
The principal uses of fish meal are as an ingredient in
high protein feed for broilers, swine, and hatchery fish. Other
ingredients used in high protein animal feeds include tankage
and meat meals and dried milk products. Most fish meal is
produced from plants designed solely for fish reduction, al-
though seafood processing wastes and fishery by-catches are also
important sources. In recent years, one species, menhaden, has
accounted for most U. S. fish meal and oil production. In 1982,
81 percent of the total U. S. production of fish meal and over
97 percent of the U. S. production of fish oil were derived from
menhaden. The availability of menhaden is the primary reason
for its market dominance. Tuna and mackerel accounted for about
10 percent of domestic fish meal production in 1982. The high
phosphorous content of tuna fish meal is a desirable product
characteristic.
Between 1978 and 1982, annual U. S. production of fish meal
averaged approximately 325,000 metric tons (NMFS 1983). During
the same period, fish meal imports averaged approximately 59,000
metric tons and fish meal exports averaged about 41,000 metric
tons annually. Domestic production of fish oil is primarily
shipped to foreign markets, with over 80 percent of U.S.
production being exported between 1978 and 1982. In 1982, three
states, Louisiana, Virginia, and Maine accounted for 70 percent
of the total value of domestically produced industrial fishery
products (NMFS 1983) .
As of 1980, three reduction plants were operating in
Alaska. These plants, located in Petersburg, Seward, and
Kodiak, use primarily seafood processing wastes as raw mate-
rials. Major reduction products from these plants include
salmon meal, herring meal, oil, and low-value crab and shrimp
meal. In 1978, these plants accounted for less than 2 percent
of total U.S. production of fish meal. It has been estimated
that if all seafood processing wastes in Alaska were processed,
Alaska could account for nearly 10 percent of U.S. production of
fish meal (DPRA 1980) .
Alaskan fish meal is supplied primarily to markets in the
Pacific Northwest via Seattle and, to a much lesser extent, to
local Alaskan markets. Markets in the Pacific Northwest include
a small but growing broiler industry in Washington and Oregon
and a fish hatchery industry in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Utah. In 1977, approximately one-half of 1 percent of the total
U. S. broiler production occurred in Washington (DPRA 19 80)
The Alaskan market, consisting primarily of fish hatcheries
with practically no broiler placements, is limited. Alaska's
small population and the importation of about 95 percent of its
food products considerably limits the market potential for fish
meal (Shepherd pers. comm.). At present, one fish meal
59
-------
producer, Icicle Seafoods, supplies the entire local market
needs. Although new fish meal producers in Alaska likely would
try to capture some portion of the local market, the market
potential is very small.
An additional market available to Alaskan fish meal produc-
ers is the Far East, including Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the
Philippines. To date, only a few shipments of fish meal have
been made to this area. With significant increases in Alaskan
fish meal production, however, this market would warrant further
consideration.
Demand for fish meal is strongly influenced by broiler
placements, prices of competing products, and fish meal prices
(DPRA 1980) . In general, as red meat prices increase, broiler
production and the demand for fish meal also increase. The
demand for Alaskan fish meal, however, is affected generally by
only significant price changes {DPRA 1980) .
The price of fish meal and oil produced in Alaska closely
follows world prices of menhaden meal and oil and the price of
soybean substitutes. Although fish meal prices varied consider-
ably during most of the 1970s (from a high of $527 per metric
ton in 1973 to a low of $270 per metric ton in 1975) , prices
have remained relatively stable since 1978. As shown in
Chapter 3, the current price of fish meal with a 60 percent
protein content is $478 per metric ton (FOB Seattle) . This
price is historically higher and reflects recent supply
shortages caused by the El Nino effect. Fisheries off the
coasts of Peru and Chile have not been productive over the last
2 years. In addition, production from the Southern California
anchovy fishery has been disappointing (Deardoff pers. comm.).
These two occurrences have resulted in recent supply shortages
and higher prices for fish meal.
At the current price, most Alaskan fish meal is being sold
to fish hatcheries which can pay more for the product. Accord-
ing to one market analyst (Deardoff pers. comm.), however, the
peak of the market appears to be near so that fish meal products
should begin coming into the market at cheaper prices.
The current price for fish oil is about $396 per metric ton
with market demand considered nominal. The current price for
shellfish meal is about $110 per metric ton with market demand
considered weak (Shepherd pers. comm.).
In one study, (DPRA 1980) of the market feasibility of
seafood waste reduction in Alaska, reduction plants were found
to be uneconomical at most locations when compared with barging
alternatives. Reduction was cost effective at three locations -
Kodiak, Seward, and Petersburg. These reduction plants are
currently all in operation, although the Kodiak plant has had
financial difficulties and ownership has been transferred to the
City of Kodiak for operation. In the Dutch Harbor/Unalaska
60
-------
area, the high cost to transport reduction products to Seattle
markets has been an important constraint to economic feasi-
bility. In 1978, carrier rates between Dutch Harbor and Seattle
for transport of ground fish meal packaged in bags (40,000-pound
or 18-metric-ton minimum) were $4.16 per 100 pounds (45
kilograms) plus terminal charges (DPRA 1980). As shown in
Chapter 3, the most recent (November- 19 83) rate to transport
ground fish meal in bags (44,000-pound or 20-metric-ton minimum)
between Dutch Harbor and Seattle was $3.68 per 100 pounds
($95.25 per metric ton) plus terminal charges (Petersen pers.
comm.). This net reduction in carrier rates between Dutch
Harbor and Seattle is explained by unique competitive conditions
for this particular route.
In conclusion, the type, volume, and seasonality of pro-
cessing wastes, and the utilization of plant capacity will
influence significantly the economic viability of seafood waste
reduction in Akutan. The decrease since 1978 in transportation
costs for fish meal improves the competitive position of Alaskan
producers. Steady growth in poultry markets will help maintain
fish meal demand. According to one analyst of fish meal markets
(Shepherd pers. comm.), the price outlook for fish meal is for
steady but rising prices in the foreseeable future. With no
significant increases in production anticipated, the market has
been described as "workable". Primary market opportunities
likely will be in the Pacific Northwest although the Far East
could provide some market potential.
Fish Silage
Fish silage is a liquified fish product consisting of
ground raw fish or fish waste in an acid solution. Similar to
fish meal, fish silage is valued primarily for its high protein
content. The production of fish silage does not require the
high cost of drying fish waste which is characteristic of fish
meal production.
With a nutritive content similar to fish meal, the primary
use of fish silage is as an animal feed. Experiments with fish
silage as a feed are limited. One study, however, concluded
that fish silage is not very suitable for poultry feeds but
showed favorable results with pigs, (Raa and Goldberg 1982) .
The lack of local markets is a severe limitation to the
marketing potential of fish silage. Because of the high liquid
content, fish silage is four or five times as bulky as fish meal
per unit of protein content. Consequently, costs to transport
fish silage to markets are substantial. One study (Brown and
Caldwell 1983) recently concluded that fish silage could not be
economically transported over approximately 260 miles (400
kilometers) even under conditions of 100 percent plant capacity
utilization.
61
-------
In addition to high transport costs, the marketing of fish
silage faces other barriers. It is not a well known commodity
to potential users; as a result, a considerable marketing effort
would be required to familiarize users with the potential
advantages of the product. Also, other characteristics of the
product, such as storage requirements and odor problems, would
likely impede market acceptance.
Chitin
Chitin, and its derivative, chitosan, is a natural polymer
derived from shellfish wastes. The production of chitin is
currently in the pilot plant stage of development. The variety
of potential applications of chitin, however, makes commercial
production possible in the near future.
One of the most promising uses of chitin is as a coagulant.
Chitin has been used in Japan in the coagulation of sludge in
sewage treatment plants. Chitin is used as a less expensive
substitute for alum. Other potential coagulant uses include
application to food wastes to produce a feed product (Brown and
Caldwell 1983).
Other promising uses of chitin and chitosan include film
forming, animal feed, metals removal at waste treatment plants,
cement production, and as a waterproofing agent. Industries
which potentially could use chitin products include the medical,
manufacturing, food processing, agriculture, and waste treatment
industries.
In the past, chitin production was assumed to be dependent
on "fresh shells"; recent efforts at a pilot plant in Oregon,
however, have produced high quality chitosan using dried,
coarse-ground crabshell meal shipped from Kodiak, Alaska (Brown
and Caldwell 1983) . This development has important market
implications to the use of Alaskan shells for chitin since high
construction costs, shipping costs (for chemicals needed to
process chitin), and plant operating costs effectively preclude
development of a chitin plant in Alaska at this time.
Other Fish By-Products
Other potential products from seafood processing wastes
include hydrolyzed fish products, fish protein concentrates, pet
food, insulin, pearl essence, and fish glue. Markets for
insulin and pearl essence produced from seafood wastes are
currently small, and because waste reduction would be minimal,
reuse opportunities are not considered significant. For fish
glue production, a once healthy industry has declined in recent
years with the advent of new adhesives, many of which provide
desirable characteristics that are lacking in liquid fish glue.
62
-------
Consequently, the fish glue industry is no longer considered an
economically important industry (Windsor and Barlow 1981).
Hydrolyzed fish products are powdery fish protein sub-
stances with variable concentrations of available protein.
Certain hydrolyzed fish protein products are of considerable
interest because of their water solubility. Although hydrolyzed
fish products have been manufactured from all types of fish,
production from lean fish is generally desirable.
Most commercial interest in hydrolyzed fish products is as
a milk substitute. Fish protein can be used as a less expensive
substitute to milk protein from animals for feeding their young.
Hydrolyzed fish products also may be used in pet foods.
In contrast to hydrolyzed fish products, fish protein
concentrate (FPC) is produced for human consumption. Extracted
by a chemical process to produce a white, odorless substance,
FPC is generally over 90 percent protein and is used as a food
additive. Although certain restriction to its use exist in the
U.S., a number of products containing FPC have been made experi-
mentally, including staples such as bread, pasta, breakfast
cereals, and dietetic foods. Significant potential market
opportunities exist in less developed countries where diets are
typically protein deficient. Production of FPC from seafood
processing wastes appears best suited for manufacturing in
conjunction with a waste reduction or chitin production plant.
Constraints on Implementation
When evaluating the alternatives it is necessary to consi-
der special circumstances imposed by the remoteness of Akutan.
The island's distance from centers of commerce adds several
constraints to industrial activities that are not always present
in the lower 48 states. These constraints include:
o lack of ground for facilities.
o distance from any market except for possible bait,
o lack of energy source,
o cold, wet weather conditions,
o limited fresh water supply,
o high cost for materials,
o lack of skilled personnel,
o high turnover rate for personnel,
o high labor costs.
63
-------
The harbor is bounded by steep hills on the majority of its
perimeter. The valley at the head of the harbor offers some
room for expansion. The Native Corporation and State of Alaska
own a large percentage of the valley lands. The Trident facil-
ity was constructed partly on fill and will have extra space
available when use of the drying racks is discontinued (Cloe
pers. comm.). Other areas which may be available are the old
whaling station, a storage area, and the two coves at the mouth
of the harbor.
Akutan Island is located in a very remote and unpopulated
area. Markets for seafood by-products are significant distances
away, escalating transportation costs to and from the island.
The potential market for bait products does exist due to the
proximity of the fishing grounds.
Energy production is currently limited to diesel generators
and a small hydroelectric facility serving the City of Akutan.
Additional hydroelectric power is restricted to small plants
that could utilize the streams around the harbor. This power
potential is very small and is not dependable during summer
months. Essentially all energy needs must be met by imported
fuel and local generation.
Weather conditions are cold and wet almost year-round.
This complicates processes that are temperature-dependent such
as digestion. Long winter nights and snow also add to the
difficulties.
Freshwater inflow to Akutan Harbor from all tributary
streams was estimated in June 1983 as 64 cfs and, while not
quantified during the September investigation, was judged by
observation to be less at that time. This flux of fresh water
is divided between several small streams around the harbor. The
largest stream is at the head of the harbor and was discharging
27 cfs in June. The groundwater resources of the island are not
known but are not expected to be large based on island size and
topography.
The high cost of materials of Akutan Harbor reflects the
distance from major manufacturing and distribution centers.
Items must be obtained at Dutch Harbor, Cold Bay, Anchorage or
from the lower 4 8 and shipped by air or sea to Akutan at con-
siderable expense. Delays in forwarding by commercial carriers
are common. Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs
are directly increased by the cost of materials and by the need
to provide extra reliability, redundancy, and replacement parts
on-site.
Many of the above factors contribute to difficult labor
conditions for both employer and employee. Lack of normal urban
culture, restrictive weather, confined working and living areas,
and other factors lead to high turnover. The local population
is small and has not been significantly employed by the
64
-------
processors in the past. Personnel are mainly recruited from
population centers elsewhere in Alaska or in Seattle and
transported to the harbor. A typical employment contract lasts
4-6 months, which results in a continual flux in the force.
Training is an ongoing process and the availability of skilled
labor is limited by high turnover. Room and board must also be
provided by the processors.
Regulatory Constraints
Federal and state regulations have been developed which
apply to the disposal of seafood wastes in Alaska. At Akutan
Harbor, seafood wastes could be discharged into the marine
environment, discharged as solid waste into a sanitary landfill,
or incinerated. Accordingly, disposal regulations differ for
each method; however, in general, state regulations are supple-
mental to federal regulations. Local regulations have not been
established at Akutan Harbor.
Discharges of seafood wastes into the marine environment
are regulated by the Clean Water Act, 1972 (PL 92-500) , the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1980 (PL
96-487), and effluent guidelines and standards for canned and
preserved seafood (EPA 1980a). Prior to the disposal of seafood
and other waste products into waters of the United States a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
must be obtained from EPA. Issuance of the permit for
discharges into the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the
oceans is dependent upon Ocean Discharge Criteria (EPA 1980b),
as authorized by Section 403 of the Clean Water Act. The
criteria are based on the determination of unreasonable
degradation, which is defined as:
" (1) Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability of the biological community within
the area of discharge and surrounding biological communities,
"(2) Threat to human health through direct exposure to
pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms,
or
"(3) Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific, or
economic values, which is unreasonable in relation to the
benefit derived from the discharge."
Additionally, NPDES permit conditions must be written to meet
water quality standards of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act
and state water quality standards (EPA 1983) . Specific effluent
guidelines for seafood waste discharges into remote waters of
Alaska are such that "no pollutants may be discharged which
exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension (EPA 1980b).
65
-------
Although a permit is not required by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Akutan Island (including the marine waters
down to mean high water) is part of the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980) and is managed to conserve fish and wildlife species in
their natural diversity, as well as the marine resources upon
which they rely (Wennekens pers. comm.).
State wastewater regulations (18 AAC 72) and water quality
criteria (18 AAC 70) have been developed by the Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The criteria as they
apply to seafood waste disposal in remote areas are as follows:
1) seafood wastes should not accumulate on the seafloor,
shoreline, or on the surface of water;
2) discharge should not make the water unsafe or unfit for
use;
3) a sheen on the water should not be visible;
4) mean fecal coliform bacteria counts shall not exceed 20
FC/100 ml and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall
exceed 40 FC/100 ml;
5) dissolved oxygen shall be greater than or equal to 5
mg/1;
6) pH shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5 and
shall not vary more than 0.5 pH units from natural conditions;
7) increases in weekly average temperatures shall not
cause weekly average temperatures to increase more than 1°C,
maximum rate of temperature change shall not exceed 0.5°C/hr,
and the normal daily temperature cycle shall not be altered in
amplitude or cycle (ADEC 1983a; Soderlund pers. comm.).
Additional conditions may be added to the state permit.
Conditions that are routinely applied to state permits are as
follows:
1) screened seafood waste should be discharged below the
water surface and at least 0.8 km (0.5 mile) offshore in water
27 meters (90 ft) deep, or;
2) seafood waste shall be ground to a maximum size of 1.27
cm (0.5 inch) in any diameter and discharged 3 meters (10 feet)
below the elevation of mean lower low water and 122 meters (400
feet) from mean high water;
3) if seafood wastes are not disposed of by reduction or
by screening and transporting offshore by barge, then a dive
survey of the waste pile may be required at least once per year.
This assumes an accumulation of 45 processing days;
66
-------
4) a mixing zone may be designated around the outfall
(Howe pers. comm.).
The ADEC requires that private landfills or municipal waste
sites must obtain an additional permit prior to the reception of
seafood wastes (Howe pers. comm.). The application process for
this permit is often time consuming and not always successful.
A general requirement for the disposal of seafood wastes is that
waste material must be stored in "a place and manner that
prevents wildlife attraction or access" and that the disposal
facility must "keep the premises free of solid waste that may
attract disease vectors or create other health hazards" (ADEC
1983b).
The ADEC has developed a State Implementation Plan that has
been approved by EPA as meeting the objectives of the Clean Air
Act and the National Air Quality Standards. Air quality control
regulations in Alaska (18 AAC 50) are such that emissions from
seafood waste incineration may not reduce visibility by 20
percent, and particulates may not exceed 0.5 grain (Howe pers.
comm.). It is likely that a permit would be required to incin-
erate seafood wastes at Akutan Harbor. Additional regulations
would include the positioning of the incineration plant so that
the population center would not be affected by ashfall and odor.
67
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
Chapter 5
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been presented that address the
fate of seafood processing wastes at Akutan Harbor. The impacts
of these alternatives are discussed below, grouped into several
categories of concern: water and sediment quality, biological
community, beneficial uses • of the harbor, City of Akutan, and
seafood processing industry. The categorical impacts are
integrated in a summary section at the end of Chapter 1.
Water and Sediment Quality Impacts
This section discusses the types of impacts that will
result from implementation of the alternatives. The impacts of
permitting Trident to resume grinding and discharging through
the existing outfall are also discussed in this section.
Benthic Accumulations
Alternatives that do not remove the solid wastes from the
marine environment (no treatment, grinding with outfall dis-
charge, outer harbor outfall, barging, and aerobic digestion and
discharge), will result in accumulations of solid wastes on
bottom sediments. Conversion of shellfish waste to chitin,
while removing crab waste, will not alleviate fish waste accumu-
lations .
The location and amount of accumulation will differ between
alternatives. No treatment will decrease the rate of decomposi-
tion and dispersion, yielding larger accumulations of larger
particles near the outfalls. Grinding with outfall discharge
will yield a persistent accumulation near existing outfalls that
will continue to expand to some degree. The outer harbor
outfall discharge alternative will relocate the waste piles by
piping the material to the mouth of the harbor. Based on
observed circulations in the harbor, dispersion is not likely to
occur until the wastes are piped beyond Akutan Point. Aerobic
digestion will reduce the quantity of solid wastes which, in
•turn, reduces the benthic accumulation near the discharges.
Barging to deeper water or the open ocean may result in
some accumulations on the ocean bed. However, water currents
will disperse the settling material, and the solids will be
spread over a large area at reduced thicknesses of accumulation.
Thin layers that do not smother benthos will aid in aerobic
69
-------
decomposition and may provide a food source to scavengers,
deposit feeders, and other detritavores.
The chitin alternative would significantly reduce accumu-
lations near floating shellfish processors but would have little
effect on the Trident pile, which is predominantly composed of
fish.
Accumulations of seafood wastes will change the physical
character of the benthic environment. A blanket of organic
wastes will cover the bottom and alter its texture, topography,
structure, and chemical composition. As the wastes decompose,
oxygen will be consumed and anoxic conditions will rapidly
develop within the wa'ste layer. Hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and
methane concentrations will increase as decomposition continues
in the anoxic layer. The rate of anaerobic decomposition is
much less than aerobic decomposition, extending the duration of
coverage if an anoxic state develops.
The incineration alternative would produce a significant
quantity of ash. Concentrated ocean dumping of the ash may
result in accumulations on the bottom. The ash would be inor-
ganic, and decomposition will not occur. Texture and chemical
changes in bottom sediments may result from an ash coverage.
Alternatives that require solids separation may still
result in comparatively minor waste accumulations on the bottom.
Some fine solids are not removed by the screening process and
will settle out and add to sediment depositions. The area
receiving these small particles will be large due to the signif-
icant dispersion and long settling times that these solids will
have. It is reasonable to assume that aerobic conditions will
remain and that decomposition will be rapid. Accumulation
impacts from these alternatives are expected to be minimal.
Projections for Trident Waste Pile
The major impact of seafood waste discharge into Akutan
Harbor detected by the June and September 1983 field investiga-
tions was the accumulation of seafood waste on the bottom of the
harbor and the associated local impacts on the benthic communi-
ty-
One objective of this Environmental Assessment is to
evaluate the impacts of continued operation of floating proces-
sors and resumption of operations at the Trident plant on harbor
bottom conditions. Data are generally lacking, however, upon
which to base accurate estimates of accumulation volumes and
affected bottom areas. Some . information is available from a
March 1983 dive survey of the Trident waste pile, and this is
used to try to bracket the range of impact likely if Trident
were to resume operation using grinding and discharge through
the existing outfall.
70
-------
The Trident waste pile is also the largest located on the
Harbor bottom by the June investigations. The large capacity of
the Trident plant compared to the floating processors currently
using the harbor and the different character of the discharge
(mostly cod waste from Trident vs. crab waste for floating
processors) focuses greater interest in the Trident waste pile.
Caution must be emphasized in interpreting the results of
this computation. Full knowledge of the processes involved and
the contributing variables does not exist. The Evans Research
Group data represents only one data point on which to base the
computation, and these data are incomplete for our purposes. No
verification is possible due to the limited knowledge of the
waste pile's behavior.
A range of projections has been developed to estimate
impacts of resumption of waste discharge from the Trident
outfall. The estimates are based on a computation of the pile
volume from March 1983 dive surveys compared to waste volumes
between June 1982 and March 1983 computed from processing
records. This comparison is expected to indicate that the
volume present in March 1983 was less than the volume of waste
discharged, and that the difference would represent decomposi-
tion and compression. (Dispersion of solids is judged very
unlikely based on video observations of the pile edge.)
The nature of the uncertainties in the data indicates that
projections bracketing the probable impact can be obtained by
assuming a second case with a slower decay rate. This would, in
effect, incorporate an assumption that a considerable volume of
the discharged waste has sloughed into deeper waters beyond the
reach of the divers.
The following sections discuss the detailed assumptions and
computations used in developing the estimates.
Estimation of Waste Decay and Compression Rate. The
procedure for estimating the waste decay rate involves making
assumptions, gathering input data, and developing decay rela-
tionships. Assumptions used in this determination are:
o no dispersion of solids.
o specific gravity of waste that is slightly greater than
seawater: taken as 1.06.
o exponential decay and compression rate.
The first assumption is based on circulation patterns and waste
piles observed during the Akutan water quality investigations.
The low current velocities, persistence of discrete waste piles
and video images which indicate sharply defined edges of the
waste piles support this no dispersion assumption. The second
assumption is based on Brown and Caldwell (1983), who estimated
71
-------
3
crab and finfish waste densities of 1.2 and 1.06 gm/cm , respec-
tively. The third assumption represents that the pile will
decay and compress at a rate that is directly proportionate to
the pile volume. This yields an exponential decay rate.
The waste discharged from the Trident processing plant has
been estimated from Trident purchasing records and body weight
ratios from Kizevetter (1971) . The cod wastes at Trident
consist mainly of the head, backbone, and viscera. Table 10
gives the weight ratios of these parts.
Based on these data, 53 percent of the raw weight (head,
viscera, and vertebrae) would have been discharged as solid
waste. It is estimated that 6,730 metric tons of cod waste was
discharged between June 1, 1982 and March 1, 1983. The total
original volume of this waste at a specific gravity of 1.06
would be about 6,350 cubic meters.
Evans Research Group, Inc. conducted an investigation on
March 1, 1983 that included dive studies to estimate the waste
accumulations. Based on their depth contour map, a waste volume
of approximately 3,400 cubic meters is calculated to have
existed near the outfall in a very steep-sided conical pile.
This value is approximate since the contour lines are incomplete
for areas too deep for diver observation.
Evans also reported that 43,904 square meters were covered
with cod waste. Of this area, the conical waste pile covered
about 12 percent of "the total area. A covering of 1 inch (2.54
cm) for the remaining area would add approximately 1,000 cubic
meters to the total waste volume. Therefore, assuming a minimum
of 1 inch cover, the waste volume on March 1, 1983 is estimated
at 4,400 cubic meters.
The exponential decay rate is expressed as follows:
X = XQ e~kt
Where: X = remaining volume after decay
X = original volume
k° = decay constant
t = time
The assumptions that no waste pile existed in June 1982,
that 6,3 50 cubic meters of waste had been discharged and that
4,400 cubic meters remained as of March 1, 1983 allowed solution
of the equation to yield the following decay constants:
k = 0.136 per month (base e)
k = 0.005 per day (base e)
Muellenhoff (1976) determined an anaerobic decay constant of
0.015 - 0.020 per day for marine benthic sludge deposits, three
-------
Table 10. Body Weight Ratios for Cod*
PERCENT OF TOTAL
BODY WEIGHT
BERING SEA
BODY PART AUG - OCT
Head 15.3 - 29.6
Fins and Tail 2.5 - 9.2
Viscera 10.4 - 28.3
of which liver 3.2 - 6.0
Trunk 43.2 - 53.4
Vertebrae 6.0 - 15.4
Flesh Without Skin 38.7 - 44.8
* Source: Kizevetter 1971
AVERAGE
PERCENT
22.5
5.9
19.4
4.6
48.3
10.7
41.8
73
-------
to four times larger than determined for Akutan (0.005 per day).
However, the decay process is proportional to temperature and,
adjusting for the low temperatures at Akutan (5 C) , the cal-
culated Akutan decay constant is just outside of the minimum of
Muellenhoff's range. This represents a best case scenario decay
rate, i.e., leaving 70 percent of the total discharge still in
place on 1 March 1983. If the waste volume is in reality larger
than the estimated 4,400 cubic meters, a smaller decay constant
would be appropriate. The worst case scenario would be zero
decay; the continual waste addition would result in a continual
growth of the pile. Since zero decay is unrealistic, a more
reasonable worst case scenario is described by 90 percent of the
total discharge still in place on 1 March 1983 (i.e., 5,715
cubic meters waste). This results in a calculated decay
constant of .074 per month, or 0,0025 per day (base e).
The equation was tested to determine the sensitivity of the
results to changes in assumptions. The sensitivity analysis
(Table 11) shows: (1) underestimating dispersion and pile size
results in a faster decay rate, and (2) underestimating waste
specific gravity and initial waste input results in a slower
decay rate. Parameters were varied ±10 percent (dispersion in-
creased from 0 to 10 percent, and specific gravity ±5 percent)
and resulted in decay constants that are within the range
presented in the best and worst case scenarios. When parameters
were varied jointly in complementary fashion, changes in the
decay constant are similar to the worst case scenario. There-
fore, the scenarios are felt to encompass the likely range of
decay constant.
Benthic Areal Coverage. With this equation, it is possible
to project how the Trident waste pile would grow if the plant
resumed discharges through its existing outfall. The decay rate
has been found to vary depending on the assumptions used to
substitute for missing data that describe the pile on March 1,
1983. Two decay rate scenarios (best case k = 0.136, and worst
case k = 0.074) are used in the following determination. Crab
wastes were assumed to decay much slower at a decay constant
half that of cod.
Other assumptions that have been made involve processing
activity, pile shape, and pile growth.
For computation purposes, it is assumed that cod would be
processed year-round at plant capacity (600,000 pounds or 272
metric tons processing per day), crab processing would equal
September 1982 production (12,500 pounds or 5.6 metric tons per
processing day) for the September-April period, salmon
processing would equal August and September 1982 production
(5,000 pounds or 2.3 metric tons per processing day) for the
May-August period, and herring processing would equal August and
September 1982 production (50,000 pounds or 23 metric tons per
processing day) for the August-September period. Decay rates
74
-------
Table 11. Sensitivity Analysis
-Jcii
Equation Form: X = X e
k = 0.136 per month Base e
k = 0.005 per day base e
PARAMETER
CHANGE
%
CHANGE IN k
ORIGINAL VALUE
k (month"''')
k (day*
Dispersion
frcm 0
to 10%
- 19
0
.110
.0037
Specific Gravity
+
5%
7
1.06
.146
.0049
Specific Gravity
-
5%
- 9
1.06
.124
.0041
Waste Quality
+
10%
18
.53
.160
.0053
Waste Quality
-
10%
- 18
.53
.112
.0037
Pile Volume
+
10%
- 17
4400
.113
.0038
Pile Volume
-
10%
21
4400
.164
.0055
Combination
10% Dispersion, -10%
waste,
+ 10% Pile Volume
- 52
-
.065
.0022
Canbination
+10% Waste,
, -10% Pile
Volume
40
-
.190
.0063
-------
were based on the determined decay constant discussed
previously. Fifteen processing days per month were also
assumed.
The pile shape on March 1, 1983 was only partially de-
scribed by Evans Research Group (1983), and showed a cone-
shaped pile near the discharge. Unfortunately, the deep-water
edge of the cone was undefined. A significant area (approxi-
mately 9 acres) was covered with wastes in addition to the acre
probably covered by the main, cone-shaped pile. For modeling
purposes, two representations of the pile are made, differing in
the relationship between waste volume and bottom coverage. The
first uses a fraction of a straight-edged cone, the second an
exponential decline in depth of waste deposits, which is then
mathematically integrated and revolved. Both models transform
the bottom area into a circle with maximum depth linearly
proportional to circle radius.
The first model represents a waste pile that is very
cohesive and does not readily slump and spread over the bottom.
The second model represents a waste pile that tends to have a
high peak, but the surrounding wastes decrease in depth rapidly
and spread out on the bottom. Model results are presented for
the first ten years in Table 12. Ranges result from varying the
decay constant between 0.136 and 0.074. A significant dif-
ference in areal coverage occurs between the two models. The
worst case decay rate (0.074) and the exponential model yield
depths of deposit that exceed water depth at the current outfall
site after three years.
The cone fraction model, using either decay rate, indicates
steady state will be reached after four years. Steady state
occurs when the quantity that decays in the large pile is equal
to the input volume. The best case decay constant and the
exponential model yield pile depths that reach a constant height
of 23 meters and areal extent of 93 acres, also after four
years.
Interpreting the results in Table 12 leads to several
conclusions:
1. Additional observations on depths of waste are needed to
refine the model calculations, if this alternative is
permitted.
2. Significant waste accumulations are predicted even under
best decay rates and pile characteristics.
3. Both models predict steady state results in about five
years.
Prior to applying these conclusions to the waste pile, one
must be reminded that many major assumptions have been made and
that the data set is very limited. The models are best used as
guides to what might happen if maximum production occurs.
Allowing for these limitations, it is possible to predict that:
76
-------
Table 12. Predicted Maximum Depth and Areal Coverage after 10 Years Discharge
CONE FRACTION MODEL
YEAR
depth
area
(acres)
1
10.3-11.4
19-23
2
10.9-12.8
21-29
3
11.0-13.3
21-31
4
11.0-13.5
21-32
5
11.1-13.6
22-33
6
11.1-13.6
22-33
7
11.1-13.6
22-33
8
11.1-13.6
22-33
9
11.1-13.6
22-33
10
11.1-13.6
22-33
Discharge initiated in January; December values presented.
EXPONENTIAL DEPTH MODEL
depth
&)
area
(acres)
18.3-25.32
59-1132
21.9-35.82
84-2262
22.8-40.02
91-2822
23.0-42.92
93-3112
23.0-43.32
93-3242
23.0-43.32
93-3302
23.0-43.32
93-3302
23.0-43.32
93-3302
23.0-43.32
93-3302
23.0-43.32
93-3302
2
Upper range depths and related areas exceed the current depth of the outfall and do not accurately
represent the Trident waste pile.
-------
1. Significant waste accumulations will result from seafood
processing waste discharges in Akutan Harbor.
2. Except for a no decay situation, a steady state waste
volume will result.
3. A no decay situation would result in an ever increasing
waste accumulation, but the incremental increase will be
less noticeable as the volume of accumulating material
becomes proportionally greater.
4. The steady state waste volume may fluctuate in shape
which would vary the areal coverage.
Water Quality Impacts from Discharge
All alternatives will continue to discharge the liquid
waste stream into the inner harbor. This liquid waste stream
has not been analyzed for the existing discharges to Akutan
Harbor. Composition of the waste stream will vary depending on
the handling of the waste prior to discharge. Average waste
loadings from the Alaskan whole crab and sections and fish meal
processing industry subcategories have been estimated by EPA
(1981) and Edward C. Jordan Co. (1979). Table 13 presents these
loads. Data reported in Table 13 are applicable only to alter-
natives that include screening. No estimates are given for the
Alaskan bottomfish subcategory because of insufficient data.
Alternatives that require screening will improve receiving
water quality by reducing total suspended solids, BOD, and oil
and grease concentrations (Edward C. Jordan 1979; EPA 1974).
Grinding will solubilize part of the waste and release body
liquids contained in the larger waste pieces; therefore, the no
treatment alternative may result in lower TSS, dissolved BOD,
and oil and grease concentrations than the grinding and
discharge alternative. Aerobic digestion and discharge will
probably reduce the dissolved BOD and TSS concentrations prior
to discharge.
Alternatives that result in accumulations around the
discharge (no treatment, grinding with outfall discharge,
possibly outer harbor discharge, and probably aerobic
digestion), and that bury the outfall result in the discharge of
solid and liquid waste through the overlying wastes. This
discharge will mix with the interstitial waters of the waste
pile, that, under anoxic conditions, will have significant
dissolved concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and
possibly methane. This will degrade the quality of the effluent
that eventually enters the water column, but may improve
decomposition rate of the pile.
Quantification of the impacts of discharging effluent
through a decomposing waste pile are difficult to estimate.
78
-------
Table 13. Waste Loads for Seafood Processing Subcategories1
vo
CATEGORY
Alaska whole crab
and sections
Whole fish meal
Hand butchered salmon
Non-Alaskan
bottanfish, manual
Non-Alaskan
bottanfish, mechanized
FLOW
1/kkg
20,000
21,000
16,400
17,400
3,420
5,220
3,980
6,210
12,800
14,900
BCD
kg/kkg
6.14
3.08 -
4.46
2.52
3.17
13.6
TSS
kg/kkg
1.86 -
3.94
1.16 -
3.43
0.787 -
1.15
1.30 -
1.69
8.77 -
8.86
O&G
kg/kkg
0.452 -
0.581
0.623 -
1.02
0.146 -
0.185
0.378 -
0.604
2.75 -
3.32
Source: EPA 1981 and Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. 1979; ranges are given when data differ between sources or
not given by both sources.
-------
Factors which would need to be considered include: waste depth,
discharge frequency and duration, discharge volume, interstitial
volume, decomposition rate and processes, and waste characteris-
tics. Qualitatively, the potential for effluent of very low
quality exists when effluent must flow through an anaerobic
waste pile. A water quality impact would be greatest when
discharge commences after a period of no discharge.
Discharges that will not flow through waste piles {barging,
landfill, fish meal, chitin, other by-products, and incin-
eration) include a screening step; waste loads, therefore,
should approximate those given in Table 13. Loads from Alaska
bottomfish processing are not known and are approximated by
annual non-Alaskan bottomfish loads. Actual waste loads from
Akutan processors have not been determined. The BOD, TSS, and
oil and grease estimated loadings are presented in Table 14.
The BOD loading (after screening) from a typical daily
wastewater discharge during crab and bottomfish processing from
a mean of 7.4 crab processors and Trident's facility would be
approximately 4 metric tons. With a dissolved oxygen
concentration of 9 mg/1 in the receiving waters, 450 million
liters (450,000 cubic meters) of harbor water would be needed to
meet this oxygen demand. This is approximately 0.06 percent of
the mean volume of the harbor. This represents a theoretical
volume of water that becomes anoxic because of the discharge.
In practice, however, the water mass is not static or unmixed,
so the volume of water impacted by the discharge is greater, and
the magnitude of oxygen depletion is proportionately less.
Based on a minimum residence time of 5 days and a minimum
acceptable oxygen concentration of 5 mg/1, a minimum of 0.7
percent of the harbor volume is needed to meet the oxygen
demand. In the nearfield, a minimum of 1:75 dilution is needed
to prevent oxygen concentration in the receiving water from
decreasing to below 5 mg/1 (based on average effluent BOD of 300
mg/1).
Water Quality Impacts from Benthic Accumulations
No treatment, grinding with outfall discharge, outer harbor
outfall discharge, aerobic digestion, and barging alternatives
will most likely result in benthic accumulations of waste. As
these wastes decompose, they exert an oxygen demand on the
overlying waters that may depress the nearfield dissolved oxygen
concentration. Anaerobic decomposition resulting in hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia, and methane production may also cause a flux
of these compounds into the water column. The impact of these
processes on the water column quality of Akutan Harbor was not
evident during the field investigations. Therefore, impacts on
water column quality from benthic accumulations are not likely
to be significant.
80
-------
Table 14. Estimated Annual Loadings of BOD, TSS, and Oil
and Grease for Akutan Harbor for Screened Alternatives
CONTRIBUTOR
7.4 crab processors1
@ 2,000 metric tons each
4 crab processors
§ 1,500 metric tons each
272 metric tons bottom-
3
fish x 180 days
BOD
metric
tons
94
37
155
TSS
metric
tons
28-52
11-24
64-83'
OIL &
GREASE
metric
tons
6-8
3
19-30*
1978-1982 Average number of shellfish processors and production,
1982 Number of shellfish processors and production.
Maximum production at previous Trident facility assuming 180
days production.
Based on manual non-Alaskan bottomfish.
81
-------
Additional Wastewater Discharges
Alternatives that expand processing activities (fish meal,
chitin/chitosan, other by-products, and incineration) will also
create an additional wastewater used for cleaning, cooling, and
processing. Pollutants from these discharges include BOD, TSS,
heat, and oil and grease. Proper plant design will minimize
these pollutants and decrease potential water quality impacts.
The fish meal alternative is a seafood processing subcategory;
waste loading is estimated in Table 13. A whole fish meal
facility that would process a single day's waste from the
Trident facility (144 metric tons) would discharge a BOD of
approximately 0.45-0.65 metric tons. This would increase the
daily wastewater loading presented earlier by 10-15 percent.
The landfill alternative has the potential for leachate and
erosion problems. Precipitation may percolate through the
landfill, dissolving and absorbing waste-related compounds.
This flow could percolate into nearby streams or directly into
the marine environment. The impact on these water bodies will
depend on the soils characteristics, landfill design, quantity
and quality of leachate, points of discharge, and resulting
mixing and dispersion. A reduction in dissolved oxygen and
possible low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may be particu-
larly noticeable in the small local streams. Increased erosion
will result from the landfill activities, causing sedimentation
in the nearby streams.
Waste Disposal Impacts on Biological Communities
Marine Communities
Disposal of seafood wastes into Akutan Harbor through
either direct discharge without treatment or with grinding and
outfall discharge would have its greatest impact on less mobile
benthic organisms such as polychaetes and bivalves. Benthic
organisms within the area of waste accumulation would be sub-
jected to anaerobic conditions and smothering effects, as well
as changes in TOC content, and TSS, dissolved hydrogen sulfide,
and ammonia. Direct discharge without treatment would have a
greater effect on the biota because of the slower decay and
greater accumulation rate of the untreated waste.
The June and September 1983 field surveys at Akutan Harbor
provide evidence for changes in the benthic community associated
with seafood waste discharges under current practices. It was
evident that persistent waste piles on the harbor floor had
killed biota beneath them (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983).
Grab samples from an old waste pile off the Akutan Village dock,
which had received little waste during the past 5 years, in-
dicated that the effect of crab waste piles is persistent. The
biological community associated with this waste pile contained
species approximately similar to those found in background
82
-------
locations, although several major differences were apparent.
Gastropods were not observed at the old waste pile, whereas the
abundance of Echiuris echiuris, especially juveniles, and rare
species (found only once at one station) was greater at the old
waste pile. The abundance of E. echiuris is indicative of large
quantities of organic detritus in the water column.
Differences in the benthic community were also observed
near the perimeter of the waste piles. The perimeter bottom
consisted of a thin layer of aerobic sediment over anoxic muds.
Species richness in the aerobic layer was generally lower than
at background locations and higher than at the waste pile
(Table 15) . One of the samples at the perimeter was dominated
by the polychaete, Capitella sp. A, a species indicative of high
organic pollution. Overall abundance of organisms tended to be
lower at the perimeter, although visual observations with the
underwater video camera (UVC) indicated an abundance of Tanner
crab (C. bairdi) at the waste perimeter compared to the lack of
crabs on the waste pile and lower number of crabs at background
locations. Apparently, the crabs were attracted to the waste
pile perimeter for food, but avoided the anoxic condition of the
pile itself.
The distance at which an impact from seafood waste dis-
charges can be detected in Akutan Harbor is unclear. Evidence
from the June and September 1983 field surveys indicates a
possible long distance effect caused by the discharge plume.
Generally, high species diversity indicates a healthy
environment. In June, an area of unusually low species
diversity was detected southwest of the Trident outfall.
Modelled water current and flushing patterns indicate that east
winds, which are the major force driving circulation in the
inner harbor, may cause the discharge plume to flow in a
southwesterly direction (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983). Thus,
the lower species diversity of this inner harbor community may
have been a result of the discharge plume. It is not known
whether this community was responding to settling solids, high
BOD, or dissolved sulfide or ammonia in the plume. Samples from
the September survey indicate this community may be recovering,
possibly as a result of the cessation of waste discharge from
the Trident outfall in June. A greater number of species,
including species represented only by juveniles, were observed
in this community in September.
The effect of direct discharge of seafood waste without
treatment, or with grinding, on most fishes, birds, and marine
mammals is likely to be less severe than to benthic organisms.
Most fishes, birds, and mammals will probably avoid areas that
may cause harm. Furthermore, the relatively small change in the
concentration of hydrogen sulfide, un-ionized ammonia, and
dissolved oxygen observed in the water near the waste pile
(Jones & Stokes Associates 1983) suggests that most fishes
should not be significantly affected by water quality changes.
Seagulls and other scavengers may be attracted to recent dis-
charges that rise to the water surface, but are likely to be
83
-------
Table 15. Number of Benthic Species and Codcminant Species at Akutan Harbor and Akutan Bay
AREA
Inner harbor, June'
(southwest of Trident outfall)
Inner harbor, September'
{southwest of Trident outfall
Inner harbor' (background)
Trident waste pile'
Waste pile perimeter'
Old waste pile'
2
Outer harbor
3
Akutan Bay
NUMBER OF
SAMPLING
STATIONS
2-
13
5
6
5
9
10
MEAN (RANGE)
OF SPECIES
NUMBER/STATICN
6 (4-7|
17 (13-201
18 (13-25)
2 (1-5)
10 (3-17)
15 (12-18)
23 (10-31)
29 (23-43)
CCDOilNAOT SPECIES
Boccardia/Scalibre^na
Ninoe/Boccandia/Axinopsida/Prionoapio/
Macana rooosta/Scalibregma
Boccardia/Macana ncesta/Nlnoe/Prionospio/
Axinopsida/I-donTce/Scalibregma
Boccardia/Axinopaida
Boccardia/Scalibrecyna/Ca^itella/Maccnia moesta/
EchiurlsTPricnospio/Nereis zonata
Boccardia/Echlurls/Prionospio/Scal ibreqma/Ninoe
Mactma moesta/Axinopsida/Ninoe/Prionospio/Euclymene/
Travisia/BoccattHa/Medicmastus
Axinopsida/Maccma moesta/Medianastus/Prionospio/
Nuculana7Harpinia/Ninoe
Sieved with 1-nm mesh screen
2 Five of nine samples sieved with 0.5m mesh screen (Nematodes in fine 10.5 m] portion)
^ Sieved with 0.5-nrn mesh screen (Nematodes in fine [0.5 ran) portion)
Source: Jones & Stokes Associates 1983
-------
repelled by any anoxic wastes that may surface during the
discharging of wastes. Marine mammals may visit the waste pile
on occasion, but are not likely to be adversely affected.
The major impact of nearshore solid waste discharges to
fishes is likely to be disruption and displacement of juvenile
pink and coho salmon, sand lance (A. hexapterus), daubed shanny
(L. maculatus), and other burrowing fishes. Numerous juvenile
pTnk and coho salmon have been observed in Akutan Harbor (Cray-
ton 1983) and probably feed extensively in the nearshore habi-
tat, although the significance of this habitat to the salmon in
Akutan Harbor is undocumented.
Sand lance, which burrow into the sand during the night,
are abundant in Akutan Harbor (Crayton 1983) and are obviously
displaced by seafood waste accumulations. Sand lance are an
important forage fish for other fishes, birds, and marine
mammals, but it is unlikely that waste accumulations in Akutan
Harbor would be great enough to significantly reduce the popu-
lation of sand lance and affect the predator populations.
Observations of the seafloor with a UVC indicate daubed shanny,
which also burrow into the sand, are notably less abundant near
the waste pile at Akutan Harbor than at background locations.
The effect of discharging seafood wastes directly into the
outer harbor or screening the effluent and barging the solid
waste to a deep water location will depend on the degree of
waste dispersion. Sufficiently dispersed and diluted seafood
waste is likely to increase productivity rather than cause an
anaerobic environment. If the waste is continually deposited in
the same local area, then the adverse effects are likely to
approach those of direct nearshore discharge. Organisms that
could be killed by concentrated deposition of waste in outer
Akutan Harbor or Akutan Bay include numerous bivalve,
crustacean, gastropod, polychaete, and other species. It is
likely that outer harbor discharges will be dispersed better
than nearshore direct discharges and that the overall adverse
effects of outer harbor discharges will be less.
The chitin/chitosan and aerobic digestion alternatives
would remove a portion of the solid waste from the effluent
discharge. The effect of these alternatives on the marine biota
would be similar to those caused by direct discharge with or
without grinding, except that the magnitude of the adverse
effect would be less. The adverse effect of the chitin/chitosan
alternative could be greater than that of the aerobic digestion
alternative because only shellfish wastes would be screened.
The adverse effect of these alternatives could be lessened if
the wastes were distributed over a large area such that the
wastes acted to increase productivity and not cause depositional
stress to benthic organisms.
Several of the discharge alternatives (screening with
barging, landfill, fish meal production, other fish by-product
85
-------
production, incineration) require screening of the waste to
remove most of the solids. The liquid fraction of the waste
that is discharged into the nearshore environment of Akutan
Harbor would result in BOD, TSS, oil and grease, and possibly
heat loading near the outfall. The benthic community near the
liquid fraction outfall could experience some changes in species
composition (depending on the elevation of the outfall above the
seafloor). The effects of this waste stream would be small
compared to effects of direct discharges that include solids.
Although additional waste products would be associated with
the fish meal alternative, the elevated levels of BOD and
temperature in the liquid fraction would not cause a significant
change of effects. The incineration alternative may also create
additional wastes in the liquid fraction, and may cause slightly
greater impacts on the biota than the other alternatives that
require screening. The large quantities of ash created by
incineration could cause significant depositional effects if the
ash were continuously discharged into a local area. The overall
impacts of the landfill, fish meal production, other fish
by-product production, and incineration alternatives on the
marine environment would be less than the direct discharge
alternatives with and without grinding.
Terrestrial, and Freshwater Communities
The landfill alternative would affect the terrestrial
biota. Placement of a seafood waste landfill at the head of
Akutan Harbor could severely affect the fishes living in the two
streams. Numerous pink salmon and fewer coho salmon and Dolly
Varden inhabit the larger stream at the northwest corner of the
harbor. Landfill activities and road construction near or in
this stream could disrupt the fish habitat by increasing sedi-
ment levels in the water and spawning gravel, and possibly by
blocking the migration of salmon and Dolly Varden. Leachates
from the waste may also affect the aquatic organisms if
leachates reach the stream. A landfill at the head of the
harbor would also destroy one of the larger wetland areas near
Akutan Harbor. Placement of a landfill at upland locations
would cause local destruction of the tundra habitat, as well as
a loss of tundra habitat caused by the construction of a road.
Freshwater and marine environments could be affected by
leachates and by the erosion of sediment associated with the
landfill and road construction.
The incineration of seafood waste would probably not cause
significant effects on the terrestrial biota of Akutan Island.
The winds of the Aleutian Island area are generally strong
(average monthly windspeed ranges from approximately 5 to 20
knots per hour [NOAA unpubl.]) and would disperse airborne
emissions over a large area. However, it is possible that a
nearby portion of tundra habitat could be affected by emissions
that are continually directed over the island. Local changes
86
-------
that could occur include a shift in vegetation composition and
possibly a reduction in the abundance in vegetation. Vertebrate
species would probably not be significantly affected.
Impacts on Beneficial Uses of Harbor
Minimal impact on harbor use is anticipated from the
grinding with outfall discharge and deep water discharge alter-
natives. Navigation may need to be restricted above an outfall
pipe and discharge to minimize the risk of anchor damage to the
system.
Increases in harbor traffic will result from all other
alternatives except for aerobic digestion and discharge.
Congestion is not likely to result, although additional docking
and loading/unloading activities may at times cause delays. A
benefit may result if additional traffic decreases shipping
times and adds flexibility in transport planning. Barging and
landfilling will not add this benefit due to the local extent of
their associated traffic.
Aesthetic impacts, including noise and odors, will result
from landfilling, fish meal reduction, aerobic digestion and
discharge, and incineration. Proper system design and location
can minimize these impacts.
The landfill alternative will also restrict future land
usage and restrict activities within the dedicated area. This
will decrease potential future uses of the harbor and associated
benefits.
Impacts on City of Akutan
Continued processing activity in the harbor will maintain
existing adverse impacts on the harbor. These impacts include
occasional oil sheens from boat traffic and tainted clam flesh
(presumably as a result of boat discharges). No new impacts are
anticipated to result from no treatment, grinding with outfall
discharge, and deep water discharge.
Odor impacts could affect the village residents from the
screening and barging, incineration, landfill, aerobic di-
gestion, fish meal production, chitin production, and other
alternatives which involve storing and handling fish processing
wastes. Wind conditions may direct odors to the village under
variable wind conditions depending on the location of the
source. Odors may also affect villagers using the harbor during
recreation and subsistence activities.
A potential for decreased revenue exists if the amount of
processing carried out in the harbor decreases as a result of
alternative implementation. The City collects 50 percent of the
87
-------
state's raw fish tax levied on processors within the harbor
(City of Akutan 1982). Also, some employment opportunities may
be lost with a production decrease. A sales tax also exists but
little or no consumption of Akutan products by the temporal
processing population currently occurs.
Due to the year-round operating nature of the fish meal
alternative, the City may benefit from increased employment
opportunity.
The incineration and barging alternatives offer a possibil-
ity for joint solid waste disposal and ash disposal. The City
is actively pursuing the purchase of an incinerator and may be
able to combine disposal efforts with the processors. Cost
benefits would be possible with this cooperative venture.
The only land possibly suitable for landfill exists at the
head of the harbor and is currently owned by the Native Corpo-
ration. The implementation of the alternative would mean
revenue from the land sale/lease but also would curtail resident
activity, such as hunting, in this area, and in off site areas
affected by topsoil removal.
Impacts on Seafood Processing Industry
The grinding with outfall discharge alternative would have
little impact on the industry. Akutan Harbor would continue to
attract seafood processors, and, if appropriate permits were
issued by EPA, waste disposal via grinding and discharge would
most likely continue.
The no treatment alternative is currently not permitted and
legislative changes would be necessary for its implementation.
The industry could benefit from the lower cost of not owning and
operating grinders, but pipe maintenance could also increase due
to additional clogging.
The industry benefits from the inherent flexibility of
floating processors. These ships can relocate to areas closer
to fishing grounds or to areas that offer better conditions. An
alternative that is specific to Akutan Harbor will be a factor
in a floating processor's decision to locate in the harbor.
Therefore, restrictions placed on Akutan Harbor may cause a flux
in the industry's processing centers. The Trident land-based
facility does not have this flexibility, thus harbor restric-
tions will be a factor in this facility's operating procedures.
Several alternatives require investment with no possibility
of economic return; deep water discharge, barging, landfilling,
aerobic digestion and discharge, and incineration. The added
cost will decrease the profitability of the industry and may
force closure of marginal operations. Increases in consumer
prices of the seafood products may also occur to cover the
88
-------
alternative cost. The requirement of these alternatives will
likely result in an industry reevaluation of other less costly
or even profitable reuse options.
Alternatives that produce a new marketable product such as
fish meal, fish silage, chitin/chitosan, and other fish by-
products will have additional impacts on the industry. The
markets for these new products would require varying degrees of
development. Administrative branches would need to expand to
manage the logistics and other factors relating to producing
these new products. The labor force would also expand to
fulfill the new jobs associated with the alternatives. The
company would also be introducing its name in a new market,
thereby expanding its recognition.
89
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
90
-------
Chapter 6
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
This chapter describes coordination during preparation of
the Environmental Assessment, including contacts with the City
of Akutan and seafood processors operating in Akutan Harbor.
Community Contacts
Contact was made with City of Akutan officials during June
and September field studies. Additional telephone contact was
made with the City's administrative office in Anchorage.
June contacts included a meeting with Mayor Jacob Stepetin
to discuss the water quality surveys and gain information on the
uses of the harbor and their importance to the village. Team
members also attended a planning commission meeting to discuss
the water and sediment sampling work and the city's interest in
acquiring an incinerator for solid waste disposal. Details on
discussions of these meetings are contained in Appendix A to the
Water Quality Analysis Report (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983).
September contacts included discussion with Mayor Stepetin,
who joined the crew of the F/V Karin Lynn for the water quality
and sediment sampling. Team members also met with the City
Council and other citizens in September to discuss the water
quality and sediment surveys, as well as the incinerator acquisi-
tion. Details on these contacts are contained in Appendix A to
this document.
Processor Contacts
Contact was made with all processors that were present in
Akutan Harbor in June 1983. This included Trident Seafoods, the
M/V Deep Sea, and the M/V Western Sea. Summaries of these
meetings are reported in Appendix A to the Water Quality Analy-
sis Report (Jones & Stokes Associates 1983).
Subsequent contact was made with four processors who
operate in Akutan or Dutch Harbor to discuss the constraints,
problems, costs and other factors bearing on seafood waste
disposal issues in remote locations such as Akutan. Meetings
were held with Universal Seafoods, Inc. (operators in Dutch
Harbor and other locations), Trident Seafoods, Inc., and Icicle
Seafoods (past operators of Akutan and operators of fish meal
plants in Petersburg and Seward). Contact was also made with
Deep Sea Fisheries (operators of the M/V Deep Sea at Akutan) ,
but no meeting could be arranged.
91
-------
The information derived from these meetings was considered
in describing constraints imposed by the harsh conditions and
remoteness of Akutan. Cost and practicality information offered
by the processors was considered during preparation of cost
estimates, but all costs used in this assessment were indepen-
dently derived.
It was interesting to note that Icicle Seafoods indicated
that operation of product recovery plants at Petersburg and
Seward was less costly for them than screening and barging. The
company also believed that the market exposure involved in
selling products (fish fodder, bait, and others) increased their
name recognition.
92
-------
Chapter 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Literature Cited
Akutan, City of. 1982. City of Akutan comprehensive plan. 40
pp.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1982. Akutan
Bay water quality analysis, pre-preliminary draft. 25 pp.
. 1983a. Water quality standards. 18 AAC 70.010,
Register Vol. 84, Pp. 1-20.
1983b. Solid waste management. 18 AAC 60, Regis-
ter Vol. 88, Pp. 1-20.
Alfa-Laval. 1983. Centrifish for continuous production of fish
meal and oil. No. PB 40180E2. Larkspur, CA. 9 pp.
Auerbach, B. L. 1981. Chitin-Chitosan production for uti-
lization of shellfish wastes. Pp. 285-300 in W. S. Otwell,
ed., Seafood waste management in the 1980s Conference Pro-
ceedings. Florida Sea Grant College, Report No. 40. 365 pp.
Brown and Caldwell. 1978. Crab waste disposal: outfall
feasibility study, Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Association of
Pacific Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 29+ pp.
. 1983. Seafood waste management study - Unalaska/-
Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Pacific Seafood Processors Assoc. 110
pp.
Centaur Associates, Inc. 1982. Forecast of conditions without
the planned lease sale: Navarin Basin commercial fishing
industry analyses (Draft). Technical Memorandum NV-2. U. S.
Department of the Interior. Ca. 150.
Crayton, W. M. 1983. Bottomfish harbor study, Akutan, Alaska.
Planning Aid Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage, AK. 30 pp.
Dames and Moore. 1980. Offshore runway extension at Unalaska
airport, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Dept. Transp. Publ.
Facilities. Anchorage, AK.
93
-------
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. 1980a.
Market feasibility study of seafood waste reduction in Alaska.
Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 21 pp.
. 1980b. Market feasibility study of seafood waste
reduction in Alaska. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ca. 45 pp.
Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. 1979. Reassessment of effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the canned and preserved seafood processing point source
category. Effluent Guidelines Division, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 287 pp.
Environmental Associates, Inc. 1974. Upgrading seafood pro-
cessing facilities to reduce pollution? waste treatment
systems. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
OR. 421 pp.
Evans Research Group, Inc. 1983. Biological and physical
survey of Trident Seafood waste discharge site in Akutan
Harbor, Alaska. Trident Seafood Corp. 30 pp.
Green, J. H., and A. Kramer. 1979. Food processing waste
management. The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, CT. 629
pp.
Hattis, D., and A. E. Murray. 1977. Industrial prospects for
chitin and protein from shellfish wastes. A report on the
First Marine Industries Business Strategy Program Marine
Industry Advisory Service. Report No. MITSG 77-3.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant. 99 pp.
Imamura, K. K. 1978. Reconnaissance investigations of four
floating crab processor waste disposal sites in Akutan Harbor,
May 25-26, 1978. Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion. 7 pp.
Jewett, S. C., and H. M. Feder. 1981. Epifaunal invertebrates
of the continental shelf of the Eastern Bering and Chukchi
Seas. Pp. 1,131-1,153 in the Eastern Bering Sea shelf: ocean-
ography and resources. Vol. 2. National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment,
Seattle, WA.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1983. Draft water quality
analysis report, Akutan Harbor, Alaska. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. 81 pp.
Kizevetter, I. V. 1971. Chemistry and technology of pacific
fish. Translated for NOAA. Israel Program for Scientific
Translations. Ca. 200 pp.
94
-------
Marks, L. S., ed. 1951. Mechanical engineers' handbook. 5th
ed. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. 2,236 pp.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater engineering treatment/-
disposal/reuse. Edition 2. McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY. 920
pp.
Morris, B. F., M. S. Alton, and H. W. Braham. 1983. A resource
assessment for the Gulf of Alaska/Cook Inlet proposed oil and
gas lease sale 86. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS F/AKR-5. National
Marine Fisheries, Juneau, AK. 232 pp.
Muellenhoff, W. P. 1976. Effects of pressure and deposit
thickness on the stabilization rate of benthic marine sludge
deposits. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR. 121 pp.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1983 . Dra-ft sludge
management plan. Appendix C: Cost effectiveness analysis and
supporting technical memoranda. 150 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1983. Fisheries of the
United States, 1982. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8300.
117 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Survey. 1983. Tide tables.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. 1983. The
North Aleutian Shelf environment and possible consequences of
planned offshore oil and gas development. Proceedings of a
synthesis meeting, March 9-11, 1982. NOAA/OCSEAP, Juneau, AK.
In prep.
Nysewander, D. R., D. J. Forsell, P. A. Baird, D.. J. Shields, G.
J. Weiler, and J. H. Kogan. 1982. Marine bird and mammal
survey of the Eastern Aleutian Islands, summers of 1980-81.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 134 pp.
Otto, R. S., R. A. Macintosh, K. L. Stahl-Johnson, and S. J.
Wilson. 1983. Processed Report 83-18. Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Kodiak,
AK. 62 pp.
Petratrovich, Nottingham, and Drage, Inc., and T. Smith. 1982.
Solid waste disposal system, Akutan, Alaska. Prepared for
City of Akutan, Alaska. Anchorage, AK.
Pigott, G. M. 1981. Catch to market considerations for success-
ful U. S. entry into the north pacific fishery conservation
zone. Pp. 543-549 in Refrigeration science & technology
1981-1984, Boston Conference, 1981. 600 pp.
95
-------
Raa, J., and A. Gildberg. 1982. Fish silage: a review. Pp.
383-419 in CRC critical reviews in food science and nutrition.
Sowls, A. L., S. A. Hatch, and C. J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of
Alaskan seabird colonies. FWS/OBS-78/78. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 153 pp.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 1982. Bottom-
fish interim study - reconnaissance report. 72 pp. + appendi-
ces.
. 1983. Draft small hydropower interim feasibility
report and environmental impact statement, Unalaska, Alaska.
Anchorage, AK.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development
document for effluent limitations guidelines and standards of
performance for the catfish, crab, shrimp, and tuna segments
of the canned and preserved seafood processing industry point
source category. Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C. 414 pp.
. 1980a. Effluent guidelines and standards for
canned and preserved seafood. Environment Reporter, Vol. 135,
Pp. 51-79.
1980b. Ocean discharge criteria. 45 FR 65942
(10/3/80) .
. 1981. Environmental impact guidelines for new
source canned and preserved seafood processing facilities.
EPA 130/6-81-005. Office of Federal Activities, Washington,
D.C. 185 pp.
. 1983. Environmental Protection Agency regulations
on State NPDES permit program requirements. 48 FR 14169
(4/1/83) .
Windsor, M. , and S. Barlow. 1981. Introduction to fishery
by-products. Fishing News Books Ltd., Farnham, England. 187
pp.
Personal Communications
Blackburn, J. November 22, 1983. Fisheries Biologist, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak, AK. Telephone conversa-
tion.
Cloe, J. November 22, 1983. Administrator, Trident Seafood
Corporation, Seattle, WA. Telephone conversation.
Deardoff, Paul. January 16, 1984. Senior Trader, James Farrell
Company, Seattle, WA. Telephone conversation.
96
-------
Dragoy, N. November 9, 1983. Trident Seafood Corporation,
Seattle, WA. Meeting.
Eaton, M. November 22, 1983. Fisheries Biologist, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak, AK. Telephone
conversation.
Gesko, S. January 4, 1984. City Manager, City of Kodiak, AK.
Telephone conversation.
Gross, N. June 23, 1983. City Administrator, City of Akutan,
AK. Telephone conversation.
Howe, J. November 30, 1983. Environmental Engineer, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, AK.
Telephone conversation.
McGlashan, G. September 18, 1983. Councilman, City of Akutan,
AK. Telephone conversation.
Petersen, Norm. December 1, 1983. Sea - Land Services, Inc.
Telephone conversation.
Rogers, D. November 23, 1983. Associate Professor, Fisheries
Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Telephone conversation.
Shepherd, Robert. December 5, 1983. Senior Trader, Wilbur
Ellis Company, Seattle, WA. Telephone conversation.
Soderlund, Dianne. June 1983 - January 1984. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Alaskan Operations Offices,
Anchorage, AK. Telephone conversations.
Stepetin, J. November 22, 1983. Mayor, City of Akutan, AK.
Telephone conversation.
Sundberg, K. August 18, 1983. Habitat Biologist, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. Letter to Bill
Riley, EPA.
Swafford, T. C. January 5, 1984. Marketing Specialist,
Alfa-Laval, Larkspur, CA. Telephone conversation.
Travers, P. January 11, 1984. Attorney, National Ocean Survey,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Anchorage,
AK. Telephone conversation.
Tucker, Donald. January 4, 1983. Purchasing Agent, Trident
Seafood Corporation. Letter.
Wennekens, P. November 28, 1983. Fish and Wildlife Biologist,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Telephone
conversation.
97
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
98
-------
APPENDIX A
September Survey Report
A-l
-------
Report on Akutan Ha.bcr Stapling Trip; September 15-21, 19m
Gary Voerman
Water Resources Assessment Team
The File
The following is a cronological description of the activities of the
Akutan Harbor Sampling Team:
September 15, 1983
The following people assembled in Anchorage for the charter flight to
Dutch Harbor at 1:00 p.m.; Harvey Van Veldhuizen and Alice Godbey (Jones
and Stokes Associates, Inc.), Gary Bingham and Tom Dillard (Tetra Tech,
Inc.), Lee Rodgers (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game) and myself. We
arrived in Dutch Harbor at approximately 6:00 p.m., loaded equipment on
the Karin Lynn (Crab Boat/Trawler) and were underway to Akutan by 9:30
p.m. THe mayor of Akutan, Mr. Jacob Stepetin, was aboard and assisted us
throughout the trip.
September 16.,. 1983
We arrived in Akutan Harbor at approximately 2:30 a.m. and began the
.sampling project at approximately 7:30 a.m. with the placement of four
transmitters which provide signals for the Mini-Ranger. The Mini-Ranger
system allowed an accurate determination of our position in the harbor.
The weather was windy (20 plus knots from the east) and rainy. Trie
entire day was spent gathering water quality and sediment samples. Most
of the designated sampling sites were covered. Parameters measured
included dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, salinity, temperature, secchi
disc transparency, and depth. The temperature data did not indicate any
stratification in the harbor. Dissolved oxygen was close to saturation
at all"stations and all depths. There was a fairly consistent
discrepancy between the 0.0. values obtained with the Martek Mark VIII
water quality probe and those obtained using the Winkler method. Gary
Bingham indicated that Tetra Tech will have the probe calibration lab
attempt to determine the cause of this discrepancy. The pH meter used
for the sediment samples was not functioning properly and its use was
discontinued.
1 talked with I'.ayor Jacob Stepetin about the current solid disposal
problems of the village of Akutan (population 65 people). Ti.e villagers
either burn their garbage on the beach or store it in boxes until v.'ind
conditions are favorable. The ash is carried away by the next high tide
or the garbage bags are thrown into the water during a strong west wind
(so-called "garbage wind"), which is the prevaling wind in the harbor.
"illcoe has not yet selected an incinerator but when they do it will
uc iocciec just tisi of to.... ;nt.v;r. 23 fGc- c, t:.: . ^1. ' • •
A-2
-------
appears to be at least one potential soli., v.asts disposal site
approximately one-quarter mile east of Ak. >:n but Jacob was unaware cf
any studies which may have evaluated the Mte. It was suggested by
myself and Harvey that a meeting with the citizens of~ Akutan concerning
EPA's activities in the harbor would be c, ^ cpriate. Ke suggested the
evenings of Sept. 17 or 18 as candidates. Jacob agreed that a meeting
would be desirable and offered to annc;;rc.-. it as soon as we determined
which day woulu best fit our sampling schedule.
September 17,, 1983
We finished the Water Quality and Sediment sampling, .in high winds (35-40
knots from the east) and rougher seas, for all stations except the outer
(41 fathom) harbor, optional disposal site. All the current drogues were
deployed and would be tracked for the next 2-3 days.
It is evident that a small skiff would have a difficult time navigating
during rough weather and therefore an ash storage area would be
necessary. If such an area is not provided (or if it contains
insufficient capacity) it is likely that the ash will be disposed of on
the beach or just offshore. None of the seafood processors were
operating while we were in Akutan harbor and it was therefore not
possible to obtain any effluent samples.
September 18, .198,3
V/e continued to track the drogues and completed all sediment and water
quality sampling, including those requested at the optional outer harbor
(41 fathom) disposal site. Video tape recordings of the bottom were made
at several sites including the proposed inner and outer harbor disposal
sites, the Trident waste pile and the Akutan dock area. The still camera
(Benthos) had an inadequate power supply and could not be used.
Since we would complete most of the studies evening it was suggested
that we-consider returning to Dutch Harbor iunediately. We decided not
to return for the following reasons:
1. We needed to meet with the residents of Akutan to explain our
presence in the harbor and answer questions.
2. I needed to investigate the possibility of land disposal of solid
waste near the city of Akutan.
3. There was a need to take sediment s:~plos at the optional cuter
harbor disposal site.
4. It would be somewhat dangerous to remove the Mini-Ranger
transmitters at night and we would -not be able to locate ar.d
retrieve the drogues.
5. Ke would protibly rot be abU to fcf Di?-".ch K-:rb:r tha
t j . I0.." ~ ^ ^y l - - - - - ¦ i • • -
A-3
-------
Harvey and I he lei a meeting with the citizens of Akutan while zhe others
took sediment samples at the optional outer harbor disposal site. We met
with the mayor ar.d 10 citizens in the community center at 8:00 p.m.
«r
I explained EPA's role in the Ocean Disposal process and gave a brief
outline of the procedures necessary for designation of an ccean disposal
site. Harvey explained the purpose of the studies we were conducting in
the harbor and presented some of the results of the information gathered
in Akutsn harbor in June of 1983. The citizens had several questions on
the designation" of the ocean disposal site and the impacts of the Trident
waste pile on water quality in the harbor. Questions'included the
following:
*
What conditions will be included in the permit?
How large a skiff will be required to transport the incinerated
waste to the disposal site?
Is it likely that Akutan's refuse will have a significant impact on
the environment?
When will the permit be issued?
What is the purpose of the drogues?
What are the impacts of the Trident waste disposal pile on the
clams in the harbor?
What is the impact of gas emanating from the Trident waste disposal
pile?
The citizens indicated that the clams harvested west of the Trident plant
had decreased in number and had developed a "diesel taste" recently.
Harvey and I answered the questions to the best of our abilities and, I
believe, to the satisfaciton of the citizens present. The primary
concern of the residents and EPA is the impact of the Trident waste pile
on the harbor environment.
I asked the citizens to submit any subsequent questions to me through
Jacob. The meeting ended at approximately 9:00 p.m.
A-4
-------
September lSit 1983
I visited Akutan with Jacob while others retrieved the drogues and
Mini-Ranger transmitters. I discovered two possible solid waste disposal
sites east of the village. They are currently connected to Akutan by a
foot path. Development of these sites for solio waste disposal would
necessitate the construction of a narrow road. The first site is
approximately 1/4 mile from the city and is 5-10 acres in an area with
slopes no greater than about 10 degrees. The second site is located
approximately one-half mile east of the city. It is 3-5 acres in area
with more flat land than the first site. The use of'either site would
depend upon the soil depth (i.e., the availability of cover material).
The first site contained a significant amount of surface water.
There is a considerable amount of refuse on the beach near Akutan. It is
obvious that current disposal practices do not result in removal of the
village's solid waste from the harbor environment.
We left Akutan at approximately 1:00 p.m. and arrived at Dutch Harbor at
6:00 p.m
September 20, 1983
The enuipment was unloaded from the Karin Lynn by 9:00 a.m. and
transoorted to the Dutch Harbor Airport. The flights to Anchorage were
deUv-u due to poor visibility and we were not able to leave Dutch Harbor
until 2:00 p.m. We arrived in Seattle at 5:45 a.m. September 21, 1983.
The trip was very successful as to the information gathered. The success
can be attributed to two basic factors:
1. The excellent organization and follow-through by Harvey
Van Velc'huizen and
2. The dedication of all the people involved in the sampling effort.
cc: Robert S. Burd
Dick Thiel
Bill Riley
Harvey Van Veldhuizen
P:r. Les
A-5
------- |