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 s ending questionnaires to owners and operators of several seafood processing facilities in Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Dutch Harbor and the Kenai Peninsula. T he 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 In formation? 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 disch arges 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 loca tions. Noxious conditions caused by odors, bacteria and wa ste decomposition. What Will EPA Do With The Seafood Waste Disposal In formation? EPA will analyze the questionnaire responses so tha t it can respond to petitions that were submitted to EPA in 1980 by a portion of the Alaska n seafood industry. EPA will also analyze the responses as part of its consideration of wheth er to apply different effluent limitations guidelines to seafood processing facility discharge s in Dutch Harbor and on the Kenai Peninsula. Future phases will include the publication of a Not ice of Data Availability by which EPA will make data available for public review and comment. The notice will solicit public comment on how EPA s hould use the data in responding to the 1980 petitions and considering different effluent l imitations 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/facts heet.html Last updated on Thursday, April 29, 2010 

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

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

In the mid-1970s, EPA published effluent limitation s guidelines (ELGs) for seafood processing. ELGs are regulations that establish nat ional 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 locat ed in “population or processing centers.” The regulations provided a non-exclusive list of Alaska n locations considered to be “non-remote,” including Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Pe tersburg and Kodiak. In “non-remote” locations, the ELGs are based on th e 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 “re mote” locations, the ELGs are based merely on grinding the processing solids to reduce the siz e of the waste pieces (not to exceed onehalf inch in any dimension), which could then be di scharged 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 appli cability of the ELGs to provide an opportunity for the industry to submit new informat ion. In response to the first petition, EPA temporarily suspended the original regulations appl icable to five “non-remote” locations (Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan and Petersbu rg) and published a notice of this suspension in the Federal Register (45 Federal Regi ster 32675, May 19, 1980). The effect of the EPA suspension was to temporarily relieve seafo od processing facilities in those five locations from the ELG effluent limitations based o n 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 proc ess wastewater and discharging the ground waste into adjacent navigable waters). The second petition requested a new rulemaking to m odify certain Alaskan “non-remote” ELGs affecting seafood processing wastewater discha rges in Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan and Petersburg. Kodiak was not included i n 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 e ffluent reduction benefits achieved and that screening was not a practicable technology. In response to the second petition, EPA published i ts 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 reclas sify Juneau as “remote” and to deny the petition to delete the locations of Anchorage, Cord ova, Ketchikan and Petersburg from the group of “non-remote” ELG subcategories. EPA also p roposed to add Ward’s Cove (as part of Ketchikan) to the list of “non-remote” areas. Final ly, EPA’s notice indicated that it was considering, but not proposing at that time, the ad dition of Dutch Harbor and the Kenai Peninsula as “non-remote” locations. EPA’s notice stated that the suspension would remai n in effect until EPA made a final decision. However, EPA has not issued a final respo nse to the petition. 

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

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

1980. EPA’s preliminary conclusion was that the num ber and size of processors, the quantity of wastes produced, the length of the processing se ason and other factors made it possible to process the screened wastes into saleable by-produc ts, such as fish meal and fish oil. EPA noted that the petition failed to adequately ac count 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 s eafood processors. During the public comment period, EPA received comments about the sus pended ELGs and about technological advances since 1981 that provided reasonable altern atives to the discharge of seafood processing wastes. EPA responded that it did not have sufficient infor mation about the feasibility of alternative disposal or re-use options. EPA committed to update the information regarding t he five locations addressed in the 1980 petitions and other Alaskan locations. EPA’s curren t informational gathering efforts are consistent with its 2001 commitments despite the de lay in initiating that effort.

For More Information Contact Donald F. Anderson at the EPA Engineering and Analysis Division at 20 2-566-1021 or anderson.donaldf@epa.gov, or LindsayGuzzo at EPA NPDES Permits Unit at 206-553-0268 or guzzo.lindsay@epa.gov. 

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

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