You are here: EPA Home Water Water Science Effluent Guidelines Fact sheet for 

Alaskan Seafood Processors 

Effluent Guidelines 

Fact sheet for Alaskan Seafood Processors 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending questionnaires to owners and 

operators of several seafood processing facilities in Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Dutch Harbor and the Kenai Peninsula. The answers will help determine whether 

seafood waste disposal practices should be changed in certain areas of Alaska. 

On this page: 

Why Is EPA Concerned About Seafood Processing Waste Disposal In These Areas? 

What Will EPA Do With The Seafood Waste Disposal Information? 

Why Is EPA Requesting Information Now? 

For More Information 

Why Is EPA Concerned About Seafood Processing Waste Disposal In These Areas? 

Seafood processing waste can harm the environment. Adverse environmental effects 

associated with seafood processing wastewater discharges can include: 

Accumulations of waste sludge and whole fish parts in near-shore locations. 

Generation of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. 

Increased gathering of scavengers in discharge locations. 

Noxious conditions caused by odors, bacteria and waste decomposition. 

What Will EPA Do With The Seafood Waste Disposal Information? 

EPA will analyze the questionnaire responses so that it can respond to petitions that were 

submitted to EPA in 1980 by a portion of the Alaskan seafood industry. EPA will also analyze 

the responses as part of its consideration of whether to apply different effluent limitations 

guidelines to seafood processing facility discharges in Dutch Harbor and on the Kenai 

Peninsula. 

Future phases will include the publication of a Notice of Data Availability by which EPA will 

make data available for public review and comment. 

The notice will solicit public comment on how EPA should use the data in responding to the 

1980 petitions and considering different effluent limitations guidelines for seafood wastewater 

discharges in Alaskan locations. EPA will announce the Notice of Data Availability and final 

regulatory action in the Federal Register. 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/seafood/factsheet.html

Last updated on Thursday, April 29, 2010

Fact sheet for Alaskan Seafood Processors | Effluent Guidelines | US EPA Page 1 of 3

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/seafood/factsheet.html 7/6/2010
Background 

In the mid-1970s, EPA published effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for seafood 

processing. ELGs are regulations that establish national technology-based effluent limitations 

for a specific industrial category or subcategory. The seafood ELGs provided for two groups of 

subcategories for Alaskan processors, depending on whether a processor operates at a 

“remote” or a “non-remote” location. 

“Non-remote” facilities were those facilities located in “population or processing centers.” The 

regulations provided a non-exclusive list of Alaskan locations considered to be “non-remote,” 

including Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Kodiak. 

In “non-remote” locations, the ELGs are based on the screening of the processing solids from 

the seafood processing wastewaters and disposing of the screened solids by means other 

than discharging in the facility’s effluent. In “remote” locations, the ELGs are based merely 

on grinding the processing solids to reduce the size of the waste pieces (not to exceed onehalf inch in any dimension), which could then be discharged into navigable waters as a part 

of the facility’s effluent. 

Members of the Alaskan seafood processing industry submitted two petitions in 1980. The 

first petition requested that EPA suspend the applicability of the ELGs to provide an 

opportunity for the industry to submit new information. In response to the first petition, EPA 

temporarily suspended the original regulations applicable to five “non-remote” locations 

(Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan and Petersburg) and published a notice of this 

suspension in the Federal Register (45 Federal Register 32675, May 19, 1980). The effect of 

the EPA suspension was to temporarily relieve seafood processing facilities in those five 

locations from the ELG effluent limitations based on screening solids from their effluent 

streams, and instead, subjected these facilities to the less stringent ELGs applicable to 

“remote” locations (grinding the solids in the process wastewater and discharging the ground 

waste into adjacent navigable waters). 

The second petition requested a new rulemaking to modify certain Alaskan “non-remote” 

ELGs affecting seafood processing wastewater discharges in Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, 

Ketchikan and Petersburg. Kodiak was not included in this petition. In the second petition, 

the petitioners maintained, in part, that the costs of screening associated with the “nonremote” ELGs were wholly out of proportion to the effluent reduction benefits achieved and 

that screening was not a practicable technology. 

In response to the second petition, EPA published its proposed response and amendments to 

the ELGs for public comment in the Federal Register (46 Federal Register 2544, January 9, 

1981). EPA proposed to grant the petition to reclassify Juneau as “remote” and to deny the 

petition to delete the locations of Anchorage, Cordova, Ketchikan and Petersburg from the 

group of “non-remote” ELG subcategories. EPA also proposed to add Ward’s Cove (as part of 

Ketchikan) to the list of “non-remote” areas. Finally, EPA’s notice indicated that it was 

considering, but not proposing at that time, the addition of Dutch Harbor and the Kenai 

Peninsula as “non-remote” locations. 

EPA’s notice stated that the suspension would remain in effect until EPA made a final 

decision. However, EPA has not issued a final response to the petition. 

Fact sheet for Alaskan Seafood Processors | Effluent Guidelines | US EPA Page 2 of 3

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/seafood/factsheet.html 7/6/2010
EPA’s proposed response was based in part on EPA’s analysis of industry data submitted in 

1980. EPA’s preliminary conclusion was that the number and size of processors, the quantity 

of wastes produced, the length of the processing season and other factors made it possible to 

process the screened wastes into saleable by-products, such as fish meal and fish oil. 

EPA noted that the petition failed to adequately account for the potential effluent reduction 

benefits where reduction facility operations could result in lower total amounts of pollutants 

being disposed in the receiving waters and reduced overall cost of waste disposal. 

Why Is EPA Requesting Information Now? 

In 2001, EPA proposed the reissuance of the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permit No. AK-G52-0000 for Alaskan seafood processors. During the public 

comment period, EPA received comments about the suspended ELGs and about technological 

advances since 1981 that provided reasonable alternatives to the discharge of seafood 

processing wastes. 

EPA responded that it did not have sufficient information about the feasibility of alternative 

disposal or re-use options. 

EPA committed to update the information regarding the five locations addressed in the 1980 

petitions and other Alaskan locations. EPA’s current informational gathering efforts are 

consistent with its 2001 commitments despite the delay in initiating that effort. 

For More Information 

Contact Donald F. Anderson at the EPA Engineering and Analysis Division at 202-566-1021 or 

anderson.donaldf@epa.gov, or Lindsay Guzzo at EPA NPDES Permits Unit at 206-553-0268 or 

guzzo.lindsay@epa.gov. 

Fact sheet for Alaskan Seafood Processors | Effluent Guidelines | US EPA Page 3 of 3

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/seafood/factsheet.html 7/6/2010