1

Meeting Report: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fishery Industrial Technology 

Center (FITC), Kodiak, AK. 

8/17/10 

10:00 AM – 12:15 PM 

Participants 

Scott Smiley Professor, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

Fishery Industrial Technology 

Center (FITC) 

 Don Anderson U.E. EPA 

Washington, DC 

Peter Bechtel US Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Research Service 

FITC Affiliate Faculty 

 Lindsay Guzzo U.S. EPA Region 10 

 Betsy Bicknell ERG 

 Kathleen Wu ERG, Chantilly, VA 

 Anne Jones ERG, Lexington, MA 

Betsy Bicknell (ERG) and Lindsay Guzzo (EPA) met with Scott Smiley and Peter Bechtel on 

Tuesday morning, August 17, 2010 at the Fishery Industrial Technology Center (FITC), Kodiak, 

Alaska. Other participants listed above joined the meeting by phone. 

Preliminary Discussion. Prior to the teleconference, Ms. Bicknell and Ms. Guzzo had some 

general conversation with Dr. Smiley. He knew of our interest in by-product recovery for 

southeast Alaska seafood processing facilities and mentioned that the equipment (including the 

barge) that Alaska Protein Recovery uses had itself been through two previous bankruptcies. 

Originally the property of a British Columbian governmental spin off, the equipment was 

purchased in a bankruptcy sale by Cossack Caviar, an Alaskan company who later also ran into 

fiscal troubles. Smiley also mentioned that the waste handling systems in Icicle’s plants in 

Petersburg and Seward were both designed and put together by the same firm. It was Smiley 

understands that Cowger had specialized in developing systems based on the used equipment 

market. Compared with the standard Atlas Stord systems, the Cowger systems are relatively 

inexpensive. 

Atlas-Stord sells integrated seafood processing waste systems, scaled appropriately for large 

processing plants, for example those in along the Alaska Peninsula and the Bering Sea. The Atlas 

Stord wet reduction systems allow for the production of four major products from the processing 

waste: Fish Protein Meal, Fish Bone Meal, Fish Oil and Fish Solubles or Stickwater. In the 

processing plants operated in Dutch Harbor (eastern Aleutians) fish to be processed can be held 

on board the harvest vessel in refrigerated seawater during the 2- to 3-day trip from the harvest 

site to the processing plant. During this time the fish can pick up excess salt from the sea water. 

For this reason, during the handling of seafood processing waste from these fish, the stickwater – 

containing soluble proteins and small molecules, cannot be added back to the drying fish meal 

because the resulting meal would exceed consumer standards being too salty. Stickwater 

produced in Atlas Stord wet reduction plants from seafood processing waste can reach BOD 

levels of upwards of 150,000 ml/L. 

The Kodiak Fishmeal Company plant also uses Atlas-Stord equipment. Kodiak Fishmeal 

Company is owned by a consortium of major seafood processors from Kodiak. Not all seafood 

processors in Kodiak are members of the consortium and those that are not must pay a tipping fee 

to deliver their processing waste to the plant. According to Dr. Smiley, Kodiak Fishmeal 
2

Company plant originally had a capacity of 800 tons of processing waste per day but over the 

years improvements have raised this to between 1200 and 1600 tons/day. The fish meal that the 

plant makes runs at 70 to 75% protein. This level is achieved from processing waste by sifting out 

the fish bone. Their fair average quality (FAQ) fish meal runs at 65-67% protein and is generally 

sold on long term contracts to aquaculturists in Southeast Asia. 

Another supplier of equipment used in effectively handling seafood processing waste is the 

Danish dairy concern Alfa Laval. They developed a system that can handle from 25 to 250 tons of 

processing waste per day. This assemblage of equipment, called the Con-Kix system, was used in 

the plant operated by International Seafood of Alaska (ISA) in Kodiak. ISA was not a member of 

the consortium that owned the Kodiak Fishmeal Company. The Con-Kix byproduct process 

involved a Brown finisher to remove skin and bone, an Alfa Laval Contherm to heat the material, 

an Alfa Laval Decanter Centrifuge to separate solids, the aqueous stream and the lipid stream, 

Disc Polishers to help purify the fish oil and a Kix Cyclone dryer to dry the fish protein meal. The 

system worked well and ISA was able to supply food-grade protein daily to over 600,000 children 

in Peru. Disagreements between ISA and Alfa Laval eventually led to the Con-Kix processing 

system being removed from the ISA plant. The equipment was eventually purchased by 

BioOregon a fish processing waste concern in Warrenton OR. 

Smiley noted that the largest single source of the world’s fish meal is the industrial anchovetta 

fishery in Peru. The harvest from this fishery is variable with about 15 million tons/year landed 

except during El Nino years when the Humboldt Current fails and there is virtually no catch at all. 

Other important industrial fisheries (those involved in making fish protein meal and fish oil for 

sale as other than human food) include the menhaden fishery off the Gulf coast of the U.S. and 

forage fish harvests in Iceland. The variability in the Peruvian anchovetta harvest can lead to wide 

fluctuations in fish meal prices. When Peruvian production is down, world fish meal prices are at 

a premium. 

Alaska Protein Recovery and a few other byproducts producers use enzyme hydrolysis to produce 

a hydrolyzed protein product. Dr. Smiley noted that hydrolysis can be problematic. If strong 

mineral acid is used to hydrolyze the proteins, the proteins are completely broken down to 

individual building blocks, amino acids. The resulting product is quite bitter and animals will 

avoid eating it. Material made this way, especially if acidified with phosphoric acid, can be used 

as fertilizer, but this is a relatively low-value product. If enzymes are used to hydrolyze the 

seafood processing waste, a product suitable for animal feed can be produced. Animal feed is 

relatively a higher-value product. However, enzymatic hydrolysis is hard to control. Further, it is 

difficult to measure the extent of the process and to recognize when a suitable endpoint has been 

reached. FITC researchers are working on simple methods for measuring the extent of enzymatic 

hydrolysis. 

Another problem with the hydrolyzed protein products is that the process will liquefy the 

processing waste due to one molecule of water being produced for every peptide bond cleaved. 

One consequence of this is that shipping the final product will be quite costly because one is also 

shipping the weight of the excess water. Drying hydrolysates poses problems because of the 

tendency of hydrolysates to dry in clumps that are hard on the outside while remaining fluid on 

the inside. Spray drying is probably the most effective method of drying hydrolysates but care 

must be taken to keep the spray nozzles from clogging. One effective alternative is to co-dry the 

protein solution with a solid substrate, such as distillers’ grains or canola seeds (the solids left 

after the production of canola oil). He noted that there is a large canola oil operation in Prince 

Rupert, British Columbia. Of note is the fact that drying or evaporating these products is 

relatively more expensive in Alaska because of the price of energy in these remote locations. 
3

Dr. Smiley explained that Alaska shipping costs are affected by the Jones Act (Merchant Marine 

Act of 1920), which “requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in 

U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. 

citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. Maritime 

industry.” [Source: Wikipedia, accessed 9-2-2010] One result of this act is to increase shipping 

costs from Alaska. Dr. Smiley suggested that shipping costs are many times higher than they 

would be if Alaska shippers could use internationally flagged vessels. 

Background. When telephone participants joined the meeting, Don Anderson (EPA/OW/EAD) 

provided a retrospective of the national regulations that apply to seafood processing facilities in 

Alaska. In 1974-5, EPA established regulations for seafood processing in the U.S., including 

regulations that were specifically crafted for Alaska. For certain parts of the Alaska seafood 

processing industry, EPA set two levels of limits. Less stringent limits required that waste be 

ground to less than 0.5” prior to discharge. EPA set more stringent limits in the regulations for 

seafood processing or population centers called “non-remote” areas. For “non-remote” processing 

centers, EPA set limits for TSS and oil and grease, based on screening solids from the wastewater 

and their off-shore disposal. The list of processing centers in the regulations includes Anchorage, 

Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg. 

Mr. Anderson explained that Alaskan seafood processing industry representatives challenged the 

regulations in court. The court upheld EPA. In 1980, exercising its right to petition, industry 

petitioned EPA to change the regulations because they were too costly. All “non-remote’ 

locations except Kodiak were included in the petition. EPA suspended the regulations in June 

1980, while considering the petition, and has never lifted the suspension. In January 1981, EPA 

published a proposed a response to the petition. While evaluating the petition, EPA analyzed two 

alternatives for managing the seafood processing wastes: 1) screening and barging for ocean 

disposal and 2) byproduct recovery. EPA found that costs were higher for Juneau than other 

processing centers. For this reason, in the proposed response to the petition, EPA found that 

Juneau should be reclassified as “remote,” while Anchorage, Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Cordova 

should retain the classification of non-remote and the more stringent regulations. EPA also 

indicated its preference for byproduct recovery in lieu of off-shore disposal for solids 

management. 

EPA Region 10 developed a General Permit for seafood processing industry in 2001, noting that 

EPA would re-evaluate the suspended regulations. EPA has started the re-evaluation process, 

beginning with collecting information reflecting the current state of the industry. In April 2010, 

EPA sent a questionnaire to nine seafood processing companies. These companies operated at 

least one facility in Ketchikan, Petersburg, Cordova, Juneau, Kenai, or Dutch Harbor and were 

required to provide information for all of their Alaska facilities. Mr. Anderson noted that at the 

industry’s request, the deadline for responding to the questionnaire has been delayed from 45 

after receipt until October 1, 2010. Early in 2011, EPA will publish a Notice of Data Availability, 

probably with an explanation of what it means with regard to the petition response. He 

emphasized that the public will be provided with opportunity to comment on the data and EPA’s 

explanation. 

Dr. Smiley noted that in the 30 to 35 years since the regulations for non-remote processing 

centers were suspended, EPA should be able to find data on damage to the environment, if any. 

Mr. Anderson explained that according to the Clean Water Act, the effluent guidelines are 

technology-based, so EPA does not consider environmental impacts during their development. 

Water quality standards are used in the development of NPDES permits. 
4

Dr. Smiley explained that of the information EPA needs for its analysis, information about the 

volume of waste generated will be the most difficult to estimate. The amount of waste generated 

varies by the species processed and the product form. For fish that are just headed and gutted (H 

& G), about 65% of salmon by weight is retained as product, while for pollock the amount is 

considerably smaller. For fillets, about 50% of the salmon by weight is retained as product; while 

for pollock fillets, it is 20%; and for the production of surimi, its <20%. In Southeast Alaska, 

some herring roe producers only retain about 10% of the landed weight of the fish in the final 

product. 

Dr. Smiley noted that even with byproduct recovery, processors still need to dispose of some 

waste. In Dutch Harbor, for example, during summer months, the stickwater produced during wet 

reduction of seafood processing waste must be barged offshore because local inshore currents are 

too weak to effectively disperse the material. 

Dr. Smiley provided some background on the Alaska fishing industry, including a list of species 

that are fished commercially. He explained that harvest depends on local weather conditions. For 

pink salmon – a two year old fish when it returns to spawn, the impact may be up to two out. 

Other species of Pacific salmon are at least 4 year fish generally with 2 years in fresh water and 2 

years in the ocean. For them impacts of weather may not reveal themselves for up to four years. 

Examples include dry streams or exceptionally cold weather that result in low fry survival. Dr. 

Smiley also explained that while there are roughly 800 seafood processors with Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation Processing Permits, only 80 to 90 facilities statewide 

actually produce 80 to 90% of the seafood processed. 

Key factors for determining the affordability of byproduct recovery are the volume of waste 

produced and the duration of the fishing season. If a season is only 30 days long, investment in 

recovery systems are less likely to be affordable, especially large volume units such as those 

produced by Atlas Stord. 

Dr. Smiley suggested a source of information about the price of fishmeal and fish oil is the 

Hammersmith Report, which provides an update every two weeks. This commodities price report 

includes prices for salmon fish meal and salmon oil. 

Although Dr. Smiley considered the enzymatic hydrolysis process (used by Alaska Protein 

Recovery) to be scalable for the seafood processing plants in southeast Alaska, he suggested the 

marketability of the end products was kind of iffy. Products such as fish oil being used for 

cosmetics also may be feasible on a much smaller scale. However, he suggested that using 

enzymatic hydrolysis to produce protein products for animal feed or human supplements may not 

pay for itself depending on the quality of the final product, not to mention the skillfulness of the 

marketers. 

Dr. Smiley recalled that there was formerly a seafood processing waste rendering plant in Valdez. 

This plant used phosphoric acid to produce a liquid fertilizer (2-10-2). Although it operated for a 

number of years, eventually it became only marginally profitable and was closed. Dr. Smiley 

explained that fertilizer is about the lowest value product that has been made from seafood 

processing waste and it takes higher value products to produce a reasonable return on investment 

required for a sustainable byproducts recovery operation. 

Dr. Smiley suggested that the economics of byproduct recovery depend on product marketability 

and whether the market could absorb all the fish oil that could be recovered by the seafood 
5

processors. He mentioned that Dr. Fereidoon Shahidi, with Memorial University, Newfoundland 

was the North American authority on the fish oil industry. While almost all of the cold water 

marine fish species harvested in Alaska have substantial levels of omega 3 fatty acids the 

amounts of each fatty acid differ. In addition some fish, including Alaska pollock contain 

relatively high levels of other important nutrients including vitamin D. The value of fish oil 

produced by the Atlas Stord operations in Alaska, coupled with the high price for transportation 

mean that the best value to the processing operations in the Bering Sea and along the Alaska 

Peninsula is to use the fish oil as a boiler fuel saving the cost of purchasing and transporting 

petroleum to their processing operations. 

The discussion turned to the cost of the byproduct recovery facilities. Meeting participants did not 

know what Icicle paid for its recovery plants in Petersburg and Seward. Betsy Bicknell mentioned 

that she and Ms. Guzzo had met with representatives of GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.1

 in 

Juneau. At a meeting with Dr. Smiley, Stefan Kirchner had described two processes they have 

available. The process costing approximately $500,000 fits in a 40 foot van and is designed for 

salmon oil recovery. The process costing approximately $1 million also fits in a van and is 

designed for both oil and protein recovery. The price for the Atlas Stord wet reduction systems 

used by the large processing facilities in western Alaska has to be quite high, with local estimates 

for the Kodiak Fishmeal Company being greater than $20 million. 

Dr. Smiley repeated that drying of the protein component in these systems will be a significant 

cost. The challenges are 1) how to stabilize the protein until it is dry; and 2) how to dry it 

inexpensively. 

Peter Bechtel reflected that in the last five years there has definitely been more secondary product 

recovery in Alaska. This is because prices have increased. He mentioned the Bimbo economic 

development report, prepared for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation2

. 

Dr. Bechtel and Dr. Smiley explained that the proceedings from the symposium A Sustainable 

Future: Fish Processing Byproducts, held February 25-26, 2009, in Portland, Oregon, were now 

available on the Alaska Sea Grant website.3

 

They also noted that the salmon waste stream is changing as a result of increased production of 

skinless, boneless canned salmon and increased production of fillets. 

Because of the impact of the type of product on the amount of waste generated, Dr. Smiley 

suggested EPA refer to work published by Chuck Crapo et al., in 1993, Recoveries and Yields 

from Pacific Fish and Shellfish. He noted that seafood processors don’t look at waste recovery as 

a profit center. Dr. Smiley and Dr. Bechtel listed seafood byproducts currently made in Alaska (in 

descending value): 

 Nutraceutical oils; 

 

1 http://www.westfalia-separator.com/applications/renewable-resources/fish-oil-fish-meal-recovery.html

2

 See Alaska Seafood By-Products: Potential Products, Markets and Competing Products. Revised 2008. 

Report prepared for Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation Anchorage, Alaska. January 8, 2009 

Anthony P. Bimbo. 

3 http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/AK-SG-10-02.html
6

 Pet foods; 

 Animal foods (including food used in aquaculture); and 

 Fertilizer/compost. 

Ms. Bicknell asked if they were aware of anaerobic digestion of seafood processing waste for 

methane recovery. Dr. Smiley described a paper study of co-processing of beetle-killed trees 

(wood waste) and fish waste to make methane gas. It was not economical on paper, so was never 

pursued. 

Mr. Anderson asked about the use of crab shells for chitin. Dr. Smiley explained that Alaska has 

not been a major player in the chitin industry because financial considerations make it more cost 

effective to ship the shells to China and to produce products there. He mentioned that Henry Cole, 

of University of Alaska, Fairbanks, was an expert on chitosan. Dr. Smiley explained that other 

commercially viable products can be made with crab shell (such as crab flavoring), while salmon 

livers can be made into a shrimp dietary ingredients and pollock skins can be used to make fish 

gelatin. However, design and scale-up of the processes required to make these potential products 

would require biochemistry skills in addition to entrepreneurial capital. 

Dr. Smiley speculated that a spoke and hub configuration for drying hydrolysates made in 

southeast Alaska might be economically feasible. Under this scenario, seafood processing plants 

would make protein hydrolysate and stabilize it by lowering the pH. The preserved hydrolysate 

could be shipped to a hub for drying. One possible hub would be the former pulp plant in Sitka 

Alaska or near the canola presses in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, where the hydrolysate 

could be co-dried with canola presscake. 

Available financing.

Dr. Smiley described two federal agencies involved with the seafood industry- 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (part of NOAA, in the Department of Commerce). 

The fisheries service has administrative authority but does not provide grants. 

 USDA Although it has a grant program, it won’t provide funding for seafood project 

because it does not have administrative authority. 

Dr. Smiley asked if EPA could provide grant money for byproducts research. Ms. Bicknell 

mentioned that EPA’s Office of Research and Development has a grant program. 

References. After the meeting, Dr. Smiley provided the following references. 

Hammersmith Marketing Ltd 

Website 

Scroll down for listings for specific commodities 

Crapo, C. B. Paust and J. Babbitt 1993. Recoveries and Yields from Pacific Fish and Shellfish 

Alaska Sea Grant College 

Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 37 

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/MAB-37.html 

Quentin Fong, FITC, Economics of fish oil production