L/LJD 1150L{ I A 

DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR 

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 

AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

FOR THE 

FISH MEAL, SALMON, BOTTOM FISH, CLAM, OYSTER, SARDINE, 

SCALLOP, HERRING, AND ABALONE SEGMENT OF THE· 

CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND 

SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY 

POINT SOURCE CATEGORY 

Russell E. Train 

Administrator 

Andrew W. Breidenbach, Ph.D. 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Water and Hazardous Materials 

Allen Cywin 

Director, Effluent Guidelines Division 

Elwood H. Forsht 

Project Officer 

September 1975 

Effluent Guidelines Division 

Office of Water and Hazardous Materials 

U. S. Enyironmenta1 Protection Agency 

Washington, D. C. 20460 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $5.55 

ABSTRACT 

This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the 

fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, clam, oyster, sardine. scallop, 

herring, and abalone segment of the canned and preserved fish and 

seafood processing industry of the United States to develop 

effluent limitations for point source and new source standards of 

performance in order to implement Sections 304(b) and 306 of the 

Federal water Pollution Control Ac~ Amendments of 1972 (the Act) . 

Effluent limitations are set forth for the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable through the application of the "Best , Practicable Control Technology Currently Available" and the "Best 

Available Technology Economically Achievable" which must be 

achieved by existing point sources by July 1, 1977 and July 1, 

1983 respectively. The "Standards of Performance for New 

Source,s" set forth a degree of effluent reduction which is 

achievable through the application of the best available 

demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods or 

other alternatives. The regulations are based on the best 

identified primary or physical-chemical treatmen~ technology 

currently available for discharge into navigable water bodies by 

July' 1, 191'7 and for new source performance standards. This 

technology is generally represented by fine screens and air 

flotation. The regulations for July 1, 1983 are based on th~ 

best identified ,physical-chemical and secondary treatment and inplant control as represented by significantly reduced water use 

and enhanced treatment efficiencies in existing systems, as well 

as new systemsQ This' technology is generally represented by air 

flotation, aerated lagoons, or activated sludge. 

Supportive data and rationale for development of the effluent 

limitations and standards of performance are contained in this 

report. 

iii 

Section 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

CONTENTS 

CONCLUSIONS 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 

SCOPE OF STUDY 

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 

INDUSTRIAL FISHES 

FINFISH 

SHELLFISH 

INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 

Paqe 

1 

3 

13 

13 

14 

15 

28 

33 

49 

61 

INTRODUCTION 61 

FISH MEAL PRODUCTION 66 

SALMON CANNING 77 

FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON 86 

BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH 100 

SARDINE CANNING 119 

HERRING FILLETING 132 

CLAMS 137 

OYSTERS 145 

SCALLOPS 152 

ABALONE 164 

v WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 

171 

INTRODUCTION 171 

FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 174 

SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER .188 

v 
Section 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

x 

CHARACTERISTICS 

FRESH/FROZEN SALMON PROCESS WASTEWATER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH 

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

HERRING FILLETING PROCESS WASTEWATER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

CLAM PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

OYSTER PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

SCALLOP FREEZING PROCESS WASTEWATER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

FRESH/FROZEN ABALONE PROCESS WASTEWATER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

DETERMINATION OF SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA 

SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 

WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL 

SIGNIFICANCE 

ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL METHODS 

PARAMETER ESTIMATION ANALYSIS 

CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 

IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES 

IN-PLANT CONTROL RELATED TO SPECIFIC 

PROCESSES 

END-OF-PIPE CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND 

PROCESSES 

COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 

SUMMARY 

BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY 

AVAILABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 

BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY 

ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 

Vi 

Page 

188 

198 

204 

227 

234 

239 

253 

260 

261 

274 

281 

281 

296 

301 

313 

313 

325 

330 

377 

437 

443 
Section 

XI 

XII 

XIII 

XIV 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND 

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

REFERENCES 

GLOSSARY 

APPENDIX A: Bibliography - Air Flotation Use 

Within the Seafood Industry 

APPENDIX B~ Bibliography - Air Flotation Use 

Within the Meat and Poultry 

Industry 

APPENDIX C~ List of Equipment Manufacturers 

vii 

Page 

449 

455 

457 

461 

475 

479 

481 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Total u.s. supply of fishery products 

1960-1972 

Location and "commodities sampled"in the 

contiguous United states 

Alaska region locationsand·commodities sampled 

Northwest region locations and commodities 

sampled 

New England region locations and commodities sampled ~~ ., .'. .-

Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities 

sampled 

Gulf region locations apd commodities sampled 

California region locations and commodities 

sampled " 

Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 

California landinqs of Pacific sardines and 

anchovies 

Aiaska salmon landings by species 

Distribution of the Pacific halibut 

u.s. landings of halibut 1947-1972 

u.s. production and imports of canned sardines 

1960-1972 

Oyster meat production by region 

Comparison of raft and bottom grown oysters 

California abalone "iandings 

Typical large fish meal production process 

Typical small fish meal production process 

Fish meal process plot (with solubles plant) 

Fish meal process plot (without solubles 

plant) 

ix 

" Page 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

31 

32 

35 

45 

46 

48 

55 

56 

60 

67 

71 

73 

75 
Number 

22 

23 

24 

Fish meal flow ratios versus production levet 

Fish meal BOD2 ratios versus production level 

Fish meal total suspended solids ratios versus 

production level 

Typical salmon canning process 

Typical salmon by-product operations 

Alaska salmon cannery size distribution 

Northwest salmon cannery size distribution 

Salmon canning process plot 

Mechanized salmon flow ratios versus production 

Mechanized salmon BO~2 ratios versus production 

level 

level 

Page 

80 

81 

82 

83 

87 

88 

89 

90 

92 

93 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 Mechanized salmon total suspended solids ratios versus 

production level 94 

33 Typical fresh/frozen salmon process 95 

34 Fresh/frozen salmon process plot 99 

35 Hand-butchered salmon flow ratios versus production 

level 102 

36 Hand-butchered salmon BOD1 ratios versus production 

level 103 

37 Hand-butchered salmon total suspended solids 

versus production level 

38 Typical New England ground fish process 

39 Typical New England whiting process. 

40 Typical Mid-Atlantic or Gulf finfiSh process 

41 Typical fish flesh process 

42 Typical Pacific coast bottom fish process 

43 Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process 

44 Conventional bottom fish process plot 

45 Mechanized bottom fish process plot 

x 

ratios 

104 

106 

107 

109 

111 

112 

114 

116 

117 
Number 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

conventional bottom fish flow ratios versus production levels 

conventional bottom fish BOD~ ratios versus production levels 

conventional bottom fish total suspended solids ratios 

versus production levels 

Typical sardine canning process 

Sardine canning process pl9t 

Typical herring filleting process 

Herring filleting process plot 

Typical mechanized surf clam process 

Typical hand shucked surf clam process 

Conventional or mechanical clam process plot 

Typical steamed or canned oyster process 

Typical hand shuck oyster process 

Fresh/frozen. steamed, or canned oyster process plot 

west Coast oyster flow ratios versus production level 

west Coast oyster BOD~ ratios versus production level 

west Coast oyster total suspended solids ratios versus 

production level 

East Coast oyster flow ratios versus production level 

East Coast oyster BOD~ ratios versus production level 

East coast oyster total suspended solids ratios versus 

production level 

Typical scallop process 

Alaskan scallop process plot 

Typical abalone process 

Abalone process plot 

Fish meal process time sequence of activities 

xi 

Page 

122 

123 

124 

127 

129 

134 

136 

140 

142 

144 

148 

150 

151 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

163 

165 

167 

169 

175 
Number 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

Fish meal process plot (with solubies plant) intake and discharge 

Log-normal formulas for the subcategory 

mean and standard deviation 

Chloride correction curves for COD 

determination on seafood processing wastes 

Finfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs S-day BOD 

scatter diagram 

shellfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs S-day BOD 

scatter diagram 

Seafood wastewater S-day BOD vs COD scatter 

diagram 

Industrial fish wastewater S-day BOD vs COD 

scatter diagram 

Finfish wastewater S-day BOD vs COD scatter 

diagram 

Shellfish wastewater S-day BOD vs COD scatter 

diagram 

Schematic drawing of in-plant dry solids removal 

system. (Temco, Inc.) 

Pneumatic unloading system (Temco, Inc.) 

Alaskan physical treatment alternative, 

remote plants with adequate flushing available 

Increase in waste loads through prolonged 

contact with ~7ater 

Typical horizontal drum rotary screen 

Typical tangential screen 

Typical screen system for seafood processing 

operations 

Typical dissolved air flotation system for seafood processing operations 

Dissolved air flotation unit (Carborundum Co.) 

Removal efficiency of DAF unit used in Louisiana 

shrimp study - 1973 results (Dominique, szabo 

Associates, Inc.) 

xii 

Page 

179 

279 

299 

307 

307 

308 

308 

309 

309 

324 

324 

333 

334 

335 

336 

341 

350 

351 

358 
lumber 

89 Air flotation efficiency versus influent COD 

concentration for various seafood wastewaters 

90 Typical extended aeration system for seafood 

processing operations 

91 Removal rate of filtered BOD in a batch aeration 

reactor 

92 Removal rate of unfiltered BOD in a batch 

aeration reactor 

93 Typical aerated lagoon system 

94 Daily maximum and maximum 30-day average based on 

log-normal summary data 

95 Costs and removal efficiencies for alternative 

treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 

96 Operation and maintenance costs for alternate 

treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 

97 Capital costs and daily operation and maintenance cost curves for a wastewater screening 

system98 Capital cost curves for a wastewater air flotation system 

99 Operation and maintenance costs of an air flotation system 

100 Capital costs arid daily operation and.maintenance cost curves for an aerated lagoon 

101 Capital costs and daily operation and maintenance cost curves for an extended aeration 

system 

102 waste disposal costs for landfill or ocean 

disposal 

xiii 

Page 

359 

361 

363 

364 

369 

376 

382 

382 

383 

384 

385 

386 

387 

436 

TABLES 

Number Page 

1 July 1, 1977 effluent limitations 4 

2 July 1, 1983 effluent limitations ·7 

3 New source performance standards 10 

4 Disposition of landings, 1971 and 1972 16 

5 Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 17 

6 Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 19 

7 Production of industrial fishery products 

1962-1972 27 

8 Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons 27 

9 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values 36 

10 Processing season peaks for Alaska salmon .an4 

halibut 37 

11 Major species of Atlantic and Gulf bottom fish 41 

12 ~jor species of Pacific bottom fish 42 

13 u.S. landings of shellfish by species 50 

14 Scallop landings by species, 1963-1972 58 

15 Relative importance matrix -- industrial fish 

and finfish 62 

16 Relative importance matrix -- shellfish 63 

17 Fish meal waste load reduction using bailwater 

evaporation 74 

18 Summary of average waste loads from fish meal 

production 76 

19 unit operation waste characteristics for fish meal 

processing without a solubles unit (Plant A 3) 76 

20 Fish meal process summary (discharge from 

s6lubles plant only) 78 

21 Fish meal process summary (without solubles 

plant) 79 

xv 
Number 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Mechanically butchered salmon process summary 

Annual production of Northwest fresh/frozen 

salmon 

Daily peak production rates of Alaska fr~sh/ 

frozen salmon plants 

Hand butchered salmon process summary 

Alaska bottom fish (halibut) process summary 

Non-Alaska bottom fish size distributon 

conventional bottom fish process summary 

Mechanical bottom, fish process summary 

waste load reduction using dry conveyor 

Sardine in-plant fish transport wa"ter, storage area 

to packing area 

Sardine canning process summary 

Herring filleting process summary 

conventional clam process summary 

Mechanica~ clam process summary 

Steamed or canned oyster process summary 

37 west coast hand-shucked oyster processing 

summary 

38 East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster 

processing summary 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Scallop process summary 

Abalone p~ocess summary 

',' ':'""' 

Fish meal production with solubles plant material balance 

Fish meal production with bailwater material 

balance 

Menhaden reduction process (discharge), M2 

Menhaden reduction process (discharge no 

scrubber water), M3 

xvi 

Page 

91 

98 

98 

101 

118 

120 

121 

125 

130 

131 

133 

138 

146 

147 

153 

154 

155 

166 

170 

177 

178 

180 

181 
Number 

45 

46 

47 

,48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

Menhaden reduction process (discharge), M5 . .. ~-:, . 

Anchovy reduction process (discharge without 

scrubber), A2 ." ; ,,', - , 

Fish meal' production without solubies pl~nt 

material balance 

Anchovy reduction process (dischargel, Al 

Anchovy reQuction process (with air ~crubber 

water), A3 

Salmon canning process material balance (butchering machine) , 

Salmon canQ,ing process mate:rial balance (~and 

butcher) 

Salmon canning process, CSN2 ~ 

Salmon canning process, CSN3 

Salmon canning process (with grinding), CSN4 

Salmon canning process (hand butcher), CSNS 

Salmon canning process (hand butcher), CS6M 

Salmon canning process (without fluming), CSNS 

Fresh/frozen round salmon process' material 

balance 

Salmon fresh/frozen process (round) , FBI 

Salmon fresh/frozen process (ro~nd) , FS2 

Salmon fresh/frozen process (roulld) r FB3 

salmon fresh/frozen process (round) , FB4 

Conventional bottom fish process material 

balance (with skinner) 

Conventional bottom fish process material 

balance (with descaler) 

Percent recovery for New England ground fish 

Whiting freezing process material balance 

Recovery of fillets and fjsh flesh from bottom 

fish - <;;: 

xvii 

;<:" , 

Page " 

182 

183 

185 

186 

187 

189 

BO 

" i92 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 
Number Page 

68 Halibut freezing process material balance 212 

69 Ground fish fillet process, Bl 213 

70 Ground fish fillet process, B2 214 . 

71 Finfish process, FNFl 215 

72 Finfish process, FNF2 216 

73 Finfish process, FNF4 217 

74 Bottom fish fillet process, B4 218 

75 Bottom fish fillet process, B5 219 

76 Bottom fish fillet process, B7 220 

77 Bottom fish fillet process, B8 221 

78 Bottom fish fillet process, B9 222 

79 Bottom fish fillet process, B10 223 

80 Bottom fish fillet process, Bll 224 

81 Bottom fish fillet process, B12 225 

82 Wh:l,ting freezing process, Wl 228 

83 Whiting freezing process, W2 229 

84 Croaker fish flesh process, CFCl 230 

85 Hall.but freezing process, FRHl 231 

86 Halibut fletching process, FFHl 232 

87 Sardine canninq process material balance 233 

88 Sardine canning process, SAl 235 

89 Sardine canning process, SA;2 236 

90 sardine canning process, SA3 237 

91 sardine canning process, SA4 238 

92 Herring filleting process material balance 240 

93 Herring filleting process, HFl 241 

94 Herring filleting process, HF2 242 

xviii 
lumber 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

III 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

Herring filleting process. HF3 

Surf clam canning process material balance 

Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked), FCL2 

Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked), FCL3 

Hand-shucked clam process material balance 

Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HCLI 

Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BCL2 

Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HCL3 

Steamed oyster process material balance 

Hand-shucked oyster process material balance 

Oyster steam process, SOl 

Oyster steam process, 502 

Oyster steam process, sov 

Oyster fresh/frozen process, HS02 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BS03 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BS04 

oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BSOS 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BS06 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BS08 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), BS09 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSlO 

Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSII 

scallops freezing process, 5P1 

Scallops freezing process, SP2 

Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance 

Abalone fresh/frozen process, ABl 

Abalone fresh/frOzen process, AB2 

xix 

. Page 

243 

245 

246 

247 

249 

250 

251 

252 

254 

256 

257 

258 

259 

262 

263 

264 

265 

266 

267 

268 

269 

270 

271 

272 

273 

276 

277 
Number 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

Abalone fresh/frozen process, AB3 

summary of precision analysis for suspended 

solids, COD, and grease and oil 

Summary of precision analysis for ammonia and 

organic nitrogen 

summary of ammonia recovery precision analysis 

Summary of grease and oil recovery precision 

analysis 

20-day BOD/S-day BOD ratio est1mation for 

finfish and shellfish wastewater 

5-day BOD/COD ratio estimation for industrial 

fish, finfish and shellfish wastewater 

Typical composition of fish and shellffsh 

(portion normally utilized) 

Recovery using 20-mesh screen for various 

seafood commodities 

Recovery of proteins with hexametaphosphate 

Coagulation of proteins with SLS 

Typical fish meal process bailwater characteristics 

Fish meal stickwater characteristics 

Northern sewage screen test results 

SWECO concentrator test results 

SWECO vibratory screen performance on salmon 

canning wastewater 

Tangential screen performance 

Gravity clarification using F-FLOK coagulant 

Results of dispersed air flotation on tuna 

wastewater 

Efficiency of EIMCO flotator pilot plant on 

tuna wastewater 

Efficiency of EIMCO flotator full-scale plant 

on tuna wastewater 

xx 

Page 

278 

302 

303 

304 

305 

311 

311 

314 

317 

3.18 

318 

327 

327 

338 

338 

338 

339 

348 

348 

353 

353 
Number 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Gulf 

shrimp wastewater 

Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Alaska 

shrimp wastewate'r " 

Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on 

menhaden bailwater 

Efficiency of full-scale dissolved air flotation 

on sardine wastewater 

EfficiencY of full-scale dissolved air flotation 

on Canadian seafood wastewater 

ActiVated sludge pilot plant results 

Efficiency of Chromaglas package plant on blue 

crab and oyster wastewater ' 

Removal efficiencies of screens for various 

seafood wastewater effluents 

Removal efficiencies of treatment alternatives 

Estimated practicable in-plant waste water 

flow reduotions and associated pollutional loadinqs reductions (1983 and new source) 

Estimated potential in-plant wafer and BOD 

reduction 

Treatmen't:. system cost equations 

water effluent treatment 

with solubles plant costs: fish meal 

Water effluent treatment costs: fish meal without solubles plant 

Water effluent treatment costs: Northwest salmon canning -large 

Water effluent treatment costs: Northwest salmon canning - small 

Water effluent treatment costs: West Coast fresh frozen salmon- large 

Water effluent treatment costs: west Coast fresh frozen salmon - small 

Water effluent treatment CQsts; West Coast 

xxi 

Page 

355 

355 

356 

356 

357 

365 

365 

373 

374 

375 

379 

381 

390 

391 

392 

393 

394 

395 

396 
Numbe.r Page 

fresh frozen salmon - large 396 

162 water effluent treatment costs: west Coast 

fresh frozen salmon - large 397 

163 water effluent treatment costs: West 'Coast 

fresh frozen salmon - small 398 

164 Water effluent treatment costs: west Coast 

fresh frozen salmon - small 399 

165 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

conventional bottom fish - large 400 

166 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

bottom fish - large 401 

167 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

bottom fish - medium 402 

168 . water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

conventional bottom fish - medium 403 

169 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

bottom fish - small 404 

170 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

conventional bottom fish - small 405 

171 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

mechanized bottom fish - large 406 

172 water effluent treatment costs: Non-Alaskan 

mechanized bottom fish - small 407 

173 water effluent treatment costs: conventional 

clams - large 408 

174 water effluent treatment costs: conventional 

clams - small 409 

175 water effluent treatment costs: conventional 

clams - small 410 

176 water effluent treatment costs: conventional 

clams - small 411 

177 Water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 

clams - large 412 

178 water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 

clams - large 413 

179 Water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 414 

xxii 
Number 

clams - large 

180 water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 

clams - small 

181 water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 

claims - small 

182 water effluent treatment costs: mechanized 

clams - small 

183 water effluent treatment costs: Pacific 

hand shucked oyster - large 

184 water effluent treatment costs: Pacific 

hand shucked oyster - medium· 

185 . Water effluent treatment costs: Pacific 

hand shucked oyster - small 

186 Water effluent treatment costs: Eastern 

hand shucked oys~er - medium 

187 water effluent treatment costs: Steamed 

or canned oysters 

188 water effluent treatment costs: Sardine 

canning - large 

189 Water effluent treatment costs: Sardine 

canning - medium 

190 water effluent treatment costs: Sardine 

canning - small 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

Water effluent treatment costs: 

Non-Alaskan scallops 

water effluent treatment costs: non-Alaskan 

herring filleting 

water effluent treatment costs: Abalone 

herring filleting 

Incremental water Effluent Treatment Costs 

for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Salmon Canning 

and Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon 

Incremental water Effluent Treatment Costs 

for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Bottom Fish 

Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs 

for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Herring Filleting 

xxiii 

Page 

414 

415 

416 

417 

418 

419 

420 

421 

422 

423 

424 

425 

426 

427 

428 

429 

431 

432 
Number 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

~nergy consumption of alternative treatment 

systems 

cost of construction and operation of a fish 

deboning plant ' 

capital and operating costs for batch and continuous fish meal facilities 

July 1, 1977 eff1uerif iimitations 

July 1, 1983 effluent limitations 

New source performance standards 

, 

Conversion Factors, English to Metric units 

xxiv 

Page 

433 

434 

435 

440 

446 

451 

485 
SECTION I 

CONCLUSIONS 

For the purpose of establishing effluent. limitations guidelines 

for existing sources and standards of performance for new 

sources, the canned and preserved seafood procesSing industry 

covered in this study was divided into 19 subcategories: 

1) Fish meal processing 

2) . Alaskan hand-butcher.ed salmon processing 

3) Alaskan mechanized sa1JJlon processing . 

4) west Coast hand-butchered salmon processing 

5) Weli?t Coast mechaniz.ed salmon processing 

6) Alaskan bottom fish processing 

7) Non-Alaskan co~ventional bottom fish p~ocessing 

8) Non-Alaskan mechanized bottom fish processing 

9) Hand-shucked clam processing . 

10) Mechanized clam processing 

11) West Coast hand-shucked'oyster processing 

12) Atlantic and Gulf coast hand-shucked oyster 

processing . . 

13) Steamed/canned oyster processing 

14) Sardine processing 

15) Alaskan scallop processing , 

16) Non-Alaskan scallop processing 

17) Alaskan herring fillet processing 

18) Non-Alaskan herring fillet processing 

19.) Abalone processing 

The major criteria for the establishment of the categories 

were: 

1) variability of raw product supply; 

2) variety of the species being processed; 

3) degree of preprocessing; 

4) manufacturing process and subprocesses; 

5) form and quality of finished product; 

6) location of plant; 

7) nature of operation (intermittent vs. continuous); 

and 

8) amenability of the waste to treatment. 

The wastes from all subcategories are amenable to biological 

waste treatment under certain conditions and no materials harmful 

to municipal waste treatment processes (with adequate operational controls) were found. 

A determination of this study was that the level of waste 

treatment throughout the seafood industry is generally 

inadequate, except for the fish meal production industry where 

1 
there are several exemplary plants. At the present time many 

plants in the contiguous states and almost all Alaskan plants 

discharge solid and liquid wastes directly into. the receiving 

waters, others utilize coarse screening techniques to remove 

gross solids from the effluent streams prior to discharge. 

Technology exists , however, for the successful reduction of 

respective wastewater constituents within the industry to the 

point where most plants can be in compliance by July 1, 1977. 

The 1977 limitations are based on tec~nology which can be 

utilized within the economic capability of the industry. For the 

contiguous states the technology basis includes fine screening, 

"good housekeeping" practices, an~ barging; for Alaska the 

technology consists of fine screening and barging of solids in 

non-remote areas, and comminutor or grinders in remote areas. In 

addition to the aforementioned technology, the basis for the 1983 

and new source performance standards includes physical/chemical 

and secondary treatment and the adoption of in-plant controls as 

represented by significantly reduced water use and enhanced 

treatment efficiencies in existing systems, as well as new 

systems. Because waste treatment, in-plant waste reduction, and 

effluent management are in their infancy in this industry, rapid 

progress is expected to be made by the industry in the next· four 

to six years. 

The regulated parameters include total suspended solids, oil and 

grease, and pH for the limitation based on screening systems; for 

physical/chemical and biological systems, BOD~ is utilized also 

as a regulated parameter. Particle size is the regulated 

parameter for limitations based on comminuters or grinders. 

2 
SECTION II 

RECOMMENDATIONS .. 

Limitations recommended for process waste waters discharged to 

navigable waters are based on the reduction of wastewater flows 

and loads through in-plant housekeeping and modifications and the 

characteristics of well operating screens, dissolved air flotation units, aerated lagoons, and extended aeration systems. 

Parameters designated to be of significant importance to warrant 

regulation in this industry, are S-day biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD-S), total suspended solids (TSS), grease and oil (G&O), and pH. . 

The effluent limitations based on the best practicable control 

technology currently available (BPCTCA) are presented in Table ,1; 

the effluent limitations based on the best available technology 

economically achievable (BATEA) in Table 2; and new source 

performance standards, in Table 3. 

3 
TABLE 1 

JULY 1, 1977 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

Parameter (kg/kk!l or 1bs/lOOO 1bs $~afood processed) 

BODS TSS'; Grease & Oil 

Techno1oQY Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30- Oan,Y Max 30-

Subcategory (BPCTCA) ~1ax Da,V aV!l Max Dayavg Max Day avg 

O. Fish Meal 

1- with solub1es unit H 4.7 3.5 .2".3 1.3 0.80 0.63 

2. wlo solub1es unit B 3.5 2.8 ' 2.6 1.7 " 3.2 1.4 

P. AK hand-butchered sa~mon 

1. non-remote H,S,B 1.7 1.4 0.20 0.17 

2. remote Grind * .* * '* * * 

Q. AK mechanized salmon 

1. non-remote H,S,B 27 22 27 10 

2. remote Grind * * * * * * • 

R. West Coast hand-butchered salmon H,S 1.7 1.4 0.20 0.17 

S. West Coast mechanized salmon H,S 27 22 27 10 

T. AK bottom fish 

1. non-remote H,S,B 3.0 1.9 4.3 0.56 

2. remote Grind * * * * * * 

U. Non-AK conventi ana 1 bottom fish H,S 2.1 1.6 0.55 0.40 

V. Non-AK mechanized bottom fish H,S 14 10 5.7 3.3 

W. Hand-shucked clams H,S 59 18 0.60 0.23 
Table 1 (cont'd) July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations 

Parameter (kg/kkg or 1bs/1000 1bs seafood proc'essed) 

BODS TSS Grease & 0; 1 

Subcategory Technology Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30- (BPCTCA) Max Day avg --

Max Day avg Max Day avg 

X. Mechanized clams H,S 90 1.5 4.2 0.97 

Y. Pacific Coast hand-shucked 

oysters** H,S 37 35 1.7 1.6 

Z. East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked 

oysters** ·H,S 19 15 0.77 0.70 

AA. Steamed/Canned oysters** H,S 270 190 2.3 1.7 

AB. Sardines 

1- dry conveying H,S,GT*** 36 10 3.5 1.4 C1i 2. wet flume H,S,GT*** 48 16 6.3 2.8 

AC. AK sca 11 ops** 

l. non-remote H,S,B 6.0 1.4 7.7 0.24 2. remote Grind * * * * * * 

AD. Non-AK scallops** H,S ··,1" 

6.0 1.4 7.7 0.24 

AE. AKherring fillet .: ' 

1. non-remote H,S,B .1·· 32 24 27 10 2. remote Grind * * * * * * 
Table 1 (cont1d) July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations 

Parameter (kg/kkg or 1 bs/l 000 1 bs seafood processed) 

BOD5 TSS 

Technology Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30-

Subcategory (BPCTCA) Max Day avg ~ Day avg 

AF. Non-AK herring fillet 

AG. Abalone 

H,S 

H,S 

32 24 

27 15 

H = housekeeping; S = screen; OAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical optimization; 

B = barge solids; GT = grease trap 

*No pollutants may be_ 4ischarged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimenston 

**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product 

***Effluent limitations are based on treatment of the pre-cook water by screening and skimming of free oil, and screening for the remainder of the effluent 

Grease & Oil 

Daily Max 30-

Max Day avg 

27 10 

2.2 1.4 
Table 2 

July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations 

Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs seafood processed) 

Subcategory Techn010

J

Y BODS TSS Grease & Oil (BATEA Dai ly Max. 30- Daily r1ax. 30- Daily Max. 30- Max. Day avg. r~ax. Day avg. Max. Day avg. 

O. Fish meal IP 4.0 2.6 2.3 1.3 0.80 0.63 

P. Ak hand-butchered salmon IP,S,B 1.5 1.2 0.18 0.15 

Q. Ak mechanized salmon 

l. non-remote IP ,S,DAF,B 16 13 2.6 2.2 2.6 1.0 2. remote IP,S,B 26 21 26 10 

R. West Coast hand-butchered 

salmon IP,S,OAF 1.2 1.{) 0.15 0.12 0.045 0.018 

S. West Coast mechanized salmon IP,S,DAF 16 13 2.6 2.2 2.6 1.0 

T. Ak bottom fish IP,S,B 1.9 1.1 2.6 0.34 

U. Non-Ak conventional bottom 

fish IP,S,AL 0.73 0.58 1.5 0.73 0.04 0.03 

V. Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish IP,S,DAF 6.5 5~3 1.1 .0.82 0.46 0.26 

W. Hand-shucked clams IP,S 55 17 0.56 0.21 

X. Mechanized clams IP,S,AL 15 5.7 26 4.4 0.40 0.092 
Table 2 (Cont'd) 

Proposed Ju'y 1,1983 Effluent Limitations 

Parameter ";(kg/kkg or 1bs/1000 1bs seafood processed) 

Subcategory Techn010J

Y BODS TSS Grease & Oil 

(BATEA Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-

Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg. 

Y. Pacific Coast hand-shuck~d 

oysters* H,S " 37 35 1.7 1.6 

z. East Gulf Coast hand-shucked 

oysters* H,S - 19 15 0.77 0.70 " 

AA. Steamed/Canned oysters* IP,S,AL 67 17 56 39 0.84 0.42 

co AB. Sardines IP,S,DAF** 36 10 1.3 0.52 

AC. Ak scallops* IP,S,B 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 

AD. Non-Ak scallops* IP,$ 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 

AE. Ak herring fillets 

l. non-remote IP,$,DAF,B 6.8 6.2 2.3 1.8 2.0 0.73 

2. remote IP,S,B 23 18 20 7.3 
Table 2 (Cont'd) Proposed July 1,1983 Effluent Limitations 

Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 1bs seafood processed) 

Subcategory Technology 

(BATEA) 

AF. Non-Ak herring fi 1lets IP ,S,DAf . 

AG. Abalone IP,S 

BOD5 

Daily Max. 30-

Max. Day avg. 

6.8 6.2 

TSS 

Dai 1y r1ax. r~ax. Day 

2.3 1.8 

26 14 

Grease & 0; 1 

30- Daily Max. 30-

avg. Hax. Day avg. 

2.0 0.73 

2.1 1.3 

IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; OAF = dissolved air flotation with chemical optimization; AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids ' 

*Effluent-Limitations in terms of finished product , . 

**Effluent limitations based on OAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water, and screening for the remainder of the effluent 
TABLE 3 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs seafood processed) 

BODS TSS Grease & Oil 

Daily f.1ax 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30-

SubcategorrY Technology Max DaX avg Max naX avg Max DaX avg 

O. Fish meal IP 4.0 2.9 2.3 1.3 0.80 0.63 

P. Ak hand-butchered salmon 

1. non-remote IP,S,B -' 1.5 1.2 0.18 0.15 

2. remote grind * * * * * * 

Q. Ak mechanized salmon 

1. non-remote IP,S,B, 26 21 26 10 

2. remote grind * * * * * * 

-' R. West Coast hand-butchered salmon IP,S,DAF 1.7 1.4 0.46 0.37 0.058 0.023 0 

S. West Coast mechanized salmon IP ,S ,OAF 36 32 7.9 6.5 3.8 1.5 

T. Ak bottom fish 

l- non-remote IP,S,B 1.9 1.1 2".6 0.34 

2. remote grind * '* '* * * * 

U. Non-Ak conventional bottom fish IP,S,AL 0.73 0.58 1.5 0.73 0.04 0.03 

V. Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish IP,S,DAF 9.1 7.4 3.3 2.5 0.68 0.39 

W. Hand-shucked clams IP,S 55 17 0.56 0.21 
Table 3 (Cont'd) New Source Performance Standards 

Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs seafood processed) 

BODS TSS Grease & Oil 

Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30- Subcategory Technology Max Oal avg ~ Dal avg Max Dal avg 

X. Mechanized clams IP,S,AL 15 5.7 26 4.4 0.40 0.092 

Y. Pacific Cost hand-shucked 

oysters** H,S 37 35 1.7 1.6 

Z. East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked 

oysters** H,S 19 15 0.77 0.70 

/lA. Steamed/Canned oysters** IP,S,AL -67 17 56 39 0.84 0.42 ... 

-.I AB. Sardines IP,S,DAF*** 36 10 1.4 0,57 

AC. Ak scallops** 1. non-remote IP.S.B 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 

2. remote grind * * * * * * 

AD. Non-Ak scallops IP,S 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 

AE. Ak herring fill1ets 

1. 'non-remote IP,S,B 23 18 20 7.3 

2. remote grind * * * * * * 
Table 3 (Cont'd) New Source Perfonnance Standards 

Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/lOOO lbs seafood processed) 

BODS TSS 

Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30-

. Subca tegory Technology Max Day avg Max Day avg 

AF. Non-Ak IP,S,DAF 16 15 7.0 5.2 herring fillets 

AG. Abalone IP,S 26 14 

IP = in-plant process changes; S = screen; OAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical 

optimization; AL = aerated lagoon; EA: extended aeration; B = barge solids 

*No pollutants ma,y be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension 

**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product 

***Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water, 

and screening for the remainder of the effluent 

Grease & Oil 

Daily Max 30-

Max Day avg 

2.9 1.1 

2.1 1.3 
SECTION III 

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 

Section 30l(b) of the Federal water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 (the Act) requires the achievement by not 

later than July lu 1977, of effluent limitations for point 

sources, other .than publicly owned treatment works, which are 

based on the application of the best practicable control 

technology currently available as defined by the E.P.A. 

Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) of the Act. Section 

301 (b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 

1983, of effluent limitations for point sources, oth~r than 

publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the application of the best available technology economically achievable 

and which will result in reasonable further progress toward the 

national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as 

determined in accordance with regulations issued by the 

Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) of the Act. Section 306 

of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a federal 

standard of performance providing for the control of the 

discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of 

effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be 

achievable through the application of the best available 

demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or 

other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard 

permitting no discharge of pollutantsu Section 307 (b) and (c) 

of the Act requires the achievement of pretreatment standards for 

existing and new sources for introduction of pollutants into 

publicly owned treatment works for those pollutants which ar·e 

determined not to be susceptible to treatment by such treatment 

works or which would interfere with the operation of such 

treatment • 

. Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish 

within o~e year of enactment of the . Act, regulations providing 

for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable through the application of the best 

practicable control technology currently available and the degree 

of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the 

best control measures and practices achievable including 

treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, 

operational me"thods and· other al ternatives. The regulations 

developed herein set forth effluent limitations pursuant to 

Section 304(b) of the Act for the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, 

clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring and abalone segment of 

the canned and preserved fish and seafood processing point source 

category. The effluent limitations for the shrimp, tuna, crab, 

and catfish segment of the industry were promulgated in th·e June 

26, 1974, Federal Register (39 F.R. 23134), an~ amended in the 

January 30, 1975, Federal Register (40 F.R. 4582). 

13 
Section 306 of the Act requb:el':> the Administrator r within one 

year after a category of sources is included in a list published 

pursuant to Section 306 (bl (1) CA) of the Actr to propose 

regulations establishing federal standards of performance for new 

sources within such categories. The Administrator published in 

the Federal Register of January 16, 1973 (38 F.R. 1624) r a list 

of 27 categories. Publications of the list constituted 

announcement of the Administrator's intention to establishr under 

Section 306, standards of performance applicable to new sources 

for the canned and preserved .fish and seafood point source 

categorYr which was included in the list published January l6 r 

1973. 

SCOPE OF STUDY 

The scope of this study is defined as the "remainder of the 

industry" not included in the promulgated regulations covering 

farm-raised catfish r crab, shrimp and tuna (39 F.R. 23134). The 

species specifically mentioned are: oysterr lobster, clam, 

bottom fish, the 'oily species such as menhaden, anchoVYr herring, 

and salmon. The "industry" to be covered by both phases is 

defined as falling into SIC 2031, Canned and Cured Seafood, and 

SIC 2036, Fresh and. Frozen Packaged Seafood. More complete 

definitions of these two classifications as obtained from the 

1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual are quoted below. ~as noted that SIC 2031 and SIC 2036, as defined in the 

Department of Commerce 1967 census of Manufacturersr Publication 

MC67 (2)-20C, were changed to SIC 2091 and SIC 2092 respectively 

in the 1972 S.l.C. Manual. 

·SIC 2091 - Canned and Cured Fish and seafoods 

"Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and canning fish r 

shrimp, oysters, clamsr crabs, and other seafood r including 

soups; and those engaged in smoking r saltingr drying or otherwise 

curing fish for the trade. Establishments primarily engaged in 

shucking and packing fresh oysters in nonsealed containers, or in 

freezing and packaging fresh fish, are classified in Industry 

2092. It 

Canned fish, crustacear 

and mollusks 

caviar: canned and 

preserved 

Clam bouillon, brothr 

chowder r juice: 

bottled or canned 

Codfish: smoked, salted, 

driedr and pickled 

Crab meat, canned and 

preserved 

Finnan haddie (smoked 

14 

Fishr canned 

Fish egg bait, canned 

Herring: smokedr saltedr 

dried, and pickled 

Mackerel: smokedr saltedr 

dried, and pickled 

Oystersr canned and pre- served . 

Salmon: smoked r salted, 

dried, canned and pickled 

sardinesr canned 

Seafood products, canned 
haddock) 

Fish: boneless, cured 

dried, pickled, salted, 

and smoked 

Shellfish, canned 

Shrimp, canned 

Soup, seafood: canned 

Tuna fish, canned 

SIC 2092 - Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish and Seafoods 

Crab meat, fresh: packed 

in non-sealed containers 

Crab meat picking 

Fish fillets 

Fish: fresh, quick frozen, 

and cold pack (frozen)--

packaged 

Fish sticks 

Frozen prepared fish 

Oysters: fresh, shucked 

and packed in non-sealed 

containers 

Seafood: fresh, quick 

frozen, and cold pack 

(frozen) --packaged 

Shellfish, quick frozen 

and cold pack (frozen) 

Shrimp, quick frozen 

and cold pack (frozen) 

Soups, seafood: frozen 

The reduction of the oily species 

solubles is not included in either 

contained in this report. Therefore, 

following segments of the United States 

for animal feed, oils 

classification, but 

the study encompassed 

fishery industry: 

and 

is 

the 

1) All processes falling into either SIC 2031 

2036 (2092) , which are considered to 

significant waste load; and 

(2091) or 

produce a 

2) the reduction of oily species such as menhaden and 

anchovy for fish meal, oil and solubles, including the 

reduction of fish waste when processed at the same 

facility. 

Fish or shellfish which are canned or processed fresh or frozen 

for bait or pet food were not included in this study unless the 

operation was an integral part of a process covered by item 

number one or two, above. The distribution of landings between 

fresh and frozen human food, bait and animal food; canned human 

food, bait and animal food; and cured and reduced fish for 1971 

andl972 is given in Table 4. It can be seen that the 

disposition for bait and animal food is a relatively small 

portion of the total. 

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND· 

The canned and preserved fish and seafood industry, including 

industrial products, has been expanding. steadily from the early 

days of drying and curing to the various technologies involved in 

preserving, canning, freezing, and rendering of fishery products. 

The characteristics of the industry have been influenced by 

changing market demands and fluctuating raw product availability. 

The total value of fishery products processed in 1972 from both 

15 
Table 4. Disposition of landings, 

1971 and 1972 (1 ) 

Product 

Fresh and Frozen: 

Human food 

Bait and animal 

Canned: 

Human food 

Bait and animal 

Cured: 

Reduced to meal, 

solubles, etc. : 

food 

food 

oil, 

TOTALS 

16 

Average 6 

Lbs x 10 

1420 

92 

862 

126 

74 

2266 

4840 

Average 

Percent 

29.3 

1.9 

17.8 

2.6 

1.6 

46.8 

100.0 
Table 5. Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (l) 

Domestic landings Imports Total 

Item 1971 1972 1971 1972 1971 1972 

Million dollars 

Edible fishery products: 

Finfish 257 278 483 498 740 776 

Shellfish 338 380 404 735 742 1115 -' 

" Industrial fishery products: 

Finfish 44 40 187 261 231 301 

Shellfish 4 6 N.A. N.A. 4 6 ': 

Total: 

Finfish 301 318 670 759 971 1077 

Shellfish 342 386 404 735 746 1121 

Total 643 704 1074 1494 1717 2198 
16 

12 

~ 

a 

" til IMPORTS Q 

.... Z 

(Xl t:> 

0 8 P4 

~ H 

..:i 

H 

H 

III 

4 

DOMESTIC CATCH 

o 

1960 1964 1968 1972 

Figure 1. Total U.S. supply of fishery products, 1960-1972 (1) 
Table 6. Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (1) 

Domestic landings Imports Total 

Item 1971 1972 1971 1972 1971 1972 

Million Eounds, round weight 

Edible fish~ry products: 

Finfish 1509 1432 2967 3751 4476 5183 

Shellfish 891 878 615 703 1506 1581 

Industrial fishery pro-

--' ducts: 

\0 Finfish 2545 2383 3204 4589 5749 6972 

Shellfish 24 17 N.A. N.A. 24 17 

Total: 

Finfish 4054 3815 6171 8340 10,225 12,155 

Shellfish 915 895 615 703 1530 1598 

Total 4969 4710 6786 9043 11,755 13,753 
N 

o 

I. SALMON 

2.BOTTOM FISH 

3. RETAIL PACKAGING 

4. OYSTERS 

5.ANCHOVY REDUCTION 

6. FROZEN ANCHOVY 

7. ABALONE 

8.SEA URCHIN 

9. JACK ··MACKEREL 

10. SPINY LOBSTER 

II. MENHADEN 

12. FIN FISH 

13. CROAKERFISH CAKES 

14. PICKLED HERRING 

liS. CLAMS 

16. SEA HERRING 

17. AMERICAN 1.0BSTER 

18. WHITING 

19. SARDINE 

Figure 2. Locations and commodities sampled in the contiguous united States. 
ALASKA 

I. SALMON 

2. SCALLOPS 

3.HALJBUT 

4,HERRING 

Figure 3. Alaska region locations and commodities sampled. 

21 
;g 

(') 

"TI 

-(') 

o 

(') 

ITI 

» 

z 

WASHINGTON 

OREGON 

I. BOTTOM FISH 

2. SALMON 

3. RETAIL PAC KAGING 

4. OYSTERS 

Figure 4. Northwest region locations and commodities sampled. 

22 
NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

MASSACHUSETTS 

CONNECTICUT 

/ 

/ '--../ I 

MAINE 

LBOTTOM FISH 

2. SEA HERRING 

.3. LOBSTER 

4. MENHADEN 

5.WHITING 

6.SARDINE 

Fiqure 5. New England region locations and commodities sampled. 

23 
PA. 

NEW 

YORK 

CONN. 

2.0YSTERS 

3.MENHADEN 

4. PICKLED HERRING 

5. FINFISH 

Figure 6. Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities sampled. 

24 
LOUISIANA 

"""""""-~--'---------,,.,-----.. ---.-------.. --_. -_ .. 

MISSISSIPPI 

GULF OF MEX,ICO 

ALABAMA 

FLORIDA 

LA BATRE 

I. FINFISH 

2.CROAKER FISH CAKES 

!.MENHADEN 

, . . 

Figure 7. Gulf region locations and commodities sampled. 

25 

\-

\ 

\ 

\ 

( 

i 
." 

~ 

--n 

-o 

I. SPINY LOBSTER 

2. ABALONE 

.3. ANCHOVY REDUCTION 

4. SEA URCHIN 

5. JACK MACKEREL 

6. BOTTOM FISH 

7. FROZEN ANCHOVY 

SAN DIEGO 

Figure 8. California region locations and commodities sampled. 

26 
Table 7. Production of industrial 

fishery products, 1962-1972 (1) 

Quantity Value 

Marine Fish Heal, Fish Fish Animal Oil, and 

Year Meal Solub1es Oil Solub1es 

thousand thousand 

tons tons pounds dollars 

1962 312,259 124,649 250,075 53,210 1963 255,907 107,402 185,827 47,842 1964 235,252 93,296 180,198 46,998 1965 254,051 94,840 195,440 56,498 1966 223,821 83,441 164,045 49,916 1967 211,189 74,675 122,398 36,738 1968 235,136 71,833 174.,072 41,294 1969 252,664 81,692 169,785 53,272 1970 269,197 94,968 206,084 69,485 1971 292,812 111,188 265,450 70,377 1972 285,486 134,404 188,445 67,371 

Table 8. Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons. 

Area Earliest Date Peak· Months Latest Date 

North f..1ay 25 July-August October 20 ~lidd1e May 16 July-September November 19 South March 23 June December 

27 
domestic and imported raw materials was a record $2.3 billion. )~ 

percent above the previous record reached in 1971 (Table 5). In 

addition to the value of these processed products, the total 

supply of fishery products increased in 1972, largely due to 

greater imports (Figure 1 and Table 6). The per capita U.Se 

consumption of fish and shellfish in 1972 was 5.5 kg (12.2 1bs) 

totaling 1.14 million kkg (1.25 million tons), up seven percent 

from 1971 (1). 

The seafood industry considered in this study was organized into 

three general segments: industrial fishes, finfishes, and 

shellfishes. General background material such as: species 

involved, volumes, values and locations of landings, and methods 

of harvesting and handling are discussed in this section. A more 

detailed discussion of specific processes and wastes generated 

will be found in sections IV and V, which deal with industry 

categorization and waste characterization, respectively. 

Monitoring of individual processors included four months of 

intensive study of the major seafood processing and fish 

rendering centers in the contiguous United States and Alaska. 

The general sampling locations are identified in Figures 2 and 3. 

Selection of represe~tative plants was based on several factors, 

including: size, age, level of technology, and geographic 

location. For the purpose of organizing the sampling effort, the 

country was divided into seven regions: Alaska, Northwest, Great 

Lakes, New England, Middle Atlantic, south Atlantic and Gulf, and 

California. Maps of each region, excluding the Great Lakes, 

showing the location of the plants monitored during this study 

and the types of fish or shellfish commodities sampled are in 

Figures 3 through 8. The Great Lakes region was not sampled 

because,of a lack of fish processing activity. 

INDUSTRIAL FISHES 

Industrial fishery products include such commodities as fish 

meal, concentrated protein solubles, oils, and also miscellaneous 

products including liquid fertilizer, fish feed pellets, kelp 

products, shell novelties and pearl essence. 

Only that portion of this industry, the reduction of anchovy and 

menhaden, involving rendering fish to meal, oil and solubles was 

specifically studied. The use of herring for meal' is declining 

because of the decline of the resource and because of its greater 

utilization for direct human consumption. The Use of alewives 

for meal has been declining in recent years; however, the 

utilization of this species may increase as demand increases and 

the world supply of fish meal decreases. Table 7 shows the 

volume and value of the meal, oil, and solubles products for the 

last ten years. The value for 1973 .is expected to have increased 

dramatically due to the current fish meal shortage. 

28 
with respect to the rendering of fish to meal, solubles, and 

oils, the two most common species harvested for this purpose are 

the Atlantic menhaden and the Pacific anchovy 0 These fishes and 

the attendant reduction industry were'considered to be important 

from a pollution impact viewpoint and were studied relatively 

thoroughly. 

Menhaden 

Menhaden are small oily fish belonging to the herring family, 

Clupeidae, and members of the genus Brevoortia. Of this genus 

only two species are important to the menhaden fishery. On the 

Atlantic Coast ~. tyrannus dominates, while on the Gulf Coast B. 

patronus is more important. The fish are generally 12 ·inches in 

length and weigh less than a pound. They are found migrating in 

schools of 50,000 to 200,000 along the At.lantic and Gulf Coasts .. 

Menhaden utilization in the united States preceeded the landing 

of the pilgrims. The East Coast Indians planted corn along with 

a fish called munnawhatteaug (menhaden) as a fertilizer. They 

passed this technique on to the early settlers. The early 1800's 

saw the organization of a number of small companies to supply 

manhaden for fertilizer. In the 1850's the first large-scale 

reduction plants appeared on the New England Coast, and since 

then the fishery has grown to a multi-million dollar industry. 

Landings totaled 863,000 kkg (1.94 billion lbs) for 1972, 

comprising 41 percent of the total u.S. landings for that year. 

Fifty-seven percent of the landings were from the Gulf of Mexico 

with the balance from the Atlantic Coast (1)0 

Landing statistics from 1950 to 1956 show that catches from the 

Atlantic increased from 318,000 kkg (00700 billion lbs) to 

699,000 kkg (1.54 billion lbs), comprising 73 percent of the 

catch in 1956, and since then have shown a general decline. The 

Gulf fishery, on the other hand, has been. increasing, and first 

exceeded the Atlantic in 1963, when 440,000 kkg (0.968 billion 

lbs) were landed.. The Gulf fisheries have held their lead over 

the At!antic consistently since 1963 (Figure 9) (1) .. 

Both Atlantic and Gulf menhaden are caught with purse seine nets, 

the principal gear utilized by the industry since 1850. The 

menhaden seine is 400 to 600 m (1312 to 1969 ft) long, 25 to 30 m 

(82 to 98 ft) deep with 3 to 6 cm (1.2 to 2.4 in.) mesh. A 

typical operation consists of two smaller seine boats which 

accompany a carrier vessel 20 to 60 m (197 ft) in length and 

which has a hold capacity ranging from 45 to 544 kkg (50 to 600 

tons). Fishing generally takes place during the day within 60 km 

(37 mil of the reduction plant. A small plane is used to spot 

concentrations of fish and direct the carrier boats to them. At 

the fishing site a suitable school of menhaden is selected and 

the seine boats dispatched. The boats.separate at the school and 

each plays out its half of the net until the fish are enclosed. 

The net is then joined and its perimeter reduced to concentrate 

the fish. The carrier vessel comes alongside the net and pumps 

29 
the catch aboard. The catch is generally 

reduction plant within one day of landing. The 

vessels are refrigerated, allowing the carrier 

for longer periods. 

delivered to the 

holds of some 

to remain at sea 

The fishing season in the Atlantic runs from April to December. 

Table 8 lists the typical seasons for the North, Middle and South 

Atlantic. 

The fishing season on the Gulf. Coast runs from May to October 

with peak months in July and August (2). 

Ninety-nine percent of the menhaden landed in the U.s. are 

reduced for fish meal, oil, and fish solubles. The fish meal is 

primarily utilized as a protein supplement in animal feeds. That 

oil which is exported is used in shortening and margarine, 

domestically it is used in protective coatings, lubricants, 

medicinals, cosmetics and some soaps. A limited market exists 

for fish solubles as a liquid fertilizer. They are 'also combined 

with fish meal for use as animal feed. 

Meal, oil, and solubles are extracted from the fish via a wet 

reduction process. This process consists of cooking the fish 

with live steam at about 240oF. The cooked fish are then 

pressed, separating the fish into press cake (solids) and press 

liquor (liquid). The press cake is dryed, ground, and sold as 

fish meal. The press liquor is clarified and the oil is 

separated. The oil is then further refined, stored and shipped. 

The de-oiled press liquor, known as stickwater, is usually 

evaporated to about 50 percent solids and sold as fish solubles. , 

Anchovy 

The northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) is a small pelagic fish, 

averaging six inches in length at maturity, which is found in 

large schools off the west coast of North America. Feeding on 

plankton as well as small fish, the anchovy: is a direct 

competitor with the Pacific sardine throughout its range (3). 

Coincident with the failure of the sardine fishery, the anchovy 

fishery has exhibited a dramatic increase in the last 15 years, 

as shown in Figure 10. 

During the summer and fall large schools of anchovy, which remain 

in deeper water during the daylight hours, disperse to the 

surface in the evening and re-form into dense schools until dawn 

when they again submerge. This behavior pattern allows the use 

of purse seines in the early morning. The harvesting methods are 

much like those used for menhaden and the catch is usually 

delivered to the processor on the same day it is harvested. 

The anchovy is utilized for canning, reduction and live bait; 

sportsmen use more than 4500 kkg (5000 tons) yearly as bait. 

Because of economic conditions and (presumably) low consumer 

30 
w 

'" " z 

o 

z 

.. 

..J 

z 

"' o 

.. 

J: 

Z 

"' ~ 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

o 

1960 

\ 

...... -----................ \ .... , 

,.,.,.",. \\~~~~~~,.,,/ ... / "" 

'", " 

" .... _--... 

''''--. 

1961 1962 1~63 

I 

1964 1965 1966 

/ 

/ 

----" 

1967 i9SS 

/ 

/ 

/ 

I 

/ 

/ 

I 

1969 

--- __ I 

I 

1970 

, 

, 

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

/ 

1971 

Fiqure 9. Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 (1) 

TOTAL LANDINGS 

ATLANTIC LANDINGS 

GULF LANDINGS 
W 

N 

100 

95 1,500 

90 

1.300 

80 

75 1.200 

70 1,100 

65 

1.000 

60 

900 55 

50 800 

45 700 

40 

600 

35 

500 30 

25 400 

20 300 

15 

10 

200 

PACIFIC SARDINES / r-,\ . 100/ '"",/ 

~ 

Ii 

, i I ' ~ . \ I~ ! i . j\ A 

r

.1 l /\ '\ 1\ , .J \ 1 ' 

I 'I' ~j \ , \ \ I 'i , , \ 

1 \ 

1 \ 

~ ,I \ 1\ 

1\ \ i \ i \ I \ " 

i \ I \ ! \ \ ) \ I , /1 v 'J \ 

.A.../ / .. 

, 

AHCI!OVIES 

,AClnc SAAO'IHU 

\ /f"\ ! ~,'---. \ .-1 

135.27 

Mn.LICN 

POUNOS 

ANCt-lOVIES ' '-~ o t91: L=::::::'19,k20:::;:::;;=~,:b92~5 o=c=::r:::::l193=0===19:1=35=C::::;::~,..L94-'0 '--'=~.....:J:'94=5:'.........o.-'-~'9r:50::L:'-'--'-19..L55-'--'-'~:!.196:::-0""""";:=~'9=65""""""-'-~1970 

FiqurelO. 'California landings of Pacific sardines and anchovies (3) 
acceptance of the canned product, landings declined to 11,600 kkg 

(1.9,400 tons) in 1957 and 4720 kkg (5200 tons) in 1958 (3). 

Landings did not again exceed 4500 kkg (5000 tons) until 1~66 

when, for the first time in over 40 years, anchovy were fished 

mainly for reduction purposes (4). The major portion of the 

anchovy harvest is now utilized by the reduction industry. The 

season quota for the industry is currently 104,000 kkg (115,000 tons) (ll. 

The total adult biomass of anchovy has been estimated to be 4.1 

to 5.1 million kkg (4.5 to'5.6 million tons), 50 percent of which 

resides off California (4). The 1972 harvest of anchovy was 

67,678 kkg (74,535 tons), up 41 percent from 1971 (1). 

Preliminary figures indicate the catch for 1973 was higher than 

previous years (1). 

Once caught, the anchovy 

are pumped directly into 

meal, oil and solids 

employed using menhaden. 

are stored'in the boat holds, until they' 

the plant. Reduction of anchovy to fish 

is essentially the same process as that 

FINFISH 

The term "finfish" is used in this section to refer to those 

fishes (excluding shellfishes) which are processed for human 

consumption. Included are pelagic species such as salmon, 

herring, ocean perch, mackerel, etc.; and benthic species such as 

halibut, flounder, cod, sole, etc. Finfish landings i~ 1972 

totaled 650 million kg (1432 million lbs), which represented 

about 30 percent of the t:otal landings for that year (1). 

As changes in species availability, consumer demand, qnd food 

technology occur, the quantities of various types of fishes harvested and the methods of, processing vary considerably. Over the 

years the industry has shifted emphasis from salting, drying, 

smoking, and pickling to freezing and' canning as methods of preservation. In most cases the fish are prepared by evisceration, 

then reduction to fillets or sections, and subsequently 

application of preservation technology. Each of the various 

finfish processing industries considered during this study are 

introduced below; a more detailed process description for each 

appears in Section IV. 

Salmon 

One of the most iml;)ortant finfish processing segments covered was 

the preservation of salmon by canning and freezing. 

The first salmon cannery was located on 

California and produced 2000 cases 

appeared along most major river systems 

regulation of the fishery began in 

33 

the Sacramento River i! 

in 1864. Soon cannerier; 

of the West Coast. Local 

1866. However, growing 
urbanization and resultant pressure on the salmon spawning runs 

has significantly reduced the number of plants along the west 

Coast. The largest segment of the fishery is now centered in 

Alaska. 

Five species of Pacific salmon are harvested in Alaska, Oregon 

and Washington. This harvest comprised 8.4 percent of the total 

united states landings and 16.1 percent of the ~elative value in 

1972 (1). Eighty-six percent of the salmon harvested in 1972 

were caught in Alaska and were proaessed by 43 plants. Figure 11 

shows the Alaska salmon catch by species for the past 15 years. 

Most of the remaining 14 percent of the salmon harvest was landed 

in Oregon and Washington, and processed by 20 plants. The 1972 

Pacific salmon pack of 98,400 kkg (217 million lbs), down 43,300 

kkg (QS.4 million lbs) from 1971, was one of the poorest years on 

record. The 1973 season in Alaska was less productive than the 

1972 season; the 1973 puget Sound season was also unimpressive. 

Processing plants in Alaska are typically located in isolated 

areas or in small towns. centers of production in Ala sl{a include 

Dillingham, Naknek, Chignik, Kodiak, seward, peterspurgr Wrangell 

and Ketchikan. Most salmon processing in Washington takes place 

in the Puget Sound area, and, in oregon, around the mouth of the 

Columbia River. 

The salmon are most pften frozen and canned; relatively few are 

sold on the fresh market. There recently has been a trend toward 

an increase in the volume of frozen salmon and a decrease in canned salmon. The 1972 ~canned salmon pack is described by area and 

species in Table~ 90 . 

Because of short seasons (Table 10) .and the large numbers of fish 

to be processed, the plants in Alaska are typically larger and 

operate longer hours than plants in Washington and Oregon. 

Season peaks in Oregon and Washington are not as well defined as 

those in Alaska; good fishing is available for longer periods of 

time. Alaska salmon canning plants were observed to contain as 

many as five lines (individual canning lines) and process "around 

the clock" if enough fish were being caught. The freezing 

operations were also often observed to be proce~sing 24 hours per 

day in Alaska. 

Severe winters, foreign fishing pressure and "off" years have 

greatly reduced the recent Bristol Bay red, (also called sockeye 

or blue back) salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) runs. These fish 

populations typically fluctuate on a five-year cycle. The 

largest portion of the 1970 red salmon catch was harvested in 

Bristol Bay with the main center of processing located at Naknek~ 

The red salmon average 2.3 kg to 3.2 kg (five to seven lbs) at 

maturity. The last "peak" year occurred in 1970, when over 

68,100 kkg (150 million lbs) were harvested. Only 22,200 kkg (49 

million lbs) were harvested in the u.s. in 1972. In addition to 

Bristol Bay, other areas with good sockeye runs are Chignik, 

Copper River, Fraser River (British Columb~a) and the rivers 

34 
(.oJ 

01 

o " z 

::> 

o 

.. 

:z: 

... 

!( 

... 

15O 

125 

100 lit,; 

o 

[;. 

\ / 

~ 

/ \ 

/ \ 

/\, / \ 

/ "/ \ 

/ '-6 \ 

/ \ 

A 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

\ 

\ i \ \ 

\ \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

o \ 

, \ 

k 

\/ 

/ 

j 

/ 

/ 

I 

/ 

/ 

/ 

--- / . /0_'_'-0/' 

/ 

/ 

19'8 1959 1960 1961 

I 

19~ 

\/ 

. / \ . cI 

.0, / . . , 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~ I \ 

\ I .. 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

I \v 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1963 196<4 1965 t966 1961 1968 1969 1970 1971 

Fiqure 11. Alaska salmon 1andings by species (1) 

p 

1912 1913 

REDS ..------. 

PINKS 6- - ---A 

CHUMS 0-'-,-.-0 KINGS 0 •..•• 0 

SILVERS 0+ ...... ~ 
Table 9. 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values (1) 

Alaska Washington Oregon 

Cases Value ($) Cases Value ($) Cases Value ($) 

Species x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 

Red or 519.9 35,013 107.6 7,894 4.7 351 

sockeye 

Pink 610.8 28,008 12.8 580 0.4 38 

Chum 473 18,761 52.8 2,113 1.0 42 

w 

0\ 50.4 944" 7.3 274 Silver 2,566 9.5 

or coho 

King or 13.2 652 7.6 393 21.1 1,229 

chinook & 

steelhead* 

TOTAL 1,667.3- 85,000 190.3 11,924 34.5 1.1 934 

* Note that the stee1head is not truly a salmon; rather it is an anadramous rainbow trout. 
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

SALMON 

PINK_ ~~ ~.-.I 

SOCKEYE ~. ~.-.I 

CHUM_ ~.~ ~++I 

COHO_ ~ ... . -~ 

KING_ ••••• ...... 

HALIBUT 1+. ~ .... ~ ~ .... ~ ..... ~ .... 

Table 10. Processing season peaks for. Alaska salmon and halibut .(6) (7) 
flowing into Puget Sound. The red salmon cycle in the Fraser 

River is typically a four year cycle. Many Fraser River fish are 

harvested by u.s. fishermen before entering Canadian territorial 

waters. 

Pinkr or humpbacked salmon (~ gorbuscha) range from Northern 

California to the Bering Sear but most are harvested in Central 

and southeastern Alaska and puget Sound. These salmon peak 

typically on a two-year cycler with.large runs occurring in evennumbered years. Howeverr some areas may have runs of equal sizes 

in successive years. In 1972 r 22r200 kkg (48.8 million lbs) of 

this species were harvested. Each fish at maturity weighs 1.4 kg 

to 2.3 kg (three to five lbs) • 

Caught incidentally along with the red and pink salmonr over 

l8r 600 kkg (41 million lbs) of ch~r or dog salmon (0. ketal were 

harvested in 1972. This fish r like'the pink salmon, ranges from 

Northern California to the Bering Sea. Special late seasons for 

gill netting the dog salmon are held in Alaska. Their average 

weight is 2.7 kg to 3.6 kg (six to eight lbs). coho r or silver 

salmon (~kisutch) and the king, or chinook salmon (~ 

tschawytscha) are caught mainly in southeastern Alaska and along 

the oregon and Washington coasts. A well-known king salmon run 

also occurs at Dillingham in Bristol Bay. The coho salmon caught 

in 1972 totaled 2400 kkg (5.3 million lbs) and the kings 

harvested weighed 1500 kkg (3.2 million lb~ 0 King salmon 

average 5.4 kg to 11.4 kg (12 to 25 lbs), while coho salmon range 

from 2.7 to 4.1 kg (six to nine lbs) at maturit~. 

Regulation of the salmon fishery is accomplished by employing 

quotas (limiting the catch) and limitations on vessel and equipment size and effi,ciency. Seasons in Bristol Bay are generally 

set on a day-to-day basis with closures in peak years occurring 

when the daily capacity of the canneries is reached. In "off" 

years, closures are enforced when escapement is not adequate to 

sustain the population. Central and Southeastern Alaska seasons 

are set on a weekly basis. The Puget Sound red salmon fishery is 

regulated by a bilateral commission involving the United states 

and Canada, since many of the fish come from the Fraser River in 

British Columbia. Seasons are set to provide proper escapement 

levels in the other areas of Oregon and Washington, too. 

Salmon are harvested primarily by three different methods: 

trollingr purse seining and gill netting. Trolling involves four 

to eight weighted lines fished at various depths. One or two men 

handle the relatively small boats. Both artificial lures and 

natural bait are used. Troll'harvested fish are dressed and iced 

as soon as they are caughtr allowing a boat to be at sea seven to 

ten days at a time. Salmon caught in this manner are usually 

frozen r but may be canned. High prices are paid for fish caught 

in this manner, making trolling economically attractive. Coho 

and king salmon are most often caught by the trolling method. 

38 
~~--~--~--------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----

The purse seine is a very effective harvesting method when fish 

can be found congregated or schooled. The net is laid in a 

circle with one end attached to the power skiff. Once the circ~e 

is closed, the net is pursed at the bottom to prevent fish from 

escaping. The net is retrieved by passing it through a power 

block. Once the salmon are in a sufficiently small area, they 

are bailed onto the boat. This type of net is used effectively 

in Central and Southeastern Alaska; and in the Puget Sound area. 

The last method, gill netting, can be fished from boats (drift 

gill netting) or from shore (set gill netting). Both types catch 

the fish by entanglement; nets are usually set across migration 

routes. The nets are periodically "picked" so the fish can be 

taken to the processing plant. This method is used primarily in 

Bristol Bay. 

A limited number of fish are also taken by Indians using traps 

and fish wheels. These harvesting methods are illegal for all 

but native fishermen. 

Larger vessels, called tenders, usually bring the salmon from the 

fishing grounds to the processing plant. Fishing boats coming 

into the plant because of breakdowns and supply shortages also 

deliver fish to the plant. It is more common for trollers to 

deliver directly to the plant than seiners and gill netters. 

Tenders using chilled brine can store the fish up to four days 

without freezing. Dry tenders, which are rapidly becoming 

obsolete, must return to the processing plants daily. A few 

tenders ice their fish. 

The salmon are unloaded from' the vessels by means of either 

air/vacuum, elevator, or bucket systems, conveyed into the plant, 

and sorted by species into holding bins. Salmon to be canned are 

usually put through a butchering machine which removes the head, 

tail, fins, a~d viscera; manual butchering is still practiced in 

some plants. The cleaned salmon are inspected and conveyed to 

filling machines equipped with gang knives which cut the salmon 

into appropriate sized sections designed to fit the various sized 

cans. The filled cans, which may be handpacked in some plants, 

are then seamed and retorted. other products, such as eggs and 

milt, are retained for human consumption; heads, fins, and 

viscera are either discharged or rendered into oil and meal. 

Salmon to be frozen are beheaded and manually eviscerated before 

a final cleaning in a rinse tank. Troll-caught fish are cleaned 

at sea and need only beheading and rinsing. The fish are then 

quick-frozen in blast or plate freezers at approximately -34°C (-

290 F). After glazing (covering of the fish with ice or a polymer 

solution), which protects them from dehydration, the fish are 

stored until export. Most frozen salmon are exported to Japan 

and Europe. 

Bottom Fish 

39 
"Bottom fish,." for the purpose of this report,. refers to several 

species of Atlantic,. Gulf,. or Pacific food fishes. The types of 

fish included vary according to the geographic area and the 

harvesting method employed. Also,. depending on the locality, 

different generic names are applied to these kinds of fishes. 

The term "bottom fish" is used primarily on the West Coast. The 

term "finfish" usually refers to those species of fish which are 

caught together,. are predominantly pelagic varieties,. and are 

primarily handled by plants located in the Middle, Southern 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions. "Ground fish" refers to 

varieties of fish that inhabit the North Atlantic region. 

Bottom fish are ordinarily limited to the continental shelf, 

living on or near the ocean bottom. On the East Coast the shelf 

may extend (in places),. over 200 miles,. while the west Coast is 

characterized by a narrower shelf extending abo~t ten miles. 

These continental shelves provide a rich environment for the 

proliferation of this fishery resource. united States landings 

of classified species of bottom fish were 238,.000 kkg (525 

million lbs) in 1972, which represents 35 percent of the total 

landings of edible finfish for that year. 

Individual plants may utilize both mechanical and 

means to prepare fish portions or whole fish for 

majority of the fish is frozen while the remainder 

fresh. 

conventional 

market. The 

is marketed 

with respect to the bottom fish found off the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts,. more than 40 different species are harvested. Table 11 

lists the species which constitute the majority of the landings. 

The fishing season is open all year,. with the peak occurring during the summer months. Because of the infringement of foreign 

fishing vessels, the ground fish industry in. the North Atlantic 

is decreasing in size. However,. recent legislative action has 

been aimed at re-defining the limits of these rich fishing 

grounds,. and hopefully will result in an equitable distribution 

of the catch among the various countries. ' 

The Pacific Coast bottom fishery appears to be a relatively 

stable industry at present. The current limits on the growth of 

the industry are determined mainly by fishing conditions and 

market demand. The peak season usually occurs during the summer 

months; however,. for most species, the season is continuous. 

Table 12 lists average landings of the major Pacific bottom fish 

species. Market demand is affected by consumer preference,. 

special seasons,. and labor availability. Future expansion of the 

industry will probably be dependent on an increased demand for 

such products as fish protein concentrate or fish flesh. 

Ground fish in the North Atlantic and bottom fish on the 

Northwest Coast are harvested primarily by large trawlers. A 

trawler is a boat equipped with a submersible net, termed an 

otter trawl,. which is dragged behind the boat at various depths 

40 
Flounder: 

Table 11. Major species of Atlantic 

and Gulf bottom fish (1) 

Landings 

Species 1967-1971 average (kkg) 

yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea) 30,267 

blackback (Psuedopleuronectes . americanus) 10,438 

other 4673 

Ocean perch (Sebastes marinus) 27,545 

Whiting (Marluccius bilinearis) 24,646 

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) 23,892 

Cod (Gadus morhua) 23,325 

Mullet (Musel cephalus) 14,482 

Seatrout: 

gray (Cynoscion regalis) 2811 

other (Cynoscion ~.) . 3230 

Pollock (Pollachius virens) 4036 

Croaker (Micropogon undulatus) 3126 

41 
Table 12. Major species of 

Pacific bottom fish (1) 

Species 

Flounders (numerous species) 

Rockfishes (numerous Sebastes 

species) 

Ocean perch (Sebastes a1utus) 

Hake (Mer1uccius productus) 

Red Snapper (Sebastes rubirrimus) 

Cod (Gadus macrocephalus) 

42 

Landings 

1967-1971 average (kkg) 

20,697 

12,047 

6194 

6030 

4811 

2560 
depending on the types of fish pursued. The mouth of the net is 

kept open by a cork line on top, a lead line on the bottom, and 

"doors" (metal or wood planning surfaces) on the sides. The fish 

are swept into the mouth of the net and accumulate in the heavily 

reinforced rear portion, the cod end. 

The smaller "finfish" fishery on the South Atlantic coast and 

Gulf Coast is harvested by various methods, depending on 

locality. The otter trawl is the major method used in the Gulf. 

Haul netting and pound netting are two methods regularly used 

along the mid-Atlantic- Coast; the third method is gill netting. 

Haul netting is a form of beach seining in which a long net is 

anchored to the shore, pulled out to sea, then circled around and 

brought back into the beach. The area impounded by the net is 

then shrunk by pulling the net onto the beach, and the trapped 

fish are collected. The second method, "pound netting," involves 

stringing a net perpendicularly to the shore and creating a 

circular impoundment at the offshore end of the net. As the fish 

swim into the net, they tend to follow it seaward until they 

reach the impoundment, in which they are trapped. 

Bottom fish processing primarily involves the preparation of 

filleted portions for the fresh or frozen market. Whole fish and 

fish cakes may also be prepared depending on the region and kind 

of fish processed. The fish are delivered to the docks and, if 

not previously done on the vessel, are sorted according to 

species. Fish to be fil-Ieted are passed through a pre-rinse and 

transported to the fillet tables where skilled workers cut away 

the two fleshy sides. These portions are then ei thermechanically or manually skinned prior to packaging. Whole fish 

are run through a descaling machine, or may be descaled by hand, 

and eviscerated. Most - whole fish go directly to the fresh 

market. 

A relatively new process within the united States, utilizes 

recently-developed flesh separating machinery to extract flesh 

from fish. Frozen cakes and blocks are the end products. 

Although new, the process holds much promise because it can 

attain high yields, utilize previously ignored fish species, and 

se-rve large markets. The foundation for this process was laid 

when Japanese and German inventors created the prototype 

machinery for extracting flesh from eviscerated fish without 

incorporating bone and skin into the finished product. The 

method of operation essentially is a shearing and pressing action 

created by a rotating perforated drum bearing against a slower 

moving belt that holds the fish tig~tly against the d:t;um. 

Halibut 

Two species of halibut are harvested in the United states. The 

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglos~us hippoglossus), which is harvested 

off the Northeast Coast, comprised less than one percent of the 

total halibut catch in 1972. The Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

43 
stenolepis) is harvested from Northern California to Nome, Alaska 

(Figure 12). Alaska and washington accounted for 69 and 31 

percent, respectively, of the west Coast harvest in 1969. 

processing plants in Alaska are typically located in small towns 

such as Sand Point, Kodiak, Seward, Juneau, pelican, sitka, 

Petersburg and Ketchikan. The centers of production in 

Washington are Bellingham and seattle. 

The halibut fishery was first conducted over the entire year, 

with most of the catch occurring between March and october. 

Season closures and catch limits were instituted in the early 

1930's when the stocks became severely depleted. The Pacific 

halibut fishery is now regulated by the. International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC) to which the united States, Canada, and 

Japan belong. It is the IPHC that does most research on and 

requlation of the fishery. The harvest of the halibut in the 

united states has been dropping in recent years (Figure 13) and 

the 1974 halibut quota may be less than 30 million pounds for 

both the United states and Canada combined (5). IPHC figures 

estimate the 1970 annual loss to Canadian and American fishermen 

at 3400 kkg (7.5 million lbs). Japan and Russia harvested most 

of their halibut while trawling for ocean perch and shrimp. As a 

member of the Commission, Japan is supposed to return the cauqht 

halibut to the ocean, but survival of these fish is poor (6). 

Halibut fishing is effected with "longlines," which are composed 

of numerous smaller units, called nskates," that are 

approximately 457 m (1500 ft) long. Hooks and smaller lines 

called Ubecketslt are attached to the skate at intervals ranging 

between 4.0 m (13 ft) to 7.9 m (26 ft). The hooks are baited 

with a variety of fish including salmon heads and tails, herring, 

and octopus. The longlines (sometimes several ~iles in length) 

are usually fished at depths of 82 m (270 ft) to 274 m (900 ft) 

from four to 30 hours. Anchors are used to keep the longlines in 

place and flags are used to mark the ends of the lines. 

Once the halibut are brought on board the boat, they are immediately butchered and iced. Some halibut are beheaded, others 

are not. Depending on vessel size, 4.5 kkg (5 tons) to 36.3 kkg 

(40 tons) of crushed or powdered ice is used on each trip. The 

average length of a trip in Southeastern Alaska is 13 days, 

whereas 20 to 25 days is common ~n the Alaskan Gulf (8). 

After delivery to the processing plant the halibut may be either 

frozen whole or reduced to skinned, boneless meat sections known 

as Itfletches." Upon receipt at the docks, the fish are beheaded, 

if they haven't been previously, the coelom flushed of ice, and 

then the fish are graded according to size. Depending on the 

plant, fish to be frozen whole are washed either manually or 

mechanically and transferred to freezing tunnels which quick 

freeze the fish at -45 0 C (-490 F). Further processing of the 

halibut into portions then takes place after shipment to a retail 

packaging firm. Processors that "fletch" the halibut grade them 

into lots of under 27 kq (60 Ibs) and over 27 kq (60 Ibs); the 

44 
Fiqure 12. Distribution of the Pacific halibut (8) 
o 

U> o 

on o 

v o 

,., 

(.punod 901 X) S9NIONlfl .LSlfOO .LS3".. 's'n llfnNNIf 

46 

on 

.~ 

CIl 

D 
fish under 27 kg are frozen whole as previously mentioned. Those 

fish greater than 27 kg are butchered to remove four f1etches. 

These sections are then trimmed, washed, and quick frozen. 

Larger trimmings are marketed to be smoked, breaded, etc., and 

the large f1etches are usually distributed to institutional 

outlets from which steaks are then cut. '"'}, 

Sea Herring 

Atlantic herring {Clupea harengus harengus) are one of the most 

abundant food fishes in the North Atlantic, especially in the 

Gulf of Maine. The Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pollasi) 

fishery has never been large and has been steadily declining 

since 1952. The same is true of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops 

caeruleus), which has been on the de~line since 1948; commercial 

landings ceased after 1949 in British Columbia, Washington and 

Oregon (3). A law was passed by the California legislature in 

1967 establishing a moratorium on the taking of sardines in 

California waters. No Pacific sardines have been 'canned since 

1968 (1). 

The canning of small, immature fish as sardines is the most 

important use of Atlantic herring. The use of herring for 

reduction to fish meal has declined as the resource declined and 

as the value for direct human food increased. The filleting of 

both the Atlantic and Pacific herring is a small but expanding 

industry. Landings of· sea herring in 1972 totaled 46,300 .kkg 

(102 million lbs), up 17 percent from 1971 (1). The North 

Atlantic harvest comprised 85 percent of the 1972 total; Maine 

supplied well over half .. the sardines consumed in the United 

States. 

Sardines 

The first United States commercial sardine canning operation was 

established at Eastport, Maine in 1871 and the industry has 

remained centered in that state. During the 1950's, the number 

of canneries averaged about 45; however, because of decreasing 

fish supplies, foreign competition, consolidation, and other 

factors, the number of active processing operations has decreased 

to 17 (10). Most of the plants are relatively old and are built 

on piling over the water. Figure 14 shows the U.S. production of 

canned sardines for the past 12 years. 

Sardines are harvested by three methods: purse seine's~' weirs, 

and stop seines. stop seines and weirs are used to trap the fish 

while they are in a cove at high' tide. When the tide starts to 

recede the fish try to leave the bight and become entrapped in 

the net. 

After the fish are caught the scales are 

storing. The "pearl essence" from the scales 

47 

removed prior to 

is used in the 
C\J 

f"-

- m rN 

I""-

CI'\ 

...-I 

I 

0 

1.0 

CI'\ 

...-I 

Ul 

Q) 

s:: 

ex> .~ 

I'd 

(0 1-1 

~ ro 

Ul 

I'd 

Q) 

s:: 

Z s:: 

en 0 ro 

0 

l- Ia: u 4-1 

0 :::> 0 

a.. 0 

::E 0 Ul 

.j.J 

0:: 1-1 

a.. 0 

.~ 

~ 

V I'd (0 s:: m ttl 

s:: 

0 

.~ 

.j.J 

0 

::s 

I'd 

0 

1-1 

0-

U) 

. 

0 

0 .q< (0 

m r-I 

Q) 

1-1 

0 10 0 10 0 ::s 

0 f"- lO C\J tTl 

.~ 

r:r.. 

EV~X/SaNnOd NOI~~IW 

48 
manufacture of cosmetics, lacquers, and imitation pearls. The 

fish themselves are salted down, layer by layer, to preserve them 

while in the hold. The fish are usually pumped out of the boat 

and transferred to refrigerated brine tanks for storage. They 

are then flumed or mechanically conveyed to the cutting tables, 

where the heads and t.,.,.·i 'r.:.; are l~emoved. Depending on size, four 

to twenty fish are hanG.' :>;'~:ked into the characteristic flat 

sardine can. The f ish are then p.r.·~.:!cooked in a It steam box" for 30 

minutes in the open cans. 'The cans are then' removed, drained, 

and oils or sauces are added, after which they are vacuum sealed. 

The sealed cans are retorted to sterilize the product prior to 

storage or shipment. 

Herring Filleting 

Sea herring fillets are produced on both the East and West 

Coasts, with the processing centers located in Southeastern 

Alaska and in :~ew England 0 The filleting ?peration is a 

relatively recent development, having been used 1P New England 

for only three years and having started in Alaska just last year. 

The market for herring fillets is expanding; the future of this 

new utilization method looks promising. 

The fish are harvested and delivered to the processor in the same 

manner as described,for the sardine canning operation. They are 

passed through a machine which first removes the head, tail, a,nd 

viscera and then splits the fish into boneless sections or 

fillets. The fillets are sorted, boxed, and frozen for export. 

During the spawning season, the roe and milt are sometimes 

recovered and exported to Japan and England, respectively. 

SHELLFISH 

The term "shellfish" in this report applies to those species of 

marine animals belonging to the following phyla: 1) mollusca, 

such as clams,. oysters, abalone, scallop's, 'and conchs; 2) arthropoda, such as lobsters; and 3) echinodermata, such as sea 

urchins.. Shellfish proceSSing is practiced along much of the 

u.S. coast, with both isolated and concentrated centers of 

production. In 1972, 86,000 kkg (l90 million lbs) of edible 

shellfish were landed in the U.S., with a value of 380 million 

dollars (1). Table 13 summarizes the 197.2 landings and values 

for the most important shellfish species. S.tatistics on landings 

for clams, oysters and scallops are $hown, in weights of meats 

excluding the shell. Landings for lobsters are shown in round 

(live) weight. . ' ' 

Clams 

The harvesting of clams account;.s for about two percent of ,the 

volume of the landings in tne U .. S .. s€4.;fpod industry and 4.8 

percent of 'the t.otal value. The most import-gnt types are the 

surf, nard, and soft clams. 

49 
Table 13. u.s. landings of shellfish by species (1 ) 

1971 1972 1967-1971 

(average) 

Weight (lbs) Value ($) Weight (lbs) Value ($) Weight (lbs) 

Species x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 

Clams: 

Hard 17,216 17,025 16,336 18,501 16.206 

Soft 11,829 6467 8769 5252 11,680 

Surf 52,552 6905 63,441 7931 51,010 

Other 1062 143 554 175 1374 0'1 

a 

Oysters 54,585 30,426 52,546 33,819 56,446 

Scallops: 

Bay 1455 2428 479 786 1574 

Calico 1566 783 1342 843 1019 

Sea 6264 8829 6995 12,625 9386 
I 

\ 

j 

.\ 

About 87 percent of the clam harvest occurs in the mid-Atlantic 

region" with about 11 percent in New England and 2 percent in 

other areas 0 Of the clams harvested in the mid-Atlantic region" 

61 percent are surf" 20 percent hard, and 17 percent soft, with 2 

percent being miscellaneous species (1). 

The surf clam (Spisula solidissina), also known as bar, hand, 

sea, beach, or skimmer clam, is found from the southern part of 

the Gulf of st. Lawrence to the northern shore of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Commercially harvested clams are found at depths of from 

8 to 58 m (25 to 190 ft). The clams bury themselves to a depth 

of about 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 in.) in a a substrata of gravel, 

sand, or muddy sand. Their size varies with geographic location. 

In the most productive area, from Long Island to Virginia, the 

clams range from 15 to 22 cm (6 to 8-3/4 in.). The marketed 

clams average 5 to 6 years in age~ natural life spans are about 

17 years. 

Surf clams are harvested a11 year, weather permitting, for 8 to 

12 hours per day, about 20 miles from shore, using a 1 to 2 m (3 

to 6 ft) wide steel dredge. A hose pumping about 5700 to 11,000 

1 of water per minute (1500 to 3000 gpm) breaks up the ocean 

bottom in front of the dredge, enabling the clams to be loosened 

and netted. A full dredge yields from 760 to 910 1 (25 to 30 bu) 

(11) • 

The processing of surf clams consists of three basic operations: 

shucking, debellying, and packing. The clams are either 

mechanically or hand shucked. Hand shucking operations generally 

use a hot water cooker before removing the clam. from the shell. 

Mechanical operations use a stearn cooker or a shucking furnace. 

The meat is then removed from the shell by the use of a brine 

flotation tank. The shells are stockpiled and utilized in 

landfills or road construction or piled to dry for subsequent use 

as media for shellfish larvae attachment. 

The clams are often debellied manually, although there is a trend 

to automate this operation. The viscera and gonads removed from 

the surf clam are either dumped directly into the adjacent rece~v~ng waters, or saved for bait or hog food. There are 

several final products: fresh' pack as whole clams, canned, and 

frozen clams. 

The several washing operations result in a high volume of 

wastewater, especially in the mechanized plants. 

Hard Clams 

"Hard clam" refers to a quahog or quauhog (Meicenania mencenanif. 

Venus meicenania, cyprina islandica" Arlica islandica), butter 

clam (saxidonus nuttali), and little neck clam (Papes starninea). 

The hard clam, also known as cherry stone, chatter, little neck,. 

or round clam" is found from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the 

51 
Gulf of Mexic9 with a few Pacific Coast locations; however, the 

main centers of industrial activity are Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, New York, North Carolina, Florida and Washington. 

The adult clam is 5 to 10 cm (2-4 in.) long~ It is found on 

sandy, muddy substrata from the high tide line to depths of about 

18 m (60 ft) and 24 to 46 m (80 to 150 ft) deep, three to twelve 

miles off shore. The clam meat has a similar chemical 

composition to oyster, but contains more protein per unit weight. 

Manual means such as rakes, and oyster tongs are used, inshore, 

whereas, power operated Nantucket-type dredges are used offshore. 

The dredge acts as a multi-toothed plow, digging through the 

bottom and scooping the shellfish into an attached bag. 

Ocean quahogs are harvested all year and the clam beds, unlike 

inshore areas, remain unmanaged. The clams arr1ve at the 

shucking houses by truck 15 to 30 hours after being harvested. 

They are then washed and shucked into metal colanders, washed, 

weighed, and packaged. The operation is very similar to a manual 

'oyster shucking operation. The hard clams have a longer frozen 

shelf life than the other clams; however, a few are sold fresh 

for use in chowder (12). 

Soft Clams 

The soft clam (Mya anenonia) is located on the East Coast from 

Labrador to North Carolina, with a few locations on the west 

Coast. The economically important centers range from Maine to 

Massachusetts and the Chesapeake Bay region. It is a small 

industry which operates in conjunction with the oyster and blue 

crab business. Clams are processed all year except during bad 

weather, in parts of the summer when normal dieoff takes place, 

and when water quality fails to meet state regulations. 

In New England, where the soft clams are mainly intertidal, hand 

forks or hand hoes are the dominant harvesting teChniques., The 

hydraulic dredge is used in the Chesapeake Bay area. The dredge 

utilizes water pressure to disturb the bottom sediments and a 

conveyer belt brings the clams ~rom the 2.5 to 6 meter (8 to 20 

ft) depth to the surface, where the mature clams are sorted out. 

At the present time, about 21,000 cu m (700,000 bushels) are 

harvested by 150 licensed dredgers per year in the Chesapeake Bay 

area (13). 

by a combination of 

and industrial wastes, 

and dredging which has 

The number of clam beds is being reduced 

factors such as pollution from municipal 

high temperatures, siltation, low salinity 

stunted growth and led to high bacterial 

demand is increasing due to the increasing 

Recent trends are toward further processing 

for chowders. 

52 

counts. The market 

use of the surf clam. 

using breading and 
The processing of soft clams is very similar to the processing of 

hand shucked oysters. The entire clam is removed from the shell, 

washed, fresh packed, and shipped for further processing since 

they are rarely eaten raw. Those which are not fresh packed are 

canned, sold in the shell, or used for bait by fishing boats. 

Most plants are small, employing 8 to 30 shuckers (12). 

OYSTERS 

The three species of oyster important in the United St~tes are 

the American, Eastern, or Virginia oyster (cassostrea virqinica) , the Japanese or Pacific oyster (Cassostrea qiqass), and the 

Olympia or native oyster (Ostrea lurida). The eastern oyster is 

found on the east coast of North America and on the Gulf Coast. 

In the north it takes four to five years to reach a marketable 

size of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in.) and less than one-and-one-half 

years in the Gulf. Pacific oyster seed originates in Japan and 

is planted along the west Coast. The shell is elongated and 

grows to 30 cm (12 in.) or longer. The olympia oyster, native to 

the Northwest, rarely exceed six cm (2.75 in.) (14). 

Oysters are marketed in the shell, fresh packed, steamed, smoked, 

frozen, breaded, and in chowders and stews. A large amount is 

utilized by restaurants. The shell is used commercially as 

poultry food, in fertilizer, concrete, cement, pharmaceuticals, 

road construction, and as media for oyster larvae attachment. 

Harvesting varies according to the area. On the west Coast, the 

oyster seed used is sent from Japan annually and may be strung on 

wires which ~re suspended from wooden racks, which are then 

suspended in the water. After a year the wires are cut, allowing 

the oysters to continue to grow on the bottom. 

In New England, oysters are harvested by large suction dredges, 

with most of the beds being privately owned and managed. In 

contrast, only antiquated techniques are allowed by State law in 

Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. Harvesting occurs between September 

15 and the end of April using hand tongs and sail dredging. In 

Virginia, the season is from oCtober to March on public grounds 

and all year on beds leased from the State. Oysters are 

harvested using a boat towing ~ tQur foot wide dredge. The 

dredge acts as a plow, digging through the bottom and scooping 

the oysters into attached bags .. - In the southern states the 

oyster flats are often expo Seq ~t low water and hand picking, 

grabs, and hooks are most often u§ed. OVerall, dredges harvest 

about 63 percent; tongs, about 36 percent; and forks, rakes, and 

hand picking, the remainder. -

The harvest of oysters in the Uniteg States by all methods totals 

about 22,000 to 27,000 kkg (50 tQ 60 million Ibs) live weight. 

About eo percent- of the total production is taken from the 

Chesapeake Bay and Gulf Coast regigns, with .the largest volume 

landed in the Chesapeake B~y; particularly in Maryland (15). 

53 
Figure 15 reviews the history of oyster meat production in the 

United states by region. 

Aquaculture, using techniques developed by the Japanese, is being 

used increasingly to raise production. It has been found that by 

"artificially" optimizing conditions more oysters can be grown 

per unit area of bottom, the growth rate can be doubled, they can 

be grown in areas where the bottom is unsuitable, the quality of 

the meat is improved, and predator loss is reduced. Figure 16 

shows a comparison of the growth of raft and bottom grown oysters 

at one location in New England. Today, Japan uses aquaculture 

nearly exclusively and harvests 21 kkg (23 tons) of meat per acre 

per year; the United states averages about 2 tons per acre per 

year. 

There are several factors which will influence the oyster 

industry in the future. The application of scientific techniques 

must increase to raise production. Due to a shortage of workers 

and high labor costs, mechanical shucking devices must be 

designed. It may be possible to increase production by 

developing hybrids which are faster growing, disease resistant, 

better adapted to environmental conditions, uniform in size and 

shape, and more prolific. Oysters are very sensitive to 

environmental conditions. The number of acres from which oysters 

can be harvested has been decreasing yearly and low cost foreign 

imports have been cutting into the American market. 

The process for hand shucked oyste:s is essentially the same, 

regardless of species, plant S1ze, or location. On the west 

Coast, the oysters are unloaded from the boat at the plant by 

hand or conveyor belt and washed by nozzles suspended above the 

belt. On the East Coast, more of the oysters are trucked to the 

plants. The oysters are then shucked, washed, and fresh packed 

in jars or cans. 

Oyster canning, in this country, is rapidly becoming uneconomical 

due to the import of Japanese and Korean products. Broken 

oysters are sometimes canned as stew. The oysters are first 

cooked with spices and preservatives in large vats for 30 

minutes. The meat is then added to the caris along with whole 

milk and butter, sealed and retorted. 

The steamed oyster process, which is used in the Middle Atlantic, 

is considerably more mechanized than the hand shucked oyster 

process. The oysters are first mechanically shucked to jar the 

shells far enough apart to allow steam to enter during the 

cooking. After steam cooking, the meat is separated using brine 

flotation tanks, washed and packed into cans. The juice from the 

steaming operation is added to the can before sealing. A small 

number of oysters are also smoked. The shucked oyster is smoked 

with apple wood or other hardwood species. The meat is then 

placed in a glass or tin wi~h a small amount of vegetable oil and 

sealed. 

54 
IL 

o 

:g 

z 

5 

Q. 

... 

o 

en 

z 

o 

:::; 

..J 

i 

!t 

.... 

:E 

... 

0 

en 

0 

z 

:> 

0 

Q. 

... 

0 

en 

Z 

0 

:::; 

..J 

i 

25 

0 

25 

0 1 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

o 

1880 

1880 

\ 

\ 

90 

90 

1900 

~I , 

1900 

\ " 

\ \ I / " , 

\ I , 

\ I "' 

'I , II I 

.... GULF / .......... . ,..I .... . I·--·~' ........ -- _e ,-,;-, f 

\..... ",. V 

10 20 50 40 SO 60 1970 

. ::;' M'''. .' '>--"" ~ .... 

10 20 30 40 50 60 "'0 

\ I \ \ I \ CHESAPEAKE BAY 

\ " \ V \ 

1880 90 1900 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

10 

.' ...... ~.>., '., 

20 30 40 50 60 'S70 

Figure 15. Oyster meat production by region (18) 

55 
70 

60 

, 50 

Ii 40 

:z: " 

t; 

Z 

trJ 

..oJ 

Z 

<C 

trJ 

:IE 30 

20 

10 

o 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/4 

/ 

I 

/ 

/ 

/ 

I 

I 

'/ 

'I 

~ 

DIFFERENCE OF 

20.48 mm. 

RAFT GROWN 

I 

, 

DIFFERENCE OF 

13.14mm. I . _/ 

// ------

/ 

BOTTOM GROWN 

~ 

j 

() 

I 

I 

/ 

/ 

SONDJFMAM~JASONDJFMAMJ JASOND 

1956 19157 1958 

Figure 16. Comparison of raft-and bottom-grown oysters (18) 

56 
Scallops 

Four species of scallops are economically significant in the 

United states: bay scallops· (Aeguipecten irradians), calico 

scallops (pecten gibbus), sea scallops (Placopecten magelanicus) , and Alaskan scallops (Platinopecten carinus). In this report, 

sea and Alaskan scallops will be treated collectively as sea 

scallops. The total scallop harvest in the United states has 

been steadily declining, with the 1972 landings being 21 percent 

lower than the five year average. Table 14 shows the scallop 

landings by species for the last 10 years. 

Of the three species of scallops harvested in the United States .. sea scallops comprise the majority of the landings, constitutirl'., 

an average of 78 percent of the total catch for the 1968-1S72 

period. Bay scallop landings a~eraged 13 percent of the totaL 

for the five year period. Calico scallops, a relatively new 

resource, comprised the remaining 9 percent of the average catch 

from 1968-1972. The calico scallop fishery is ce~tered in the 

Cape Canaveral area of Florida and in North Carolina. Estimates 

for the future indicate that all species are being harv- 3ted 

below the level of maximum sustainable yield, but calico scallops 

are virtually untapped asa resource. 

. . 

The 1972 harvest of calico scallops was less than one percent of 

the estimate 9f the maximum sustainable yield. The calico 

scallop is very temperature sensitive, which causes great 

fluctuations in the harvest. The 1973 market was poor due to low 

temperatures, with only about 1200 kg (2600 lbs) of meat 

obtained; however, January, 1974 was reported to be a very good 

month (16). 

Scallop harvesting is usually accomplished by scraping the bottom 

with iron dredges of varying design. Sea scallops and calico 

scallops are usually found on sandy or rocky. bottoms at depths up 

to 270 m (150 fathoms). Most di:'edging is. conducted 12 or more 

miles from the coast. Sea scallops are commercially harvested 

along the Atlantic Cost from· Maine to Virginia, with the larger 

Alaskan species currently being harvested only in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Calico scallops inhabit warmer waters, and are 

commercially harvested from NQ~th Carolina to the east coast of 

Florida.. Bay scallops reside in eel grass on sandy or muddy 

flats of bays and estuaries along the Atlantic Coast from 

Massachusetts to Florida. Harvesting is accomplished either with 

dredges or with dip nets and rakes, and the scale of operation is 

much smaller than that of sea scallops~ 

Processing is similar for the ~ea aDd bay scallops. To avoid 

degredation scallops are hand shucked immediately after landing 

on the vessel. The shell closing musc.l~ is removed and placed in 

muslin bags which are held on iGe {oJ:' Shipment to the processing 

plant, and the remainder of the o~ganism is discarded overboard. 

The p~QCessing of sea and bay SgallQP~ involves only a washing 

and free~ing operation; hence, the efflqent has a small waste 

57 
Table 14. Scallop 1andin:gs by 

species, 1963-1972 (1) 

u.S. LandinSls x 1000 1bs Imports 

Year Bay Calico Sea Total x 1000 1bs 

1963 1517 19,939 21,456 13,397 

1964 1887 16,914 18,801 16,175 

1965 18'59 872 20,070 22,801 16,495 

1966 1780 1857 15,975 19,612 16,712 

1967 1097 1410 10,243 12,750 13,461 

1968 1491 89 13,818 15,398 14,581 

1969 2114 199 9312 11,625 14,322 

1970 1700 1833 7304 10,837 16,830 

1971 1455 1566 6264 9285 17,387 

1972 479 1342 6995 8816 20,820 

58 
load. The 

which opens 

evisceration. 

Abalone 

calico scallop process involves a heating operation 

the shell to facilitate the shucking and 

Eight species of abalone are found off the west Coast of the 

united States. four of which comprise the bulk of the commercial 

catch. These are the red. pink. white, and green v~rieties: 

Haliotus rufescens. H. corrugata. H. sorenseni. and H. fulgens. 

respectively. The abalone range extends from Sitka. Alaska 

through Baja, California; however, the commercially important 

species are concentrated in the California area from Monterey to 

San Diego. 

Abalone are relatively large gastropods which are found from the 

intertidal zone out to deep water. The shells of the harvested 

animals range from about 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in.).' Abalone feed 

almost exclusively on macroalgae and thus, are concentrated in 

and around areas where large amounts of these algae flourish. 

Although utilized by the Indians for thousands of years, abalone 

were not commercially collected until the early 1850's. Rapid 

depletion of the resource soon prompted the passing of a law in .. 1900 making it unlawful to fish commercially for abalone except 

in deep water. Figure ·17 summarizes the history of abalone 

landings in California. 

Restricted to deeper water, various diving methods have evolved 

from early Japanese "sake barrel" diving, to the hard hat method, 

and to the present use of light-weight gear. However, California 

commercial fish laws still require the diver to be supplied by a 

surface air source, thereby excluding scuba gear from all except 

the sport fishery. Divers operating in 8 to 24 m (25 to 80 ft) 

of water measure their catch, then pry the abalone off the medium 

and collect it in a mesh basket which is hauled aboard the boat 

by the surface tender. The tender boat, which may serve one or 

more divers, then transports the catch to a receiving area from 

which it is trucked to the various processing plants. 

At the processer the abalone are shucked; then the large foot 

muscle is cleared of viscera and washed. The outer sheath of the 

muscle is trimmed off, the head, portion removed, and it is then 

sliced into several steaks. The steaks are pounded to tenderize 

them before packaging and freezing. The usual product form is 

either fresh or frozen steaks which mayor may not be breaded at 

the plant. 

59 
~ 

Q) 

.. s::: ~ 0 

.-i 0: ItS c 

... 

~ .0 

ItS 

~ ItS I!! .r-! 

s::: 

~ 

0 

114 

.r-! 

r-I 

ItS 

U 

:i! • !! ..... 

r-I 

til 

!!! 

60 
SECTION IV 

INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 

INTRODUCTION 

The objective of categorization is to organize the industry into 

segments whose uniqueness and internal homogeneity suggest the 

consideration of separate effluent limitations.· The initial 

categorization of the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, clam, 

oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and abalone segment of the 

seafood processing industry study fell along commodity lines. 

The advantage of initial commodity categorization is that it automa~ically segments the industrY1nto relatively homogeneous 

groups, in terms of: type and variability of raw product 

utilized, manufacturing processes employed, wastewater 

characteristics, typical plant locations, and (often) economic 

stature, geographic regionalization, and production levels. 

First, three broad groups of subcategories: industrial fish, 

finfish, and shellfish, were established because of basic 

differences in processes or species. Excluded were the four 

commodities covered under a previous study (Development Document 

for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance 

Standards for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of the 

Canned and Preserved seafood Processing Point Source Category, 

June 1974, EPA-440/l-74-020-a). Since this study covered a large 

number of commodities, the approach was to group the industry' 

into the "more significant" and "less significant" wastewater 

sources to make the most effective use of the time and money 

available. 

Through preliminary contacts with the industry and with experts 

close to the industry, a "relative importance matrix" was 

developed. This matrix used four basic parameters to determine 

an "importance score" for each of several seafood commodities. 

These parameters were: 1) organiC waste loading (kg BOD/day), 2) 

flow (cu m/day), 3) number of plants, and 4) season variability. 

A score of "one" or "zero" was assigned to each element in the 

matrix and a total score obtained for each commodity by adding 

the individual scores. A high score indicated that a relatively 

large effort should be exerted to characterize the waste from 

that segment of the industry; and a low score, a relatively small 

effort. Tables 15 and 16 show the results of the matrix analyses 

for the finfish and shellfish commodities, respectively. 

Consultants and other knowledgeable persons in the particular, industry, government organizati'ons, and universities were contacted to determine specifics about major processing areas, 

identities of plants, typical processing operations, seasons, raw 

products utilized, production rates, and treatment facilities. 

Typical plants with processing operations that are commonly used, 

and with average water use and production rates were identified. 

61 
Table 15 • Relative importance matrix--

industrial fish and finfish. 

Commodity Load Flow Size 

and (BOD/ (volume/ (number of 

Process day) day) plants) Seasonality Score 

Menhaden 

reduction 1 1 1 0 3 

Anchovy 

reduction 1 1 0 0 2 

Salmon 

canning 1 1 1 1 4 

Sardine 

canning 1 1 0 1 3 

Bottom/ 

misc. finfish (conventional) 0 0 1 0 1 

Bottom/ 

misc. finfish (mechanized) 1 1 1 0 3 

Fresh/ 

frozen 

salmon 0 0 1 1 2 

Halibut 

freezing 0 0 1 1 2 

Herring 

filleting 1 1 0 1 3 

Fish 

flesh 1 0 0 0 1 

62 
Table 16. Relative importance matrix--

shellfish • 

. Commodity Load Flow Size 

and (BOD/ (volume/ (number of 

Process day) day) plants) Seasonality Score 

Clam meat 

(mechanized) 1 ·1 1 0 3 

Clam meat 

(hand 

shucked) 0 1 1 0 2 

Fresh/ 

frozen 

oysters 

(hand 

shucked) 0 0 1 0 1 

Steamed/ 

canned 

oysters 1 1 1 0 3 

Abalone 0 0 0 0 0 

Scallops 0 0 0 1 1 

63 
The field investigations were organized on a regional basis by locating areas where suitable plants and industries tended to be 

concentrated. The number of locations, plants, and samples 

required to obtain the desired information were determined with 

the help of the importance matrix. It was estimated that there 

were about eight commodities with potentially high pollutional 

significance, about twelve commodities with potentially medium 

significance, and several other commodities of minimal 

signficance. 

A maximum of 1000 samples was allocated for :this study. The 

commodities of greatest pollutional significance were 

characterized more accurately (by investigating more plants and 

taking wore samples) than those ,of lesser significance. About 60 

to 70 space-time total effluent and unit operation samples were 

budgeted for each of the most important commodities. The unit 

operations samples would be used to estimate material balances 

and to indicate areas where process changes could reduce the 

waste load. Medium-importance commodities were budgeted about 30 

to 40 space-time samples each of total effluent unit operations. 

The comrr,odi ties of minimal importance were budgeted about 100 

samples total. As the study progressed and more information was 

obtained, the emphases on certain commodities changed. Those 

commodities producing less waste than anticipated were sampled 

less frequently and those producing more, were sampled more 

frequently. 

In addition to collecting water samples, the field crews kept daily logs reporting on factors regarding the plant and its 

environment. 

All data were reviewed and final subcategorization made based on 

the following major factors: 1) form and quality of finished 

product (commodity); 2) manufacturing processes and unit 

operations; 3) wastewater characteristics (particularly flow, 

total solids, 5-day BOD, and grease and oil); and 4) geographic 

location (particularly Alaska or non-Alaska). Several other 

factors, such as variability in raw product supply and 

production, condition of raw product on delivery to the 

• processing plant, variety of species being processed, harvesting 

method, degree of preprocessing, age of plant, water 

availability, and amenability, of waste to treatment were also 

considered. It was determined that these other factors were 

highly correlated with one or more of the major factors. 

Variability of raw product supply and production is strongly correlated with the type of product being processed and occasionally with geographic location and production capacity. 

For example, all operations producing canned salmon have highly 

variable raw product supplies, with the variations being most 

extreme in some parts of Alaska. This necessitates large production capacities to allow utilization of the raw product during 

the short time that it is available. 

64 
The condition of the raw product on delivery to the plant is 

generally related to the finished product and occasionally to 

geographic location. Many shellfish typically arrive at the 

plants fresh (e .. g., clams, oysters, lobsters). Seasonal variations within some commodity groups may change the wasteload; 

however, the duration of this study and the frequent lack of 

sufficient historical data bases made estimation of the quantitative effect on the wastewater impossible. Qualitatively, raw 

product condition variability within a commodity group is 

considered to be a second order effect, which does not warrant 

the establishment of separate effluent limitations. 

The variety of species utilized in each commodity group is 

usually limited to those which are quite similar. In general, 

the processes which have the largest capacities and produce the 

most waste have the fewest species. 'Those which handle a large 

variety of species, such as conventional bottom fish processes, 

are typically smaller and utilize manual unit operations, which 

produce lower waste loads. It was not considered necessary to 

establish separate effluent limitations based on species when 

they were processed in a similar manner and the waste load from 

anyone type was minimal. 

Harvesting methods are generally similar within a commodity 

group. Different methods only affect the condition of the raw 

product and/or the degree of preprocessing. Therefore, this 

factor does not have to be'considered as a separate variable for 

the establishment of subcategories. 

The degree of preproceSSing can be an important influence on 

wastewater quality. How~ver, this is included under the 

consideration of the unit operations, which is one of the major 

factors. The greater the degree of preprocessing, the fewer unit 

operations are utilized in the processing plant. 

The ages of the plants were considered to be minor factors in the 

establishment of subcategories, since similar unit operations are 

generally employed in both old and new plants for a particular 

type of process. Furthermore, the plant age seldom correlated 

with the age of the proceSSing equipment; to remain competitive 

(in most subcategories) the processors must employ efficient, upto-date, well-maintained equipment. This factor tends to 

standardize each subcategory with respect to equipment type and 

(usually) age. 

Raw water availability was not considered to be a factor for the 

establishment of effluent limitations since the in-plant and endof-pipe control techniques recommended for the seafood industry 

involve reductions in water use. 

The quality of the raw water does affect the quality of the 

effluent for some processes in certain regions and was considered 

in the establishment of effluent limitations. For example, large 

percentages of some waste loads insolubles plant effluents from 

65 
fish meal plants are attributable to the poor quality of the 

intake water .. 

Amenability of the waste to treatment is an important factor but 

is included as part of the wastewater characteristics considerations. In general, the wastewater from seafood processing 

operations is amenable to treatment except for those cases where 

strong brines or pickling or preserving acids are being 

discharged.. Even for these cases, dilution, although costly, 

will allow the wastes to be treated in conventional systems. 

Additional considerations in subcategorization' were "production 

capacity and normal operating level." By nature, the seafood 

industry is an intermittent process (controlled by product 

availability) and production capacity is governed by such 

constraints as the type of processing equipment utilized 

(especially manual versus mechanical) and the number of employees 

available. The evidence developed during the monitoring phase of 

this study indicates that waste load ratios based on production 

within a subcategory is independent of plant size or operating 

level as illustrated graphically in Figures 22, ~3, 24, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 48, and 59 through 64. However, the 

economic impact analysis indicates that the very small plants 

within the non-Alaskan conventional bottom fish processing 

subcategory, hand-shucked clam processing subcategory, Pacific 

Coast hand-shucked oyster processing subcategory, and the East 

and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing subcategory would 

absorb a disproportionate economic impact than the larger 

processors within these subcategories.. Therefore, as specified 

in the Federal Register notice, application of the regulations 

depends on the size of the processing facility. 

FISH MEAL PRODUCTION 

The processing of Atlantic menhaden and Pacific anchovy into 

meal, oil and solubles was considered to be one of the most 

important segments of the seafood industry, in terms of its 

significance as a wastewater source. A concerted effort, 

therefore, was made to exhaustively characterize the effluents 

and to obtain as much information as possible qn methods of 

wastewater control for the industry. A total of eight plants in 

New England, the Middle Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and 

California were investigated and 191 unit operation and end-ofpipe composite samples of the wastewater collected. 

Process Description 

A generalized process flow diagram for menhaden ann anchovy wet 

rendering is presented in Figure 18. 

M~nhadp.n are delivered to the plant in thp holds of large carrier 

vpsspls. Bpcause of the volump of fish to bp, processed, the 

i ndm.t r-y mll"t- pmploy fa~t , pf f ie-ient mpans of unloading. A 

66 
AVAILABLE SlJRFACE 

WATE,I! 

TO SOLIP.S DiSPOSAL 

BAILWATER 

~-~"..,.--~---

I 

-~ .... ~ .. ~ 

PROCESS FLOW 

BAILWATER AN 0 

WASHWATER FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

available surface WATER 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I ----------------1 

I 

r 

EFFLUENT 

Figur~ 18. Typical large fish meal production process. 

67 
mechanized bailing system is generally used for this purpose. 

The operation consists of filling the holds with water (usually 

local estuarine water) and pumping the fish-water slurry with a 

reciprocating piston pump. Plants usually employ from one to 

three such pumps when loading 140 to 180 kkg (150 to 200 tons) of 

fish per hour (2). The pumps discharge over rotating or static 

screens, which separate the fish from the bailwater. These 

screens are generally followed by other (smaller mesh) rotating 

screens which remove much of the remaining scales and small 

pieces from the bailwater. The bailwater is then collected in 

large holding tanks located below the screens. "These tanks range 

in capacity from 75 to 190 cu m (20,000 to 50,000 qal.)." 

As the bailwater is collected, it may be treated to remove 

suspended solids, or it simply may be recirculated.. Treatment of 

bailwater may be effected with centrifugal decanters or dissolved 

air flotation units. Whether the bailwater is treated or not, it 

is usually retained and recirculated throughout the unloading 

process. The fish, once separated from the bailwater, are 

weighed and collectea in holding bins, referred to as "raw boxes" 

in the industry. 

Depending on plant location, anchovy are gener~lly vacuum drawn 

from the boat holds directly into the processing plant. Some 

plants located inland transport the anchovy by tank truck. These 

fish are flushed out of the truck with high pressure hoses. The 

bailwater is normally recirculated, \<lhile the fish are dryconveyed to the weighing room. From the weighing room they are 

conveyed to large holding bins from which they are augered into 

the reduction facilities. 

The first step in the rendering process is the steam cook. The 

cookers are basically screw conveyers with steam injection ports 

located along their lengths. They are generally 9.1 m (30 ft) in 

length and 60 to 76 cm (24 to 30 in.) in diameter. The 

temperature at the inlet of the cooker is about llOoC (230 0 F) and 

at the outlet, about l160 C (2400 F). The retention time of the 

fish in the cookers is about 10 to 15 minutes. Cooking is the 

most critical stage in the process. The fish are cooked to 

facilitate release of oil and water. Undercooking or overcooking 

results in excessive oil in the meal and poor oil recovery (17). 

From the cookers the fish proceed to a battery of screw presses 

where the liquid and solid portions of the cooked fish are 

separated. The screw presses contain rotating augers whose 

flights progressively decrease in pitch along the major axis of 

the press. This causes increasing pressure to be exerted on the 

fish as they progress through the presses. Liquid passes out of 

each press through a cylindrical screen with perforations of 

decreasing diameter from 1.2 to 0.8 mm (0.05 to 0.03 in.). The 

fish solids exiting the press contain about 55 percent moisture 

and some oil. The press solids are referred to in the industry 

as "press cake." 

68 
The press cake is next conveyed to dryers to remove most of the 

moisture. Two classes of dryers are commonly used: direct 

dryers and indirect, steam jacketed dryers. The former is the 

more typical; however, indirect dryers are used in some plants. 

In the direct dryer, heat is generated by a gas flame. The gas 

from this combustion plus secondary air is passedg along with the 

wet press cake, through large rotating drums. The temperature at 

the entrance of the dryer is typically about 540 0 e (lOOOOF) and 

at the outlet of the dryer is typically about 93 0 e (2000 F). 

Drying time is generally about 15 minutes. Hot air and vapOrs 

are drawn through the dryer at about 450 to 700 cu m/min(265,to 

410 cu ft/sec), depending on the dryer size. The flow of hot 

air, fish meal, and vapor is passed through a cyclone which 

separates the meal from the air' flow. The hot air, vapors, and 

volatiles from the dryers then pass through a scrubber system to 

remove most of the entrained organic material. The scrubber offgases may then be recirculated to the dryer inlet and burned. 

steam jacketed dryers cannot reburn the vapors. This sometimes 

necessitates the use of two scrubbers to reduce odors. 

The meal is ground and stored for shipment. The liquid separated 

in the pressing operation is referred to as press liquor. It 

contains solid and dissolved fish protein, oil" fats, and ash. 

The larger solids are separated from the mixture by the use of 

vibrating' screens and/or centrifugal decanters. The separated 

solids join the press cake flow at the drying operation. oil is 

extracted from the press liquor by the use of centrifugal oil 

separators. These devices operate in a, continuous manner, 

spinning the press liquor at a high velocity to effect a three 

phase separation of solids, oil, and stickwater by nature of' 

their different densities. The oil produced in this process is 

usually refined or polished by the reintroduction of water, known 

as washwater. T~e oi1water mixture is then reseparated. This 

polishing removes fish protein and solub1es which cause 

putrefaction of the oil during storage. The oil is then piped to 

large storage tanks and held for shipment. The water separated 

from the press liquor mixture contains dissolved and suspended 

protein, fats, oil, and ash., This mixture is termed 

"stickwater." As the stickwater is generated, it is piped to 

large tanks and stockpiled, awaiting further processing. At some 

plants it is joined there by the spent unloading water 

(bailwater) and washwater from oil polishing and from plant 

washdown. Further processing of stickwater involves 

concentration by evaporation~ The stickwater is evaporated from 

a consistency of five to eight percent solids to one of about 48 

to 50 percent solids. Typical for the industry is the triple 

effect evaporator, where a vacuum Qf about 0.87 atm (26 in. Hg) 

is placed on the third body while the ·first body is supplied with 

steam at 2 atm (absolute) and 1210C (15 psig, 250oF,. The vapor 

from this first body is used to heat the second, and the vapor 

generated in the second, in turn, heats the third. The first 

effect will typically operate at. ampient pressure (0 psig) and 

1000e (2l2°F) with the second at 005 atm, 81 0 e (-7.5 psig, 

l78°F); and the third at 57oe, 0.13 atm (1350 F, -12.8 psig). Two 

69 
effects are sometimes used instead of three, and product flow 

direction may be opposi te to that of the vapor. In ao,di tion, 

some plants operate with vapor from the first two effects feeding 

the third. 

The stickwater exits from the evaporators at about 30 percent 

solids. From here it may enter one or two concentrators for 

further evaporation to 50 percent solids. The concentrators 

consist of stearn-fed heat exchangers ahd evaporation bodies 

evacuated to 0.09 atm (-13.4 psig), termed "flash evaporators. II 

The stickwater, which has been evaporated to 30 percent solids, 

enters the heat exchanger and, after heating to boiling temperature, it enters the flash evaporator. The stickwater is recirculated between the heat exchanger and flash evaporator until 

the proper concentration of solids is reached, at which pOint it 

is drawn off and pumped to the storage area. 

A barometric condenser is used to place a vacuum on the evaporators. Condenser water is usually obtained from ,available 

surface water and is pumped 9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft) above ground 

level and allowed to fall through the condense~ and back to 

surface level. This condenser water entrains vapor produced in 

the last evaporator body and in the concentrators. The falling 

water is collected at the end of this pipe in an open tank called 

a "hot well." It is joined by evaporator condensate and is 

directed to the plant·s outfall and discharged into nearby 

surface waters. The solubles plant discharge 'typically has a 

high flow (30,000 l/kkg; 7200 gal./ton) and low concentrations of 

BOD and suspended solids (less than 100 mg/l). 

Stickwater and fish solubles tend to deteriorate rapidly during 

storage. This is usually prevented by adjusting the pH of the 

stickwater or solubles to 4.5 with sulfuric acid. It may be done 

before or after evaporation. If the stickwater is stored for a 

considerable period without being evaporated, the pH is usually 

adjusted before evaporation. The pH of the fish solubles 

resulting from evaporation is then readjusted to 4.5. However, 

if the plant can evaporate stickwater rapidly enough to avoid 

extended holding periods, no pH adjustment takes place before 

evaporation. After evaporation and pH adjustment, fish solubles 

are stored in large tanks to await shipment. 

Small plants with no evapora'tor discharge the bailwater and 

stickwater, or barge them to sea. Some plants have sufficient 

evaporator capacity to evaporate the stickwater while still 

discharging the bailwater. Figure 19 shows the process flow 

diagram for a typical small wet rendering facility with no 

solubles plant. The discharge of stickwater and bailwater 

represents a very high waste load with concentrations of BOD and 

suspended solids typically in the tens of thousands (mg/l) and 

flows of 1900 l/kkg (460 gal./ton) or greater. 

Subcategorization Rationale 

70 
PRESS LIQUOR 

SOLIDS 

REMOVAL 

LIQUIO 

SOLIDS 

BAILWATE .. 

PRESS CAKE 

PROPUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

1 

'I 

I ~ST= AlII SCRUIIIER SPE,!!-J UNIT WATER (WHEIIE AVAILABLE ' 

.... 1 

1 

1 

+ EFFLUENr 

Figure 19. Typical small fish meal production process. 

71 
Regardless of the species being rendered, there are three general 

types of discharge s f.rom ~ .w~~. reduction process: evaporator 

water, bailwater/washwa~~r, and stickwater. In general, most 

large plants discharge only evaporator water. Some medium-size 

plants evaporate thestickwater but discharge the bailwater, and 

the smaller, older plants often discharge both stickwater and 

bailwater. 

A total of eight fish meal plants were investigated. Historical 

information was also available from two of these plants prior to 

installation of bailwater utilization systems. A total of 56 

end-of-pipe composite samples and a total of'l45 unit pperation 

samples were collected. Fi ve of the plan"t.s were menhaden 

reduction plants located on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and 

three were anchovy reduction plants located in California. 

Figure 20 shows a normalized summary plot of the wastewater 

characteristics taken from all the fish meal reduction processes 

with solubles plants. Five parameters: flow, BOD, suspended 

solids, grease and oil, anc '~oduction are shown for each plant 

sampled. The vertical scale is in inches with the scaling factor 

shown at the bottom c.£ the figure. The average value of the 

parameter is at the cen"cer of the vertical spread with the height 

of the spread representing one standard deviation above and below 

the average. A plant code is shown at the bottom of each group, 

where "M." indicates menhaden and "A" indicates anchovy. The 

number in parentheses under the plant code is the number of flow- proportioned.full~shift.composite samples taken from each plant. 

The four plants on the left (M2, M3, M5p and A2) discharged water 

only from the solubles plant while the three plants on the right 

(Ml, lv12H, and M3H) also discharged the bailwater instead of 

evaporating it. It can be seen that the waste load from the 

plants not discharging bailwater was generally lower. Plants M2 

and M3 provided good examples of the reduction in waste loads 

that can be achieved by bailwater evaporation. The codes M2H and 

M3H represent historical data collected when both plants 

discharged or barged bailwater, while the codes M2 and M3 

represent recent data when both plants were treating and 

evaporating the bailwater. Note that water use was not reduced 

when the plants were modified; the flow reduction realized by 

eliminating bailwater discharge was more than offset by the 

necessary increase in condenser dropleg flow. Table 17 shows the 

average waste loads both before and after bailwater treatment and 

evaporation and the percent reduction obtained. 

Figure 21 shows a summary of the waste loads from two plants 

dischclrginq both stickwater and bailwater. The waste loads were 

on the order of 20 to 40 times greater than those of the plants 

utilizing evaporators. 

Table 18 summarizes the average waste loads from plants with 

three types of discharges: solubles plant only, solubles plant 

plus bailwater, and stickwater plus bailwater discharge. Table 

72 
Figure 20. F ISH HEAL PROCESS PleT (hITH SOlUBlES PLANT) • 

6. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 5. 

• a 

• 

• 

• 

• P S 

It. P BS 

• P BS 

• P P BS 

• Q P BS 

• a P as 

• Q 0 .GP as 

J. a 0 ·0 GP CBS 

• a Q Q GP cas 

• a Q GP oas" 

• Q Q SGP aSG 

.. Q "0 SG aSG 

• a a SG aSG 

"2. Q Q G 5G SSG· .. a Q Q SG aSG 

• Q P Q a aSG aSG 

• a G Q SSG SSGP 

• Q B G B GP 

• 0 S B G a GF' 

1. F Q S e G a GP 

• BS BS F SGP a G a P 

• S aSG a aSG BSGF e G B P 

• as aSG a P aSG BSGP G B P 

• BSG aSG S G BSG G B 

• BSG S SG G B 

O ••••••••• e •••• G ••••••• o •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

'12 H3 H5 A2 Hi H2H H3H 

(5 ) (4) ( 9) (4) (6) (16) (7) 

SY!1BOL PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR 

~--------~---~-------~-~---~----~~--------~----------- -- o 

B 

S 

G 

P 

FLOW 

5 DAY BOO 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

GREASE ~ OIL 

PRODUCTION 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

10000 

5 

2 

2 

20 

l/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

TON/HR 

----"-~----~------------------------------------------ --

73 

. " 
Table 17. Fish meal waste load reduction 

using bailwater evaporation. 

Parameter Plant M2 Plant M3 

(kg/kkg) Be:rore After Reduction Before After Reduction 

BOD 5.9 1.7 71% 10 3.6 64% 

Suspended Solids 4.1 0.9 78% 5.6 1.2 79% 

Grease and Oil 3.0 0.5 83% 3.5 1.0 71% 

74 
Figure 21. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLOT (WITHOUT SOLUBLES PLANT). 

6. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

'. 

• 5 

• as p 

• as p 

• as p 

4. as 

• 0 85 

• a p as 

• as p as 

• 08 P es 

• oa p 9SG 

3. 013 F aSG 

• as p aSG 

• OB eSG 

• 08 aSG 

• 0''3 SG 

• as SG 

2. oB SG 

• ass SG 

• aBS S6 

• aBS SG 

• OI3SG SG 

• I3SG SG 

1. SG G 

• S6 G 

• SG G 

• 5G 

• G Q 

• G 

O •••••••••••••• G •••••••••••• ~., •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• " 

Ai A3 

( 3) ( 5) 

SYH8CL PARAMETER SCALING FACTeR 

-----------------------------~-------------------------- a FLew 1 INCH = 500tl l/ICKG 

B 5 DAY BOO 1 INCH = 20 KG/KKG 

S SUSPENDED SO LIDS 1 INCH = 20 KG/kl(G 

G GREASE '5 OIL 1 INCH = 20 KG/KKG 

P PRODUCTION 1 INCH = 2 TON/HR 

------------------------------------------~----------- --

75 
Table 18. Summary of average waste loads 

from fish meal production. 

Parameter 

(kg/kkg) 

Solubles 

Plant 

Suspended solids' L.O 

BOD 2.9 

Grease and oil 0.7 

Solubles Plant 

and Bailwater 

3.8 

6.1 

2.5 

Stickwater 

and Bailwater 

41 

59 

25 

Table 19 Unit operation waste characteristics for fish meal 

processing without a solubles unit (Plant A3). 

Flow BOD5 TSS G&O 

l/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg Unit Operation (% of total) (% of total)(% of total) (% of total) 

Stick water 842 66 55 36 

(press liquor) (45%) (93%) (94%) (95%) 

Scrubber water 277 ' >1 >1 >1 

(15%) (:;.1 %) (> 1 %) (>1%) 

Wash down " 24 >1 >1 ,.1 

(l %) . (>1 %) (,.1 %) (>1%) 

' , Bail water 726 5 3 2 

,(5; ngl e pass (39%) (7%) (6%) (5%) 

fish ,unloading) 

76 
19 summarizes the unit operation waste characteristics for fish 

meal plants without a solubles unit. 

It was concluded that the fish meal production industry should 

constitute one subcategory with a provision for the July 1, 1977 

limitations for plants without a solubles unit operation. The 

exemplary plants treat, recycle, and evaporate the bailwater and 

washwater; therefore, other plants with evaporators might be 

required to modify their facilities and take similar action. The 

older, smaller plants typically have no existing solubles plant 

facilities to expand or modify for stickwater or bailwater. 

Statistics.from plants sampled in these two subcategories are 

shown in Tables 20 and 21. The tables show the estimated 

logrithmic-normal mean, the·logrithims of t~e mean and standard 

deviations, and the 99· percent maximum for each of several 

selected summary parameters. 

Because 

ratios, 

Figures 

unit of 

there is no apparent relationship or trend relating 

TSS ratios, or BOD5 ratios. to production levels 

22, 23, and 24), it was assumed that the waste loads 

production are independent of production level. 

SALMON CANNING 

flow 

(see 

.per 

The canning of Pacific salmon was, from·the outset of-thiastudy, 

considered to be an important segment of the industry, because.of 

the relatively large waste loadings, high flow rates, and large. 

number of plants. A total of eight plants, in two areas of 

Alaska and two areas of the Northwest, were investigated; 99 

composite samples of unit operations or total effluent were 

collected. 

Process Description 

Figure 25 shows the flow diagram for the typical salmon canning 

process used in Alaskan and lower western plants. 

Vacuum unloaders, pumps and flumes, high speed elevators and 

belts and winch-operated live boxes are the common methods of 

unloading the salmon from the tender holds and transporting them 

into the cannery. water used to pump fish from the boats is 

usually recirculated and discharged after the unloading 

operation; however, this method is used at a.relatively small 

number of plants. -

The salmon are sorted by species and conveyed into holding bins. 

If the fish are to be held for some time before processing, they 

are iced or placed in chilled brine. 

A butchering machine is used by most 

butchering operation. Many plants 

77 

plants to accomplish the 

in -the Northwest manually 
Table 20 

FIS~ ~EAL F~OCE~S SUH~ARV 

CF SEL~CTro PARAMlTERS 

(SOLUBLES PLA~T CISCHARGE O~LV' 

-------------------------.-.----------------------_._----------------_.- LOG ~CR"AL LeG hORHAL 

PAIUMEH:R "EA~ 5TO OE~ 

--------------------------------------------------------------.---------

PROOUC TI 0 N nOtuHR)· 33." 28.2 

TIHE" (tiR/OAY)· 22.1 2.22 

FLOW (LISEe)· 242 us. 

hiAL/Mlh)* 3840 2470 

FLOW RATIC (LI KICG) 35000 10.5 0.01t6 nooo 

(G'LITCh) 8CtOO «J.04 0.0"6 93 .. G 

T5S ("'GIL) 26.2 3.27 o. !fJ7 66.1 

(KG/KICG' 0.C32C -0.085 0.n7 2.U 

900-5 (ftG/L' 84.4 4 ..... 0.1«3" 133 

(ICG/ICICG) 2.96 1.09 0.19 .. ...65 

GRE ASE AhC CIL (!'G/L) 16.0 2.78 G.l!! 22.CJ (I<G/KICG) 0.56:1 -0.577 G.15! 0.812 

PH- 6.07 1.lta 

----------------._ •• _.---------------------------__________ 0 __________ ._ 

• NOTEI TH~ CUT~LTS FeR THESE FARA"ETE~S 

AR~ TH~ huRMAL (UNWlIG~TEC) HEAN Ah~ STANC.RO CEVIATICh, R~SFECTIVELY 

78 
:til, 

Table 21 

FISH HEAL FRCCESS 5U""AR' 

OF SELECTED FARA~ETEAS 

(WITHCl. T SCLlieLES PLANT) 

----------------------------------~----------------------------.--.----- PAqAI1ETE~ MEAN 

LCG NC~"AL LeG hORM'L 'MEA~ 5'0 OEV 

CJCJX 

MA)CIMUM 

-------------------------~----.---.------.~-----.-.--. _.-.- •.•.. _._._---

PROOUCTICh CTCfIo/ ... R)· 7.~O 1. Itt 

TIME (~R/OA't). 15.7 11.8 

FLOW (L/SEC). 13.1 12.CJ 

(GAL/Ma) • 208 204 

FLOW RATIO (L/ICKG) 1900 7.'5'5 0.120 2510 

(GALITCN) 456 6.12 o.uo 602 

TSS (MG/L) 18300 iii. 81 0.273 3.,500 (I«(;/I(I(G) 34.8 3.55 0.273 65.6 

BClO-S (,.G/L' 3270~O 10 ... 0.1 .... faS700 

(KG/KKG) 62.2 ".13 o.u .. 17.0 

GREASE' AND OIL (~G/L) 12000 CJ.39 0.53,. "1600 (kG/KKG' 22.8 3.13 0.53,. 7'.1 

PH· ~.!O 0.026 _______________________ c. __________________________ •• ____ .••••••• __ ••••••• 

PLANTS A1 ,A3 

• NOTL' T~~ OUTPUTS FeR THESE FAR'~ETE~S 

ARE r ... e NORI1Al (UhhEIG~TE[) HEAN 

ANC STA .. CARO CEVIATIOh, RESFECTIVELY 

79 
70 

60 

'., • ., . 

50 .- . , ' , 

, 

.-.. 

8 

40 0 

r-

>< 

....... 

tn 

• ~ 

~ 

....... 

r-

::c 30 0 

ru.. 

: 

20 • 

• 

-'" 10 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

Production kkg/day (Xl 00) 

rigure 22 

" Fish meal flow ratios versus production 1 evel 

80 
5 

4 

• 

3 • • 

0'1 ,~ 

~ 

........ 

0'1 

~ 

L() 

0 

a 

co 

2 

• 

1 

o L-----L-__ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ _L ____ ~ __ ~~--~ 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

Production kkg/day (X100) 

Figure 23 

Fish meal BODS ratios versus production level 

81 
2.5 

2.0 

0'1 

~ 

~ 

...... 

0'1 

~ 

III 1.5 "'0 

.,.... 

r--

0 

V') 

"'0 

OJ 

"'0 

c:: 

OJ 

0-

III 

::s 

V') 1.0 ..... 

I'd 

of-) 

0 

I-

"';' 

0.5 

o 

• 

o 2 

• 

• 

4 6 8 10 12 14 

Production kkg/day (X100) 

Figure 24 

Fish meal total suspended solids ratios versus 

production level 

82 

• 

16 
Figure 25 

~-------<'OR~------~ 

PROOUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

= WASTE SOLIDS flOW 

~ER.BLOOD----.I 

'--_~~---' VISCERA, FINS 

( HEAOS. MILT. ROE SEE FIGURE 

TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL c== 

EFFLUENT 

Typical salmon canning process. 

83 
butcher the better grades of silvers, chinooks, and 

(occasionally) sockeye, or employ a manual butchering operation 

in conjunction with mechanized butchering, since the more 

laborious method is considered to produce a finer product. The 

fish are marketed fresh, frozen, or canned, depending on demand. 

The salmon are flushed from the holding bins and transported by 

flume or elevator to bins where the mechanical eviscerator is 

employed. The butchering machine removes the heads, tails, fins, 

and viscera; the eggs and, sometimes, milt are manually separated 

later. The "K" model butchering machine has a maximum capacity 

of about 120 fish per minute. A scrubber is sometimes used 

following the machine to clean more thoroughly the coeloms of the 

fish. The fish then pass to "sliming tables," where each fish is 

inspected for defects and rinsed, usually with warm water to keep 

the worker's hands from getting too cold. 

The manual butchering operation involves three steps. The fish 

are first eviscerated, after which they are passed to another 

table where they are cleaned of blood, kidneys and slime. The 

'head and fins are next removed if the fish are to be canned. The 

cleaned fish are then transported to a set of gang knives. These 

knives are located within the filler machine for the one-halfpound lines and separately for the one-quarter-pound lines and 

hand-packed product. 

All can sizes can be manually filled; however, most of the salmon 

is mechanically packed in one-half and one-pound cans. The handpacked cans are weighed as they are packed. Mechanically packed 

cans go through a weighing machine which rejects the light-weight 

cans onto a "patch table" where workers add patch material 

(supplemental meat) to bring them up to their proper weight. The 

workers also remove bones and other material that may interfere 

with the seamer, which closes cans using a vacuum pump or steam. 

After seaming, the cans are washed, placed in cooler trays, and 

loaded into the retorts. The four-pound cans are cooked for 

about four hours, the one-pound cans for 90 minutes, the onehalf-pound cans for 60 minutes, and the one-quarterpound cans "for 

40 minutes at about l20 0 C (250 0 P). The cans are water cooled by 

either flooding the retort, placing the cans in a water bath, or 

spraying the cans with water. These cans are then further aircooled before casing and shipping'. Many canneries do not employ 

water cooling of retorted cans; they simply air-cool them. This 

method requires more time (and, therefore, more space), but 

reduces water consumption. 

By-Product operations 

Further milt, roe, and head proceSSing is an ihtegral part of 

many salmon canning plants. Figure 26 shows the typical 

operations involved. Salmon milt is sometimes frozen and shipped 

to Japan for further processing. The roe is agitated in a 

84 
saturated salt brine before being packed in boxes. Salt is added 

to each layer of eggs to aid in the curing process. Some eggs 

are also sold for bait. 

The heads are handled in a variety of ways. Some plantsr 

particularly those in Bristol Bay and Puget Sound r render the 

heads for oil. Fish oil is then added to cans to improve the 

quality of the finished product. other plants grind and freeze 

the headsr which are later processed for animal food. Whole 

heads are sometimes frozen and used for bait or pet food. Some 

plants grind the heads with the other solid wastes and discharge 

them to the receiving waters. Most plants in the Northwest send 

recoverable wastes to rendering plants for fish meal production. 

Subcategorization Rationale 

Since the salmon canning process is essentially the same from '." 

plant to plant, the only major factor which may prompt further 

subcategorization is geographic location. 

The salmon canning industry was subcategorized into Alaska and 

Western regions because of the much greater costs and treatment 

problems encountered in Alaska. Furthermore, due to the large 

size range of the industry in both areas, the Alaska industry.was 

divided into three sizes and the Western industry into two sizes 

for the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies. 

Figures 27 and 28 depict the size distributions of the Alaska and 

western salmon canning plants, respectively (19). The information is expressed in the form of histograms or probability 

density functions. The ve~tical axis represents the number of 

plants whose output falls in the range shown on the horizontal 

axis, which is expressed as the average annual output in cases 

from 1966 to 1970; for example, the data show that 15 plants in 

Alaska produced between 0 and 20 g 000 cases annually. The 

histograms are skewed to the right in a manner similar to a 

theoretical log-normal density functionu There is no obvious, 

distinct grouping of plant sizes; however, the following 

divisions were established to develop criteria which would 

adequately cover the range: 

Alaska salmon canning--large: greater than 80,000 

cases annually; 

Alaska salmon canning--medium: 40,000 to . 80,000 cases annually; 

Alaska salmon canning--small: fewer than 40,000 cases 

annually; 

western salmon canning--large: greater than 20,000 

cases annually; and 

Western salmon canning--small: 20,000 

85 

. ... 
cases annually or fewer. 

Figure 29 shows a summary plot of the wastewater characteristics 

of three salmon canning plants in Alaska (CSN2, CSN3, CSNq) and 

four plants in the Northwest (CSNS, CSN6, CSN7, and CSNS). CS6M 

represents the manual butchering operation at plant CSN6. Codes 

CS7H and CSSH represent historical data from the same plants as 

CSN7 and CSNS, respectively. Two of th~ Alaskan plants sampled, 

CSN2 and CSN4, are in the "small" range (less than 40,000 cases) , and 'one, CSN3 is in the "medium" range (40,000-SO,000 cases). 

All of the plants sampled in the Northwest are in the large range 

(over 20,000 cases) • 

It was noted that, in general, the waste loads from the plants in 

Alaska were greater than those from the Pacific Northwest plants. 

The main reason for this is that one Northwest plant (CSNS) did 

all butchering by hand and two other Northwest plants (CSN6 and 

CSN7) practiced a high percentage of manual butchering during the 

sampling period, using the butchering machine only when large 

quantities of fish arrived. The three salmon plants in Alaska 

also ground their solids before discharge, which increased the 

waste load. The waste load at CSN3 appears to have been higher , than average; however,· this may have been due to the fact that· 

samples were taken from a sump where solids accumulated over the 

sampling period. The historical information from plant CSSH was 

obtained during a high production period when 'the butchering 

machine was being used extensively. This data appears to be 

lower and may be attributable to plant modifications accomplished 

after the historical data was collected. 

Table 22 shows summary statistics of the waste loads from all the 

plants sampled which used the butchering machine exclusively 

(CSN2, CSN3, CSNq, CSNS). The flow ratio was not included for 

eSNa, as it was not considered to be typical because of flows 

through butchering machines which were not prqcessing fish. 

These data provided the base which was used as the typical raw 

waste load from salmon canning processes in both Alaska and the 

West Coast. Because there is no apparent relationship or trend 

relating flow rati~s, TSS ~atiosr or BOD~ ratios to production 

levels (see Figures 30,31, and 32), it was assumed 'that the waste 

loads oer unit of production are independent of production level. 

The canning operations in the Northwest which hand butcher are 

included with the freSh/frozen salmon subcategory, which is 

discussed next, since the unit operations are simi,lar except for 

the canning operation, which does not increase the load by a 

significant amount. 

FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON 

The processing of Pacific salmon as a fresh or frozen commodity 

was considered to have smaller waste loads and wastewater flows 

than the canning segment of the salmon industry. A total of six 

86 
II~ 

II 

II 

lit 

II 

II 

II 

II 

~ TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

MILT 

HEADS 

ROE 

HEADS 

(TO CAN FILL 0 PERATlON) 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

DISCHARGE WHOLE 

OR 

GRIND a OISCHARGE 

OR 

GRIND ,BAG 

FREEZE, SHIP 

FOR PET FOOD 

Figure 26 . Typical salmon by-product operations. 

~I 

I 

I 

I 

+ 

EFFLUENT 
20 .1-

lIS -f---.... 

"CO (/J CO kI 10 

a: 

kI 

Z 

Z 

c( 

() 

I&. 

0 

II: 

kI 

III 5 - ::IE 

;:) 

z 

0·L---~~---+----~----+-----~--~-----r----4-----+----.r---

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 

AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUT IN THOUSANDS OF CASES 

Figure 27 • Alaska salmon cannery size distribution. 
15 -

U) 

!!:! 

0: 

'" z 

z 10 -Ic( 

(,) 

(X) 

\0 1&.. 

0 

0: 

Ia.I 

CD 

::E 

:I 

Z 

5 rI I I I o , 

10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 

AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUT IN THOUSANDS OF CASES 

Figure 28 • Western salmon canner~r c:: e distri';u: 
10 

o 

6. 

5. 

. 

4. 

3. 

2. 

1. 

a 

a 

C 

08 

08 

8 

B 

8 

as 

S 

SG 

G 

G 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

a 

B 

a 

P a 

P a P a 

P 

P 

P 

Figure .29 

G 

B G 

e G 

e G 

B G 

B G 

S S G 

S as GP 

S as GP 

S P as GP 

S P as GP 

S P oe GP 

S p 08 GP 

S CSSGP 

S 08SGP 

S OESGP 

S a SG 

S a SG 0 

S G a G C 

G G a 

G 

G B 

G as 

SALHCh CANNIhG PReCESS FLCL 

B 

B 

C 9 

C iI 

C B a 9 

c 9 

a B 

C !l 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

as P 

BS 

BS 

BS 

a.BS 

F aas p B aas F E CBS 

F e OBS 

F S 

F S 

P e F S 

P as F 

S F ces F 

B F es p 

C8 F es F S 

P C8 F as F S 

GP C S es F s 

P P 'l P SG es G 

P P F G es GP 

P P B P S 

P aB P S F S 

0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• J ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• 

CSN2 

(7) 

CSNJ 

( It) 

CSHIt 

(6) 

SYI1BOL 

a 

8 

S 

G 

P 

CSN5 

(6) 

CS6H 

(6) 

PARAIOETER 

FLOW 

5 DAY BOO 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

GREASE AND OIL 

FRODUCTION 

CShE> 

(6) 

CSH7 

(4) 

SCIILHG FACTOR 

1 INCI' 

1 INCH 

1 INCH 

1 INC .. 1 INCI10000 

20 

20 

10 

2 

L/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

TON/HR 

~sn 

(It) 

CSH8 

(3) 

CSBH' 

(6) 
Table 22 

MlCHA~IC~LL~ EUTCHE~EO SAL~CN 

Pf;·OCESS SU",,,,ARV 

OF SELECTED PA~AMETERS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOG NORMAL LeG NORMAL 

MEAN M(AN 5TO OEV 

99X 

MAXIMUM 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION nON/HR,· 3.32 1.67 

TIME (HR/OAY'· Ee87 1.05 

FLOW (LISEe,· 17.2 5.09 (GAL/'llN)· 271t 80.8 

FLOW RATIO U./I(I(G) 18.500 9.83 0.091 22800 (GAL /TON) .. 1+'-0 8.,.0 0.091 S,.70 

TSS (I1G/L' 1100 7.00 0.128 haD (KG/I(I(G) 20.3 3.01 C.128 27.3 

900-5 ("GIL) 2no 7.92 0.125 3&70 (KGI I{I( G) 50.8 3.93 0.125 67.9 

GREASE AND OIL C MG/L' 351 5.86 C.605 1 .. 30 (I(G/I(I<G) 5.49 1.87 0.605 2E.S 

PH· 6.71 ~.173 

----------------------------------------------------------------------.-

PLANTS CSN2,CS~3,CS~~,CSN6 

• NOTEI TH€ OUTPUTS FeR THESE FtRA~ETE~S 

ARE THE ~CRMAL (U~WEIGHTEC) ~EAN 

AN~ STANCARD O~~IATIC~, RESFECTI~ELV 

91 
25 

20 

-

8 15 

0 

rX 

-C) 

..:.<: 

..:.<: 

....... 

r-

~ 

0 

rI.L. 10 

5 

o 

o 5 

• 

10 15 20 25 30 

Production kkgjday 

Figure 30 

Mechanized salmon flow ratios versus production level 

92 

•• 

35 
90 

80 • 

70 

10 

o 

o 5 10 15 25 30 35 

Production. kkg/day 

. ; . Figure 31 .~ 

Mechanized:~~l~o~. BODS·'ra,t{os. ~~rsus production , •• " -'<- ... 

leyel 

93 
45 

40 

35 

C') 30 .:.::: 

.:.::: 

--

C') 

.:.::: 

en ."0 

.,... 

r0 25 V) 

"0 

<LJ 

-g 

<LJ 

0- 20 en 

::s 

V) 

rItS 

..., 

~ 15 

10 

o 

,. 

o 5 

• 

• 

10 '15 . 20 25 

Productton kKg/di;lY 

'. Fi~ure 32 

Mechanized salmon total suspended solids 

versus production level 

94 

• 

30 35 
SOLIDS 

COLLECTED c::: FOR PET FOOD 

OPERATION 

(WIlERE AVAILABLE) 

(WHOLE) 

ROUND FISH 

IIEADS,ROE,MILT 

t:.:==::.:.:::;:...:::...:==:..rYl_SCE~WA!!!! _ 

.TROLL DRESSED fiSH 

-------

TO SOLIDS 

DISPOSAL 

-I 

-I 

I 

-I 

1 

1 

1 

.+ 

--- PRoolJeT FLOW 

- WASTEWATER FLOW 

= = WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

EFFLUENT 

Figure :m . Typical fresh/frozen salmon process. 
plants in three areas of Alaska and one area 

were investigated; 77 unit operation and 

samples were collected. 

Process Description 

of the Northwest 

effluent composite 

Figure 33 shows the flow diagr~m for ,the typical fresh/ frozen 

salmon process used in Alaska and Northwest plants. The 

unloading of fish from boats in Alaska and the Northwest is 

usually accomplished with a crane and bucket. In the Northwest, 

fish also arrive by flatbed or semi-trucks from the coast or from 

other ports in Washington and Oregon. To keep the fish fresh 

during transport, they· are packed in ice in wooden bins. 

At the plant the fish are 'sorted by species, and when necessary, 

by quality, and placed in metal or plastic totes, or qondola 

carts. If the fish are to be kept until the following day, they 

are iced. 

There are three processes used in Alaska for freezing salmon. 

The most common is to receive the fish in the round, and 

subsequently to' butcher them in the plant. Troll-caught fish are 

dressed at sea and need only be beheaded and washed at the plant 

prior to freezing. Some fish are'also frozen "in the round," 

without butchering. Freezing "in the round" is common in peak 

years, when the canneries cannot handle the large volume of fish, 

and is expected to become more widely used in Alaska as labor 

prices increase. Alaskan salmon frozen in this manner are later 

further processed, usually in Oregon or.Washington. Few fish are 

processed for the fresh market in Alaska. 

Round salmon are butchered by hand on an assembly line basis,. 

The salmon is beheaded, the viscera removed and the kidney slit 

and removed. Some plants use a semi-automatic beheader. The roe 

and milt are separated from the viscera and processed in the 

manner described in the "Salmon Canning" SUbcategory process 

description. After butchering, the salmon are washed in a 

cleaning tank to remove remaining blood, slime" and parasites. 

In Alaska, the salmon are frozen at about -SloC (-60 0 F), then 

glazed and packaged, or stored for shipping at -23°C (-10°F). In 

contrast to Alaska, a significant portion of NorthWest salmon ~re 

marketed fresh, mainly to local retail outlets, and restaurants 

and (via air freight) to Eastern.outlets. 

Salmon are sometimes cured in,brine~ In this process the salmon 

are butchered and split into halve~, the backbones are removed, 

and the fish are washed in a brine solution. ,Then they are 

dipped in salt and packed into wooden barrels. When the barrels 

are filled with salmon halves, saturated brine is added and the 

fish are stored at about 2°C (36°F) to pre.serve the pack and 

prevent oil loss. ' 

96 
subcategorization Rationale 

since the fresh/frozen salmon process is essentially the same 

throughout the industry, geographic location was considered to be 

the only major factor affecting suticategorization. 

It was decided that the fresh/frozen salmon industry be subcategorized into "Alaska" and "West Coast" regions because of the 

greater costs and more serious treatment problems encountered in 

Alaska. The size range of the industry is significant in both 

regions; however, it is not as great as the range for salmon 

canning. 

Information on the size range of the industry in terms of annual 

production is limited. Table 23 summarizes data obtained from a 

study conducted by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (20) 

involving Northwest freSh/frozen salmon plants. 

For the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies, 

Table 24 estimates the daily peak production rates for Alaskan 

fresh/frozen salmon plants. Based on these figures and 

observations made during the plant investigations, the dividing 

line between large and small Alaskan and Northwest fresh/frozen 

salmon plants was placed at 2370 kkg (2500 tons). of raw product 

processed annually. 

Figure 34 is a summary plot of the wastewater characteristics of 

four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska (FSI, FS2, FSTI, 

FST2) and three operations in the Northwest (FS3, FS4, FST3). 

The code FS represents processes which butcher round salmon, 

while the code FST represents the processing of troll-dressed 

salmon, which have been eviscerated at sea. The four processes 

in Alaska (FSI, FSTI, FS2, FST2) fall into the "large" range" 

while the three Northwest processes (FS3, FST3, FS4) are in the 

"small" range. ' 

It can be seen that the waste loads from 

processes were lower than those from the roUnd 

the waste loads from the Alaskan plants 

slightly higher than those from the'Northwest 

loads from all these operations, however, 

with BOD's less than 3 kg/kkg. 

the troll-dressed 

processes and that 

seem to have been 

plants. The waste 

are relatively low, 

Since the unit operations, where most of the waste is generated, 

are similar for either the hand butcher fresh/frozen process or 

the hand butcher canning process, they are included in one 

subcategory. The average waste loads from the round fresh/frozen 

processes (PSI, FS2, FS3, FS4) and from the hand butcher canning 

process (CSN5, CS6M) are used to characterize both segments of 

the industry .. 

It would not be efficient to further subdivide the industry into 

"round," "troll dressed" and hand butcher canning processes with 

the corresponding regulations and enforcement efforts required. 

97 
Table23. Annual production of 

Northwest fresh/frozen salmon. 

Raw Product Processed Annually 

Plant Number (kkg) (tons) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

360 

680 

725 

1815 

2720 

4535 

400 

750 

800 

2000 

3000 

5000 

Table 24. Daily peak production rates of Alaska 

fresh/frozen salmon plants (9) 

Dailr Peak Production Rate 

Size {kkg (tons) 

Large 80-110 90-120 

Medium 45-70 50-75 

Small 27-45 30-50 

98 
Figure )4 • F~;;':Sh/FROZf N S~L~101\ FROC;'SS PL(' T. 

6. 

• 

• 

5. 

• (. 

• G-

• G 

• (, 

• P (, 

4. P P G 

• ~S P F (, 

• 8S P P G F 

• es p F- a c: p p 

• % P P Q (. P P 

• es p I) SG F p p 

3. ~s P ""< Q SG P p P 

es p e a Sf F p P 

• 83 f' '3 Q t;G P P P 

• gS p e IJ s(, F F P 

• eSGF' e Q sc ... p P 

SSGP ~ , Q SG f ~ F S p • .-

2. eSGP !!S 0 sc, P 9 P 13 p 

• uSGF .::. 0 SG F- a F 8S p 

83GP 5 (lASG P as F es p 

• (l8:::) r,p S Q'iSG F as p ·es 

• oeSG~ aBS'G s F 9S as 

• Q as (,p 13S(, S F S as 

1. (J ~S GP e G Q c: 

-f SG ~~ 9S 

• ',)SS GP G -3 GP QaSG G ", c w G 

• aeSG G (op QeSG G ES G 

• () s P d G Q ESG G 

0 " J • .:: P Q Q8SG a 

• 0 F' ES C 

c ••••••• ••••••••• e •••••••••••• o ••••••••••• o •••••••••••••••• ~ 

F::i 1 

(5 ) 

SY!<l8CL 

FS2 

('" ) 

FS11 

(6) 

PA~AME:T[R 

FS H: F33 

(3) 

F~T3 

(2) 

~CAlHH~ F'ACTCR 

----------------------------~--------------------------~ 1 FLCI-i 1 INCH = 10GLlO L/ICI<G 

':3 S QAY 30iJ 1 INCH = 1 I(G/KKG 

:- SiJSF&;.NO[O SOl.IOS 1 INCH = :1.S K:G/KKG 

G G'LASt:. ~ OIL 1 INCH = 0.2 K:G/t<I<G 

P F~GOUCTIO" 1 I~CH = 1 TC"'/I1~ 

--------------------------------------------------------

99 
The slight advantage of those plants processing mostly trolldressed fish was considered to be of little importance, since the 

waste loads from any of these processes are relatively low. 

Table 25 lists summary statistics of the waste loads from all 

hand butcher salmon processes sampled. These were used to 

determine the typical raw waste loadings from fresh/frozen salmon 

or hand butcher salmon canning processes in both Alaska and the 

West Coast. The flow ratio was not included for plant FSI, as it 

was not considered to be typical. 

Because 

ratios, 

Figures 

unit of 

there is no apparent relationship or trend relating flow 

TSS ratios, or BOD2 ratios to production levels (See 

35, 36, and 37), it was assumed that the waste loads per 

production are independent of production level. 

Hand butcher salmon canning processes are typically small. The 

plants sampled in the No'rthwest are considered to be large; 

however, the hand butcher salmon line only averaged about 4.5 

kkg/day (5 tons/day). This is much less than the ratio shown for 

fresh/frozen salmon in Tables 23 and 24. 

BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH 

The processing of bottom fish (or groundfish) and finfish as 

fresh or frozeri commodities was considered to be an important 

segment of the industry because of the large number of plants 

engaged in this activity. The industry has wastewater flows and 

loads which are quite variable, is located in all regions of the 

country and encompasses a large range of sizes. Therefore, a 

total of 20 plants in six regions of the country were 

investigated. This included three plants in Alaska, six in the 

Northwest, four, in New England, two in the Middle Atlantic, two 

in the Gulf, and three plants in California. A total of 207 unit 

operations or effluent composite samples of the bottom fish 

industry's wastewaters were collected. 

Process Description 

Although many species of fish are involved in several regions of 

the country, the processing of bottom fish (or groundfish) and 

finfish primarily involves the preparation of fillets or whole 

fish for the fresh or frozen market. Most fillets are frozen in 

blocks and processed later aS'fish sticks or portions. Whole 

fish processing is also important for some species such as 

halibut and the . larger groundfish •. The amount of whole fish 

processing varies with the species" of fish, the region, and 

market demands. . 

The processing" descriptions belOW are organized by region, since 

the species involved and the processing methods employed are 

reiatively uniform within each. 

100 
Table 25 .~ 

HANO aLTC~tREO SA~MCN 

PRilCESS SU""ARY 

OF S~~£CTEO PARAH~T£RS 

--~----------------------------------.-.-----.-.-.. --------------------- PA~AI4ETC:R HEAN 

LOG hCAHAL LeG hOR"A~ 

MEAN STD DEV 

99X 

MAXIMUM 

-------------------------------------_ .... _-----_ .... ---._--------------

PRODUCTION nON/HR) • 1.9 .. 1.19 

TII1E' (H~/OAY)· E.3 .. 1.80 

FLOW (LISEe.· 2.36 1 ... 1 (GAL/Hlh)· 37.5 22.3 

FLOW RATIO (L/kkG) 3960 ~.25 0.079 "150 (G'LITOt\, 97f: 6.81 0.102 12ltO 

TSS ('tG/L) 305 !:.12 o • lit? .. 29 (l(G/I(I(G. 1.21 O.UlI 0.llt7 1.70 

BOO-5 (MC/", Slit 6.28 0.108 686 (I<G/I(I(G) 2.11 0.749 0.108 2.12 

G~lAS~ AN:) OIL ("GIL) 38.f. 3.65 O.lU 50. a (KG/KKG. 0.153 -l.Ia 0.U8 0.202 

PH· E.73 0.31" 

---------------------~---------------------.---.-.---------------_._-_.- PL~NTS CSN5,CS6~,FSl ,FSZ ,FS3 ,rs~ 

• NOT:: I THt: OUTPUTS feR THESe. PARA"U£liS 

ARE T~E ~OR~A~ (UhWilG~T£t' ~£jN 

AN~ STA~D~~O OLVIATICN, RlSP[CTIVELY 

101 
9 

8 

7 

6 

-0 

0 

5 0 

..-

~ 

>< 

t:7) 

~ 

~ 

"- 4 ..-

:;c 

0 

..-

u. 

3 

2 

1 

o 

• 

• " . " 

• 

o 5 10 15 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 35 

Hand-butchered salmon flow ratios 

versus production level 

102 

• • 

20 25 
t» 

~ ....... 

C)-

~ 

LO 

0 

0' 

co 

4.5 

4.0 • 

3.5 

3.0 • 

• 

2.5 

2.0 

• 

1.5 • 

1.0 

0.5 

o 

o 5. , 10 15 20 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 36 

HCind-butchered salmon.BOD5.ratios 

versus production level' 

103 

e· 

25 30 
.'- . 

en 

.:.i: 

.:.i: 

..... 

en 

.:.i: 

II) 

"'0 

.,... 

.-

0 

en 

"'0 

cu 

"'0 

C 

[ 

II) 

::::I 

en 

..-

~ 

of.) 

{E. 

3.5 

3.0 • 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

• 

1.0 

• 0.5 • 

o 

o 5 10 15 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 37 

Hand-butchered sa1mon total suspended solids 

versus production level 

104 

• • 

20 25 
1. New England Groundfish--Figure 38 shows the flow diagram for 

a typical New England groundfish filleting process. 

Fish arrive at the major processing centers, such as Gloucester, 

Boston, and New Bedford, by truck and boat. The resource has 

been declining in recent years; consequently, increasing numbers 

of fish are being trucked from northern New England and from 

Canada. Fish such as flounder and ocean perch arrive in the 

round, while larger species, such as cod and haddock, are often 

eviscerated at sea to m~n~~ze spoilage and maximize efficiency. 

The fish are typically unloaded from boats (by hand) into boxes, 

and then transported by forklift or dolly to the processing 

areas. Some ice accompanies the fish and a certain weight 

percentage is subtracted from the gross value to allow for this 

when the fish are weighed. The fish are stored on ice in the 

plant while awaiting processing. 

Included in the plans to build a new fish pier in Boston is a 

vacuum system to transport fish from the boat holds into 

palletted bins. This will increase the unloading rate, while at 

the same time decreasing the amount of contaminated ice.' ' 

The fish are filleted by hand. Plants ~mploy from 3 to 25 fille-E 

cutters. The fish will be descaled prior to fil'leting if 

requested by the customer. Descaling is usually accomplished by 

hand; however, some descaling machines employ highpressure water 

jets. The flow from these mechanical descalers is relatively 

large and contains heavy waste loadings. Some plants use a 

continuous brine flow to keep the fish moist and firm on the 

filleting table, while other plants use an intermittent water 

flow to clean the tables between species. The fillets may be 

skinned manually (for special orders) except for various species 

of flounder, which are passed through a skinning machine. The 

skinning machine commonly used in New England is the German-made 

Baader 47 skinner. 

The prepared fillets are ,placed in a preserving dip tank 

containing chilled brine with 10 percent sodium benzoate 

solution. The fish are removed from the dip tank by hand or. by. 

inclined conveyor, manually packed into boxes, and stored in a 

cooler. The great majority of groundfish are filleted and sold 

fresh. Some of the larger species, which are sold to markets, 

are handled whole, while those which are to be shipped longer 

distances are frozen. 

Plant washdowns typically occur only once per day, in the last 20 

minutes to one-half hour of operation. Both chlorinated salt 

water and fresh water are used. The solid material is typically 

shoveled into bins and trucked to a nearby rendering plant. 

During the peak lobster fishing period, carcases are often sold 

for lobster bait. 

A frozen-whole process used in New England for whiting is shown 

in Figure 39. The whiting are taken from the boats in bushels 

105 
II SKINS 

114= = 

II MEAT. PARTICLES .---

~-- --

:1 

\I 

II 

II 

II 

\I 

U TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

Figure ~ . 

I 

.1 

DIP -}ORI~L PAB.!.!I':LsL ..j TANK 

EFFLUENT 

Typical New England ground {j.sh process. 

106 
HEADS 

IF 

II 

II 

II VISCERA 

~= II 

II 

II 

II 

1/ 

~ TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

RECEIVE 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

~AT~ JUICES 

SMALL PARTICLES 

WAT~ ORGANICL _' 

WAT!fL.SCALES_ 

WATER 

--+-1 

I 

--+-

I 

, --+-I 

I 

-.1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

EFFLuENT • 

Figure 39 • 'Typical New England whiting process. 

107 
which hold between 80 kg and 100 kg (176 to 220 lbs) offish. 

Each bushel is weighed prior to being emptied onto a conveyor 

which transports the fish into the plant's holding bins. The 

plants sampled each had a holding capacity of about 100 kkg (110 

tons) • The relatively soft flesh of whiting dictates care in 

handling. Consequently, the fish are flushed from the bins by 

high-pressure hose into sumps, from which they are transported by 

inclined conveyor to the sorting and beheading area. The 

beheading operation consists of lines of horizontal conveyors 

with 4 to 5 cm (1.8 to 2.0 in.) slots, into which the fish are 

oriented manually by women standing along the line. The line 

conveys the fish past a circular beheading saw. The heads fall 

onto an inclined auger and are transported into a waiting truck. 

The headless bodies are flumed into an inclined cylindrical 

descaler which tumbles the fish, removing the scales and washing 

them away with water sprays. The fish are then conveyed to the 

eviscerating table where the remaining viscera are removed ,by 

hand. All fins are left on the fish and the belly is not slit. 

Usually 15 to 20 women manually eviscerate the fish, throwing the 

viscera into flumes running along both 'sides of the -table, then 

out to a main collecting sump. After evisceration, the fish are 

boxed according to size and are quick frozen. 

The whiting process uses a large amount of water and produces 

relatively large waste loads. Most of the water comes from 

fluming. It may be possible to i'eplace the flumes with conveyors; however, it is clidmed .. by the peop:}.e in the industry that 

fluming is the best method for ,moving the fish, because of the 

softness of their flesh. 

The solids, including. heads, viscera, and screened solids, are 

typically collected and trucked to a nearby rendering plant. 

2. Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Miscellaneous Finfish-Figure 40 shows a 

typical miscellaneo~s finfish process used in the Middle and 

South Atlantic and Gulf regions. 

The fish are received by boat or truck and unloaded by hand or by 

vacuum. The fish are washed, sorted by species, and weighed. At 

this point, some plants box, ice, and ship the whole fish to 

markets or other. plants for further processing~ Fish that are 

processed at the originating plant are descaled manually or 

mechanically, and then eviscerated or filleted. The whole fish 

fillets are next packaged and shipped fresh or frozen. It was 

observed that more fish were handled in the round or eviscerated 

and frozen in these two regions than in New England. The solid 

fish wastes, including heads, viscera, and carcasses, are usually 

recovered for pet or mink food. ' 

A relatively new process developing in the Gulf region is the 

utilization of flesh separating machinery. The process holds 

much promise because it can improve yields, utilize previouslyignored fish species, and satisfy ready ,markets. These factors 

tend to reduce operating costs and make the process economically 

108 
SCALES 

«= - - II 

II 

II 

II 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

- - WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

GRINDER 

II HEADS, VISCERA 

--- .- -- lEVlaCERATE 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

11-

II 

ij 

SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

FREEZE FOR PET 

6/0R MINK FOOD 

WATER, SCALES, SLIME ---'--~-

W~, SLIME, 8LOOD_ _I 

~TE!!.i.§CALES _ _ _' _ _ 

WATER, BLOOD, SLIME 

- - --

·1 

-I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

-I 

·1 -1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

+ 

EFFLUENT 

Figure 40. Typical Mid-Atlantic OJ: Gulf finfish process. 

109 
attractive. At present w few such operations are on-line, and 

only one plant was sampled, this utilizing croaker on the Gulf 

Coast. 

The foundation for this process was laid when Japanese and German 

inventors created the prototype machinery for extracting boneless 

and skinless flesh from eviscerated fish. In one design, the 

separation is effected through a shearing and pressing action 

created by a rotating perforated drum bearing against a slowermoving belt which holds the fish tightly against the drum. 

Although one pass through the machine will produce a high flesh 

yield, the carcasses can be recycled through the machine to 

increase recovery. The flesh obtained is in a comminuted form 

which is further processed by compressing it into blocks. 

Occasionally, other materials are added to modify the flavor, 

texture, or appearance of the final product. The actual 

formation of the blocks, the machinery, and the binding agents 

used are considered by the industry to be confidential. Thus, 

the following description is general. 

Figure 41 shows a typical fish flesh process. The receiving 

operations are similar to other fish operations; fish are brought 

into the plant, dumped into wash tanks, sorted, then held prior 

to processing. Scales, heads, fins and viscera must be removed. 

This can be done manually, but automatic equipment is being 

introduced into the industry to streamline the operation. After 

dressing, the fish are passed through the flesh-separating 

machinery. The solid wastes produced by the dressing and flesh 

separating operations are collected and ground for animal feed. 

Little water is involved in either operation, but that produced 

is highly contaminated with blood, slime and small flesh 

particles. The ground flesh ~roduced is stored in bins, into 

which other ingredients are added, after which the batch is 

mixed. It is then formed into blocks, either by extrusion or 

molding. The blocks, or cakes, as they are also called, are 

placed on trays and rapidly frozen. The frozen blocks are then 

processed further by cutting them into different sizes and 

shapes, which are subsequently breaded and packaged. Clean-up 

operations involve washing down the equipment with water and 

detergents. The wastewater from such operations is high in 

dissolved proteins, organics and detergents, as well as solid 

particles of flesh and fish parts. In the one plant observed, 

the clean-up lasted several hours, with the flow being greater 

than that produced during processing and constituting the 

greatest part of the effluent. 

3. Pacific Coast 

for a Pacific Coast 

common processing 

the black cod, are 

markets exists for 

Bottom Fish--Figure 42 shows the flow diagram 

bottom fish filleting operation, the most 

method. Some' of the larger species, such as 

processed whole; and a small demand in fish 

other whole fish. 

The fish usually arrive by boat and are unloaded by ,hand. A few 

plants are converting to the vacuum unloading system. The fish 

110 
TRASH FISH 

Ir= 

II 

II 

II HEADS, VISCERA 

lie::: = = = 

II MUTILATED FISH 

e::: = = = II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II SAW DUST 

Ir= --

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

U TO SOLIDS 

REDUCTION PLANT 

LARGE FISH 

WATER, SCALES 

- --

SLIM~BLOOD 

ICE,BOX 

a SHIP 

CHLORINATED WATER, PARTICLES 

------

Figure 41 • Typical fish flesh process. 

111 

-I 

I 

-I 

I 

I 

-.1 

I 

-I 

I 

+ EFFLUENT 

are weighed and sent -to the filleting tables; the larger plant.s 

use a conveyor system for fish transport from the receiving room 

to the filleting room. Some plants use manual or mechanical 

descaling before filleting, depending on the ultimate product 

form. The fish are ,spray-washed on the conveyor or washed by 

hand as they are filleted. water is available from a hose at 

each filleting position and in many plants is flawing constantlYe 

Most plants use mechanical skinners after filleting; however, 

some skinning is done by hand and a few products require no 

skinning at all. The fish are rinsed in a tank containing 

preservatives and then packed for the fresh or frozen market .. 

Most of the solid waste from the Pacific Coast plants is ground 

and bagged for the pet or animal food market. 

Some halibut are processed on the Northwest Pacific coast in 

centers such as Bellingham and Seattle. The methods of 

processing are the same as described in the following discussion 

on Alaska bottom fish. 

4. Alaska Bottom Fish--The only species of Alaskan bottom fish 

processed in any quantity at this time is halibut. Figure 43 

shows the, flow diagram for a typical halibut processing 

operation. 

Since the average length ofa trip in Alaska ranges from 13 to 25 

days, the halibut are butchered at sea and iced. After receipt 

at the. docks, the fish are beheaded, if this has not already been 

done at sea, and the body cavity'is flushed to remove ice. The 

fish' are graded by size and then processed whole or fletched. 

Smaller fish, 'under about 27 kg (60 l.bs) are usual.l.y frozen, 

while those greate.r in size are butchered to remove four large 

sections of; flesh called fletches.. Some plants in Alaska freeze 

all sizes of fish, which are processed later in the Northwesto 

The fish to be frozen whole are washed by spray or by hand and 

quick..;frozen. The waste loadings from this operation are 

minimal.. The sections of flesh from the fletched fish are 

trimmed, washed, and quick-frozel1. The larger trimmings are mark~ted for smoking and breading. The edible cheeks are removed 

from the heads, and are trimmed, washed, bagged and frozen. 

'The solid wastes in Alaska are used for bait or are discar.ded. 

Subcateqorization Rationale 

Although there are many species and processing ope~ations in the 

bottom/miscellaneous finfish subcategory, only two factors were 

considered to require further subcategorization: geographic 

location and degree of mechanization/water use. The bottom fish, 

groundfish, and miscellaneous finfish industry was subcategorized 

into "Alaska" and "non-Alaska" regions because of the greater 

costs and more complex treatment prob1ems encountered in Alaska. 

113 
---~. II 

'11 

II CARCL.:.A-ss-E-s-----J 

II~ . = = 

4= --

II SKIN. TRIMMINGS 

.~ = = = 

II 

U 

TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

r-~FL=E~T~C~H~PR~O~C~ES~S~__<OR>_-W-H-OL-E-P-R-OC-E-S-S-, 

ALTERNATE METHOD .1- -. - --, 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

= WASTE BOUDS FLOW 

WATER. SLIME 

-I 

_ _ _ MEAT. WATER_ -"1 

I 

I 

f 

EFFLUENT 

Figure 43 .• Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process. 
In Alaska, the only bottom fish industry of importance is 

halibut. The problem is complicated by the fact that the 

processing of halibut usually is practiced in conjunction with 

other processes" such as fresh/frozen salmon processing. 

with respect to non-Alaska regions, the bottom fish/finfish 

industry was subcategorized into "conventional" and "mechanized" 

processes, due to the increased water and waste loads associated 

with the latter. A conventional process is defined as one in 

which ,the unit operations are carried out essentially by hand and 

with a relatively low water volume. However, the conventional 

process generally utilizes scaling and/or skinning machines. A 

mechanized process is defined as one in which many of the unit 

operations are 'mecha.nized and relatively large volumes of .water 

are used. ' 

Figure 44 summarizes the wastewater characteristics for what are 

considered to be conventional processing operations with little 

or no mechanization. Figure 45 ,depicts a summary plot for what 

are considered to be high~water-use mechanized processing 

operations. In Figure 44 codes FRHI and FFHl refer to halibut 

processing operations in Alaska; codes Bl and 2 refer to 

groundfish plants in New England; codes FNFl, 2, 3, and 4, to 

finfish plants in the Middle Atlantic and Gulf reqions; codes B4, 

5, 10, 11, and 12 refer to bottom fish plants in the Northwest; 

and codes B7, 8, and 9 refer to bottom fish plants in California. 

With respect to Figure 45, codes WI and 2 refer to whiting plants 

in New England, CFCI to a fish flesh plant in the Gulf, and B6 

and B6H to a bottom fish plant in the Northwest. Code B6H 

represents ,historical data obtaine? :1:or ,plant B6 (21). 

The plants represented by codes FRHI and FFHl are considered to 

be large halibut processing operations. The waste loads from the 

halibut processing operations are relatively low, being of the 

same order of magnitude as, the Alaska fresh/frozen' salmon 

process. Table 26 shows summary statistics of the waste loads 

from the Alaska halibut process. It is assumed that the waste 

per unit of production is the same for plants in either the large 

or small categories. 

A relatively large size range exists for both the non-Alaska 

conventional and non-Alaska mechanized portions of the industry, 

with the mechanized portion being larger, on the average. 

Information on the annual production of bottom fish is limited. 

Based on studies conducted in the Northwest (20), and 

observations made during this study, the following divisions were 

made to break'the industry into approximately equal-size range~ 

for the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies. 

The division between "large" and "medium" conventional plants was 

set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product processed annually and 

the division between "medium" and "small" conventional plants was 

set at 1810 kkg (2000 tons) of raw product processed annually. 

The division between "large" and "small" mechanized plants was 

set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product processed annually. 

115 
-.I 

--- 0'1 

Figure 44. _ CONVENTIONA'L BOTTOH FISH PROCESS PLOT. 

Q P Q 

" Q 

• P a 5. P Q P a P Q P 0 Q P a a • P Q Q 4. P B Q S 0 P BS QB Q S Q' P S BS OB Q S a P S G BS QB a S a P S G BS aB a S Q 

· P S G BS OB S a S 3. P S G BS QB BS P a S P Q S SG BS QB BS P aBS F a S -BSG BS OB BS P OBS P S BSG BS QB as P aBS P S aSG BSG BS 0 BSGP aBS S 

· a P S BSG 8SG BS Q BSGP as S S 2. Q S S S BSG 8SG BS 0 BSGP BS S S 0 S S BS BSG QBSG BS 0 BSG 8S BS S S a S S BS SG Q 5G aSGP P a aBSG as BS SG S 0 S s as SG a G SGP OB P B oaSG BS S S S a SG S as P Q G SGP aas P BS a G eSG S a S as 

· SG B BS as 0 P a G GP aas P es G SGP o S S 1. BSG B as as 0 P 0 G GP S P OBSGP BS G GP aes a aSG BS BSG a P G GP aBS aeSG BS G GP P a a P e G a P as eSG 0 P P QBS BSG BS P G P P P 6 a P - aas a G P P aBS B G B G G P P P 0 0 P P CBS P P G G P P 

· G GP G G 

0 .•••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••.•.••••••••••••• __ •• _ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ' •••••••••••••• ' ••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• _." ••••• • ~"'. FRH1 FFH1 a1 a2 FNF1 FNF2 (91 (3 I (31 (51 FNF3_ FNF4 B4 B5 87 88 

(It I (41 (11 (51 (41 (51 (31 (4) 

SYHBOL PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR 

-------------------------------------------------------. Q 

B 

S 

G 

P 

FLOII 

5 DAY BOO 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

GREASE AND OIL 

PRODUCTION 

1 INCH = 

1 INCH = 1 INCH = 1 INCH = 

1 INCH = 

5000 

2 

1 

0.5 

2 

L/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

KGlKKG 

TON/HR 

--------------------------------------------------------

B9 B10 a11 a12 

(2) (91 (iU (71 
Figure 45. MECHANIZED BOTTOM fISH PROCESS FLOT. 

6. 

• B 

• e 

• os 

• 08 

• C8 

5. 08 

• C8 

• B 08 

• a 08 

• B P 8 08 

• a G P a GB 

4. a G P B CBS 

• S G P 8 aas 

• e G P a aas 

• B G P a CBS 

• eSG P 8 ass 

• SSG 8 P S 8 OBS 

3. eSGP B P B S CBS 

• 8SGP 8 P 8 08 a8S 

• eSGP 8 a8 08 CBS 

• eSGP 8 08 08 BS 

• eSGP 8SG QB 08 S 

• eSGP 8SG as S 

2. QSSGP BSG aB s 

• Q SGP aSG a8 S S F 

• Q G SSG a8 SGF ·S 

• a G SG OB SGP S 

• 0 G a SG aBSG SG S 

• G Q SG t SG SG S 

1. 0 G a SG SG S 

• Q G o SG G S 

• Q G a SG G S 

• G SGP S 

• SGP 

• G 

O ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• G ••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 ••• 

.. 2 

(7 ) 

SYMBOL 

W1 

(5) 

PARAMETER 

CFC1 

(5) 

86 

(4) 

SoH 

(8 ) 

SCALING FACTCR 

----------~---~-~~----------~-------------------------- Q FLOW 1 INCH = 10000 l/·KKG 

8 5 DAY 800 1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG 

S SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG 

G GREASE ~ OIL i INCH = 2 I<G/KKG 

P PRODUCTION 1 INCH = 2 TC~/H~ 

----------~------------------~------------------------ --

117 
Table 26 

ALASKAN BOTTOM FISH 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

---------------------------------------------------~------~-~---

PARAMETE.R t-'EAN ~OG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 

MEAN STD D~V 

99" 

MAXIMUM 

---------------------------------------------------~----~~.-----

PRODUCTION* 

(TON/HR) 4.38 4.60 

TIME* 

(HR/OAY) 5.13 0.523 

FLOW* 

(L/SEC) 6.94 8.74 

(GAL/MIN) 110. 139. 

FLOW RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 4530. 8.418 0~907 37.500. 

(GAL/TON) 1080. 6.98' . 0·907 '8980. 

TSS** 

(MG/U 326. 5.788 0.318 685. 

(KG/KKG) 1.48 0.390 0.318 3.10 

600-5** 

(MG/L) 396. 5.982 0·216 656. 

(KG/KKG) 1.79 0.584 0·216 2.97 

GREASE AND OILiH~' 

(MG/U 44.6 3.79t3 1.310 944. 

(KG/KKG) 0.202 -1.600 1.310 4.27 

Prl1f' 6.73 

-------------------------~-------------------------.------------

PLANTS FRHl ,FFHl 

• TH£ OUTPUT FUR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARU DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

** THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE. LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STAND,ARf:i DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

778 
Table 27 indicates distribution within the selected size ranges, 

of ·the pL:tnts inv<2s·tigated. 

Although some variability was evident between the plants in the 

lIconvcrd:ional" and I/mechanized" subcategories, especially the 

flow ratio and production parameters, the following observations 

were notedv The waste loads (in terms of BOD, suspended solids, 

and grease and oil) were four to five times greater for the 

mechanized operations than the conventional operations. The 

highly variable flow ratios for the conventional operations were 

attributed mainly to the different methods of washing the fish 

before processing. For example, the high flow ratio exhibited by 

plan-t BiO VJas partially due to the fact that a high-velocity jet 

spray \vas used to vlash the fish as they were conveyed to the 

processing lines. The historical flow ratio data at plant B9 

were obtained from a flow meter which also serviced a restaurant" 

The flow to the filleting tables at plant B2 was excessive in 

relation to the same unit operation at other plants. Plant FNF4 

flow ratio data were relatively high in comparison to oth~r 

bottom fish plants even though the other wast~ l?arameters were 

low~ 

since the waste loads were relatively low and were uniform for 

all ·the conventional bottom/miscellaneous finfish processes, it 

was reasonable to place them into one subcategory. Table 28 

summarizes the waste parameters for the non-Alaska conventional 

bottom/miscellaneous finfish plants. The flow ratios were not 

included for B2, B9, BIO, and FNF4, as they were not considered 

to be typical. Plant FNF3 was not included in the average 

because only a small number of fish were being handled in the 

round ·on the day the sample was taken, a situation which was 

considered to be atypical. 

Because 

ratios, 

Figures 

unit of 

there is no apparent relationship or trend relating flow 

TSS ratios, or BOD2 ratios to production levels (See 

46, 47~ and 48), it was. assumed that the waste loads per 

production are independent of production levels. 

The plants used to represent the mechanized bottom/miscellaneous 

finfish process were two New England whiting plants (WI, W2), a 

fish flesh plant on the Gulf (CFCI), and a bottom fish plant in 

the Northwest (B6, B6H). Plant B6 was included in the mechanized 

subcategory because it used a mechanical scaler with highvelocity water jets. Since this was the only scaler of this type 

observed~ and it contr.ibuted a high percentage of the waste load, 

it could no·t .beconsidered typical. Plant CFCI was also included 

in the mechanized subcategory, since mechanical beheading and eviscerati~g machinery was used. The waste load.s for the two 

whiting plants and the fish flesh plant were considered to be the 

most representative of the mechanized segment of the industry and 

are summarized in Table 29. 

SARDINE CANNING 

119 
Size 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Table 27 Non-Alaska bottom fish 

size distribution. 

Type of Process 

Conventional Mechanized 

FNF4, B8 

B5, B7, B9, 

FNFl, FNF2, 

BIO, Bll, B12 

Bl, B2, B4, 

FNF3 

120 

Wl, W2, B6 

CFCI 
Table 28 

CO~V~hTIONAL 30TTO~ FrSM 

FF-OCESS SUMf"lARY 

OF SlLECTEO PARAMeTERS 

-------------------------~---------------------------- LGG NORMAL LeG ~O~~~L ------------------

"IE AN MEAN ST.O OE'I 

99% 

MAXIMUM 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRO,)UCTION nON/HiH· 1.7<!1 1.3~ 

TI"1E (HR/OAY)'" 6.98 0.6 .. 2 

FLOW (LISEe)· 3.75. 3.00 

(GAl./MII'l'· 59. f 47.6 

FLOW ~ATIO (ll KKG) 5240 e.5E> 0.055 5990 

(Gt.",/TCN) 1270 7.15 0.052 1""0 

TSS "'!G/L) 271 5.60 0.163 396 

(KG/KKG) 10'-2 0.353 0.163 2.08 

900-5 01G/U 633 6.45 0.152 901 

(I(G/KKG) 3. ~2 1.20 0.152 ".72 

GI(EASE AND OIL ("'GIL) 66.4 1t.20 0.1C:9 105 

(KG/ICKG) 0.34(: -1.06 0.199 0.553 

PH· 6.7<3 0.5H 

-----------------------------------~--~----~----------~--------~--------

PLA~TS 81 ,E2 ,e~ ,~~ ,67 ,es ,29 ,S10, 

311 ,812 pFNF1,F~F2,FNF4 

.. NOTE' THe OUTPur~ FOR TH~SE PAR~~ETERS 

A~E THE ~CR~AL (~~kEIG~TE[) ME~N 

ANO STANQARJ u[~IATIu~, ~t5PlCTI~~LY 

121 
10 • 

8 

• - 6 8 

0 

r- • • ·X 

.....-

t:n 

~ 

~ 

- • r-

::: • 0 

r- 4 u.. 

• 

2 

• 

o 

o 5 10 15 . 20 25 

PrQQyctton k.K9/Qa,y 

Figure 46 . Conventional bottom fish flow ratios 

versus production levels 

122 

• 

30 35 
t:7l 

~ 

~ 

........ 

~ 

LO 

0 

0 

co 

6 

• 

• 

5 

• 

4 • 

• 

3 

• • 

2 • • • • 

1 .. 

o 

o 5 10 15 20 25 

Producti.on kkg/day 

Figure 47 

Conventional bottom fish BOD5 ratios 

versus production levels 

123 

•• 

30 35 
3.0 

• 0.5 

o 

o 5 10 15 20 25 

Production kkg/day 

Ficure 48 

.Conventional bottomWfish total suspended solids 

ratios versus production levels 

124 

30 35 
Table 29 

HlCH~NICAL eOTTeH FISH Pf(OCESS·SUM"'A~Y 

OF SELECTfO PARAHETE~S 

----------------~----------------------.--~--------.--------------.~---- LOt: NORMAL 

I4EAN 

LeG NO~MaL . STD DEW 

99% 

MAXIMUM 

_________ ~--~-----.~~--~-~~--~.~.-~----.o---------.--.--... ------------- PFOOUCTION JTCN/HR)· 1t.21 3.18 

TIME (HR/OA U· 6.21 2.8E' 

FLOW (L/SEC)· 13.~ 8.73 

(GAL/t1IN)· 211 139 

FLOW RATIO (ll Kl<G) 13500 9.51 0.211 22100 

(GALITON) 321t0 8.09 Ci.2U 5290 

TSS (tII"L) 659 6 ... 9 0.18;5 toto 

CKG/ICICG) 8.92 2.19 0.183 13.7 

900-S "'IG/L) 878 6.78 0.132 1190 

(KG/I(KG) 11.~ 2."8 0.132 16.2 

GREASE AND OIL. ( .. GIL) 183 5.21 0.357 .. 21 

(KG/KKG) 2.48 0.909 O~357 S.70 

PH· 7.29 0.393 

-----------------------------.--------------.-----~-------.... _--------. 

PLANTS CFC1,~1 ,~2 

• NOT~I TH~ C~TFUTS FC~ THESE FAq'~ETE~S 

AR~ THl NORM~L (UNWEIG~TE() ~E'N 

4~J STANJA~O ClVIATICN, ~ESFfCTIVELY 

125 
The canning of sea herring for sardines was considered to be an 

important segment of the seafood industry from a waste impact 

viewpoint due to its relatively large waste loads and flows and 

its seasonal or variable nature. Four sardine canning plants 

were visited in Maine; however, only two were sampled, as 

considerable historical data were available from a study 

conducted by the Maine Sardine Council (22). A total of 86 unit 

operation and effluent composite samples were collec~ed (or 

otherwise made available) from the sardine industry. 

Process Description 

Figure 49 shows 

canning plant. 

to plant, it 

operations. 

the flow aiagram, for a typical Maine sardine 

Although the process varies somewhat from plant 

consists essentially of ~ the following unit 

The fish arrive at the plant c,by, boat or truck. Fish arriving by 

boat are pumped out of the holds and transported to storage bins 

by flume or dry conveyor. "The water used is composed of 

transport brine from the hold and tidal water of varying 

salinity. This unloading water is usually discharged back to the 

local tidal waters. Fish arriv1ng by truck are flumed or 

conveyed to storage tanks, or directly to the packing table. 

Fish that are stored for significant lengths of time (one to two 

days) are preserved by the addition of concentrated brine 

solution to the storage bins. This is generally recycled through 

refrigeration units "to maintain low temperatures within the 

tanks. The fish are removed from the storage bins by dip net, or 

are flushed out with large hoses. Fish are then either flumed or 

dry-conveyed to the cutting and packing tables. 

The heads and tails are generally removed by hand; however, 

cutting machines for packing fish steaks are now being used on a 

limited basis. The size of head and tail portions removed 

depends on the fish size. The cutting and packing table is 

generallysuppl·ied continuously with fish, using a conveyor or 

flume. Fish remaining at the end of the conveyor are returned to 

the head of the line. All solid waste, consisting of heads, 

tails, and rejects from the packing line, are transported by 

water flume or dry conveyor to storage hoppers or directly to a 

waiting truck. These solids are usually hauled to reduction 

plants, where they are processed into fish meal or sold to 

lobstermen for bait. 

After packing, open cans of sardines are placed in racks which 

are stacked onto. special hand-trucks which are then rolled into a 

steam box for precooking. The fish are precooked for about 30 

minutes at about 1000C (2l20F), then removed from the steam box, 

drained and cooled to room temperature prior to sealing. This 

operation partially cooks the fish and removes undesirable oils. 

126 
PRODUCT FLOW 

- - - WASTEWATER FLOW 

BAILWATER 

BLOOD, DEBRIS, FISH 

BRINE WATER - SALT, --ORGANICS 

-.!ELLWASHER ~TER_ 

SLIME, ORGANICS 

_COOKING .,!!.TEL 

STiCKWATER 

I 

1 

1 

1 

--1 

_I 

1 

_I 

, 

1 

1 

1 

I -., 

I 

-I 

1 -. 

I 

I 

I 

+ 

EFFLUENT 

Figure 49 • Typical sardine canning process. 

127 
The liquid waste, or stickwater, generated represents one of the 

most troublesome waste loads from the sardine operation. 

The sardine cans are sealed by a machine which also adds oils 

and/or sauces. After sealing, the cans are washed to remove any 

oil or foreign substances which may have adhered to the can. The 

wash operation employs a closed system which is emptied at the 

end of the day's operation. 

The sealed and waShed cans are automatically loaded into vertical 

retorts'which are partially filled with water to cushion the cans 

as they enter. In the retort, the cans are cooked at ,about l13 0 C 

(2350 F) for one hour. If sauces, such as mustard or tomato sauce 

are utilized, the cooking time may be reduced to 50 minutes. 

After cooking, the cans are water-cooled in the retort to' a 

temperature of about 520 C (126°F). The cans are then removed 

from the bottom of the retort where they are washed again to 

remove any spots. They are then conveyed to holding bins where 

they are stored prior to manual casing. 

Subcategorization Rationale 

With the exception of dry versus wet transportation systems the 

sardine canning process is essentially the same from plant to 

plant and is located mainly in one geographical region, futher 

subcategorization was not considered necessary. However, the 

1977 limitations provide for those plants with dry conveying 

systems and for those plants with wet flume conveying systems. 

The 1983 and new source standards are based on dry conveying 

systems only. A relatively low number of sardine plants are 

still operating; however, their sizes range widely. Of the 17 

active processing operations, five were considered to be large 

(over 55 thousand cases annually) for the purpose of costing 

control and treatment technology, eight were considered, to be 

medium (30 to 55 thousand cases annu'ally) and four small' (10). 

Ten of the 17 plants are located outside of population centers. 

Figure 50 is a summary p19t of the characteristics of four 

sardine plants. Plants SAl and SA2 were investigated during this 

study. Information on plants SA2, SA3, and SA4 was obtained from 

the Maine Sardine Council study (22). All four plants were in 

the "large" size range. 

Plants SAl, SA2, SA3, and SA4 used dry conveyors to move the fish 

from the holding bins to the packing lines. This should decrease 

the flow and reduce the waste load (because it reduces the 

contact time of the fish with the water). Table 30 compares 

flows and waste loads at plant SA2 before and, after 

implementation of the belt conveyor. Table 31 lists summary 

waste characterization data obtained from the Main Sardine 

Council study (22) for in-plant fish fluming. 

128 
Fiqure 50 

6. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

• 

.. 

• 

• 

It. GP 

• GP 

• GP 

• ' GP 

• ~p 

• GP 

3. e GP 

• 8 GP 

• 8SGP 

• BSGP 

• SSG 

• eSb 

2. 8S~ 

• 8SG 

• SG 

• SG 

• SG 

• SG 

1. 

• 

• 

• Q 

• C 

• 

SARDINE CAN~ING PROCESS FlOT. 

P 

P 

GP 

GP 

Q GP 

Q G QB~G 

SSG 

8SG 

SSG 

' SSG 

G 

G 

S 

G 

S 

F 

B 

Q 

S 

F B 

Q 

s 

F 

O············· ..........•......•........ o •••••••••••• ~ •••••• 

SA1 SA2 SA2H SA3 SAlt 

(8) (3) (4) (2) (5) 

SYM80l PARAMETER SCALING FACTeR 

-------------~-----------~------------~--------------- Q FLCW -. 1 INCH = 5000 L/kkG 8 5 DAY 800 1 INCH -, 5 KG/kKG 

S SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1 INCH = 2 KG/KKG G GREASE 5 OIL 1 INCH = 1 I<G/KICG P PRODUCTION 1 INCH = 2 TCN/HR, 

-------------~------------------------------------~--- --

129 
Table 30. Waste load reduction 

using dry conveyor (Plant SA2). 

Parameter 

Flow ratio (l/kkg) 

Suspended solids (kg/kkg) 

BOD (kg/kkg) 

130 

Before 

20,400 

8.7 

12.3 

After 

7590 

2.0 

5.0 

% Reduction 

63 

77 

59 
TABLE 31 

SARDINE IN-PLANT FISH TRANSPORT WATER, 

STORAGE AREA TO PACKING AREA - (22) 

Production 24.5 tons/day 22.2 kkg/day 

Fish Transport Water Use 70,000 gal/day 265,000 l/kkg 

Flow Ratio 12,000 l/kkg 2,860' gal/ton 

BOD5 1,400 mg/l 16.7 kg/kkg 

TSS 500 mg/1 5.96 kg/kkg 

Oil & Grease 120 mg/1 

1.43 kg/kkg 

131 
Table 32 summarizes waste loads statistics for the plants which 

utilize dry transportation systems. The flow ratio from plant 

SAl was omitted from the summary data because the unique fish 

handling technology at the plant resulted in very low flows in 

comparison to the other plants studied. It was assumed that the 

waste load per unit of production is independent of production 

level. 

HERRING FILLETING 

The sea herring fillet processing industry is typified by large 

flows and waste loadings; however r it was considered to be less: 

important than the canning segment of the he,rring industry 

because very few filleting operations exist in the United. States. 

The market outlook is promising; therefore r two plants, one in 

New England and one in Alaska, were investigated. In addition, 

historical data from a plant in the Maritime region of Canada 

were obtainedr providing a total of 11 composite unit operation 

and end-of-pipe samples. 

Process Description 

Figure 51 presents the flow diagram for a typical herring 

filleting process. In New Englandr the herring are received from 

boats or trucks and are pumped into the plant as a fish-water 

slurry. The scales are removed using a descaler on the boat in a 

manner similar to that used in the sardine industry. 

The fish may be iced down before being flushed by high pressure 

hoses toward an inc~ined conveyor, which transports them into the 

processing room. German-made "Baader 33" filleting machines were 

used for processing the herring at the plant visited in New 

England. 

In the Alaskan operation the herring were transported in bins and 

processed using "Arenco" filleting machines, made in Sweden. 

In the filleting machines, the fish are oriented into groves and 

conveyed to a saw. The machines remove the heads, tails and 

viscera and finally fillet the herring in one operation. 

The differences observed between the Arenco and the Baader 

filleting machines were: 

1) The Arenco machine used two counter-rotating, 

grooved wheels which partially eviscerated the 

fish after beheading. This pair of wheels 

became less effective as viscera accumulated 

on them. This problem was reduced by 

directing a high-pressure water stream onto 

them during operation. 

2) Instead of a single circular horizontal knife 

132 
Table 32 

SARDINE 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

--------------------~----------~~----------~----~--------~------ PARAMETER tJEAN 

LOG NORMAL LOG NO~MAL 

MEAN STD DEV 99~ 

MAXIMUM 

----------------------------------------------------------------

PROoUCTION* 

nON/HR) 5.14 0·946 

TIME* 

(HR/oAY) 6.78 1.42 

fLOW* • (L/SEC) 10.6 3.25 (GAL/MIN) 168~ 5'1.5, 

- -, -: -:.' " 

fLOW RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 8690. 9.069 '0.275 - 16500-. (GAL/TON) 2080. 7.641 0.275 3950. 

TSS** 

(MG/L) 623. 6.435 0.811 4120. (KG/KKG) 5.41 1.689 0.811 35.8 

Boo-5** 

(MG/L) 1060. 6.967 0.412 2770. (KG/KKG) 9.22 2.221 0.412 24.1 

GREASE AND OIL** 

(MG/L) 201. 5.301 0.588 789. (KG/KKG) i.74 0.555 0.588 6.85 

PH* 6.36 

.~-----------~---~----~-----------~~------~---------.--------~--- PLANTS SAl ,SA2 ,SA3 ,SA4 

* THE output FOR t~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE-NORMAL (UNWEiGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

*. THE OUTPUt FOR THESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEo) MEAN 

AND STA.NoARL> DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

133 -
PRODUCT FLOW 

- - - WASTEWATER FLOW 

WATER, BLOOD; SCALES 

1--_~-----I- - -. - - ---I 

\ 

--. WATER, BLOob, OIL 

---- \ 

WATER, BLOOD, VISCERA \ ------+-

FAT, HEADS, SCALES ,FI,NS, SKELETONj 

~AT~ BLOOD, SCRAPS_ --..1 

1 

1 

I 

~ TO REDUCTION PLANT 

OR 

RECEIVING WATER 

Figure 51. Typical herring filleting process. 

134 
for slitting the underside (belly) of the 

herrinq, the Arenco used a set of two 

horizontal circular knives, which slightly 

overlapped. The adjustment of the Arenco 

machine was considered to be finer and tended 

to reduce the number of improperly cut fish. 

The freshly-cut fillets are flumed onto a sorting conveyor where 

the poorly-cut fillets are separated and repaired manually. 

Recycled fillets are returned to this conveyor to be again 

sorted. The good fillets go to a boxing line where they are 

placed in cartons which are subsequently adjusted for weight and 

taped closed. The boxes are put onto racks and finally quick 

frozen. 

During spawning season the roe and milt, which are called 

"spawn," are saved and shipped. respectively, to Japan and 

England where they are considered delicacies. Production 

increases as the $ize of the fish increases; yields of 43 to 45 

percent are expected during spawning season. Fillet yields 

increase in the winter when no roe or milt are present. The fish 

are generally the larger herring, being 20 to 25 cm (8 to 10 in.) 

long. 

The plant in New England flumedthe heads, tails, viscera and 

other solid wastes to a nearby rendering plant where the solids 

were recovered and the water discharged. Therefore, no filleting 

plant wastewater existed except the bailwater, which was 

discharged. In Alaska the total effluent, including solid 

wastes, was discharged. The waste flume from the New England 

plant was sampled to obtain the characteristics of the effluent 

as if it had been discharged instead of being sent to the 

reduction plant. 

subcategorization Rationale 

Since the herring filleting process is essentially the same from 

plant to plant and the number of plants is too small to separate 

the industry into size ranges, geographic location was considered 

to be the only factor requiring further attention in the 

subcategorization process. 

Figure 52 summarizes the characteristics of three herring 

filleting plants. Plant HFl is located in New England, plant HF2" 

in the Maritime region of Canada and plant HF3 in Southeastern 

Alaska. Information on plant HF2 was obtained from a study 

conducted by the Enviornmental .protection Service of Canada (23). 

It was noted that the waste characteristics for all the plants 

were similar. One difference was the relatively high flow ratio 

observed at the Alaska plant. This high ratio is not considered 

to be typical, since the investigation was conducted at the 

beginning of the season and few fish were being processed. At 

135 
6. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

s. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

4. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

3. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 1. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Figure 52. '~i~PI"'G FILLETING F-ROCESS FLOT· 

S 

;: 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

gs 

es 

Q~ 

-.:. 

es 

:3 

e 

e 

8 

3 

8 

Q 

Gl 

Q 

') 

G 

.G 

G 

G 

P 

p 

P 

p 

P 

P 

as 

t3S 

as 

8S 

8S 

'1S 

as 

8S 

85 

8S 

9S 

85 

8 

8 

3 

8 

8 

::3 

F 

P 

Q P 

Q P 

Q 

G 

85 

o •••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

SY'!8CL 

tiF'1 

(3 ) 

PARAMEH ~ 

HF2 

(2 ) 

HF3 

(1) 

SC~LING FACTCR 

------------------------------------------------------ -~ Q FLCh 1 INCH = SCOQ L/KKG 

'3 S DAY 801) 1 INCH = H KG/KKG 

S SUSPE.NDED ~G LIDS 1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG 

G G~E.ASE ~ alL .1 INCH = 5 KG/KKG 

P FR,OOUCTIOt>. 1 INCH = ~ TCt<./HR 

--------------------------------------------------------

136 
low processing rates, water use is more independent of production 

rate .. 

Table 33 summarizes statistics of the waste loads from all three 

plants excluding the high flow ratio from the Alaska plant. 

One relatively high grease and oil data point at the Alaskan 

processing facility, resulted in a distorted log normal 

projection for the grease and oil daily maximum of 86.6 kg per 

kkg of raw material, i.e., over 8 percent of the weight of raw 

material. since the typical fat composition of herring ranges 

from 2 up to 11 percent of body weight, it would be unlikely for 

78 percent or more of this fat to reach the waste water effluent 

stream because a major proportion of the fat is contained in the 

food product and waste solids. A comparison of the mechanically 

butchered salmon processing raw waste load to the mechanical 

herring filleting raw waste load indicates that TSS averages are 

virtually identical, 20.3 kg/kkg for salmon and 20.9 kg/kkg for 

herring fil~etingi the salmon BOD~ waste load is higher, 50.8 

kg/kkg for salmon versus 32.2 kg/kkg for herring filleting; the 

salmon grease and oil average is also virtually identical to the 

average for the New England herring filleting plant, 6.49 kg/kkg 

for salmon versus 6.11 kg/kkg for New England herring filleting. 

Because the one data point at the Alaskan herring filleting plant 

appeared to be highly questionable in comparison to the other 

available information, it was not used to determine a subcategory 

average. Instead, the mechanical salmon process grease and oil 

data was utilized to derive conclusions regarding effluent 

limitations for the herring filleting process plants. 

Clams 

The processing of clams for fresh or frozen meat or for a canned 

product was considered to be a moderately important segment of 

the seafood industry because of the relatively large number of 

plants engaged in this activity. The industry produces 

wastewater floWS' and loadings which are quite variable and plant 

sizes vary widely. Therefore, a total of eight processing 

operations were investigated and a total of 38 unit operation and 

end-of-pipe composite samples of the wastewater collected. 

Although three important types of clams are processed (surf, ha~d, and soft), only surf clam processes were sampled since 

these are, by far, the most important, in terms of production and 

wastes generated. Plants processing hard and soft clams were 

visited and information on the processing methods was obtained. 

Process Description 

The process description for surf clams is discussed in detail 

since it is the most important. The processing of hard and soft 

clams is basically the same as surf clam processing, except that 

higher percentages are handled manually. 

137 
Table 33 

HERRING FILLET 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMET£RS 

---------------------------------------------~---------~~-------

PA~AMETER tAEAN 

LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 

MEAN STD OEV 

99% 

MAXIMUM 

----------------------------------------~---~------.------------

PRODUCTION* 

(TON/HR) 5.92 6.46 

TIME* 

(HR/DAY) 5.11 2.70 

FLOW* 

(L/SEC) 19.6 19.8 

(GAL/MIN) 310. 3,13. 

FLOW RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 102Q. 8.856 0·538 24600. 

(GAL/TON) 1680. 1.428 0·538 5890. 

TSS** 

(MG/L> 2970. 7.991 0.185 4570. 

(KG/KKG) 20.9 3.038 0.185 32.1 

900-5** 

(MG/L> 4600. 8.433 0·061 5300. 

(KG/KKG) "32.2 3.474 0.061 37.2 

GREASE AND 01 Lttijtl 

(MG/L> 924~ 6~83 0.605 3790. 

(KG/KKG) 6.49 1.87 0.605 26.5 

PH* 6.66 

------------------~------------------~-------------~------------

PLANTS HFI ,HF2 ,HF3 

* THE OUTPUT: FOR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

*. THE OUTPUT- FOR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORM~L (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

llecause the grease and oil data at the Alaskan herring fUleting plant 

was nighly questionable in comparison to other avatla~le information, 

it was not used to determine a subcategory average. Ins:tead, the 

Echanized salmon grease and oil data was utilized to dertve th.e sunnary data for the herring filleting process. 

138 
The surf clam process consists of three basic operations: 

shucking, debellying, and packing. Most plants produce frozen or 

chilled clam meat which is shipped to other areas for further 

processing into soup, chowder, or a canned meat product. Some 

plants include a canning operation with the meat operation. 

Shucking of the clam involves removal of the organism from the 

shell and is accomplished either manually or mechanicallYe 

Mechanized operations are usually large and the manual operations 

small. 

Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations, they 

were investigated in greater detail. Figure S3 shows a typical 

mechanized surf clam process including shucking, debellying, and 

the three observed methods of packing. The figure also includes 

an evaporated juice operation which is used in some processes. 

The clams are unloaded from the vessels in heavy wire cages and 

conveyed into the plant where they may receive a preliminary wash 

before shucking. The washing is accomplished by a spray onto the 

belt or by a reel washer. The reel washer is cylindrical, ranges 

from I to 1.S m (3 to S ft) in diameter and 2 to 3.S m (6 to 12 

ft) in length and is usually made of stainless steel. .Two basic 

types of reel washers are in use: one is partially submerged in a 

"V" shaped stainless steel tank filled with water; the other type 

is suspended above the same type of tank, which in this case 

serves as a drain for water sprayed from a perforated pipe within 

the drum itself. 

Heating the clams can be effected using a "shucking furnace," 

steam cooker, 9r hot wa~er cooker. The shucking furnace, also 

known as a shucking machine or the "iron man," is a large propane 

furnace reaching temperatures from 62SoC to 81SoC (1160 0 F to 

ISOOOF) • A heavy metal chain belt transports the clams through 

the iron man in 50 to 100 seconds, depending upon the internal 

temperature. 

The steam cooker method operates "at 2 atm (IS psig) for one to 

two minutes at a temperature of 1320 C (270°F). The liquid 

generated is piped off and condensed for use as clam broth. The 

condenser water may be recycled and used in the first washer. 

The hot water cooker method immerses the clams in water at a 

temperature of approximately 820 C (1800 F) for one to two minutes. 

This method is most typical in hand-shucked operations. 

'After heating, the clams are usually washed using one or more 

reel washers. The meat is then removed from the shell, most 

often by the use of a brine flotation tank. OCcasionally a 

hammer mill grinder or a shaker is used ahead of the flotation 

tank to help separate the meat from the shell. Any meat still 

attached to the shells is removed by hand and placed in a reel 

washer which follows the shucking operation. Some operations 

will repeat the last two steps; i.e., brine flotation, then 

washing. The shells are stockpiledg and utilized in landfills or 

139 
TO SHELLS LANOFILL, -t:= = SHELLFISH NEDIUII 

CONSTRUCTION. ETC 

1-

I 

I 

=1= 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 SEWER. BELLIES I DUIIl'ED.OnC= = = = USED FOIl EEL BAIT 

CONDENIER _TEll 

I 

I 

I 

.. I .. 

il 

~I 

~I 

-I 

I 

I 

MEAT 

~UICE 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

----~ 

---"-------. 

-----~ 

------ -... 

-------~ 

- -

EFFLUENT 

Figure 53. Typical mechanized surf clam process. 

140 
road construct~on, or pi1ed to dry for subsequent use as media 

for shellfi~h larval attachment. 

At this point, the meats are belted or flumed across a "skimmer 

table" to the debellying operation. A few plants fresh pack the 

whole clams and ship them to other areas for further processing, 

but this is not typical. The clam belly is usually removed 

manually, however, this step is becoming automated in many plants~ The viscera and gonads removed from the surf clam are 

dumped directly into the adjacent waters, ground and discharged 

to the local sewer system, or recovered for bait or animal food. 

Only the adductor muscles and the muscle tissue of the foot and 

mantle edge of the clam continue on to the next washer, which may 

be a reel. washer, a circular jet washer, or an air blow washer. 

The circular jet washer is a doughnut-shaped tub with tangential 

nozzles on the bottom to create a strong circular current in 

about 10 cm (4 in.) of water. A small opening allows a constant 

overflow of clams. Air blow washers are large "V" shaped 

stainless steel tanks. Air is bubbled t~e entire length of the 

tank from the bottom through the smaller trough, agitating the 

clams. In addition, an auger creates a current which helps to 

clean and move the clams along. 

After being washed, the clams normally pass over a skimmer table. 

Depending upon the desired end product, the clams are then either 

fresh packed as whole clams, or chopped or minced for further 

processing. 

Three methods of further processing of the minced clams were 

observed: chilling or freezing, canning, and cooking for juice. 

Little waste is generated by the chill~ng or freez~ng or cann~ng 

operations. When the clam juice is evaporated, the waste load is 

increased, due to volatiles being entrained in the condenser 

water .. 

Figure 54 illustrates the product and waste flow for a typical 

hand-shucked surf clam process. The clams arrive by boat or 

truck in wire cages holding about 32 bushels per cage. The clams 

are belted through a·spray washer and into a hot water blancher 

which partially opens the clams. Residence time in the blancher, 

which operates at about 800 e (1760 F) is approximately twenty 

seconds. The clams are next belted to a shucking table where the 

meat is removed manually by prying the shell open and scraping it 

with a knifeo The meats are transported by bucket to a reel 

washer where sand is removed. After the clams pass through the 

washer, they are again put into buckets and taken to a debe1lying 

and inspection table where the bellies and pieces of shell and 

other extraneous matter that may be clinging to the clam meats 

are removed by hand. The clam bellies are stored in barrels and 

used for bait or animal food or simply discarded. The clam meats 

are placed into a jet washer, as described previously, which 

removes most of the remaining bits of sand and shell. From the 

jet washer they pass onto a table with perforations (skimmer 

141 
SHELL 

FOR ~ 

LANDFILL, 

CONSTRUTION, OR 

SHELLFISH SUBSTRATA 

BELLIES 

TO SEWER, c:= == 

DUMPED,OR 

USED FOR EEL BAIT 

ORGANICS, WATER_ 

FREEiE 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

i 

I 

I 

EFFLUENT • 

Figure 5~ Typical hand-shucked surf clam process. 

142 
table) which drains most of the water and where more shell is 

manually removed. From this table they pass into the second reel 

washer for final cleaning. The washed meat is then either freshpacked or frozen. 

The processing of hard and soft clams is similar to a handshucked 

oyster process. The clam is shucked manually, washed and packed. 

Hard clams have a larger frozen shelf life than other clams so 

they are usually frozen. A few hard clams are also sold fresh 

for chowder and some are sold in the shelle The soft clam is 

usually fresh-packed and shipped elsewhere for further 

processing. Some soft clams are also sold in the shell or used 

as bait. 

Some conchs are harvested along with clams and are often 

processed in the same plant. In a typical operation, the meat is 

manually separated from the shell and the viscera removed. The 

meat is then washed, chopped and canned. Clam juice and salt is 

added be~ore canning. Conch shells in good condition are sold 

for souvenirs. The remaining shells are discarded, .like clam 

shells, in landfills or road construction. 

Subcategorization Rationale 

Although there is a variety of clam ~rocessing operations, the. 

only factor which is considered to affect subcategorization is 

the degree of -mechanization. 

A conventional clam process is defined as one where the unit 

operations are performed essentially by hand and with a 

relatively low water flow. A mechanized clam process is defined 

as one where most of the unit operations are mechanized and 

where, consequently, water flow is relatively high. Figure 55 

summarizes the wastewater characteristics for both the ~onventional and mechanized clam processes. Plants represented 

by codes HCLI, 2 and 3 are conventional hand-shucking operations, 

while plants FCLI, 2, 3 and CCl2 are mechanized operations. Code 

CCOI represents a conch canning process, which is conducted in 

conjunction with a clam canning operation. It can be seen that 

the conventional hand-shucking operations contribute much lower 

wastewater flows and organic loadings than the mechanized 

operati.ons. 

The data from the- three conventional plants are relatively 

uniform; however, a greater range in the data from the mechanized 

plants are evident. The plant with code FCLl shucked but did not 

debelly the clams, resulting in lower waste lo~ds. The plant 

with code FCL3 was a highly mechanized plant with very high water 

use due to considerable washing of the product. Plant FCL3 also 

steam cooked the clams to facilitate shucking and condensed the 

clam juice, le~ding to higher waste loads due to evaporator 

condensate. 

143 
Figure 5&. CONI/ENT IONAL. OR MECHANIZED CLP.M PROCESS PLOT. 

&. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

4. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

3. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

G 

S 

Q13 

p 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

5 

S 

S 

S 

S 

5 

5 

S 

S 

a GP 

a GP 

a GP 

QS G 

Q 

Q 

6 

s 

G 

P 

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

G 

Q G 

QS G 

as 

a G 

B G 

a G 

QS G 

Q 5G 

S 

S P 

S P 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

Q G 

Q G 

Q G 

Q G 

Q SG 

QSSG 

QSSG 

aSG 

aSG 

8S 

as 

as 

as 

SS 

a,s 

as 

S 

p 

G 

G 

Q G 

Q G 

Q G 

QG 

Q G 

Q G 

8 G 

a 

as 

s 

S p 

P 

P 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

8 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

p 

0 •••••••••••••••••••• ·······························&· ..... . HCL1 HCl2 HCll FCl1 FCl2 FCL3 CCll CC01 

(1) ('t) (1) (4) (4) (5) (7) (3) 

SYHBOL. PARAHETER SCALING FACTOR 

-------------------------------~-~-------------------- Q --

8 

~ 

G 

P 

FL.OW 

5 DAY 800 

SUSPt:NOfO 50'-105 

GREASE SOIL 

PRODUCTION 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

INCH 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

10000 

10 

5 

0.2 

10 

L/KKG 

I<G/I<KG 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

TON/HR 

--------------------------------------------~-----~----

144 
All the conventional clam operations were included in one 

subcategory; all the mechanized clam operations were included in 

another SUbcategory for the above reasons. 

Table 34 summarizes the waste parameters from the conventional 

clam plants. The large standard deviation of suspended solids 

was caused by the highly variable nature of the sand content in 

the effluent, especially during washdown. 

Table 35 summarizes the waste parameters from the mechanized clam 

plants. Plant FCLl was not included, since it was a hybrid 

operation and did not include the debellying operation. Plant 

CCL2 was not included because it utilized a manual debelling unit op~r"'.~ion. 

OYSTERS 

The processing of oysters for fresh or frozen meat or for a 

canned product was considered to be. a moderately important 

segment of the seafood industry due to the large number of plants 

engaged in this activity. The industry uses both conventional 

and mechanized techniques, which result in a wide range of 

wastewater flows and organic loadingso In addition, plant sizes 

vary widely. Tqerefore, a total of 14 processing operations wer~ 

investigated and a total of 99 unit operation and end-of-pipe 

composite samples of wastewater collected. 

Process Description 

The processing of oysters consists of two basic operations~ 

shucking and packing. The oyster process is less complicated 

than the surf clam process, since oyster viscera are not removed. 

Most plants produce fresh or frozen meat, while some produce a 

canned meat or canned stew. 

Shucking of the oyster is accomplished using either manual or 

mechanical methods, although manual operations are more 

prevalent. Mechanized operations are generally large, while 

manual operations range from very small to moderately large. 

Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations, these 

were investigated in some detail. Figure 56 depicts a typical 

mechanized process, referred to as the steamed or canned oyster 

process, as observed in the Middle Atlantic and Northwest 

regions. Unfortunately, the oyster canning season had not 

started in the Gulf before the end of the sampling program; 

therefore, no operations were investigated in that region. 

However, the same species and same processing methods are 

utilized in both the Gulf and Middle Atlantic regions. 

The oysters arrive at the plant in wire cages and are conveyed into the plant as needed, to two sequential drum washers. The 

first washer cleans the oyster shells, and removes broken shell, 

145 
Table 34 

MAN~-SHUCKED CLA.M . .. PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

---------------------------------------------~~--------~---~----

PARAMETE:.R t-IEAN 

lOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 

MEAN STD DEV 

99% 

MAXIMUM __________ -_______________ ~-~----------c-------~----~~---~-------

P~ODUCTION* 

(TON/HR) 4.68 i .. 64 

TIME* 

(HR/DAY) 4.60 2001 

FLOW'" 

(L/SEC) 5.36 2 .. 06 

(GAl/MIN) 85.0 32 .. 7 . 

FLOW RATIO** 

(l/KKG) [.570. 8.421 0.618 19300. 

(GAl/TON) 1100., 6.998 0 .. 618 4620. 

TSS** 

(MG/U 2240., 7.716 0·749 12900. 

(KG/KKG) 1002 2.321 0.749 58.7 

BJD-5** 

(M6/U 1130. 7.026 0.321. 2380. 

(KG/KKG) 5.14 1.638 0.321 10.9 

GREASE AND OIL** 

(MG/U 3\.7 3.451 0·519 122. 

(KG/KKG) 0.145 . -1.932 0·51,9 0.558 

PM* 6.99 

-~-------------------------------------------------~-----------~ 

PLANTS HCll ,HCL2 ,HCL3 

* THE OUTPUT fOR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE NOR~AL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

*~ THE OUTPUT FOR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE lOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANOARU DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 
Table 35 

MECHANIZED CLAM 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

---------~--,--------------------------------~-------- ---------- LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 99% 

PARAMETER ~EAN MEAN STo oEV MAXIMUM 

----------------------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION* 

<TON/HR) 8*44 5.03 

TIME* 

(HR/oAY) 7.39 0·283 

FLOW* 

(LISEe) 67.4 77.7 

(GAL/MIN) 1070. 1230· 

FLOW RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 19500· 9.880 1.011 206000. 

. (GAL/TON) 4680 • 8.451 1.011 4940Q. 

. 1:55** 

fMG/L) 325. 5.784 1.138 4610. 

(KGlKKG) 6.35 1.849 1·138 90.0 

800-5** 

(MG/U 958. 6.865 0.605 3920. 

(KG/KKG) 18.7 2.9211 0·605 76.6 

GREASE AND 0IL~* 

(MG/U 23.6 3.162 0·953 218. 

(KG/KKG) 0.461 -0.774 0.953 4.25 

PH* 6.79 ----.;----------------------------------_...--.-----'-----------------

PLANTS FCL2 ,FCL3 

* THE output FOR tHESE AARAMETERS 

ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEo) MEAN 

AND STANDAR9 DEvIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

*. THE outpUT FOR t~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIG~TED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD oE~IATION, RESPECTIVELY 

147 
SHELL 

II~ = 

II SHELL 

II~ = 

II SHELL 

~ 

II 

II 

II 

I[ 

II 

II~ 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

U 

TO SHELL PILE 

Fi gure 56. 

BROTH 

SHELL 

- -

CONDENSER 

PRODUCT FLOW 

WASTEWATER FLOW 

= WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

DIRT. DEBRIS. WATER 

- - - - - - - - _I 

I 

- - - -I 

1 

- - - -I 

- - - -I 

SOLIDS ~ 

DISPOSAL 

EFFLUENT 

Typical steamed or canned oyster process. 

148 
seaweed, and other matter. The second washer has a different 

pitch and serves to jar the valves far enough apart to allow 

steam to enter during the cooking. Loose empty shells are 

manually removed before the oysters are collected in retort 

baskets. The oysters are steamed in retorts under pressure and 

the resulting oyster juice or broth piped to a holding tank and 

later condensed. After cooking, the meat is separated from the 

shell manually or by brine flotation. One mechanized method uses 

a specially designed drum washer called the "shucker". This 

serves to mechanically separate the meat from the shell as the 

drum rotates. Both the meat and the shell are collected in a 

brine flotation tank where the buoyancy of the meats allows the 

saturated salt solution to float them to a blow tank which 

agitates and adds water to the product. The shells sink to the 

bottom of the brine tank, where a belt collects them and deposits 

them outside the plant. The meats go through a final drum washer 

before being manually inspected. The oyster meat at this point 

may be fresh packed in large cans, together with the condensed 

broth, or canned and retorted. Some 'oysters are also smoked 

prior to packing in jars or tins. 

Figure 57 shows a typical conventional hand-shucked oyster 

process as observed on both the East and west Coasts. The 

oysters are shucked manually and usually fresh packed, although 

some are breaded and some cooked for stew. The oysters arrive at 

the plant by boat, barge, or truck and are conveyed into the 

plant on a belt or in buckets. The shells may be washed to 

remove most of the mud, and to facilitate shucking. Shuckers 

open the shells manually by forcing the valves apart and cutting 

the adductor muscle. The meat is put into buckets, washed on a 

skimmer table and placed in the blow washer. The blow washer 

typica11y ho1ds about 300, 1iters (80 ga1.) of water. For the 

first 5 to 15 minutes air is bubbled through the washer; for the 

following 20 to 50 minutes, overflow water is added to the tanks. 

The oysters are dewatered on a skimmer table and then packed in 

cans. A few operations bread and freeze the oysters, which adds 

an additional waste load during washdown. 

A few plants sort out the broken oyster pieces and can them as a 

stew. This is a minor operation and occurs only once or twice 

per week depending on the supply of pieces. The oysters are 

first cooked in large vats for about 30 minutes, along with 

pieces and preservatives. The meat is then rinsed and added to 

the cans, along with milk and broth. The can is then sealed and 

retorted. 

subcategorization Rationale 

The only factors which were considered to affect subcategorization of the oyster industry were the degree of mechanization 

and geographic location. Figure 58 summarizes the wastewater 

parameter statistics for all the. oyster processes sampled~ 

Plants represented by codes HSOI through HS06 were East Coast 

149 
SHELL 

~ - - - -

II " 

II 

II - - ---- II I 

II - - - -- --I 

II I 

II - - - -- ~ 

1/ I 

II I 

II I 

II 

II PACK 

II 

II 

II 

CHILL 

II a SHIP 

II 

II I 

U t 

EFFLUENT 

TO SHELL PILE 

Figure 57. Typical hand-shucked oyster process. 

150 
Ii. 

• 5. 

• It. 

3. · 

2. 

1. · 

· 

B 

c.p 

Q 

Q 

Q& GP 

a GP 

B GP 

S 

Figure 58. 

Q8 G 

0& GP 

s P 

Q -Q 

Q 

o G 

Q G 

a Ii 

Q G 

as G 

a&G 

's G 

a Ii 

S 

S 

S P 

S P 

FRESH/FROZEN, SHAMED, OR CA"~C:D OYSTfR PkOCESS PLO!, 

Q& 

Q8 G 

8 G 

P 

s 

Q 

Q 

aB -

as G 

QS Ii 

as G 

BSG 

BS P 

S 

OS 

S 

S 

Ii 

G 

Ii & 

G & 

Ii b G 

II Ii 

G 

GP 

Q P 

Q 

P i 

a 

o 

e 

s 

e 

S 

S 

G 

G 

G 

-G 

G 

G 

8 G 

i) 

e 

Q S 

0_ S 

p 

5 

S 

S 

S 

85 

85 

8S 

-85 

as 

8S 

as 

BS P 

BS P 

&5 P 

Q8S P 

aBSGF 

{l&SGP 

oaSGP 

oaSGP 

aBSGF 

aBSGF 

aas!>p 

IISIiP 

aSG 

-aSG 

5 

5 

5 

5 

S 

S 

5 

5 

S 

5 

S F 

S P 

S P 

IISGP 

oe G 

aB Ii 

a G 

~ 

G 

8 

a 

8 

8 

a 

8 

a 

a 

8 

8 

8 

Q 

Q G_ 

G 

G 

G 

GP 

S P 

S 

S 

Q 

5 

G _ 

0.-••••• 0 •••• e ••••• t •• o •••••••••••• e. 0 •••••••••• -, •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• t ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 It· ••••••••• o.e ••••••••••• 

HSOl HS02 MS03 HSOlt HS05 HSOIi HSOe Hi09 HS10 HS11 SOl S02 Cal C02 

III (31 (It I (51 (71 (71 '51 -HI (2) ~'" (51 (71 UI -ell 

SYMSOL PAR""UER SCALING FACTOR 

----------~-------------.--------~-------------------~ a --

S 

5 

G 

P 

FLOW 

5 DAY SOD 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

GReASE AND OIL 

PRODUCTION 

1 INCH ., 

1 INCH = 1 INCH .. 

1 INCH .. 1 INCH .. 

50000 

20 

50 

1 

0.5 

L/1<1<G 

1<G/1<KG 

1<G/I<KG 

ICG/ICKG 

TONIHR 

--------______ 0 ______ -----------------------------------
hand-shucked oyster operations; plants represented by codes HS08 

through HSll were west coast hand-shucked oyster operations; 

codes SOl and S02 represent steamed oyster processes; Code COl 

represents a West coast canned oyster operation; and C02 a west 

Coast canned oyster stew operation. It should be noted that the 

production is expressed in terms of weight of the oyster meat 

after shucking. The reason for this is that the measurement of 

final product in this case is much more accurate, due to variable 

amounts of loose or empty shells coming into the plant. 

It was noted that the waste loads from the steamed and canned 

oyster processes were higher than those from the hand-shucked 

fresh/frozen operations. Therefore, it was decided that the 

oyster industry be subcategorized into conventional hand-shucked 

oyster processes and the more mechanized steamed or canned oyster 

processes. 

Table 36 summarizes statistics from the steamed and canned oyster 

plants sampled, SOl and S02, and historical data from plant sov. 

Plant S03 was deleted from the subcategory' average because the 

raw material was prewashed before entering the plant. The data 

from plant sov represents a steamed/canned oyster process in the 

Gulf coast area. It was.assumed that the waste loads per unit of 

production were independent of plant size. 

It also appears that th~ waste loads from the west Coast handshucked oyster processes were somewhat higher than those from the 

East Coast processes. This probably was due to the fact that the 

west Coast oyster is l.arger and tends to I'break up" easier during 

handling. Therefore, the hand-shucked oysters were divided into 

two subcategories: west Coast hand-shucked oyster processing and 

East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing. 

Table 37 summarizes statistics from the Pacific hand-shucked 

oyster plants sampled. Table 38 summarizes statistics from the 

East Coast hand-shucked oyster plants sampled. However flow 

ratio data from plants HS04 and HS06 were omitted because of 

excessive overflows from the oyster blow tanks. It was assumed 

that the waste loads per unit of production were independent of 

plant size, because there is no apparent relationship or trend 

relating flow ratios, TSS ratios, or BOD~ ratios to production 

levels (see Figures 59 through 64). 

Since the size range of the hand-shucked oyster industry is quite 

large, it was divided into three parts for the purpose of 

determining treatment costs. Based on investigations made in the 

field the large and medium-size ranges were divided at 300 tons 

of finished product per year, and the medium and small ranges at 

150 tons of finished product per year. 

SCALLOPS 

152 
Table 36 

STEAMED/CANNED OYSTER 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

------------------------------~---------------------------~-----

PARAMETt::.R ~EAN 

LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 

MEAN STO O£V 

99% 

MAXIMUM 

---------------------------------------------------~------~-----

PRODUCTION* 

(TON/HR) 0.712 0.392 

TIME* 

(HR/DAY) 10.7. s.ll 

FLOW* 

(L/SEC) 13.3 2.45 (GAL/MIN) 211. 38.8 

FLOw RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 98200. 110495 0·476 298000. (GAL/TON) 23500. 100066 0·476 71400. 

TSS** 

(MG/L) 1580. 70364 0.234 2720. (KG/KKG) 1.55. 50044 0.234 267. 

800-5** 

(MG/U 624. 6 0435 0.887 4930. (KG/KKG) 61.2 4 .. 115 0.887 484. 

GR£ASE ANI? OIL .t* 

(MG/U' 15.1 2.115 0·180 23.0 (KG/KKG) 1.48 0.395 0·180 2.26 

PH* 7.12 • --------------------------------------------~-----~.-~----------

PLANTS SOl ,S02 ,SOV 

• THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS 

AR£ THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEO) MEAN 

ANO STANDARD DEvIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

.~ THE OUTPUT FOR T~ESE P.ARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORM~L (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN A~O STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

153 
Table 37 

.f~T CCAST ~ANC !HUCKtJ CYSTfRS 

HCC£H SUtCflUY 

GF SrLcCTLO PA~I~~Tt~5 

_____________ ._. _____ •••. _. _____ 0._. ______ ••• ______ . ____ ._._. ______ ._._. 

LCG NOItMAL 

sroou ----------------........... -._. __ ...... --. __ .-_.-----....•..... -. ---.. ,~ ... . .~OOUCTXG~ ITON'~'- t.l1~ CI.ut 

Utlt IH6t/~AY'- '.Otl 1.1' 

FLOW CL/S£C'- 1.1:9 t.15 

IGaL/"X"- it.f) t~.' 

FLOW .alIO 'LICK,. ''III tI.9 ..III? 16101 • GAL ITO'" unl' t ... , 0.101 "'" TS5 ,"GiLt 62. 6 ... J I.Ut .. 1 

(tCc./lUC" 1 ... 2 J.U I.Ut 31.6 .. ., 

BOD-t ''''',-, uz t." '.11' '" UGllrlCG' U;;C) 3.11 I.IIU 2 .... · 

GUISE AND OIL e""", ZI.1\ 3. S- 1.05. II.! • ""IClt'J t.!!; ...... , 1.'!6 1.69 

PI1- 6.ti2 1.15$ ----___________________ ~-~._----e-_-_--.-- ________ . ________ . ________ ~-.. 

• NOTEI TH~ OUTFUTS FeR THESE F~.'~E'EC$ 

'~E T"E hC~".L (U~N£IG~TE[J .~'N 

A~O ST.~CA~U C£VIATICh, .(SF~CTIV~LY. 

154 
Table 38 

LAST A~O GULF eCAST rANC SHUCK~C OYSTERS 

PROCESS SUMMARY 

OF stLfCTfO PARAHTE~S 

_e _____ ~_~ ______________ ~ ______________________________________________ _ 

PAI(AIo!ETER MEAN 

LOG ~ORMAL LeG ~ORMAL 

~EAN STO DEV 

99X 

______________________ a _______ o ________________________________________ HAXIHU~ _ 

PRO~UCTION CTON/HR)· 0.147 0.085 

TIME (HR/OAy)· 6.21 1.11 

FLOW (L/SEC)· 1.£9 0.988 (GAL/"'I~)· 26.~ 15.7 

FLOW RATIO (l/KKG' 32&00 10.4 0.029 31t800 

(GALITCfI.) 78?C 8.96 C.029 8350 

TSS (HG/L) 416 6.03 0.1"3 579 

« KG/KKG) 13.6 2.61 0.143 18.9 

BOO-5 PtG/L) '+55 6.12 0.015 5ltl 

(KG/KI(G) IIt.9 2.70 0.075 17.7 

GRE ASe: ANO all (MG/L) 20.4 3.01 0.066 23.7 (I<G/ICKG) O.£b~ -Ci.410 0.066 0.775 

PH'" 7.09 0.012 

-----------------~-~--------------------------------------------------.-

• NOT~. THE OUTPUTS feR THESE FARA~~TE~S 

ARE THf ~CRMAL CUNWEIGHTEC) ~EAN 

A~O ST~NOARO Cl~IATIC~, ~ESFlCTIVELY 

155 
60 

• 

50 

40 • - • 0 

0 

0 

,.... 

>< 

-

en 30 ,:,e. 

,:,e. 

....... 

,.... 

3 

0 

,.... 

LI20 

10 

o 

o 0.5 1.0 1.5 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 59 

Hest Coast oyster flow ratios versus 

production level 

156 

• 

2.0 
30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

• 

o 0.5 

• 

• 

1.0 1.5 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 60 

West Coast oyster BOD5 ratios 

versus production-revel 

157 

• 

2.0 
50 

Ol 

40 ~ 

~ 

........ 

Ol 

~ 

III 

-0 

..... 

r0 30 en 

-0 

<U 

-0 

C 

<U 

C. 

III 

:::s en . 20 r-

~ "' 0 

l- • 

10 

o 

o 0.5 1.0 1.5 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 61 

West Coast oyster total suspended solids ratios 

versus production level 

158 

2.0 
-

<:) 

0' 

0' 

.-

X 

...... -

~ 

~ 

;¥ 

........ 

..-

~ 

0' 

u... 

-

40 

30 t 

l 2(1 

10 

• 

• 

6 .. 5 

Figure 62 

East; toast oyster flow ra:Uos 

versus: pro:duct:ton level 

,. 

• 

. ·t~·'" . .. 

1 ... 5 
C) 

""" 

....... """ 

~ 

Ln 

c 

0 

a::J 

30 

• 

25 

20 

• 

15 

10 • • 

• 

5 

0/ '-__ --L ___ -'--__ ---I ___ ......l-__ -..& 

o 0.5 1.0 1.5 

'" 

Production kkg/day 

Figure 63 

East Coast oyster BODS ratios 

versus production Tevel 

160 

2.0 2.5 
C7.1 

.:.t:: 

~ 

"-

!?4 

VI 

"0 

.,... 

r0 

V"1 

-g 

"0 

s:: 

C1J 

0. 

IA 

;:" 

V') 

rttS 

~ 

0 

I-

"" . 

.. ' . 

25 

... 

• , .: " " 

20 

"\; .. ' .. -

15 

"1" • 

10 e. 

, , 

5 

o 

o 0.5. 1.0 1.5, 

, . , . "fi g~re 64. ," ,:,' , 

East Coast oyster'total suspended solids ratio~ versus production level 

161 

• ~ :. .. '::'.' " 

2.5 
The processing of scallops was considered to be less important than clam and oyster processingv since the waste loads were lower 

and fewer plants were in operation. A total of three Alaskan 

scallop processing operations were investigated and 13 unit 

operation and end-of-pipe composite samples of wastewater 

collected. The processing methods used for bay, sea and Alaskan 

scallops are similar. The calico scallop. is processed in a 

different manner from the others; unfortunately, the 1973 harvest 

of calico scallops was very poor and no operations were observed. 

Process Description 

The bay, sea and Alaskan s~a11ops are processed for the fresh or 

frozen market. The scallops are hand-shucked at sea to avoid 

deterioration and the meat is iced and brought to the plant in 

bags. Figure 65 shows the flow diagram for a typical scallop 

process. After receiving the b~gged scallops, the processors reice and ship them to other processors or freeze them immediately. 

In the plants investigated the scallops were e.ither frozen in a 

package or individually quick frozen (IQF). The former involved 

a prewash in a five to ~even percent salt brine. In plants using 

a fresh-water wash, a continuous flow was observed. The brine 

tank wash is merely a holding tank .. ,wi th no flow, except for makeup water and a complete recharge of the tank every eight hours or 

so. From the wash tank, the scallop meats are. belted to 

inspection belts where debris and extraneous material are 

removed. After inspection, the scallops are put into plastic 

bags, weighed, boxed, and frozen in plate freezers. After 

freezing, the boxes are placed into cartons and held for, 

shipment. The IQF. prOcess is identical except that after 

washing, the scallop meats are placed on a stainless steel mesh 

belt and conveyed intQ a blast freezer tunnel. After rapid 

freezing, the scallops are packaged and weighed, then packed in 

cartons for storage. ~n some plants, the larger scallops are 

first cut into smaller pteces before being frozen. A small 

percentage of the scallop~ is processed for the fresh market, but 

the vast majority is frozen in one form or another. 

The calico scallop prOduction began to become significant in 

about 1967, with the development of pat~nted machinery which 

shucks and evisceratest)1e sc~~l()ps automatically. In the past, 

the machinery was sometimes installed on the dredging vessel and 

the shucking operation done at sea; however, the processes are 

now all land based. The typical unit operations used are as 

follows (16). The scallops are'piled on the dredge and unloaded 

via conveyor belt to the plant. The live scallops are separated 

from the loose shells by a shucker and conveyed t~rough a heating 

tunnel. The heat opens the scallop and loosens the adductor 

muscle and visceral mass £rom the shell. The meat is then 

separated from the shell using a shucker and brine flotation. 

The meat then passes through a grinder-roller which removes 

remaining viscera and is then washed, sorted, and packed. The 

162 
ALTERNATE 

METHOD 

RECEIVE 

1 __ 1"_ 

WA~.D~IS_ 

PRODUCT FLOW 

-, - WASTEWATER FLOW 

-., 

1 -., 

d 

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

, 

~ EFFLUENT 

WASTE SOLIOS FLOW 

Figure 65. Typical scallop process. 

163 
yield is quite variable, with the average being about eight lbs 

of meat from two bushels of shell stock. 

subcategorization Rationale 

The only factor which was considered to influence subcategorization of the scallop industry (excluding calico scallops) 

was geographic location, since the processing operations are 

essentially the same. It was determined that the processing 

operations in Alaska be separated from those outside of Alaska 

because of the greater costs. Figure 66 shows a summary plot of 

the wastewater characteristics of two scallop processes in 

Alaska. It was noted that the flows and was·te loads were minimal. Table 39 shows the average values of the wastewater 

parameters for the two plants. There are no data for non-Al~ska 

op~rations, since the two Alaska plants were the only ones 

sampled. other plants were observed in ·the Middle Atlantic 

region using essentially the same process; therefore, it should 

be a good assumption that the waste loads would be similar. 

ABALONE 

The processing of abalone was considered to be relatively 

unimportant from a wastewater control viewpoint, since the flows 

and waste loads are small and because there are relatively few 

plants. A total of three plants were investigated and 19 unit 

operation and end-of-pipe wastewater samples collected. 

Process Description 

Figure 67 shows the flow diagram for a typical abalone process. 

The abalone are received at the plants in lots segregated 

according to species and the diver who harvested them. After 

unloading, the animal is removed from its shell with the aid of 

an iron bar known as a "punch out" bar. The visceral mass is 

separated from the large foot muscle which is then'put into a 

washer. Several types of mechanical washers are in use, 

including a rotating drum type. The washwater is often recirculated and dumped at set time intervals. After washing, the 

mouth and head sections are cut away and the foot muscles are 

arranged on a large sorting table and allowed to rest. Before 

further processing can be accomplished the muscle must sit for an 

hour or more to relax. If the muscle is tl:-immed too SOOn after 

shuCking, it still retains a degree of excitability and is 

difficult to handle. . 

Trimming follows the rest phase and is necessary to remove the 

pigmented epithial lining of the muscle prior to slicing. The 

mantel, the shell forming organ, is sliced off first, usually 

with a mechanical slicer of. the type commonly used to slice 

meats. Next, the epidodium, the pad covering the bottom of the 

muscle, is sliced off with a mechanical slicer, and passed to a 

164 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

4. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

3. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Fi ~ure 66 • ALASKAN SCALLOP ~RoCESS PLOT. 

G 

G 

G 

B G 

8 G 

:8 GP 

CB GP 

Q8 GP 

08 GP 

Q8 GP 

OS GP 

OS G 

OS G 

e G 

'e G 

G 

G 

G " (f 

SG 

SG 

SG 

SG 

'G 

G 

B 

s 

p 

G O····················· ............••..•...•• i ••••••••••••••• 

'SP1' SP2 

(6) (1) 

SYH80l PAIUMETER SCALING FACTCA 

---------~-------~-~~----~-----------.---.------------ a -- B 

S 

G 

P 

FLOW 

5 DAY BOO 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: 

G~EASE ~ OIL 

FROOUCTION 

',1' INCH = '000 

1,<' INCH -", ' 'l;' 

, ~1:,INCH = 0.5 

1 INCH = 0.1 , '1" ,INCH = 0.5 

, 'L/I(I(G 

'KG II(I(G 

KG/KKG 

KG/KKG 

., ~~. <. TO~/HR 

-------------------------.~.-.-----'fI~~::~,~~!--~---.--~~.,~.:~!'t'!":~--!-~~ 

165 

,;"'.'.' 'f' 
PARAMETER 

Tabl. 39 . ~ -: .~ ~. '.," 

SCALLOP 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

LOG NORMAL LOG NO~MAL 

MEAN, STO OtV 

991JJ 

..,AxIMUM 

---~-----------------.,--------. .,-------.'--"------~---------------

PRODUCTION- , (TON/HR) 

TIME· 

(HR/DAY) 

FLOW· 

(L/SEC) 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO-· 

1L/KKG) 

(GAL/TON) 

TSS** .(HG/L) 

(KG/KKG) 

BOO-S·· 

(HG/L) 

(KG/KKG) 

GREASE AND OIL*' 

(HG/L) 

(KG/KKG) 

1.26 

8.63 

2.55 

ltO.5 

2l50. 

515, 

~2S. 

9te 691 

i460. 

3,,13 

20.1 

0.,043' 

Pri- ~.66 

0,·304 

4.05 

3.48, 

55.Z 

7.672', , 2.615 951000. 

6.243 '2.615 228000,. 

5.783 0.923 2790. 

-0.361 ' 0.923 6.00 

7.2~6 0.200 2330. 

1.142 0.200 5.00 

3.003 ~.221 3560. 

-3.140 '2.221 7.64 

------·---------·---Clf"..~---~>-.. --.. -~---.,.--~·------..,--- --------------

PLANTS SPI ,SP2 

• THE OUTPUT- FOR T~E$E PARAMETERS 

ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEO) MEAN 

AND STANOARO DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

.- THE OUTPUT FOR T~ESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORHAL (UN~EIGHTEO) MEAN 

AND STANDARO DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

166 
II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

" " II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

~ 

TO SOLIDS OISP09A1. 

SAND ,KELP 

- ----

EPiDERMAl.. MEAT 

r---------------~OR>_----------_, 

r--------(.OR 

----- PRODUCT Fum 

"WASTEWATER FLOW 

-- WASTE SOLIDS FLOW 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

..!!EAL --I 

I 

I 

I 

+ EF.FLUENT 

Figure 67 Typical abalone process. 

167 
number of workers who complete the trimming manually. This last 

step, known as "up-trimming," is necessary to remove the fascia, 

a dark pigmented lining of the muscle. The trimmings are 

collected to be canned or made into breaded abalone patties. The 

abalone is then sliced and tenderized by pounding. Although 

attempts have been made to automate the last step, no 

satisfactory substitute has been found to replace the job of 

manually pounding the steaks. The steaks are then packaged to be 

sold fresh or frozen. Some steaks are breaded prior to freezing. 

Subcategorization Rationale 

Since the abalone process is a relatively small industry which is 

located in one geographical area, it was determined to constitute 

one subcategory. The abalone process plot of selected waste 

parameters is shown in Figure 68. The summary statistics for the 

three abalone processes sampled are shown in Table 40. 

168 
Figure 68. ABALONE Process Plot 

b. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

4. 

• ~ 

• a 

• 9 

• :, 

• 85 S 

3. ass 

• ...D!:) 

• Q3~ 

• (.ldS a 

• .Joj:) 

• aas b z. ass 

• '::ld ::, S 

• iJd!:l Qas • Sii G Q8S 

• SG ass 

• G Q8SG 1. i.:I 08 b 

• G 06 G 

• G G 

• P G 

• F P 

• p 

G •••••••• ~e······ ......•......•... o ..•.....•....•........ ~ .. A81 

( ... > A~Z 

(1) 

AdJ 

(3) 

~CAllf\lG FA~TGR 

--------------~--------------------------------------- Q FLOW -- 1 INCH = c:,ju~u L/KKG B 5 uAY 80J 1 INCH = lu KG/KKG ~ SU~Pt.fWLO ~ul..rus 1 INCH = ; t<G/KKG 

p 

c.; G>(i:.ASL ~ OIL 1 INCH = 1 KG/KK~ F"'ODU~ not.. 1 INCH = v.2 TON/HR --------------------------------------------------------

169 
Table 40 

ABALONE 

PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS 

------------------~----------------~---~-----~---~-~~~--~-.-~~~~ 

PARAMETER t-IEAN 

LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 

MEAN STD DEV . 99' 

MAXIMUM -------------------------------______ ~~8.~---_~~_~~_~~_~~~~_~~ __ _ PRODUCTION~ 

(T.ON/HR) 0.062 0.015 

TIME* 

(HR/DAY) 3.25 1- 71. 

FLOW* 

(L/SEC) 0.542 0.091 

(GAL/MIN) 8.59 1.44 

FLOW RATIO** 

(L/KKG) 39300. 10.57' O.~85 96300~ (GAL/TON> 9410. 9.150 0.385 23100 .• 

TSS** 

(MG/L) 282. 5.641 0.381 684. 

(KG/KKG) 11.1 2.404 0·381 26.9 

BOD-SiBt 

(MG/L) 490. 6.195 0.431 1340. 

(KG/KKG) 19.3 2.958 .0.431 52.6 

GKE:ASE AND OIL~ilt 

(MG/U 28.3 3.343 '0.291 55.8 

(KG/KKG) 1.11 0.106 0·291 2.19 

PH* 7.11 ----------------------------~ __________ c.---_~_--_~_~-___ ~~_~ ____ PLANTS AtH ,AB2 ,AB3 

* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS 

ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTEP) MEAN 

AND STANDARU DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

** THE OUTPUT FOR T~ESE AARAMETERS 

ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN 

AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY 

170 
SECTION V 

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 

INTRODUCTION 

A major effort ip the Seafood Effluent Limitations Study involved 

field investigation of the wastewater emanating from processing 

plants in each" segment of the industry. This was necessary 

because the most recent previous study concluded that very little 

knowledge of the character and volume of canned and preserved 

seafood processing wastewater was available (24). 

The industry was characterized as follows: first, a preliminary 

segmentation, as described in Section IV, was conducted and the 

relative importance of these segments estimated; second, a 

representative number of plants in each segment was sampled; and 

third, the results of the field work were analyzed and final 

subcategories established. The data from typical plants 

belonging to each SUbcategory were then averaged to obtain an 

estimate of the characteristics of that subcategory. These 

estimates are referred to as the typical raw waste loads. 

This section presents the results of the data analysis which was 

performed on the wastewater information collected and used to 

help establish the subcategories as discussed in Section IV. The 

results are organized by commodity or process, in the same 

sequence as Section IV. A brief introduction to each type of 

process provides background information on when and where that 

segment of "the industry was monitored, and special sampling 

techniques, if any, which were required. The water and product 

material balances are discussed to indicate the sources of 

wastewater and the disposition of raw product to food and byproduct and waste for typical operations. The raw waste loadings 

are discussed with special emphasis on major sources of water, 

BOD, and suspended solid within the plant as well as end-of-pipe. 

Sampling Procedures 

Based on previous experience in examining wastes from the seafood 

processing industries, the parameters considered to be most 

important from the standpoint of waste control and treatment and 

which could be obtained within the alloted time and economic 

constraints were: flow, settleable solids, screened solidS, 

suspended solids, S-day BOD, COD, grease and oil, organic 

nitrogen, ammonia, pH, raw product input rate, and food and bypreduct recovery. 

The field crews were instructed to increase the sampling 

frequency at point sources where the variation of the waste load 

appeared to be greater. Estimates of the daily fluctuations in 

the process were used to determine the duration of the sampling 

171 
program at the plant. An attempt was made to increase the 

duration at plants which showed higher variability from day to 

day in order to obtain estimates with similar confidence 

intervals. 

Depending on the effluent discharge system, plant sampling was 

accomplished several ways. For plants with a single point 

source, a time flow-proportioned composi"te sample was taken over 

the processing period each day by prpportioning according to the 

previous flows. In cases where. the effluent was discharged from 

more than one point source, the individual discharge flows were 

spatially composited on a flow proportioned basis to yield a 

total-effluent sample. These total-effluent samples were then 

time composited over the processing period. Some situations were 

difficult to composite, such as, when two or more :unit operations 

made up a process, and were carried on a"t different times of a 

processing day_ These point sources were then sampled separately 

and combined mathematicaliy. The objective in.all cases was to 

make the final composite sample representative of the total 

wastewater effluent discharged from -the plant for that day of 

production. 

Since flow-proportioning was a vital step in the sampling 

process, measurement of effluent f~ow rates were ~ritical to the 

representativeness of the . samples., Several methods of flow 

measurement were used by the field crews and are discussed in 

Section VI. Also, since flow rat~s together with production 

rates were the foundation upon whiCh the waste load calculations 

are based, several flow measuring techniques were often used in 

conjunction to check accuracy_ Production rates were determined 

from the total volume of raW product processed dur,ing the day and 

the length of the processing interva,l. After determination of 

the flow rates, the effluent samples were taken. Every attempt 

was made to obtain a well mixed representative sample of the 

effluent being discharged at thet~me of sampling. The correct 

volume of effluent was taken from the effluent stream at or near 

'the point of discharge ~nd the temp~rat\lre measur~d immediately_ 

The sample was then added to the sam~ling container, which was 

stored in a cool place throughout tl}.~ day at the plant. 

After preliminary field analyses ~or settleable solids and pH, 

four one-liter samples were prepared as follows: one sample was 

acidified to a pH of less than 2.0 and held at 4 0C (40 0 F), one 

sample was preserved "1ith 440 ppm of mercuric chloride and held 

at 40C (400 F), and two samples were frozen with no chemical 

additions. When sufficient samples were obtained to make a 

shipment, the two chemically preserved refrigerated samples, one 

of the frozen samples, and theplast~c bag containing the solids 

from the screen from each composite sample taken, were packed in 

styrofoam shipping cartons and air-treighted to an 'analytical 

laboratory in Portland, Oreqon where the remainder of the 

parameters were measured. The :secon~ frozen ;sample was· retained 

in storage locally for use.in case of a lost shipment. section 

172 
VI of this report explains in more detail how the wastewater 

parameters were measured and the'precisions involved. 

Data Reduction 

Several computer' programs, which 

tools for analyzing and presenting 

developed. . 

proved to be very efficient characterizat~~~ data, were 

',' . 

The first program, designated PLANTAvE, waS used to 'calculate 

arithmetic e.stimates of time averages, standard deviation, and 

observed minimums and maximums of wastewater parameters from 

individual plants. The input is arranged by the dates the 

samples were collected and the points ~ere the samples were 

collected. Sample points were grouped together if they were 

considered to be corx:elat,E!d, and .' grouped, separa:t:elY.if. 

uncorrelated •. ) The dat~ from s·ampl..e. :points which· were.. c;onside.red 

to be correlat:ed we~e' c9mppsl.t.eq~ by .addi.ng the waste loads from 

each point. 'for ea.~h·day to obtain daily. estimates of the total 

load from these points. The data must be present from each 

sample point on the same days in order to perform a correlated 

calculation. The waste load for sample points where data was 

collected infrequently (such as washdown) was considered to be 

independent of waste load frOm other 12oints., ,The ,a"erage load 

from each of the.independen:t Points wasc()mputed.~ over, all days 

and -t:-hen added' to' the ,.daily.. average from the other points to 

determine the overall average. A plant code corresponding 'to the 

type of process and the name .. of the. plant from .where the samples 

were taken was aSSigned to.the 9utputfrom the program to prevent 

data from being related. to ,·a 'partiCU:~c:lr. p,lant. : "0. 

An option to the ~LANTAVE program was UNITOP. The UNITOP option 

calculated the loads from each sample point together with the 

percent that the point contributed to the total effluent. This. 

information was .used to develop the wastewater material balance 

tables presented in this section and was very useful in helping 

to determine where in-plant controls would be the most effective. 

The next program, designated' PROSPLOT, was used to plot 

arithmetic averages and standard deviations for five selected 

parameters for up to 17 processing operations. This allowed the 

data from selected plants to be visually integrated to help 

determine if they were similar enough to include in one 

subcategory. The codes for each of the plants plotted and the 

number of samples used to develop the information . are shown on 

the horizontal axis below their respective characterization data. 

The five parameters plotted are: flow, BOD, suspended solids, 

grease and oil, and the production rate. The vertical scale is 

in inches with the scaling factor given at the bottom of the plot 

for each parameter. This plot allows the relative values of the 

plant parameters to be easily compared. The mean of each 

parameter is at the center of the vert.ical spread. The vertical 

spread represents one standard deviation above and below the 

173 
mean, hence, the wider the vertical_spread the more variable the 

data. These plots were used in section IV to help determine how 

the industry should be subcategorized'and which plants should be 

used to compute the average raw waste loads for ~ach subcategory. 

once a decision was made on subcategoriza'tion, ,the data: from the 

selected' plan~s in the subcategory were used by the next program 

to compute and tabularize estimates of spatial averages (average 

of the plant means) utilizing a log-norntill transform,. log-normal 

means, log-normal standard deviations, and maximums for each 

selected summary parameter. The plants used to determine each 

spatial average are indicated by a code list at the bottom of the 

table. ' 

FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

The wastewater characterization data fro~the fish meal 

production industry is organized into those fa~ilities with 

solub1es plants and tbose without solub1es plants, because of the 

different sampling techniques and waste loads involved. 

Fish Meal Production with Solubles Plant 

Five fish meal processes with solub1es plants were sampled on the 

East, Gulf, and California Coasts. In addition, historical data 

taken in 1972 was available from two plants in the mid-Atlantic 

region (25). The fie14 crews sampled the East Coast plants 

during August and september of 1973 which was near, or at the 

period of peak production. The 1972 data was taken during 

November which was past the period of peak production. The data 

from the Gulf and California was collected during october of 1973 

when catches were intermittent and production was lower than 

normal. 

Since the solubles plant produces the majority of the wastewater 

discharge, the sampling was centered around this aspect of the 

plant's operation. As described in section IV, the stickwater, 

washwater, and bailwater generated in the preSSing and drying 

operations are held in storage tanks to await processing by the 

solub1es plant. As a ~esult, the solubles plant operates out of 

time phase with the res~ of the plant. Figure 69 presents a 

typical time sequence of activities showing periods during which 

fish were being pressed and dried, periods of corresponding 

solub1es plant operation and the periods during which samples ~ere taken by the fie~d crew at a p1ant'in the mid-Atlantic. The 

vertical axis presents activity (meal production, solubles plant 

operation, or sampling) in an on-off fashion, without showing the 

magnitudes. The figure shows that the pressing and drying operations for meal at this plant took place during the first six to 

12 hours of a 24 hour period, with the solub1es plant operation 

extending over 30 to 40 hour periods, depending on the volume of 

fish processed and the capacity of the solubles plant. Sampling 

174 
FISH PRESSING AND DRYING OPERATION 

ON 

OFF 

SOLUBLES OPERATION 

I SAIIPLING PERIOD ~ 

I I I 

-

OFF 

2 4 15 6 

(DAYS) 

Figure ·69. Fish meal process time sequence of activities. 
occurred at various times during solubies plant operation. The 

basic assumption made was that. the bai1water, washwater, and 

stickwater processed by the solubles plant during a given period 

resulted from the volume of fish proc~ssed just previous to the 

solub1es plant operation under consideration. The amount of fish 

processed was then equally distributed over the solubles plant 

operation period which followed allowing the waste loads to be 

properly proportioned to the production levels. As a result, the 

wastewater summary tables show long processing times and 

relatively low production rates. It should be noted that these 

are in terms of solub1es plant operation and not fish pressing 

and drying time. For cases where bailwater was being discharged, 

the flow rate was determined by averaging over the period of 

solub1es plant operation so that the two waste loads could be 

added properly. 

Wastewater material balance 

Table 41 shows the wastewater balance summary for plants with 

only evaporator and air scrubber discharges (M3, .A2) and Table 42 

shows the wastewater .balance for plants with evaporator and 

bailwater discharges (M2H, M3H). It can be seen that the largest 

flows by far are from the evaporator. Bailwater flows are 

relatively small but contain substantial waste loads. Air 

scrubbers can contribute a relatively large flow and contain 

about the same concentration of wastes as the evaporators. 

To determine how much of the· waste load from the evaporator 

originates in the process and how much is caused by poor quality 

surface water, the evaporator intake, as well as the discharge 

was sampled at four plants with the results plotted on Figure 70. 

The plant codes with the suffix "I" correspond to data from the 

intake"s. The figure shows that while most of the BOD load is 

caused by the evaporator process, very little suspended solids or 

grease and oil w~s added. Tables 43 through 46 contain the plant 

temporal data utilized for the subcategory summary. By examining 

the plant averages for the intake and discharge water of plants 

M2, M3, M5 and A2, it ~an be determined that the intake 

contributes an average of only eight percent of the BOD, but 52 

percent of the suspended solids and 78 percent of the grease and 

oil 

The waste levels from 

three to five times 

bai1water. 

plants 

higher discharging than from 

bai1water are about 

those evaporating the 

The bail-water waste load concentrations are very high with 

suspended solids and BOD exceeding 20,000 mg/l.: The waste loads 

are also high since the production rates are very high at fish 

meal plants. 

Product material balance 

176 
-..... 

..... 

Table 41. Fish meal production with solubles plant mal "~rial balance 

unit Operation 

a) evaporator 

b) air scrubber 

Total effluent average 

M3, A2 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

% of Total 

Flow 

80 - 85% 

15 - 20% 

% of Total 

BOD 

60 - 85% 

15 - 40% 

·51,000 l/kkg 3.7 kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products 

Products 

a) oil 

b) meal 

By-products 

a) solub1es 

Wastes 

a) water 

% of Raw Product 

6 - 8% 

20 - 21% 

15% 

56 - 59% 

Average Production Rate, 540 kkg/day (600 tons/day) 

% of Total 

Susp. Solids 

60 - 90% 

10 - 40% 

1. 6 kg/kkg 
-...... 

00 

Table 42. Fish meal production with bailwater material balance 

Unit Operation 

a) evaporator 

b) bailwater 

Total effluent average M2H, M3H 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

% of Total 

Flow 

>99% 

<'1"% 

29,300 l/kkg 

% of Total 

BOD 

17 - 48% 

52 - 83% 

8 kg/kkg 

Average Production Rate, 450 kkg/day (495 tons/day) 

% of Total 

Susp. Solids 

12 - 36% 

64 - 88% 

5 kg/kkg 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5. 

• 

• 

• .' • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

3. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2. 

• 

• 

• Q 

• c: 

• Q 

1. Q 

• C 

• 

• 

• 

• 8 

Figure 7Q Fish Meal Process Plant (with solubles plant) Intake rin.' ['i scharge 

E 

e 

8 

e 

8 

F p e E 

as 8 

8S e 

85 e E: 

P.S e c 

8 9S 8 C 

8 e~ e 

e 

B 

E 

8 

e 

8 

es 

8S 

as 

8S 85G 8 QBSG 8S e~G SG Q SG I)S Q eSG SG SG 

8::; c eSG SG SG 

8S S ae5G SG SG 

es SGF c eSGF SG G 

Qes G SG SG SG G 

GESG SG SG S 

S ass G SG SG S 

QaSG .;- ~u - SG Q Q SG F 

SG '18 G S S C G Q SG P 

SG e G 8 S" G SG 

SG 9 B S SGF SGF 

G B S S SG 8 G, 8 S e 

P 

P 

0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• e ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

M21 ~2 M31 ~3 MSI ~s A21 A2 (~H (5) (5) (4) (9) (S) (4) (~) 

SY"IeCL PARANEH:R SCALING FACTCR 

-------------------------------------------------------- a FLew 1 INCH = 20000 l/KKG 

'3 S GAY 800 1 INCH = 1 I<G/J<J<G 

S SUSPENDED SO LIDS 1 INCH = 0.5 I<G/KKG 

G Gf{EaSI: ~ OIL 1 INCH = 0.5 KG/KKG 

P Fc{OOUCTION 1 INCH = 20 TCN/HR 

--------------------------------------------------------

179 
Table 43. MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS 

( DISCHARGE) 

-------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------------------------_._----------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 73.3 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

FLOW r/SEC 

(GAr/MIN) 

FLOW RA 'l'I 0 r/ KKG 

(GAr/TON) 

SETT. SOLIDS MLiL 

RA'l'IO I1KKG 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

'l'EMP DEG C 

22.2 

415 

6600 

22500 

5400 

39.0 

0.879 

75.3 

1.70 

147 

3.30 

23.6 

0.532 

5.46 

0.123 

8.36 

0.188 

7.75 

42.6 

131 

2080 

7110 

1700 

17.3 

0.389 

49.9 

1 .12 

59.2 

1.33 

9.33 

0.210 

2.55 

0.057 

3.90 

0.088 

0.320 

. 1 .45 

20.0 

235 

3730 

12800 

3060 

23.8 

0.536 

27.7 

0.625 

84.1 

1.89 

14.9 

0.336 

3.20 

0.072 

4.17 

0.094 

7 •. 30 

41.1 

24.0 

559 

8870 

30300 

7260 

60.5 

1.36 

138 

3.10 

210 

4.72 

35.0 

0.787 

8.47 

0.191 

13 .~ 

0.313 

8.75 

44.4 

-------------------------------------~------------------------

180 

PLANT M2 

5 SAMPLES 
Table 44. MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS 

( DISCHARGE) 

(NO SCRUBBER WATER) 

-...---~--.,...----... -~------------.. -~---------....--------------- PARAMETER MEAN STlD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

------------------------..-~.--~-------------------- . 

PRODUCTION TON/DR 32.0 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 23.2 

FLOW L/SEC 282 4.02 278 287 

(GAL/MIN) 4470 63.9 4420 4560 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 35000 500 34600 35700 

(GAL/TON) 8390 '120 8300 8560 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 2~.O 22.7 15.9 62.0 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.981 0.794 0.555 2.17 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 88.1 41.8 26.8 121 

RATIO KG/KKG 3.09 1.46 0.937 4'.22 

COD MG/L 196 83.9 86.7 286 

RATIO KG/KKG 6.86 2.94 3.04 10.0 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 25.0 10.4 13.8 39.0 

RATIO KG/JQC:G 0.876 10.366 0.485 1.37 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 4.20 3.74 2.24 9.80 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.147 10 .131 0.079 0.343 

AMMONIA-N Ma/L 2.32 0.803 1.78 3.50 

RATIO KG/Kl<G 0.081 0.028 0.062 0.123 

PH 6.20 0.228 5.90 6.60 

TEMP DEG C 39.7 0.321 39.4 40.0 

_____ .... ___________________ .-..... _____ .:a_-:-. . ________ -... _______ ..- _____ _ 

181 

PLANT M3 

4 SAMPLES 
Table ,~5 • MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS 

(DISCHARGE) 

--------------------------------------------------------~----- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

-----------------------------------------------~--------------

P RODU C~l'I ON 'l'ONI flR 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

9.23 

18.3 

FLOW LlSEC 40.3 

(GAL/MIN) 640 

FLOW RATIO LI~KG 17400 

(GALi'lON) 4160 

SE'l~. SOLIDS MLiL 8.16 

RA'l'IO UKKG 142 

SeRe SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO I<G/frI<'G 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COD M.G/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RA 'I'I 0 KG/ KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RA'I'IO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RA'I'IO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

22.0 

0,,382 

178 

3.08 

303 

5.26 

19.8 

0.343 

2.99 

0.052 

1 .33 

0.023 

4.33 

47.0 

0.044 9.15 

14.0 

9.26 

24.0 

4.84 36.1 50.1 

76.8 573 796 

2040 15600 21500 

469 3730 5150 

19.5 0.276 5Q.3 

338 4.78 978 

17.5 

0.304 

31 .1 

0.540 

56.6 

0.982 

8.54 

0.148 

2.73 

0.047 

0.582 

0.010 

0,.181 

2.49 

11.9 

0.207 

126 

2.18 

205 

3.56 

12.6 

0.218 

1.26 

0.022 

0.415 

0.007 

4.11 

43.3 

67.9 

1.18 ' 

219 

3.81 

385 ~.69 

39.5 

0.686 

9.53 

0.165 

2.53 

0.044 

9.93 

51' .1 

--------------------------------------~-------~---------------

182 

PLANT M5 

9 SAMPLES 
Tal"-le 40 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS 

(DISCHARGE) 

(WITHOUT SCRUBBER) 

~-----------~_ ..... a._"'IDIIIEI __ Im""~~G!>CI!tCCDC!D~~~~~SD 

PARAMBftR MEAN STD DEY MINIMUM .MAXIn-OM ~-~a::ac»---________ " ___ ~C»C'2D""IC3" ., :II 

O'~~~~~~~~~ 

PRODUCTION TON/BR 19.0 1.13 11 0 5 20.0 

PROCESS TIME DR/DAY 24.0 

PLOW L/SKe 231 5.48 225 238 

(GAL/MIN) 3610 81.1 3510 3790 

PLOW RA'tIO L/KKG 48400 603 41700 49200 

(GAL/'r<»t ) 11600 145 11400 11000 

SB'rT'. SOLIDS ML/L - ... - RA'l'IO L/KKG -- - -- ...-

SCR. SOLIDS fIG/I. 

RATIO KO/KKG - -.... ....., "" .... 

SUSP. SOLIDS MOIL 25.1 50 99 16.4 30.1 

RATIO KG/KKG 1.22 0.200 0" 795 1,,49 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 61.4 15.1 44 .. 1 99 .. 2 RATIO KG/KKO 3.26 0.730 2,,16 4 .. 32 

COD MG/L 185 31.0 144 229 

RATIO KG/KICG 8.93 1.50 6.9S 11 01 

GREASB " OIL MG/L 21.1 5.16 15.5 27 .. 8 

RATIO KG/KlKG 1.02 0.250 0.1.9 10 34 

ORGAMIC-N MG/L 5.16 1.11 4.84 7.33 

RATIO m/KKG 0.279 0.054 O.23<4t 0.355 

MMONIA-N fIG/L 0.982 0.112 0.807 1.13 RATIO KG/KIl(G 0.048 0.005 0.039 0.055 

PH 6.00 0.353 5.60 6.68 

'l'ZMP DEG e 14.1 10.5 5.99 290 2 

"--~~-------------_CteB~~~~CDQa~--=aC8oS!»C!D:a:iD~~fE) 

183 
The end products of fish meal reduction are fish meal, oil, and 

fish solubles; fish solubles being a product of stickwater and 

bailwater evaporation. The product material balance portion of 

Table 41 shows the relative amounts of each product obtained in 

the process. yields will vary somewhat according to the season, 

the species processed, and the efficiency of the plant. A 

significant portion of the water contained in the fish exits the 

plant as waste vapor in the meal drying process and in the 

evaporator process. 

Plants M2, M2H, M3, M3H and M5 were processing menhaden exclusively during the sampling periods with production rates 

averaging about 640 kkg/day (700 tons/day). Plant MI was 

processing mostly menhaden along with some scraps from bottom 

fish and herring plants and had an average production rate of 

about 200 kkg/day (220 tons/day). Plant A2 was processinq 

anchovy exclusively during the sample period and had an average 

production rate of 410 kkg/day (460 tons/day). 

Fish Meal Production without Solubles Plant 

Two fish meal plants without solubles plants were sampled on the 

California Coast during october 1973. The sampling period was 

during the peak season, however, the weather and the fact that 

some fishing boats alternate between squid and anchovies, caused 

intermittent operation. 

Wastewater material balance 

Table 47 shows the wastewater balance summary for a fish meal 

plant with no solubles plant discharging stickwater and 

bailwater. The largest and strongest flow is the stickwater 

which is the liquid remaining after the oil is recovered from the 

press liquor. The waste load from the stickwater is one of the 

strongest in the entire seafood industry being very high in BOD, 

suspended solids, and grease and oil. The bai1water is also a 

relatively high flow and load and has similar characteristics to 

the bailwater described previously for the menhaden processes. 

~( 

Tables 48 and 49 show the discharge characteristics for the two 

plants sampleu, Al and A3 respectively. Plant A3 had an air 

scrubber which contributed about 15 percent of the flow but 

almost no waste load. Plant Al used a once pass bai1water system 

which increased the flow substantially, compared to A3 which 

unloaded the fish using a high pressure hose from a truck. 

Product material balance 

Table 47 shows the disposition of the raw product for plants 

discharging stickwater. There is more waste from these plants 

because the solub1es are not recovered. 

184 
...... 

00 

01 

Table 47. Fish meal production without solub1es plant material balance 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

Unit Operation 

a) stickwater 

b) bailwater 

c) washdown 

d) air scrubber 

Total effluent average 

A3 

% of Total % of Total 

Flow BOD 

45% 93% 

39% 7% 

1% <1% 

15% <1% 

1870 l/kkg 71 kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products 

Products 

a) meal 

b) oil 

% of Raw Product 

28% 

8% 

Wastes 

a) stickwater 

b) water vapor 

35% 

29% 

Average Production Rate, 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day) 

% of Total 

Sus12. Solids 

94% 

6% 

<1% 

<1% 

59 kg/kkg 
Table 48. ANCHOVY REOOC,!'ION PROCESS 

(DISCHARGE) 

-------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION 'I'ON/HR 

PROCESS 'l'IP.E HR/DAY 

6.57 

7.33 

FLOW L/SEC 22.2 

(GAL/MIN) 352 

FLO',v RATIO VKKG 1 2~OO 

(GAL/Ij:Ol-i) 3090 

::: f'l'T 0 SOLIDS ML/ L 1 .71 

RATIO L/KKG 22.1 

seRe SOLIDS ~G/L 

1<A'IIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RA'l'TO KG/I<I<G 

. 5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RA'l'IO I<'G/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RA 'lI 0 KG/ KKG 

ORGAKIC-K MG/L 

RATIO I<G/KKG 

AMMONIA-I-; MG/L 

RA'i'Ie KG/KI<'G 

PH 

'lEMP DEG C 

17~0 

23.1 

3600 

46.4 

6160 

7~.5 

~68 

12.5 

399 

!) • 1 5 

19.9 

0.257 

6.82 

21.3 

0.910 

12.5 

199 

6190 

1480 

0.472 

6.10 

935 

12.1 

1790 

23.1 

2970 

38.3 

1020 

13.1 

171 

2.20 

13.2 

0.171 

0.192 

5.53 

3.BO 

9.39 

149 

6750 

1620 

1.29 

16.7 

1180 

15.2 

2070 

26.7 

3790 

48.9 

94.9 

1 .22 

2&5 

3.42 

11.0 

0.142 

6.63 

16.7 

7.15 

11 .0 

34.4 

547 

19100 

4590 

28&0 

36.9 

5570 

7'1 .8 

9490 

122 

2090 

26.9 

591 

7.63 

35.1 

0.453 

7.18 

23.~ 

--------------------------------------------------------------

PLANT A1 

3 SAMPLES 

186 
Table 49. ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS 

(WITH AIR SCRUBBER WATER) 

------------------------------------------------------~-------

PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION 'l'ON/ER 

PROCESS 'I'IMB HR/DAY 24.0 

FLOW LlSEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

( GALl 'I'ON ) 

SETT. SOLIDS MLiL 

RA'l'IO I/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

4.00 

63.5 

1870 

448 

221 

412 

246 

0.459 

0 0 411 8.33 

0.234 3.72 

3071 59.1 

114 1770 

27.3 425 

51.3 167 

95.8 313 

9.08 

4.52 

71 07 

2120 

509 

305 

570 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 31400 18100 11500 60800 

RATIO ~G/KKG 58.6 33.7 21.5 114 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 37900 11000 22500 49300 

RATIO KG/KKG . 70 0 8 20.6 42.0 92.1 

COD MG/L 78200 38600 34200 138000 

RATIO KG/KKG 146 72.1 63 0 8 258 

GREASE & OI'L MG/L 20100 13800 2730 39800 

RA'I'IO KG/KKG 37.5 25.7 5.11 74.3 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 2810 1050 960 3420 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 5.24 1 .95 1 .79 6.39 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 99.7 33.2 45.1 136 

RA'I'IO KG/K~G 0.186 0.062 0.084 0.255 

PH 6.78 0.060 6.68 6.87 

'l'EMP D'EG C 43 .3 2 .34 40 • 7 45. 7 

------- . - ~- ------_ .... ...... _-----.............. -... , - .. - -.. ~ -_ .. - _. ..-.. _--- .. _ .. '" ..... "'."- -." - . 

PLAr-.:rJ.' A3 

5 SAMPLES 

187 
Both Al and A3 were processing anchovy exclusively during the 

sampling period. Production rates ranged from 44 kkg/day (50 

tons/day) at the smaller plant (AI) to 190 kkg/day (210 tons/ 

day) at the larger plan-t. 

SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

Three salmon canning plants in Alaska and two plants in the 

Northwest were investigated during the period from July to August 

1973. In addition historical data were obtained from four plants 

in the Northwest, including the two sampled. 

The 1973 Alaska salmon season was very poor, therefore more fish 

were going to the fresh/frozen market and the canning operations 

were very intermittent. Most of the canneries are presently 

grinding their waste and discharging to a submarine outfall, 

therefore, end of pipe samples were relatively easy to obtain at 

a common sump. 

The Northwest plants investigated were sampled during the end of 

September which was near the end of the season. ~he Northwest 

plants usually have both hand butchering and mechanical 

butchering lines, hence there was a combined operation during 

most of the investigation period. The butchering machine was 

usually operated only during times when large volumes of fish, 

usually pinks and chums, arrive at the plant. Silver and chinook 

salmon were usually hand butchered. Hand packing of sockeye was 

also done for special orders that required a finer quality 

product. 

Wastewater Material Balance 

The intake water for Alaskan salmon plants located in isolated 

places is obtained from nearby surface water streams. The intake 

water for plants located in town is usually from the municipal 

systems. The water used in the canneries is chlorinated either 

by the plant or by the municipal treatment system. City water is 

generally ~\"ed by Northwest plants for all phases of the 

operation. 

Table 50 shows the wastewater. balance for salmon canning 

operations using the butchering machine~ It can be seen that 

this machine contributes a significant portion of the flow and a 

very great portion of the BOD and suspended solids load. The 

main reason that the BOD loads for the Northwest plants were 

quite variable, and generally lower than the Alaskan plants (see 

Figure 25), was because the butchering machines were used only on 

a portion of the total fish processed. 

Table 51 shows the wastewater material balance for an exclusively 

hand butchering operation (CSN5, CS6M). It can be seen that the 

total loads are much lower for the hand butchering operation than 

188 
Table 50 

Unit O(!eration 

a) unloading water 

b) iron chink 

c) fish scrubber 

d) sl iming table 

e) fish cutter 

f) can washer and clincher 

g) washdown 

Total effluent average 

Salmon canning process material balance (mechanized) 

Wastewater Material Balance Summar~ 

% of Total % of Total % of Total 

Flow BOD SUS(!. Solids 

12% 10% 7% 27% 65% 56% 19% 5% 3% 13% 6% 18% 

7% 4% 5% 2% 1% 1% 20% 10% 11% 

19800 l/kkg 45.5 kg/kkg 24.5 kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products 

Food products . 

By-product 

a) roe 

b) milt 

c) oil 

d) heads 

e) viscera 

Wastes 

% of Raw Product 

62 - 68% 

4 - 6% 

2 - 3% 

1% 

12 - 14% 

o - 5% 

11 ..: 16% 

Average Production Rate, 37 kkg/day (41 tons/day) 
Table 51 Salmon canning process material balance (hand butcher). 

wastewater Material Balance Summary 

unit Operation 

a) butchering line 

b) fish cutter 

c) can filler 

d) can washer 

e) washdown 

Total effluent Average 

. CSN5, CS6M 

% of Total 

Flow 

20% 

20% 

5% 

22% 

33% 

5400 l/kkg 

% of Total 

BOD 

24% 

16% 

21% 

5% 

34% 

3.4 kg/kkg 

Ave;age Production Rate, 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day) 

% of Total 

Susp. Solids 

17% 

17% 

30% 

5% 

30% 

2.0 kg/kkg 
for the mechanical butchering line. The hand butcher canning 

process is identical to the fresh/frozen operation except for the 

wastes from the fish cutting and can filling operation, which 

increase the load about 45 percent more. Plant CSN2 used a hand 

packing operation rather than a mechanical filler, therefore, 

their wastes were lower. 

Tables 52 through 57 show summary statistics of the wastewater 

for the plants utilized in the subcategory summary. Figure 29 

contains a normalized salmon canning process plot of selected 

wastewater parameters from each plant sampled. Codes CSN2, CSN3 

and CSN4 represent Alaskan plants which used the butchering 

machine exclusively. Codes CSN5 through CSN8 represent Northwest 

plants which used the butchering machine in varying amounts. 

Code CSN5 used hand butchering exclusively, plant CS8H (historical data from CSN8) used the butchering machine" exclusively, 

while the rest of the plants used it occasionally. 

Plant CSN8 had a poor water conservation practice of letting 

water run through the butchering machine in between periods of 

operation. This practice caused the flow ratio to be much 

greater than normal at this plant 0 CSN8 also used· a flume 

unloading system which was not observed at the other plants and 

which produced an added flow of about 4170 l/kkg (1000 gal/ton). 

The added wast~ load in terms of BOD" however, was very small. 

Most of the plants in Alaska 

discharge to submerged outfalls. 

install screens in' 1973 ,but 

sampling interval. 

grind the larger solids before 

Some plants were beginning to 

none were operational during the 

Most plants in the Northwest discharge the wastewater after 

coarse screening to remove the larger particles. Plant CSN7 had 

a tangential screen in place and samples were taken to 'determine 

its effectiveness. The tangential screen removed the screenable 

solids effectively, however, the BOD and suspended solids were 

observed to increase slightly (it should be noted that the 

"before screening" samples were passed through a 20 mesh TYler 

screen prior to analysis). The reason for this is believed 'to be 

due to the type of pump used to deliver the water to the screen. 

The pump could have pulverized some of the solid material causing 

the number of undersize particles to increase (see section VII, 

screening) • 

Product Material Balance 

Table 50 shows the product material balance which is similar for 

either hand or mechanical butchering. The food recovery varies 

with species and is a little greater for the hand butchering 

operation. Solid wastes such as the heads and viscera are 

usually discharged to the rece1v1ng water in Alaska and are 

usually recovered in the Northwest for pet food, mink food, or 

fish meal. 

191 
Table 52. SALMON CANNING PROCESS 

-------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

------------------------------------------------------ ~-------

PRODUCTION TON/ER 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

3.16 

6.00 

FLOW USEC 13.9 

(GAl/MIN) 220 

FLOW RA~IO LiKKG 1B300 

(GAL/'l'ON) 4370 

SE'l~. SOLIDS MLiL 2.~7 

RATIO UI<KG 54.3 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L 1390 

RATIO KG/KKG 25.4 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 726 

RA'IIO I<G/KI<G 1:;.2 

5 DAY EOD MG/L 1330 

RATIOKG/KKG 24.2 

COD ~G/L 2470 

RATIO KG/KKG 4501 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 1 75 

RATIO KG/KKG 3.19 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 175 

RATIO KG/KKG 3 0 20 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 5 0 33 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.097 

PH 6 0 6B 

TEMP DEG e 11 0 9 

0.761 1 • in 

2.50 10.0 

2.07 10.1 17.8 

42.5. 1 60 283 

3690 13600 25100 

BB4 3270 6010 

1.26 1.08 4.81 

22.9 30.7 B7.8 

573 824 2610 

10.5 15 47.7 

252 448 1190 

4.61 8.17 21.6 

451 719 2100 

8.2313.1 38.3 

490 1670 3090 

8.95 30.4 56.4 

62.0 99.2 271 

1.13 1.B1 4.95 

48.9 81.5 236 

0.892 1.49 4.30 

1.41 2.93 7.16 

0.026 0.053 0.131 

.0.109 6.71 7.09 

0.554. 11.3 12.6 

--------------------------------------------------------------~ 

192 

PLANT CSN2 

7 SAMPLES 
.. ~ - -.. ;~ -; ;. . :': ... 

Table 53. SALMON CANNING PROCESS 

----~-..... ::--'~--.!..------~------~-------------...... --------- PARAMETER' , 'MEAN' ", ,,'.. STD' DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------_ .. _--------_..-_-----------.-..._-------- ;; :;"'~ '.' . 

PRODUCTION TON/HR c' 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

'FLOW L/SEC ' 

(GAL/MIN), ' .. 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TON) 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS'MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG, 

P 4.62 

8.25 

22.0 

349 

19066 

4560 

46.3 

882 

~,f: --~: 

0.548, 

---3.38 

:.-,r~.;~6 

2470 

,592 

9.37 

178 

.. :. .;..: 'i i 

SUSP. SO£ID8 MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

:,;~ ·2140 foso 

20.6 . '.:':' ': 

5 DAY BOD.MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG, " ,. ',:., 

COD MG/L·' 

RATIO KG/KKG., 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

,RATIO KG/KK~. 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N' lIG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

, .,40.8 

4300 

, S1.8 

. '. -

,- 341 

, 6.49 :~. :.1 ,: 

'816 

15.5 

... , '756 

, ,,1~,~.4 

1450 ~7.6 

2.11 

" , 0.040 

, '. 394 

7.49 

." ", 16.7 - .. ' ,_"M. 6.26 

0.311 0.119 r' ,~ . .: - ~~'.. ., .:: 

- ;'" 

0.080 

1.07 

~~ " ... 

4.00 " 

17.8 

283 

'15100 

3620 , .!~: 

.. ~ .... ,". , .,. 

.'-;;r • I, ' 

1020 : ,.::, , 

19.5 

5.32 

12.0 

26.5 

421 o ,;., \ 

21300 

,~tOo 

, '54.2 

1030 

5190 

98.8 

5460 

104 

8890 

" ':>" t?9 

339" 

6.46 

~ ~ ~ -' 

4"0 " "~ ,-

" ~.~1. ': 

«-1.97 ' 

0.152 

343 

6.53 " \ .. " 

1260 

'., ,,24.0 

22.3 

0.424 

6.96 

13.8 

-------------~-.... -----... --.-----~--------~---------~,.--------

193 

PLANT CSN3 

4 SAMPLES 
'1'~ble 54 • SALMON CANNING PROCESS , , (WITH GRINDING) 

---------------,..--~----.. -----------------~-. ...--... --------------- PARAME'l'~R MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

-------~-------~~~----------------------~---~-----~~---------- ' 

PRODUCTION 'lON/SR 

PROCESS TIME fiR/DAY 

1.34 2.63 

4.50 

5.89 

9.50 

FLOW USEC 21.2 3.76 1'4.6 26.8 

(GAL/MIN) 336 59.8 231 425 

FLOW RATIO LI~~G 20400 easo 13200 31400 

(GAl/TON) 4900 1930 3170 7520 

SE'l'T. SOLIDS MLI~ 25.5 22.5 4.20 64.3 

RA~IO L/KKG 522 45985.8 1320 

seRe SOLIDS MG/~ 2360 2010 552 5580 

RA'l'IO J(G/Kf(G' 48.3 41..1 11. 3 114 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 1460 384 857 1980 

RA'lIO KG/KKG' 29.& 7.86 17.5 40.4 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 2610 1170 14QO 4670 

RATIO KG/KKG 53.4, 24.0 28.1 95.5 

COD MG/L5560 2720 2770 9790 

RATIO J(G/KKG 114 55',6 56.6 200 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 842 1110 232 3080 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG ' "7.2 22.6 4.74 62.9 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 409 185 192 729 

RA'l'IO f(G/l(fCG 6.35 3.17 3.93 14.9 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 10.2 3.59 4.12 14.2 

RATIO I(G/l(fCG 0.208 0.073 0.084 0.2~0 

PE '6.62 . '0.1'51 6.45 6.88 

TEMP DEG C 15.4 0.705 14.8 16.7 

---------------~~~-----~-----~----~-------------------------

194 

PLAN'!' C SN4 

(, SAMPLES 
Table 55. SA,IM)N CANNING PRCCESS 

(~ BUTCHER) 

-----------------.--.----------~-------------,. PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM ----------------------~---~---------~-----

PRODUCTION TON/HR 1.02 0.818 0.286 2.62 

PROCESS TIME- HR/DAY 5.20 2.80 7.50 

FL~ L/sEC 2.21 0.463 1.28 - 3.79 CCAL/MIN) 35.1 7.35 20.4 60.1 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 8980 2230 4240 16000 (GAL/TON) 2150 534 1020 3840 

SET'!'. SOLIDS ML/L 1.92 0.625 0.732 3.10 RATIO L/KKG 17.3 5.61 6.57 27.8 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 342 60.5 220 491 RATIO KG/KKG 3.07 0.544 1.98 4.41 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 455 114 311 598 RATIO KG/KKG 4.08 1.02 2.79 5.37 

COD MG/L 1260 310 616 2230 RA'l'XO KG/KKG 11.3 2.78 5.53 20.0 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 875 

RA'l'IO J(G/KKG 7-.85 - ORGANIC-N MOIL 86.7 22.9 40.5 143 RATIO KG/KKG 0.779 0.206 0.364 1.28 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 1.35 0 .. 507 0.631 2.19 RAT! 0 KG/KKG 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.020 

PH 6.98 

TEMP Dm C 13.7 2.11 12.4 1~.0 

------------------------------ . . ---,-... 

PLANT CSNS 

8 SAMPLES 

195 
Table 56. SALMON CANNING PROCESS 

(HAND BU'l'CBBR ) 

-.-~--- • ___________ -....-_________ •••••• ----- ---- T. ____ --

PARAMETER MEAN 

PRODUCTION 'raf/BR O. 786 

PROCESS TIME DR/DAY 6.20 

FLOW L/SEe 0.222 

(GAL/MIN) 3.53 

FLtJW RATIO L/KKG 1780 

(GAL/TON) 427 

!lETT. SOLIDS ML/L 1.91 

RATIO L/KRG 3.41 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L -

RATIO ~/K~ --

8USP. SOLIDS HD/L 419 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.746 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 1540 

RATIO m/KKG 2.74 

COD MG/L 2520 

RATIO KG/KKG 4.48 

GREASE & OIL mIL 

RATXO KG/KKG --

ORGANIC-H Ma/L 185 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.329 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 2.44 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG ' 0.004 

PH 6.97 

TEMP Dm C 13.4 

sm DEY 

0.684 

-

646 

. 1S5 

---

224 

0.399 

81.4. 

1.45 

1070· 

1.911 

~-

-

82.5 

0.147 

1.30 

0.002 

0.064 

0.702 

MINIIIIM 

958 

230 

-, 

--

258 

0.460 

815 

1.45 

1300 

2.31 

--

96.9 

0.172 

0.871 

0.002 

,6.92 

12.7 

MAXIMUM 

1.81 

7.70 

0.379 

·6.02 

3060 

735 

3.05 

5.44 

--

-

2260 

4.02 

4650 

8.28 

--

-

358 

0.637 

4.98 

0.009 

7.06 

14.5 

------------~...,------------..-----~~---.. ----

196 

PLANT CS6M 

6 SAMPLES 
Table 5~. SALMON CANNING PROCESS 

(WITHOUT .PLUMING) 

-~"""---------------------.----.....-----~..-.---~------------- PA.~AMETER MEAN STDDBV -MINIMUM MAXIMUM - , 

----------~------~-----~----~--~--~------~---~---~------

PRODUCTION TON/ER 1.03 . . 0.10.4 0.913 1· .11 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.10 2.30 9.50 

FLOW L/SEC _ -!'11.9 0.88.0 , ~ 11.0 12.8' (GAL/MIN) 189 . 14.0 175 20.3 

PLOW RATIO L/KKG 47800 5040 42,700 52800 (GAL/TON) 11500 1210 10200 12600 

MI/L, -. 

4.20 7.36 SETT. SOLIDS 1,2.2 15.0. RATIO L/KKG 582 20.0 352 715 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 50.5 338 266 744 RATIO KG/KKG 24.1 16.1 12.7 . 35~5 

, ~~l SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 384 66.4 342 460., RATIO KG/KKG ',18.3,.' J.11 16.3 22.0. 

5 DAY BOD MG/L :. ,10.30., e·8.7 - , 930. 1100 RATIO KG/KKG ' 49.1' , 4.24 44.4 52.7 ,' ••• !''': , -, .- " 

COD MG/L - 19.90..' 387 ... 1600 2370. RATIO KG/KKG, . '95.2 18.5 76.3 113 ,-, GREASE & OIL:MG/L 110 , 23.8' 94.1 137 RATIO KG/KKG -S.25 ' '-1.14- " 4.50. 6.56 - - ORGANIC-N !'G/L 152 39.1 117 194 RATIO KG/KKG· 7.27 -1.87 5.57 -9.27 

" AMMONIA-N MG/L 3.58. 0..365- 3.23 3.95 RATIO KG/KKG 0..171" _. 0..017 0.154 0..189 . , 

.PH ,6.5-1 .. 0..10.3 6.41 " 6.65 /' " 

TEMP D.EG C ·15.6 -- , 

---------=--~-- ... --.--... -~-... --------.. ---~ ........ -~--... ~----.... ---... .;.-.... -....... ----

197 

PLANT CSN8: 

3 SAMPLES 
The production rates averaged 27 kkg/day (30 tons/day) for th~ 

Alaska plants, however w this was considered to be lower than 

normal due to the poor 1973 season. Plant CS8H in the Northwest 

which was sampled from late July through early September; 1969 at 

a time of peak production averaged 53kkg/day (58 tonsl day). 

Fresh/Frozen Salmon Proc.ess wastewater Characteristics 

Four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska and three. in the 

Northwest were investigated. The four Alaskan operations were 

monitored during August of 1973 which corresponded to a 

relatively heavy period of f.resh/frozen ~almon processing. All 

operations were located on the waterfront in urban areas, 

utilized a domestic water sourc~, and discharged their effluent 

directly into a receiving body of water. 

The three Northwest operations were monitored during September of 

1973 near the end of tbe season, were located on the waterfront 

in metropolitan areas, utilized domestic water and discharge~ 

their effluent to the municipal treatment facilities. 

Various species of both pre-dressed (troll caught) and roun(i 

salmon were being processed during the sampling period. 

wastewater Material Balance 

Table 58 shows that the primary source of wastewater from the 

fresh/frozen salmon process is the wash tank operation, in which 

the eviscerated fishoa;r:e cleansed of adherin<j blood, mesentaries, 

sea lice, and visce~ql partieles. Also, depending upon the 

condition of the fish, a preliminary rinse of the round fish· 

prior to butchering may also be implemented. This latter rinse 

is employed to reduce ~he amount of slime adhering to the fiSh to 

facilitate handling. The wash tank or wash tank plus pre-rinse 

contributes about 9Q percent of the total effluent flow. The 

butchering table is essentially a dry operation except for short 

hose-downs of the a~~a at the discretion of the crew. Some 

plants use small hoses ~ttached to cleaning spoons and other use 

a small constant flow on the table. 

Tables 59 through 62 show summary statistics of the waste water 

for the plants utilizeq tn the subcategory summary. Figure 34 

contains a normalized fesh/frozen salmon process plot of selected 

wastewater parameters from each plant sampled. Alaska plants are 

represented by codes fSI, FS2, FSTI and FST2, where FS represents 

a round fish process and FST a pre-dressed process. Northwest 

plants are representeq by codes FS3, FST3, and FS4. It can be 

seen that the round fish processes have consistently higher waste 

loads in terms of BOD than the pre-dressed p~ocesses. The 

samples of the pre-dre.ssed processes were taken at the same 

plants as the rounq fish processes, however, the waste flows 

could be separated since they are usually not conducted at the 

same time. 

198 
Table 58. Fresh/frozen round salmon process material balance 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

Unit Operation 

a) process water 

b) washdown 

Total ef~luent average 

FSl, FS2i FS3, FS4 

% of Total 

Flow 

88 - 96% 

4 - 12% 

3750 l/kkg 

% of Total 

BOD 

76 - 92% 

8 - 24% 

2 kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products % of Raw Product 

Food products 

a) salmon 65 - 80% 

b) eggs 5% 

c) milk 3% 

By-product 

a) heads 8% 

b) viscera 5. - 7% 

Waste 1 - 2% 

. % of Total 

Susp. Solids 

74 - 97% 

3 - 26% 

0.8 kg/kkg 

Average Production Rate, 16.4 kkg/day (18 tons/day) 
TABLE 59 

FROZEN SALMON PROCESS 

---~---~------~-------------------.---------- .. ---------------- PAR4lfETER MEAN STO O£V MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------------~-------------------------------~---

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCeSS TIME HR/DAY 

FLOH I../SEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOH RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TO N) 

SETT. SJLI~S MLIL 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/Kt<G 

SUSP. SDLI~S MG/L 

RATIO KGI KKG 

5 DAY aoo '1GIL 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COO HG/L 

RA TIO KGI KKG 

GREASE ~ JIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N riGIL 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMI'tONIA-N fiG/I.. 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEHP OEG C 

1.83 

b.7~ 

4.lt5 

70.1 

11500 

2740 ' 

0.157 

1.80 

114 

1.31 

116 

1.33 

259 

2.96 

552 

6.32 

26.0 

0.298 

""8.6 

0.S57 

1.75 

O. 020 

6.27 

11.5 

1.23 

S690 

13/tO 

0.150 

1.71 

18.8 

0.215 

70.2 

11.80 .. 

10~ 

1.20 

277 

3.17 

13.9 

0.159 

28.3 

0.324 

0.7ft5 

0.009 

0.280 

0.257 

0.72~ 2.91 

'-t.oo 

3.23 b.8S 

51.3 109 

46~0 17200 

11(,0 't130 

0.087 O.4t21 

0.9Y8 4.82 

90. ft 13& 

1.0,," 1.5t) 

,+2.6 212 

0.1.t88 2 ... 2 

106 331 

1.21 3.78 

191 865 

2.19 9.90 

.:.9.9 7b.0 

0.571 0.870 

15.0 83.5 

0.171 0.957 

O.9t16 2.77 

0.011 0.032 

5.91 7.0"" 

11."" 11.9 

-------------------------~---------------------------- --------

200 

PLANT FSl 

" SAMPLES 
Table 60. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS 

(ROUND) 

--~---..---~---------...--..----..... ---.-------~-----.. ---- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

-------~-~---------~~------~----~--------------~--~---~--

PRODUCTION TON/ER 3.76 0.412 3.31 4.30 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 7.38 5.50 10.5 

FLOW L/SEC 3.14 0.137 2.94 3.26 

(GAL/MIN) 49.8 2.17 46.7 51.7 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 3390 480 2770 3940 

(GAL/TON) 814 115 664 943 

SE'l"1'~ SOLIDS ML/L 0.717 '0.401 0.346 1.24 

RATIO L/KKG 2.44 1.36 1.17 4.20 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 132 76.5 46.2 . 193 

RATIO t<G/KKG 0.449 0.260 0.157 0.654 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 271 47.5 200 299 

RATIO t<G/KKG 0.920 0.161 0.680 1.02 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 747 144 565 913 

RATIO KG/KI<G 2.54 0.489 1.92 3.10 

COD MG/L 1540 325 1120 1920 

RATIO t<G/Kt<G 5.21 1.10 3.81 6.51 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 41.0 6.46 34.3 47.6 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.139 0.022 0.116 0.162 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 122 27.2 91.0 151 

RATIO t<G/t<KG 0.414 0.092 0.309 0.513 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 3.AS 0.928 2.79 4.72 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.013 0.003 0.009 0.016 

PH 6.59 0.210 6.40 7.07 

TEMP DEG C 9.19 0.687 8.52 10.1 

___ ~=-.=-________ .. ~~ ___ ~ __ ~ ________ .. _____________________ =-____ A'; ". ____ 

PLANT FS2 

4 SAMPLES 

201 
Table 61·. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS 

(ROUND) 

-------------.... --------------------------------.-•.. - ----______ -=-_ 

PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM . -----------------~---~~~---~-----~----------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCESS 'I'IME uRi DA Y 

FLCNI l/ SEC 

(GAl/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TON) 

SE'l'T. SOLIDS ML/ L 

RATIO II KKG 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KI<G 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANrC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/I<KG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

0.866 

3.67 

1.28 

1.00 

3.50 

8.00 

2.32 0.723 1 .44 3.41 

36.8 11.5 22.9 54.1 

4330 1270 2570 7060 

1 040 304 61 6 1 6~0 

0.895 0.580 0.218 1 .. 86 

3.87 2.51 0.943 8.05 

385 290 121 828 

1.66 1.25 0.526 3.58 

154 36.3 102 220 

0.665 0.151 0.443 0.950 

404 95.0 254 539 

1.75 0.411 1.10 2.33 

765 150 502 951 

3.31 0.648 2.17 4.11 

39.9 9.03 25.9 52.7 

0.173 0.039 0.112 0.228 

4S.2 20.3 12.4 74.5 

0.209 0.OS8 0.054 0.322 

2.49 0.600 1.66 3.66 

0.011 0.003 0.007 0.016 

7.03 0.192 6.64 7.30 

15.6 0'.372 15 .. 0 16.1 

----------------------------------------------------------~---

202 

PLANT FS3 

9 SAMPLES 
Table 62. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS 

(ROUND) 

----.=-~--_:..:e::III:= ____ 'lII8_..,. .......... __ ........... __ ...,,:_. __ ~ ... _______ .. _____ ._,... ___ ~ __ ~_.:._ 

PARAMET~R MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM ~-~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-----~~-~~------~--~----~--~---~ 

PRODUCTION TONIER 2.54 0.898 1.29 3.40 

PROCESS TIME BR/DAY 8.88 5.00 10.5 

FLOW L/SEC 1.81 0.539 1.09 2.24 (GAL/MIN) 28.8 8.56 17.2 35.5 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 2920 555 2110 3360 (GAL/TOO) 701 133 507 $06 

SETT. 

RATIO 

SOLIDR 

L/KKG 

ML/L 0.720 0.589 0.113 1.29 2.10 1.72 0.329 3.78 

RATIO 

SCR. SOLIDS 

KG/KKG 

HO/L 456 62.5 398 ~40 1.33 0.183 1.16 1.58 

SUSP. 

RATIO 

SOLIDS 

KG/KKG 

MG/L 236 72.2 133 300 0.6A9 0.211 0.388 0.877 

RATIO 

5 DAY BOD 

KG/KKG 

MG/L 538 208 247 691 1.57 0.609 0.722 2.02 

COD 

RATIO 

MG/L 

KG/KJ(G 

1070 459 500 1600 3.13 1.34 1.46 4.67 

GREASE 

RATIO KG/KKG 

& OIL MGIL 43.9 13.9 25.0 55.2 0.12S 0.041 . 0.073 0.161 

O~ANIC-N MG/L 93.1 40.8 40.4 136 RATIO KG/KKG 0.272 0.119 0.118 0.397 

AMMONIA-N 

RATIO KS/KKG 

MG/L 2.81 0.850 1.59 3.52 0.008 0.002 0.005 0.010 

PH 6.52 0 0 179. 6.38 7.08 

TEMP DEG C 15.7 0.,261 15.6 16.0 

--------------...------.-.-~-----------------

PLAN'!' PS4 

4 SAMPLES 

203 
The waste flows and loads for both pre-dressed and round 

fresh/frozen processes are relatively low and are comparable to 

the loads from the conventional bottom fish processes which will 

be discussed later in this section. No freezing salmon in the 

round processes were observed due to the poor season in Alaska, 

however, the waste loads from this process should be less than 

from the dressing operations. 

Product Material Balance 

The production rate varies considerably due to raw product 

availability. The rates observed at the round fish operations 

averaged about 16 kkg/day (18 tons/day). Round fish processing 

predominates in both Alaska and the Northwest, however, la~ge 

volumes of pre-dressed fish are handled on occasion as can be 

seen from the production rates for plant FST3. Table 58 shows 

that the food recovery of whole salmon varies from 65 to 80 

percent. Chum and silver salmon yield approximately 75 percent; 

sockeye, 78 to 80 percent; and pinks, 65 to 70 percent. These 

figures refer only to round salmon which are eviscerated and 

beheaded. The recovery of finished product for troll caught fish 

is about ten to twelve percent higher for each species since they 

are eviscerated at sea. The recovery of eggs and milt represents 

about five and three percent of the round salmon weight, 

respectively. other by-product recovery, such as the grinding 

and baggng of heads . and viscera, is done only occasionally in 

Alaska and for tile most part these solids are disposed of 

directly into the re~eiving water. The heads and viscera in the 

Northwest plants are usually collected for pet food or for 

reduction to fish meal. 

Bottom Fish and Miscellaneous Finfish Wastewater Characteristics 

The wastewater characterization data from the bottom fish and 

miscellaneous finfish industry is organized into the conventional 

processes (essentially manual unit operations), the mechanized 

processes, and the Alaskan processes, because of the different 

methods, and regions involved. 

Non-Alaska Conventional Bottom Fish 

Twelve conventional bottom fish, ground fish, and finfish plants 

in all non-Alaska regions were sampled in August and september, 

1973. In addition, historical data were available from four 

Northwest operations (25). Bottom fish are'often located in 

urban areas, use municipal water and sewer systems and operate 

year round with the species composition changing with the 

seasons. In general, there was no lack of fish during the 

monitoring periods except in New England where landings have been 

decreasing. 

204 
wastewater material balance 

There are a . operations. 

consi.dered to 

main options: 

variety of convent'ional .bottomfish processi?g 

However, for the filleting process, which ~s 

be the most important, there appears to be Only two 

the use of skinners, and/or scalers. 

Table 63 shows the wastewater balance for three operations (B2, 

B4, B8) which used skinners most of the time. The skinners are 

mechanical and can constitute a large percentage (13 to 64 

percent) of the flow and load (six to 36 percent of BOD) 

depending on the type used. The flow from the fillet tables is 

quite variable depending on water conservation prap-tices. It. is 

common practice for a small hose to ·be contimlilily running at 

each filleting position. Fish are sometimes rinsed before 

filleting or eviscerating, and are usually dipped: in a wash tan.k 

afterwards to clean and preserve the flesh. The. flows from 

either of these operations is relatively small, however, the BOD 

and suspended solids loads can be moderately high. 

Table 64 shows the wastewater balance for three operations (Bl, 

B6·, BII) which often used a descaler. It can b4f! seen that the 

descaler can contribute a substantial flow and waste load. 

Descalers which use high pressure water jets in airevolving drum 

were observed to contribute high loads. One, plant (~6) 

occasionally used a scaler which increased the water flow and 

waste load by a factor of four. This type of scaler was so large 

and contributed such a large waste . load that i.twas not 

considered to be a conventional operation. In general, the waste 

loads were about the same ·whether skinners or scalers were used. 

Tables 69 through 81 summarize the wastewater characteristics for 

each of the conventional bottom fish processes used to determine 

the subcategory summary_ Figure 44 presents a norma1ized 

convential bottom fish process plot of selected wastewater 

parameters for each plant monitored. Plants represented by codes 

BI and B2 are small ground fish processes in New ~ngland, plants 

FNFI, FNF2, FNF3 are finfish processes in the mid-Atlantic 

region,. FNF4 is a finfish process in the Gulf 'region, and B4' 

through Bl2 are bottom. ~ish plants on .the west coast~ Plant FNF3 

was not considered typical since all the fish were handled in the 

round.and no eviscerating or filleting operations· were carried 

out on the one day of sampling. There is a relatively large 

variability in flow ratios and waste loads between all ·the 

pi ants • This is caused partly by different proc'essing methods 

and mostly by different degrees of water conservation. The aver- . I. 

age. flows and loads from all these plants are relat~vely low and 

are comparable to the fresh/frozen . salmon pro1cess discussed 

previously. 

Product material balance 

205 
The production rate of conventional bottom fish processes varies 

considerably. The average' production level observed was 11 

kkg/day (12 tons/day) but varied from 2.8 kkg/day to 31 kkg/day. 

Table 63 shows the disposition of the raw product for food and 

by-products. The food product varies considerably (20 to 45 

percent) depending on the species, season, and whether it is 

processed whole or filleted. Table 65 shows the recovery figures 

for various species of New England ground fish. All figures are 

for fillets unless noted. 

are usually recovered 

is commonly used for 

On the west Coast it 

The solid wastes (carcasses, viscera, etc.) 

for various by-products. In New England it 

lobster bait or sent to reduction plants. 

is commonly used for pet or animal food or 

plants. 

sent to reduction 

Non-Alaska Mechanized Bottom Fish 

Four mechanized plants which used a high percentage of machin~ry 

and water were sampled in the New England, Gulf' and Northwest 

regions between August and Oct,ober, 1973. It was' a particularly 

good year for whiting in New England and large quantities of fish 

were available during the sampling period in August. The finfish 

process in the Gulf was sampled during October, 1973, which was 

during a period of higher than normal production. 

The two whiting plants sampled (Wl, W2) were considered to be 

typical mechanized operations where tile fish were beheaded, 

descaled, and partially eviscerated by mechanical methods and 

relatively large water flows were used. The finfish process in 

the Gulf (CFC1) was processing croaker for fish flesh and was 

highly mechanized. The ,Northwest p~ant (B6) used conventional 

processing except for the large scaler which produced a high 

waste flow. 

wastewater material balance 

Table 66 shows the wastewater sources for a typical whiting 

process. The process water includes water from the storage bins, 

the beheader and the descaler, and is the largest source of 

wastewater. The largest portion of the process water is due to 

the fluming of fish from the storage bins to the processing line 

using a high pressure hose and, elevator. The replacement of the 

hose by a dry conveyor system such as is used in the sardine 

plants would reduce the waste flow and load significantly. The 

visceral flume consti-tutes about 20 percent of the waste load and \ 

could be replaced by a dry conveyor system. 

The unit operations of the fish flesh plant were not sampled, 

however, it is estimated that the highest loads came from the 

washdown which lasted several hours. ' 

206 
I\) 

o 

...... 

Table b;:$. Conventional bottom fish· process material balance (with skinner) 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

% of Total % of Total 

Unit Operation Flow BOD 

a) skinner 13 - 64% 6 - 36% 

b) fillet table 22 - S3% 43 - 76% 

c) pre-rinse or dip tank . d.)-· washdown 

1 -

3 - . 

13% 7 - 26% 

21% .4_- 20% 

Totaleff1uent average 

B2, Boi, B8 SOOO l/kkg 2.S kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products % of Raw Product 

Food products 20. - 40% 

By-products 

a) carcass 

. (reduction, 

anl.mal food). 55 - 75-% 

Average Production Rate, 16.5 kkg/day (IS tons/day) 

% of Total. 

Susp. Solids 

5 - 39% 

39 - 80% 

5 - 34% 

7. - ~l_~ 

1.S kg/kkg 
Table 64 • Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with desca1er) 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

unit Operation 

a) descaler 

b) fillet table ~ c) pre-wash or dip tank 

00 d) washdown 

Total effluent average 

Bl. B10, Bll 

% of Total 

Flow 

42 - 66% 

21 - 36% 

3 - 10% 

7 - 18% 

10,000 l/kkg 

% of Total 

BOD 

56 - 61% 

16 - 30% 

4 - 8% 

6 - 19% 

2.5 kg/kkg 

% of Total 

Susp. Solids 

26 - 70% 

12 - 19% 

4 - 8% 

7 - 18% 

1. 6 kg/kkg 
Table 65. Percent recovery for 

New England ground fish 

Species (process) 

Ocean perch Cod (with skin) 

Cod (boneless) 

Cod (no skin) 

Haddock 

Haddock (no skin) 

Sea catfis~ (dressed) 

Sea catfish (fil2eted) 

Pollock (with skin) 

Pollock (no skin) . Flounder (small) 

Flounder (large) 

209 

% Recovery 

29 

40 

35 

37 

40 

37 

45 

30 

45 

40 

20 

30 
N 

--

o 

Table66 • Whiting freezing process material balance 

Unit Operation 

a) process water 

b) washdown 

c) visceral flume 

Total effluent average 

W1, W2 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

% of Total % of ' Total 

,Flow BOD 

70 - 75% 74 - 77% 

3 - 8% 2 - 5% 

22% 21% 

13,500 l/kkg 14 kg/kkg 

Product Material Balance Summary 

End Products % of Raw Product 

Food Products· 50% 

By-product 

a) heads, scales, 

viscera (to 48% 

reduction plant) 

Waste ~ 2% 

Average Production Rate, 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day) 

% of Total 

Susp. Solids 

74 - 78% 

'2 - 6% 

20% 

11 kg/kkg 
--. .-. :l>!'~ 

" , 

Table 67 0" Recovery of fillets' and fi~h 

flesh from West Coast bottom fish (27)-' 

Species 

English sole 

Flounder 

Ling cod 

Pacific qQd 

211 

% Recovery 

Fillets Flesh 

" )0., 

31 

28 

~ . 

60 

47 

43 

38 

.;., 
N 

-

N 

Unit Operation 

Table 68. Halibut freezinq process material balance 

Wastewater Material Balance Summary 

;, -of 'Total. it of 'Total 

Flow BOD 

a) head cutter/qrader 3' 11' 

b) washer 

c) washdown 79' 7~' 

18' 17% 

Total effluent average FRHI 8600 l/kltq- 1~5 kq/kkq 

Product Material Balance Sunmarf 

End Products % of Raw Product 

Food products 90% 

By-products 

a) heads 10% 

Wastes minimal 

Average Production Rate, 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day) 

, of Total 

Susp. Solids 

10% 

62% 

28% 

1.2 k9/kkq 
" 

Table 69. CIDUND FIS!! FILLET PROCESS 

------------------------------~-----~~---------~------------ PARAMETER MEAN· STD,. MINIMUM- MAXIMUM._ 

----------------------~----------~-----------~--------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

FLOW L/SEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TON) 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RATIO KG/t<KG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO t<G/t<t<G 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMON IA-N MG/ L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

0.528 

5.83 

0.418 

4.50 

0.653 

7.50 

0.226 .0.050 0.188 0.i84 

3.59 0.797 2.98 4.51 

1760 443 1210 2390 

422 106 290 572 

9.49 3.03 5.74 13.5 

16.7 5.33 10.1 23.7 

4530 2640 2690 7650 

7.96 4.64 4.73 13.5 

737 444 343 1420 . 1.30 0.781 0.6032.49 

1010 397 584 1410 

1.78 0.699 1.03 2.49 

1590 742 757 2620 

2.79 1.31 1.33 4.62 

40.2 .19.6 21.1 70.3 

0.071 0.034 0.037 0.124 

1 47 66 .9 7 6. 5 :. 241 

0.259 0.118 0.135 '0.425 

6.96 2.20 3.83 10~9 

0.012 0.004 0.007 0.019 

7.15 0.144 6.96 7.33 

20.9 2.41 18.7 22.5 

---------------------------~-~--~--~---------~--~-----------

213 

PLANT B1 

3· SAMPLES 
Table 70 • GroUND FISHFI~T PR)CESS 

------~--.--------------.---.----------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEY MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

-----_ ........ _--------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 0.654 0.018 0.632 0.681 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.84 4.70 7.70 

FLC'M LIsEe 2.27 0.004 2.27 2.28 (GAL/MIN) 36.0. 0.059 36.0 36.1 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 13800 359 13300 14300 (GAL/TON) 3310 86.0 3190 3420 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 4.69 3.89 .. 1 .• 46 10.1 RATIO L/KKG 64.7 53.7 ·20.2 139 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 186 115 58.0 366 RATIO KG/KK9 , 2.56 , 1.58 0.801 5.04 

5 DAY BOD. MG/L . 196 86.1 65.8 303 RATIO KG/KKG 2.7'1 1'.19 0.~08 4.19 

COD MG/L 423 124 243 613 RATIO KG/KKG 5.83 1.71 3.35 8.46 

GREA~E & OIL MG/L 25.1 6.~0 14.5 37.7 RATIO KG/K~G 0.347 0.094 0.200 0.520 

ORGANIC-N fItG/L 26.6 .. 16.7 9.76 52.6 RATIO KG/KKG 0.367 .. 0.230 0.135 0.726 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 2.70 0.961 1.51 4.00 RATIO KG/KKG 0.037 0.013 0.021 0.055 

PH 6.47 0.149 6.27 6.65 

TBMP DEG C 16.0 2.55 12.5 17.9 

---.. -...... -------....-----~-------------------------~----------

214 

PLANT B2 

5 SAMPLES 
~ --' 

· ., . ~, 

, ,.' 

.TABLE: ,-71 , FIN.FISH PROCESS. 

PARAMETER -... -----.. ------~ ....... --.~-- ... -.. --.. --~ .. ""'!-.-~~-------~-~------ .. ~---=~~-----

MEAN S10 DE" MINIMUM MAXIMlJM 

...... ----------.. ----.... ----------------... -------:.~--~------~~-.~:-.... ~---:-

,PRODUCTION .TON/HR 

PROCESS TIME HR/OAY 

FLOW L/SEC 

(GAL/MJN) 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

(GAl/TON) 

SETT. SOL I OS till l 

RATIO L1KKG 

SCR.'SOLIOS"G/~ 

RATIO KG/KI(G 

SUSP. SOLIDS' MG/l 

RATIO I(G/I(I(G 

5 DAY 800 I1GIL 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COO MG/l. 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE ~ OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-ti "'GIL 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N f1G/L 

RATIO KG/K KG;:, 

PH 

2.04 

6.48 

,2,.~37 

37.7 

1t.J70 

1050 

.' :4.16 

18.2 

0.494-·- .. ', 1.38 

;,' 0.751+ 

12.0' 

i180 

282 

2.17 

9.51 

>; ,," , -,' 

4.50 

:1.67 

26.5 

1.40 

6.14 

, ,579 ," '. ,403 ~252 

2.53 1.7& 1.10 , ... ;-. 

160 ,," 244 

0.701 1.07 

:-1030 ~; .. 180 :.' 870 

4.52 0.789 3.80 , ?" -';" " '; 

"1610 

7.05 

,·292 

1.28 

7.19 

0.031 

'10.3 

~"... :. t'", 

J;./'Z, , &61 

2.45 

115 

0.502 

." "20.0 

0.090 

2.33 

0.010 

'~,':' .. 719 

3.1Ct. 

, ,,' 

1&6 

0.72~ 

50.6 

0.221 

Ct..S8 

, :' 0.021 

O.121·"~",·6.60 

1.93 9.14 

2.47 

,,,:. 

5920 '~, 

1420 

6.38 

27.9 

899 ' 

3.93 

672 

2.91+ 

1190> 

5.22 

2240 

9.77 

434< -

1.90 

102·' 

O. '+44 

, 10.5 

0.'046 

12.5 

---------------~----------------------------------------------

215 

FLANT FNF1 

4 SAMPLES 

", 
Table '2. 'FINFISH PRote!SS 

-------------------~---~--~-~--~---~~--------------~-------~- PARAMETER MEAN S'l'D DEV MINIMUM' MAXIMQM 

----------~----~----~--------~~---------~----~-----.----~--

PRODUC'l'ION TON/~R 1.14 0.075 1.09 1.25 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.00 -- -- --

FLOW L/SFC ,1.~~ 0.6411.29 2.63 

(GAL/MIN) 30.9 10.2 ' 20.4 41 .7 

FLOW RATIO LlF.~G ~1g0 2200 4540 8940 

(GAU'l'ON), ~30 S26 1090 2140 

SETT. SOLIDS !o!LlL 6.18 3.02 2.36 9.67 

RA'rIOLlI<I<G 41.9 20.S' 16.0 65.6 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L 894 609 271 1630 

RATIO ~G/R~G 6.07 4.14 1.84 11.0 

SUSP. SOLIDS ~G/L 402 155 226578 

RA'l'IO !lG/I<I<G 2.72 1.05 1.54 3.!i2 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 8.64 ,311 429 1200 

RATIO I<G/R~G 5.66 2.15 2.~1 8.12 

COD MG/L ~ 470 472 973 1960 

RATIO KG/I<RG .' ~.i8 3.20 6.61 13.3' 

GREASE' &. OIL fo!G/L 119 52.8 '71.0 163 

RATIO KG/I<I<G 0.606 0.35B 0.522 1.11 

ORGA~IC-N MG/L 110 ·83.5 16.9 235 

RATIO KG/KI<G . 0.745 0.S~·,7 0.114 1.59 

AMt-!ONIA-N MG/L 7.59 3.31 . 3.15 11. D 

RATIO KG/I<I<G 0.051 0.022 0.021 0.079 

TEMP DEG C 24.3 0.191 23.7 25.2 

----------------.. .,..~~.~--------~,. ... -.. --... -------~~-----~~-~-- -----

216 

PLANT FNF2 

4 S~M~l..ES 
Table 73 • FINFISH PROCESS 

-------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

----------------~---------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCESS 'l'IME ER/bAY 

1 .93 

5.50 

1 .26 0.375 

2.50 

3.80 

8.00 

FLOW LlSEC 11.4 3.39 5.89 16.6 

(GAL/MIN) 181 53.9 93.5 263 

FLOW RATIO LiKKG 17500 5200 11100 28000 

(GAL/TON) 4200 1250- 2670 6710 

SETT. SOLIDS MLIL 47.1 13.7 35.9 59.0 

RATIO LlKKG 825 239 628 1030 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 630 501 29.5 1730 

RATIO KG/KKG 11.0 8.78 0.517 30.4 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 106 28 .. 5 55.9 147 

RATIO KG/~KG 1.85 0.499 0.~80 2.57 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 31'8 125 128 465 

RATIO KG/KKG 5.58 2.18 2.24 8.15' 

COD MG/L 571 211 231 811 

RATIO KG/KKG 10.00 3.70 4.05 14.2 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 35.7 11.9 15.3 53.7 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.626 0.209 0.279 0.942 

ORGANIC-N MG/L . 56.0 25.7 18.7 89.4 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.981 0.451 0.327 1.57 

AMMO~IA-N MG/L 3.95 1.68 1.82 7.52 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.069 0 0 030 0.032 0.132 

Ph 7.12 0.161 6.85 7.45 

'l'EMP DEG C 1 9.0 2011 1 7.6 20 .7 

--------------------------------------------------------------

217 

PLANT FNF4 

5 SAMPLES 
Table 74. BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS 

--------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM --------------------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 1 .99 

PReCESS '.rIME HR/DAY 8.00 

FLow I/SEC 1 .41 0.141 1 .21 '1.54 (GAL/MIN) 22.4 2.24 19.2 24.5 

FLOW RA'.rIO UKKG 2840 770 2150 3860 (GAL/'.rON) 681 184 516 924 

SETT. SOLIDS MLiL 3.06 0.662 2.68 3.90 RATIO I/KKG 8.69 1.88 7.60 11 .1 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 264 54.6 216 323 RATIO KG/KKG 0.750 0.155 0.615 0.~19 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 225 91.2 151 354 RATIO KG/FKG 0.638 0.259 0.428 1 .01 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 388 140 229 565 RATIO KG/KKG 1 .10 0.399 0.649 1.61 

COD ?'G/L 741 313 455 1150. RA'1'IO FG/KfrG 2.11 0.888 1.29 . 3.27 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 64.~ 20.7 41.5 91.6 RA'IIO KG/KKG 0.182 0.059 0.118 0.260 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 49.7 23.8 28.5 82.2 RATIO KG/KFG 0.141 0.068 0.081 0.234 

AM.'10~IA-N MG/L 3.55 0.893 2.77 4.53 RATIO FG/KKG 0.010 0.003 0.008 0.013 

PH 7.19 .0.115 7.08 7·.34 

TEMP DEG C 16.5 1. 73 14.7 11.4 

--------------------------.---------------------.. _ ....... --~--------

218 

PLANT B4 

4 SAMPlES 
Table 75. BOTTOM FISH PILLET PROCESS 

-~---~-""'----~ ... --_.a."'~-___________ "mD~""'. ______ ,-"",~_",,, __ ,,, __ 

PARAMETER MEAN S'1',O DEV MINIMUM MAXI~M ---.. ----..---...-~~._ .. ll'Q.,...-.a::a ... ::S' •. :.::--•• ~~""l'e""""~~,~"'_"" _______ ~ __ ... _____ ... _ "~' -', :. ' .. , 

PRODUCTION TON/BR 2.61 0.633 , 1.66 3.34 

PROCESS TIMEHR/DAY 8.00 -- FLOW L/SEC 3.62 0.7'12 2.38 4.52 (GAL/MIN) 57.5 11.3 37.7 71.7 

FLOW RAT:f:O L/KKG 5880 1790 3920 9310 (GAL/TON ) 1410 429 939 2230 

RATIO 

SB'l'T. SOLIDS 

L/KKG' 

'ML/L 4.88 1.82 '2.16 7.24 28.7 10.7 12.7 42.6 

SCR. SOLIDS;MG/L 202 ~340 7 , 163 241 RATIO I(G/1(1(G 1.19 0.198 0.956 1.42 

SUSP. 

RATIO 

SOLIDSMG/L 

KG/KKG 

171 62.6 85.9 266 1.00 ,0.368 0.505 1.56 

RATIO 

5 D.AY KGIKKG BOD ;fIIJ/L 346 157 153 581 '2.04 A;~,·'22 0.901 3.42 ' 

COD 

RATIO 

MG/L 

KG/I(KG 

608 239 300 914 3.58 1.41 1.76 5.38 

RATIO 

GR~SE & OIL 'MG/L 60.9 18.1 34.9 89.0 1(G/1(KO 0.359 0.'06 0.205 0.523 

RATIO 

ORGANIC-N 

KG/KKG 

MG/L 44.9 22.4 20.7 80.0 0.264 0.132 0.121 0.471 

RATIO 

AMMONIA-N 

KG/1(KG 

MG/L 2.49 1.19 1.25 4.25 , 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.025 

PH 7.09 0.146 6.89 7.36 

TEMP DEG C 16.8 0.251 16.7 17.0 

-----------------------~-.. --------------- PIANT as 

5 SAMPLES 

219 
Table 76. BOTTO~ FI.SH FILLET PROCRSS 

--------------~~~------~-~~~----~--------~--.----------------- PARAf.".ETER '., MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

-----------------------~~~.--------------~~-~~----------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCESS ~IME HR/DAY 

FLOW' USEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO II KKG 

(GAL/'ION) 

SETT. SOLIDS MIlL 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L R.~TIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG ' 

5 DAY BOD MG/L" 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RA'l'IO JCG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

1 .29 

5.00 

1.30 

8.00 

3.19 0.672 2.53 3.88 

50.7 10 .. 7 40.2 "61.6 

~990 .. 2050 . 7950 12100 

2390 492 191 0 2890 

2.05 ~~515 1.51 2.54 

20.5 5.15 15.1 25.3 

.. 

63 .0 5 • 34 5 9 • 6 69 • 2 

0.630 0.053 0.596 0.691 

9,6.2 33.1 60.2 125 

0.961 0.331 0.601 1.25 

1 98 90.9 1 02 283 

1.97 0.909 1.02 : 2.83 

359 171 1 66 P 29 

3.59 1.71 1.86 5.28 

22.26.33 16.9 29.2 

0.222 0.063 0.169 0.292 

31.8 15.8 15.9 47.6 

0.318 0.158 0.159 0.475 

1.74 0.818 0.844 2.45 

0.017 0 0 008 0.008 0.024 

7.26 

1.12 15.6 17.0 

---------~--------------------------.--------------------------

220 

PIANT B7 

3 SAMPLES 
Table 77 ~ BOTTOM FISE FILLE'!' PRCCF~S 

--.--~-----------~--~---~-- .... ,." --_.------ --------, .... _-----_.- -------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MI~IMUM MAXIMUM 

----------------------------- --------------------------------- PRODUC'!'ION 'iON/ ER 

PROCESS '!-U1E- I-iR/~AY 

FLOW LlSEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RA '1'1 C LI I<KG 

( GALl 'l'ON) 

SE'l"I. SOLIDSML/ L 

RA'lIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG ' 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RA'I'IO KG/KYG 

COD MG/L 

RA'l'IO ¥G/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RA'l'IO KG/Kt<G 

ORGANIC-N MGIL 

RA'lIO t<G/K¥G 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RATIe ¥G/K~G 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

5.12 

6.75 

1 .00 3.73 

5.50 

'. 6.10 

8.00 

~.08 0.807 7.~2 9.84 

144 1 2.8 126 156 

7550 1020 0150 8910 

1 81 0 245 1 480 21 40 

3.b8 0.764 2.85 4.53 

27.8 5.77 21.5 34.2 

203 154 67.0 383 

1.53 1.16 0.506 2.89 

301 108 176 464 

2.27 0.815 1.33 3.51 

-594 20~ 388 ~34 

4.48 1.57 2.93 7.05 

1050 308 680 1530 

7 .:11 2.32 5.1 3 11 .5 

86.7 65.2 34.~ 1~6 

0.655 0.492 0.203 1.33 

73.4 29.8 28.4 106 

0.555 0.225 0.215 0.797 

4.30 2.57 2.11 8.41 

0.032 0.019 0.016 0.064 

7.13 0.128 7.01 7.38 

10.6, 0.711 16.1 17.0 

_________ ~ ____ ..J'& ______ .__ ...... -------- ------------...... --------- .. ----------

221 

PLANT AS 

4 SAMPLES 
Table 78. BOT'l'OM FISH FI LLE '1' PROCESS 

------------------------------ -------_._-----------------------

PARAME'l'ER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

--------------------------------------------------------------

PRDDUCrflON 'l'ON/liR 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 7.00 

0.362 1 .70 

6.00 

2.21 

8.00 

FLOW LlSEC 7.53 0.490 7.18 7.88 

(GAi.lMIK) 120 7.76 114 125 

FLOW RATIO UKI<G 15700 3890 12900 18400 

(GAL/~ON) 3750 934 3090 4410 

SE'l"!'. SOLluS MIlL 4.29 1.41 3.30 5.2~ 

RA~IO LlKKG 67.2 22.1 51.6 82.8 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 94.1 86.5 33.0 155 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 1 .47 1 .35 0.516 2.43 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 1 61 91.5 96.4 226 

RA'l'IO KG/KKG 2.52 1 .43 1.51 3.53 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 263 99.0 193 333 

RA'l'IOICG/KJ(G 4.11 1.55 3.02 5.21 

COD MG/L 451 214 2~9 602 

RATIO KG/KKG 7.05 3.35 4.68 9.42 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 36.4 8.38 30.5 42.3 

RA'l:IO KG/KKG 0.570 0.131 0.477 0.663 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 35.4 12.4 26.6 44.2 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.554 0.195 0.417 0.692 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 1 .58 0.257 1 .40 1 .76 

RA'l-IO ICG/KI<'G 0.025 0.004 0.022 0.028 

PH 7.26 0.037 7.23 7.28 

'l:EMP ,)EG C 16.1 

--------------------------------------------------------------

222 

PLANT B9 

2 SAMPLES 
Table 79 • BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS 

-------------------..... .--_----------.-_-- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIJ«JM 

-----~~--------------------------~-----

PRODUCTION TON/HR 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

FLOW L/SEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLCM RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TON) 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/ KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KI<G 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 

RATIO I<G/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

1.25 

6.70 

6.58 

104 

22700 

5440 

1.72 

39.0· 

79.1 

1.80 

156 

3.53 

298 

6.78 

3.92 

0.089 

22.5 

0.511 

1.21 

0.027 

14.4 

0.419 0.741 1.88 

4.20 

1.20 5.08 9.14 

19.0 80.7 145 

5910 13800 31700 

1420. 3310 7610 

0.814 P.800 2.92 

1$.5 18.2 66.4 

21.4 

0.487 

8.07 

0.183 

89.8 

2.04 

7.72 

0.175 

0.362 

0.008 

0.262 

2.73 

46.5 

1.06 

148 

3.35 

171 

3.89 

12.8 

0.290 

0.622 

0.014 

6.10 

10.8 

124 

2.82 

164 

3.72. 

492 

11 .2 

39.0 

0.886 

1.90 

0.043 

7.00 

18.8 

-----.... --.-----------~-------------------

223 

PLAN!' B10 

9 SAMPLES 
Table 80 • BoT'rOM FISH FILLET PRd!:!ESS 

-----_..-.... -,,_ ... ---_ ... :_-.. .. ---------... ------.=--------.:-------:.----:~ .. --.... ~.~-=-

MINtMUM MAXIMUM PARAMETER ME~ S'.1'O »EV ___ ..... ' __ ~ _______ .... ___ ..:.. ___ ... ____ ~~-;" .. =--... --=---.-.. _-... ::-___ .1tO __ '''-_____ ~ .... _ c .... _ , •• 

PRODUCTION TON/ER 1.08 0.318 0.694 1.89 

PROCESS 'rIME HR/DAY 7.08 3.80 9.20 

FLOW L/SEC 1.50 0.368 0.750 .2.51 

(GAL/MIN) 23.8 5.84 11.9 39.8 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 5630 1420 2150 9420 

(GAL/TON) 1350 340 516 2260 

SETT. SOLtDS fltL/L 3.63 1.78 1.33 8.38 

RATIO L/KKG 20.5 10.0 7.49 47.2 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L ... - RATIO l<G/KKG 

SUSP. SOLII)S MG/L 2A5 96.9 101 490 

RATIO KG/KKG 1.61 0.546 0.571 2.76 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 381 -~. 

-- RATIO KG/KKG 2.14 

COD MG/L 902 334 21S 1560 

RATIO KG/KKG 5.08 1.8S 1.23 Se81 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 143 - RATIO KG/KKG P 0.805 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 74.0 22.1 32.0 118 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.417 0.125 0.180 0.666 

AMMDN:IA-N MG/L 4.93 1.88 1.55 10.4 

RAT:IO KG/KKG 0.028 0.011 0.009 0.058 

PH 5.82 0.241 5.40 7.16 

TEMP DEG C 12.4 3.95 7.10 17.5 

-------..... -----------.--,-----...... _.,-----------.. 

224 

PLANT B11 

11 SAMPLES 
Tabl.:! 81. BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS 

----------~~-------------...---------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIl«JM ----.... ---~.-~----------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/ER 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 

FWW L/SEC 

(GAL/MIN) 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 

(GAL/TOO) 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATIO L/KKG 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

5 DAY BOD W3/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG . 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP DEG C 

1.58 

25.1 

4690 

1120 

322 

1.51 

597 

.2.80 

1300 

6.08 

107 

0.504 

6.42 

0.030 

5.89 

13.2 

0.432 0.800 

4.00 

0.250 0.971 

3.97 15.4 

6$3 3500 

156 838 

1.99 1.87 

9.31 8.78 

70.6 

0.331 

407 

1.91 

32.7 

0.153 

2.58 

0.012 

0.222 

184 

0.865 

668 

3.13 

54.8 

0.257 

5.57 

9.00 

2.13 

9.00 

6300 

1510 

10.0 

46.9 

525 

2.46 

2160 

10.1 

160 

0.749 

12.0 

0.056 

17.2 

----------------------------------

225 

P~"'1' B12 

7 SAMPLES 
Tables 82, 83, and 84 summarize the wastewater characteristics 

from the mechanized plants which were used to determine the 

subcategory average. Figure 45 contains-a normalized mechanized 

bottom fish process plot for selected wastewater parameters for 

each plant sampled. 

Product material balance 

The production levels for typical whiting processes are 

relatively high. The average rate observed at the two plants 

sampled was 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day). Table 66 shows that the 

food recovery is higher for the whiting -than other ground fish 

since only the head and viscera are removed. The solid waste is 

typically sent to reduction plants. 

The production ~oads at the fish flesh process- observed was 

lower, averag1ng 5.0 kkg/day (5.5 tons/day), however, the 

industry is expanding and it is predicted that production levels 

will increase. Typical food recovery figures for fish flesh 

operations using various species of bottom fish are listed in 

Table 67. 

Alaska Bottom Fish 

The halibut is the most significant bottom fish processed in 

Alaska. Two halibut processes in urban" areas of Alaska were 

monitored during July and August, 1973. The sampling period was 

in the middle of the season; however, the operations were 

intermittent due to a poor harvest. Two typical halibut 

processes were observed; whole freezing and fletching, but 

neither contributes a very high waste load.' 

wastewater material balance ' 

Intake water was obtained from the municipal water system and 

discharges were either to municipal sewer systems or to the 

receiving water. 

Table 68 shows the wastewater balance for a whole halibut 

freezing operation. The first unit operation is the grading and 

head cutting operation, which produces a minimal waste load 

comprising about three percent of the total flow and a somewhat 

larger percentage of the BOD and suspended solids loads. One 

plant observed used no water for this operation. The washing 

operation 1S handled in two different manners, and they produce 

substantially different waste flow~. In one system, a continuous 

spray washer is used, as well as spray hoses for the gut cavity. 

For this, the flo~l and waste' loans are rather large, comprising 

about 80 percent of the total flow and 70 percent of the BOD. 

The other method involves washing the fish in shallow tanks with 

brushes. This produces a much lower flow, but higher waste 

226 
concentrations such that the waste load is similar to the other 

method. For both processes observed, the washdown was similar, 

producing about 20 percent of the total flow and waste loads. 

The waste flows from a halibut fletching process are minimal, 

with the washdown around the trim table constituting about 80 

percent of the total BOD load. Table 85 and 86 summarize the 

wastewater characteristics for the two halibut processes sampled. 

Product material balance 

The production rates at halibut processing plants can be quite 

high. The average production for the whole freezing operation 

was 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day), while the average production for 

the fletching operation was 5.6 kkg/day(6.2 tons/day).. 

Solid waste. from the freez~g operation is minimal since the only 

non-food pro~uct is the heads which are often used for bait. 

There is no visceral waste since the fish are eviscerated at sea. 

solid waste from' the fletching operation is about 40 percent 

which consists of the carcasses and heads which may be used for 

bait or disposed to the receiving waters. 

SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

Two sardine canning plants were monitored during the month of 

September, 1973. Due to the declining herring fishery, some 

difficulty was encountered with raw product availability during 

september, 1973, hence the operations were intermittent and fewer 

samples were' obtained thcin originally·" planned. However, 

additiona1historical data ·were obtained from the Edward c •. 

Jordan Company, of Portland,. Maine who conducted studies for the 

Maine Sardine Council over a period from the fall of 1970 to 

early 1971. . 

Wastewater Material Balance 

Table 87 shows the wastewater material balance for a typical 

sardine canning plant. Each of the plants sampled used city 

water for in-plant processing. Available surface water (salt or 

brackish) was used to transport the fish from trucks or boats to 

brine storage tanks. 

Conveying fish to the packing tables was observed to contribute 

18 to 62 percent of the water. Another large source of waste 

loading is the stickwater from the precooking operation. The 

flow is quite low, however, the BOD and suspended solid loadings 

are significant. A very great reduction in BOD, suspended 

solids, and grease and oil could be made by storing the 

stickwater from the precook operation and transporting it to a 

reduction plant for oil and solubles recovory. The sample data 

indicated that approximately 70 percent of the total grease and 

227 
Table 82. WHITING FREEZING PROCESS 

------------------,....------.----_ ..... ---------- . PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MIklMUM MAXIMUM 

~------.. ----..... --~~~-----.---~~-----------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 7.10 1.41 4.00 8.05 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 8.76 ... - 5.00 10.5 

FL~ L/SEC 17.2 2.51 14.9 21.5 

(GAL/MIN) 274 39.8 237 341 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 10200 3730 7500 18100 

(GAL/TON) 2450 894 1900 4340 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 9.77 2.21 5.90 12.0 

RATIO L/KKG 89.6 22.6 60.3 122 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 1100 722 209 2140 

RATIO KG/KKG 11.3 7.37 2.14 21.9 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 859 282 491 1320 

RATIO KG/KKG 8.77 2.88 5.02. 13.4 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 1160 353 683 1820 

RATIO KG/KI<.G 11.8 3.60 6.98 18.6 

COD fIi3./L 2040 789 1200 3250 

RATIO KG/KKG 20.8 8.06 12.3 33.2 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 270 178 1 Q7 559 

RATIO KG/KKG 2.75 1.82 1.09 5.71 

~GANIC-N MG/L 98.4 36.2 52e2 146 

RATIO KG/KKG 1.01 0.370 0.533 1.49 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 3.70 0.949 2.01 4.78 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.038 0.010 '0.020 0.049 

PH 6.93 0.028 6.91 6.97 

TEMP DID C 19.6 1.58 17.8 20.5 

... --------------------------...-----------

PLANT W1 

7 SAMPLES 

228 
Table 83 • WHITING FREEZING PROC&~S 

-=----------....---------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEY MINIMUM MAXIMUM -------~-------....,----------------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 4.71 1.13 3.60 6.27 

PR OCE..C; S TIME fiR/DAY 3.15 2.30 4.80 

FLOW L/SEe 19.3 2.16 16.1 21.7 (GAL/MIN) 307 3.4.4 255 344 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 16900 3530 13000 21200 (GAL/'J.'ON) 4050 845 3120 5090 

RATIO 

SETT. 

L/KKG 

SOLIDS ML/L 5.40 3.24 1.77 8.30 91.2 54:7 29.9 140 

seRe SOLIDS MG/L 649 587 234 1060 RATIO KG/KKG 11.0 9.91 3.95 18.0 

RATIO 

SUSP. 

KG/J<KG 

SOLIDS MG/L 778 212 492 1040 13.1 3.57 8.31 17.6 

5 DAYPBOD MO/L 1010 400 434 1400 RATIO KG/KKG 17.0 6.75 7.32 23.6 

RATIO 

COD MG/L 

KG/KKG 

2150 764 974 2760 36.3 12.9 16.4 46.6 

GREASE 

RATIO KG/KKG 

& OIL MG/L 323 177 104 494 5.44 2.99 1.76 8.34 

RATIO 

ORGANIC-N 

KG/KKG 

MG/L 79.9 19.4 53.2 99.7 1.35 0.328 0.899 1.68 

RATIO 

AMMONIA-N 

KG/KKG 

MO/L 4.04 1.18 2.94 5.37 0.068 0.020 0.050 0.091 

PH 7.71 

TEMP DEG C 

----------.----------------------...------------------

229 

PLANT W2 

4 SAMPLES 
Table 84 .• CROAKER FISH FLESH PROCF.SS 

-------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

----------------------------------- _., ....... , ..... -----------------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR 0.801 0.119 0.712 0.937 

PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.90 2.50 8.00 

FLOW USEC 3.26 1 .62 1.82 6.45 

(GAUMIN) 51.8 28.9 28.9 102 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 16700 10700 10200 35600 

(GAl/TON) 4010 2570 2430 8530 

SETT. SOLIDS MIlL 8.27 3.07 5.76 13.0 

RATIO LlKKG 138 51.4 96.3 217 

SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 344 190 116 575 

RATIO KG/KKG 5.76 3.17 1.94 9.62 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 252 148 74.1 468 

RATIO KG/KKG 4.21 2.48 1 .24 7.83 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 678 291 395 1110 

RATIO KG/KKG 11.3 4.66 6.60 18.5 

COD MG/L 1210 566 536 1980 

RATIO ICG/KKG 20 0 3 9.47 8.96 33.1 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 91 .. 3 64.8 11 .5 187 

RATIO KG/KFm 1 0 53 1 .08 0.193 3.13 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 124 47.1 62.5 175 

RATIO KG/KKG 2.08 0.788 1.05 2.93 

AMfw'ONIA-N MG/L 4.84 2.00 3.27 8.30 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.081 0.033 0.055 0.139 

PH 7.23 0.191 6.97 7.75 

TEMP DEG C 21.6 1 .33 20.0 23.3 

--------------------------------------------------------------

230 

PLANT CFC1 

5 SAMPLES 
Table 85 • HALIBUT FREEZING PROCESS 

----... ~-...... ----..... -------------.... ----..... --..... -----~-------.. PARAMETER MEAN STD DEY MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

----_ ......... -.... - ..... _----_ .. - -....---~------------... --..... 

PRODUCTION TON/DR 7.64 3.32 3.91 13.2 .. 

PROCESS TIME DR/DAY 4 .. 76 2.50 9.50 

FLOW L/SEe 13.1 0.6811 11.7 14.0 

(GAL/MIN) 208 10.8 185 222 

FLOW RATIO L/KKG 8580 1920 5610 10600 

(GAL/TON) 2060 460 1340 2540 

SET'!'. SOLIDS ML/L 0.328 0.2·59 0.132 1.03 

RATIO L/KKG.: 2.81 2.22 1.13 8.87 

SOLIDS MG/L 

- ',. - .i:' r .. .' ". 

SCR. 944 321 542 1290 

RATIO KG/KKG 8.10 2.75 4.65 11 .1 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 137 38.9 8·1.6 206 

RATIO KG/KKG 1.'8 0.334 0.700 1.76 

5 DAY BOD MG/L 179 41.2 104 255 

RATIO KG/KIC'G 1.54 0,,405 0.1393 2.18 

COD MO/L 402 116 243 613 

RATIO KG/t<KG 3,44 0.998 2.08 5.26 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 59.4 211.8 28.5 99.1 

RATIO KG/KI<G 0.510 04}H~7 0.244 0.A50 

ORGANIC-N m/L 24.8 13.7 3.53 54.8 

RATIO KG/KKG 0.2113 0.117 0.,039 0.470 

AMMONIA-N MG/L 3.29 1.58 1.53 6.03 

.RATIO KG/KKG 0.028 0.014 0.013 0.052 

PH 6.95 0.057 6.85 7.02 

TEMP Dm C 10.8 0.282 10.5 11.1 

_________ ~_ ... __ ..... ___ -... ............. _____ ~=_:a....: .... __ ...__ __ ~_._..,'=_O_ .. _._~ ___ ....... _ 

PLANT FRH1 

9 SAMPLES 

231 
Table 86. HALIBur F'LE".ICHING PRCX!fr.;Ss 

------------------------..;~.:..-'::-=~~.:..~~---~-----• .;..:.'~-------------- PARAMETER MEAN STD PEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM 

----.-'------------------------------------------~--------------

PRODUCTION TON/HR~ 

PROCESS TIME HR/~AY .. 

FLOW L/SEC 

(GAL/~.IN) 

FLOW RATIO L/K~G 

(GAL/TON) 

SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 

RATI9 L/KKG 

SCR. SOLI~S MG/L 

RATI.o !<G/!(KG 

SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 

RATIO KG/f<KG 

.t 

5 DAY BOD ~G/L 

RATIO F<'G/~F<'G 

COD MG/L 

RATIO KG/f<KG ... t.. ~ • 

GREASE & OIL MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

ORGANIC-N MG/L 

RATIO KG/KKG : . 

AMMONIA-N ~G/L 

RATIO KG/KKG 

PH 

TEMP ~EG C 

1.13 

5.50 

0.75.6 

12.0 

2380 

571 

20.6 

49.1 

314 

0.749 

775 

1.85 

876 

2.09 

" > .. 

1870 

4.46 

33.6 

0.080' 

174 

0.415 

3.87 

0.009 

9.44 

1.00 1.27 

2.50 7.00 

o • 11 8 0 .684 0 .893 

1.88 10.9 14 02 

565 2010 3040 

135 492729 

2.65 18.9 23.8 

6.32 4~~0 56.8 

213 163 . 465 

0.508 0.389 :1.11 

75.4 69~. 875 

0.180 1.67 2.08 

52.1 

0.124 

121 

0.289 

1.19 

0.003 

12.0 

0.028 

1.11 

0.'0·03 

0.123 

--

813 

1.94 , 

1720 

4.09 

32.1 

0.076 

158 

0.377 

2.72 

0.00, 

6.13 

928 

2.21 

2000 

4.77 

35.0 

0.083 

184 

0.437 

5.17 

0.012 

6.44 

'''"'t 

--------~--~-~-----------------------------~------------------

232 

PLANT FFH1 

3 SAlt1PLES 
Be1oit-Passavant corporation, P. o. Box 997, Janesville, 

Wisconsin 53545 

Black-Clawson Company, Middletown, Ohio 54042 

Envirex, Inc., 1901,S. prairie, Waukesha, Wisocnsin 53186 

Environmental Systems, Division of Litton Industries, Inc., 

354 Dawson Drive, Camarillo~ California 93010 

Infilco Division, westinghouse Electric Company, 901 South 

campbell Street, tuscon, Arizona 85719 

Keene Corporation, Fluid Handling Division, cookeville, 

Tennessee 38501 

Kom1ine-Sanderson Engineering corporation, peapack, New 

Jersey 07977 

Permutit Company, Division of Sybron Corporation, E. 49 

Midland Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 

484 
* c 

!n 

G) 

0 

< 

m 

;lJ 

z 

'5! 

m 

z 

.... 

"1l 

;lJ 

z 

::! 

z 

G) 

0 

" " n 

m 

~ 

'f 

.. .j::o f 

CO c; 01 & 

MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) 

English Unit 

acre 

acre - feet 

British Thermal Unit 

British Thermal Unit/pound 

cubic feet/minute 

cubic feet/second 

cubic feet 

cubic feet 

cubic inches 

degree Fahrenheit 

feet 

gallon 

gallon/minute 

horsepower 

inches 

inches of mercury 

pounds 

million gallons/day 

mile 

pound/square inch (gauge) 

square feet 

square inches 

tons (short) 

yard 

Abbreviation 

ac 

ac ft 

BTU 

BTU/lb 

cfm 

cfs 

cu ft cu ft cu in 

OF 

ft 

gal 

gpm 

hp 

in 

in Hg 

Ib 

mgd 

mi 

psig 

sq ft 

sq in 

t 

y 

* Actual conversion, not a multiplier 

Table 203 

Conversion Table 

by 

Conversion 

0.405 

1233.5 

0.252 

0.555 

0.028 

1.7 

0.028 

28.32 

16.39 

0.555(OF-32)* 

0.3048 

3.785 

0.0631 

0.7457 

2.54 

0.03342 

0.454 

3785 

1. 609 

(0.06805 psig+l)* 

0.0929 

6.452 

0.907 

0.9144 

Abbreviation 

ha 

cu m kg cal 

,kg cal/kg cu m/min cu m/min cu m 1 

cu cm 

°C 

m 

1 

l/sec 

kw 

cm 

atm 

kg 

cu m/day 

km 

atm 

sq m sq cm kkg 

m 

TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS) 

Metric Unit 

hectares 

cubic meters 

kilogram - calories 

kilogram calories/kilogram 

cubic meters/minute 

cubic meters/minute 

cubic meters 

liters 

cubic centimeters 

degree Centigrade 

meters 

liters 

liters/second 

kilowatts 

centimeters 

atmospheres 

kilograms 

cubic meters/day 

kilometer 

atmospheres (absolute) 

square meters 

square centimeters 

metric tons (1000 kilograms) 

meters