# L/LJD1150L{

# IA

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

ForsalebytheSuperintendentofDocuments,U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice 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 byJuly 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 representedby 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.

iiiSection 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 481Number 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 ratiosversus production levels conventionalbottom fish**BOD~** ratiosversus production levels conventionalbottom 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 clamprocess Typical hand shucked surf clamprocess Conventional or mechanical clam process plot Typical steamed or cannedoysterprocess Typical hand shuckoysterprocess Fresh/frozen. steamed, or cannedoyster process plot west Coast oysterflow ratios versus production level west Coast oyster**BOD~** ratios versusproduction level west Coast oystertotal suspended solids ratios versus production level EastCoast oyster flow ratios versus production level EastCoastoyster**BOD~** ratios versus production level Eastcoastoyster total suspended solids ratios versus production level Typical scallopprocess Alaskan scallopprocess plot Typical abaloneprocess Abalone process plot Fishmeal 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 Fishmealprocess plot (with solubies plant) intake and discharge Log-normal formulas for the subcategory mean and standard deviation Chloride correction curves for COD determinationon seafood processingwastes Finfishwastewater 20-dayBODvs S-day BOD scatter diagram shellfishwastewater 20-day BODvs S-day BOD scatter diagram Seafoodwastewater S-day BOD vs COD scatter diagram Industrial fish wastewater S-day BODvs COD scatter diagram Finfishwastewater S-day BOD vs COD scatter diagram Shellfishwastewater S-dayBOD vs COD scatter diagram Schematic drawing of in-plant dry solids removal system.(Temco, Inc.) Pneumatic unloading system (Temco, Inc.) Alaskan physical treatmentalternative, remote plantswithadequate flushing available Increase inwaste loads throughprolonged contactwith**~7ater** Typicalhorizontal drumrotary screen Typicaltangential screen Typical screen systemfor seafoodprocessing operations Typical dissolved air flotation system for seafood processingoperations Dissolved airflotation unit (CarborundumCo.) Removal efficiency of DAF unitused 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

358lumber
89 Air flotation efficiencyversus influentCOD concentration for various seafoodwastewaters 90 Typical extendedaeration systemfor seafood processing operations 91 Removal rate of filteredBOD ina batch aeration reactor 92 Removal rate ofunfilteredBOD ina batch aeration reactor 93 Typical aerated lagoon system 94 Dailymaximum andmaximum 30-day average basedon log-normal summary data 95 Costs and removal efficiencies for alternative treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 96 Operationandmaintenance costs for alternate treatment systemsversus hydraulic loading 97 Capital costs and dailyoperation andmaintenance cost curves for a wastewater screeningsystem98 Capital cost curves for a wastewaterair flotation system 99 Operation andmaintenancecosts of anairflotation system 100 Capital costs arid daily operationand.maintenance costcurves for an aerated lagoon 101 Capital costs and dailyoperation andmaintenance cost curves for anextended aeration system 102 waste disposal costs for landfill orocean disposal

xiii Page

359
361
363
364 369
376
382
382

383
384
385
386

387
436TABLES 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 

### Mechanicallybutchered salmonprocess summary Annual productionof Northwestfresh/frozen salmon Daily peakproduction rates of Alaska**fr~sh/** 

### frozen salmon plants Hand butchered salmon process summary Alaska bottomfish (halibut) process summary Non-Alaska bottomfish size distributon conventional bottomfish process summary Mechanical bottom,fish process summary waste load reduction using dry conveyor Sardine in-plant fish transportwa"ter, storage area topacking area Sardine canningprocess summary Herring filleting process summary conventionalclamprocess summary**Mechanica~** 

### clamprocess summary Steamed or cannedoyster process summary 37 westcoasthand-shucked oysterprocessing summary 38 Eastand Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing summary 39 40 

### 41
42
43 44 

### Scallopprocess summary Abalone**p~ocess** 

### summary ',' ':'""' 

### Fishmeal production with solubles plant materialbalance Fish meal production with bailwater material balance Menhaden reduction process (discharge), M2 Menhaden reduction process (discharge no scrubberwater), 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 ." ; ,,',

-, Fishmeal'productionwithout 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 (handbutcher), CS6M Salmon canning process (withoutfluming), 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) Conventionalbottomfish process material balance (with descaler) Percent recovery for New Englandground fish Whiting freezing process materialbalance Recoveryof 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 materialbalance 212 69 Ground fish filletprocess, Bl 213 70 Ground fish fillet process, B2 214

. 71 Finfishprocess, FNFl 215 72 Finfishprocess, FNF2 216 73 Finfishprocess, FNF4 217 74 Bottomfish fillet process, B4 218 75 Bottom fish fillet process, B5 219 76 Bottomfish filletprocess, B7 220 77 Bottom fish fillet process, B8 221 78 Bottomfish filletprocess, B9 222 79 Bottomfish fillet process, B10 223 80 Bottomfish 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 Croakerfish flesh process, CFCl 230 85 Hall.but freezing process, FRHl 231 86 Halibutfletchingprocess, FFHl 232 87 Sardine canninqprocess materialbalance 233 88 Sardine canning process, SAl 235 89 Sardine canningprocess, SA;2 236 90 sardine canning process, SA3 237 91 sardine canning process, SA4 238 92 Herring filletingprocess materialbalance 240 93 Herring filletingprocess, HFl 241 94 Herring filleting process, HF2 242



### xviiilumber

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 clamcanning process material balance Surf clammeat process (mechanically shucked), FCL2 Surf clammeat process (mechanically shucked), FCL3 Hand-shucked clamprocess 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 materialbalance Hand-shucked oysterprocess material balance Oyster steam process, SOl Oyster steamprocess, 502 Oyster steamprocess, 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 Oysterfresh/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 scallopsfreezing process, 5P1 Scallops freezing process, SP2 Abalone fresh/frozen process materialbalance 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 precisionanalysis for suspended

solids, COD, andgrease andoil Summary ofprecisionanalysis for ammonia and

organic nitrogen summary of ammonia recoveryprecisionanalysis Summary of grease and oil recoveryprecision

analysis 20-dayBOD/S-dayBOD ratio est1mation for

finfish and shellfishwastewater 5-dayBOD/COD ratio estimation for industrial

fish, finfish and shellfishwastewater Typical composition of fish and shellffsh (portionnormallyutilized) Recoveryusing 20-mesh screen for various

seafoodcommodities Recovery of proteinswithhexametaphosphate Coagulation of proteins with SLS Typical fishmealprocessbailwatercharacteristics Fishmeal stickwater characteristics Northern sewage screentestresults SWECO concentratortestresults SWECO vibratory screenperformanceon salmon canningwastewater Tangential screenperformance Gravity clarificationusingF-FLOK coagulant Results of dispersed air flotation ontuna wastewater Efficiencyof EIMCO flotator pilotplant on tunawastewater Efficiencyof EIMCO flotator full-scale plant ontuna 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 EfficiencyofCarborundumpilotplantonGulf shrimpwastewater EfficiencyofCarborundumpilotplanton Alaska shrimpwastewate'r " EfficiencyofCarborundumpilotplanton menhadenbailwater Efficiency of full-scale dissolved airflotation on sardinewastewater EfficiencYof full-scale dissolvedairflotation onCanadian seafoodwastewater ActiVated sludgepilotplantresults EfficiencyofChromaglas packageplanton blue crab andoysterwastewater ' Removal efficienciesof screens for various seafoodwastewater effluents Removal efficiencies oftreatment alternatives Estimatedpracticable in-plantwastewater flow reduotions and associatedpollutional loadinqs reductions (1983 andnew source) Estimatedpotential in-plantwafer andBOD reduction Treatmen't:. systemcostequations water effluenttreatment with solubles plant costs: fishmeal Water effluenttreatmentcosts: fishmeal without solubles plant Water effluenttreatmentcosts: Northwest salmoncanning -large Water effluenttreatmentcosts: Northwest salmoncanning

- small Water effluenttreatmentcosts: WestCoast fresh frozen salmon- large Water effluenttreatment costs: westCoast fresh frozen salmon

- small Water effluenttreatmentCQsts; WestCoast 

### 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 effluenttreatment costs: west Coast fresh frozen salmon

- large 

### 397 163 

### water effluent treatment costs: West 'Coast fresh frozen salmon

- small 

### 398 164 

### Water effluenttreatment costs: west Coast fresh frozen salmon

- small 

### 399 165 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan conventionalbottom fish

- large 

### 400 166 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan bottom fish

- large 

### 401 167 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan bottomfish

- medium 

### 402 168

. 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan conventionalbottomfish

- medium 

### 403 169 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan bottomfish

- small 

### 404 170 

### water effluenttreatmentcosts: Non-Alaskan conventionalbottom fish

- small 

### 405 171 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan mechanizedbottomfish

- large 

### 406 172 

### water effluenttreatment costs: Non-Alaskan mechanizedbottomfish

- small 

### 407 173 

### water effluenttreatment costs: conventional clams

- large 

### 408 174 

### water effluenttreatment costs: conventional clams

- small 

### 409 175 

### water effluenttreatmentcosts: conventional clams

- small 

### 410 176 

### water effluenttreatment costs: conventional clams

- small 

### 411 177 

### Water effluenttreatment costs: mechanized clams

- large 

### 412 178 

### water effluenttreatment costs: mechanized clams

- large 

### 413 179 

### Water effluenttreatment costs: mechanized 

### 414 

### xxii

### Number
clams

- large 180 water effluenttreatment costs: mechanized clams

- small 181 water effluent treatment costs: mechanized claims

- small 182 water effluenttreatment costs: mechanized clams

- small 183 water effluenttreatment costs: Pacific hand shucked oyster

- large 184 water effluent treatment costs: Pacific hand shucked oyster

- medium· 185

.Water effluenttreatment costs: Pacific hand shucked oyster

- small 186 Water effluenttreatment costs: Eastern hand shucked**oys~er** - medium 187 water effluent treatment costs: Steamed or canned oysters 188 water effluenttreatment costs: Sardine canning

- large 189 Water effluent treatment costs: Sardine canning

- medium 190 water effluenttreatment 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 effluenttreatment costs: Abalone herring filleting Incremental water EffluentTreatment Costs for Alaskan Segments

- Alaskan Salmon Canning andAlaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon Incremental water Effluent Treatment Costs for Alaskan Segments

- Alaskan BottomFish Incremental Water EffluentTreatment 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 eff1uerifiimitations July 1, 1983 effluent limitations New source performance standards
, Conversion Factors, Englishto Metric units



### xxiv Page



### 433
434
435 440 446 451 485SECTION 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) varietyof the species beingprocessed; 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 exemplaryplants. At the present time many plants in the contiguous states and almost all Alaskan plants discharge solid and liquidwastes 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 canbe in compliance by July 1, 1977. 

### The 1977 

### limitations are based on**tec~nology** 

### which can be utilizedwithin 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 andbarging of solids in non-remote areas, and comminutor or grinders in remote areas. In addition tothe 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 intheirinfancy inthis industry, rapid progress is expected to be made by the industry in the next· four to sixyears. The regulated parameters includetotal suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH for the limitationbased 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.

2SECTION 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 inTable ,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, 1977EFFLUENTLIMITATIONS Parameter (kg/kk!lor1bs/lOOO 1bs**$~afood**

### processed) BODS TSS'; Grease

## & Oil Techno1oQY Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30- Oan,Y Max 30- Subcategory (BPCTCA)**~1ax** 

### Da,VaV!l Max Dayavg Max Dayavg O. FishMeal 1- 

### withsolub1es 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. AKhand-butchered**sa~mon** 

### 1. 

### non-remote H,S,B 1.7 1.4 0.20 0.17 2. remote Grind 

## * .* * 

# '* * * Q. AKmechanizedsalmon 1. 

### non-remote H,S,B 27 22 27 10 2. remote Grind 

## * * * * * * 

# • R. WestCoasthand-butchered salmon H,S 1.7 1.4 0.20 0.17 S. WestCoastmechanizedsalmon H,S 27 22 27 10 T. AKbottomfish 1. 

### non-remote H,S,B 3.0 

### 1.9 4.3 0.56 2. 

### remote Grind 

## * * * * * * U. 

### Non-AKconventiana1bottomfish H,S 2.1 1.6 0.55 0.40 

### V. Non-AKmechanizedbottomfish H,S 14 10 5.7 3.3 

### W. Hand-shuckedclams H,S 59 18 0.60 0.23

### Table1 (cont'd) July 1, 1977EffluentLimitations Parameter (kg/kkgor 1bs/1000 1bs seafoodproc'essed) BODS TSS Grease &

### 0;1 Technology Daily -Max 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30- Subcategory (BPCTCA) Max Dayavg Max Dayavg Max Dayavg


## -- X. Mechanizedclams H,S 90 1.5 

### 4.2 0.97 

## Y. PacificCoasthand-shucked oysters** H,S 37 35 1.7 1.6 

### Z. East

## &GulfCoasthand-shucked oysters** ·H,S 19 15 0.77 0.70 

## AA. Steamed/Cannedoysters** H,S 270 190 2.3 1.7 AB. Sardines 1- 

### dryconveying H,S,GT*** 36 10 3.5 1.4 C1i 

### 2. wetflume H,S,GT*** 48 16 6.3 2.8 AC. AKsca11ops** l. 

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

### Non-AKscallops** H,S 6.0 1.4 7.7 0.24
··,1" 

### AE. 

### AKherringfillet .: ' 

### 1. 

### non-remote H,S,B .1·· 

### 32 24 27 10 2. remote Grind * 

# * * * * *

### Table1 (cont1d) July 1, 1977EffluentLimitations Parameter (kg/kkgor 1 bs/l000 1 bs seafoodprocessed) BOD5 TSS Technology Daily -Max30- Daily Max30- Subcategory (BPCTCA) Max Dayavg**~** 

### Dayavg AF. Non-AKherringfillet AG. Abalone H,S H,S 32 24 27 15

H=

### housekeeping; S=

### screen; OAF =

### dissolvedairflotationwithoutchemical optimization; B

## =bargesolids; GT

## =greasetrap *Nopollutantsmaybe_4ischargedwhichexceed 1.27cm (0.5 inch) inanydimenston **Effluentlimitationsintermsoffinishedproduct ***Effluentlimitationsarebasedontreatmentofthepre-cookwaterby screening and skimmingoffreeoil,and screeningfortheremainderoftheeffluent Grease

## & Oil Daily Max30-

Max Dayavg 27 10

2.2 1.4

### Table2 July 1, 1983EffluentLimitations Parameter (kg/kkg orlbs/1000 lbs seafoodprocessed) Subcategory Techn010

# J Y BODS TSS Grease

### &Oil (BATEA DailyMax. 30- Dailyr1ax. 30- Daily Max. 30- Max. Day avg.**r~ax.** 

### Day avg. Max. Day avg. O. 

### Fishmeal IP 4.0 2.6 2.3 

### 1.3 0.80 0.63 P. Akhand-butchered salmon IP,S,B 1.5 1.2 

### 0.18 0.15 Q. Akmechanized 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. WestCoasthand-butchered salmon IP,S,OAF 1.2 1.{) 

### 0.15 0.12 0.045 0.018 S. WestCoastmechanized salmon IP,S,DAF 16 13 2.6 2.2 2.6 1.0 T. 

### Akbottomfish IP,S,B 1.9 1.1 

### 2.6 

### 0.34 

### U. Non-Akconventional bottom fish IP,S,AL 0.73 0.58 1.5 0.73 0.04 0.03 

## V. Non-Akmechanizedbottomfish IP,S,DAF 6.5**5~3** 1.1 

### .0.82 0.46 0.26 

### W. Hand-shuckedclams IP,S 55 17 

### 0.56 0.21 

### X. Mechanizedclams IP,S,AL 15 5.7 26 

### 4.4 0.40 0.092

### Table2(Cont'd) ProposedJu'y 1,1983EffluentLimitations Parameter ";(kg/kkgor 1bs/1000 1bs seafoodprocessed) Subcategory Techn010

# J Y BODS TSS Grease

## &Oil (BATEA DailyMax. 30- DailyMax. 30- Daily Max. 30- Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg. Max. Dayavg. 

### Y. PacificCoast**hand-shuck~d** 

### oysters* H,S " 37 35 1.7 1.6


# z. EastGulfCoasthand-shucked oysters* H,S 

### - 19 15 0.77 0.70

" 

## AA. Steamed/Cannedoysters* IP,S,AL 67 17 

### 56 39 0.84 0.42

co 

### AB. Sardines IP,S,DAF** 36 10 1.3 0.52 AC. Akscallops* IP,S,B 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 AD. Non-Akscallops* IP,$ 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 AE. Akherringfillets 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

### Table2(Cont'd) ProposedJuly 1,1983EffluentLimitations Parameter (kg/kkgorlbs/1000 1bs seafoodprocessed) Subcategory Technology (BATEA) AF. Non-Akherringfi1lets IP,S,DAf

. AG. Abalone IP,S BOD5 DailyMax. 30- Max. Day avg. 6.8 6.2 

### TSS Dai1yr1ax.**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-plantprocess changes; S

## =screen; OAF

## =dissolvedairflotationwith chemical optimization; AL

## =aerated lagoon; EA

## =extendedaeration; B

## =bargesolids ' *Effluent-Limitationsin terms offinished product

, . 

### **EffluentlimitationsbasedonOAFtreatmentofthe canwash andpre-cookwater, and screeningfortheremainderoftheeffluent

### TABLE 3 NEWSOURCEPERFORMANCESTANDARDS Parameter (kg/kkgorlbs/1000lbsseafoodprocessed) BODS TSS Grease &

### Oil Daily f.1ax 30- Daily Max30- Daily Max30- SubcategorrY Technology Max DaXavg Max naXavg Max DaXavg O. Fishmeal IP 4.0 2.9 2.3 1.3 0.80 0.63 P. Akhand-butcheredsalmon 1. 

### non-remote IP,S,B -' 

### 1.5 1.2 0.18 0.15 2. remote grind 

### * * * * * * Q. Akmechanizedsalmon 1. 

### non-remote IP,S,B, 26 21 26 10 2. remote grind 

### * * * * * *

-' 

### R. WestCoasthand-butcheredsalmon IP,S,DAF 1.7 1.4 0.46 0.37 0.058 0.023 0 

### S. WestCoastmechanizedsalmon IP,S,OAF 36 32 7.9 6.5 3.8 1.5 

### T. Akbottomfish l- 

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

### * 

## '* '* * * 

### * U. Non-Akconventional bottomfish IP,S,AL 0.73 0.58 1.5 

### 0.73 0.04 0.03 

### V. Non-Akmechanizedbottomfish IP,S,DAF 9.1 7.4 3.3 2.5 0.68 0.39 W. Hand-shuckedclams IP,S 55 17 0.56 0.21

### Table3(Cont'd) NewSourcePerformanceStandards Parameter (kg/kkgorlbs/1000lbs seafoodprocessed) BODS TSS Grease &

### Oil Daily -Max30- Daily Max30- Daily Max30- Subcategory Technology Max Oalavg**~** 

### Dalavg Max Dalavg 

### X. Mechanizedclams IP,S,AL 15 5.7 26 4.4 0.40 0.092 

### Y. PacificCosthand-shucked oysters** H,S 37 35 1.7 1.6 

### Z. East &

### GulfCoasthand-shucked oysters** H,S 19 15 0.77 0.70 /lA. 

### Steamed/Cannedoysters** IP,S,AL

-67 17 56 39 0.84 0.42



# ... -.I 

### AB. Sardines IP,S,DAF*** 36 10 1.4 0,57 AC. Akscallops** 1. non-remote IP.S.B 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 2. remote grind * * * * * * AD. Non-Akscallops IP,S 5.7 1.4 7.3 0.23 AE. Akherringfill1ets 1. 'non-remote IP,S,B 23 18 

### 20 7.3 2. remote grind 

## * * * * * 

### *

### Table3 (Cont'd) NewSourcePerfonnanceStandards Parameter (kg/kkgorlbs/lOOOlbs seafoodprocessed) BODS TSS Daily Max30- Daily Max30-

. Subcategory Technology Max Dayavg Max Dayavg IP,S,DAF 16 15 7.0 5.2 AF. Non-Akherringfillets AG. Abalone IP,S 26 14

IP

## =in-plantprocesschanges; S

## =screen; OAF

## =dissolvedairflotationwithoutchemical optimization;AL

# =aeratedlagoon; EA:extendedaeration; B

# =bargesolids *Nopollutantsma,ybedischargedwhichexceed 1.27cm (0.5inch) inanydimension **Effluentlimitationsintermsoffinishedproduct ***EffluentlimitationsbasedonDAFtreatmentofthecanwashandpre-cookwater, andscreeningfortheremainderoftheeffluent Grease &

### Oil Daily Max30-

Max Dayavg 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 ownedtreatment 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 thanJuly 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 eliminatingthe 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 treatmentworks for those pollutants which ar·e determined not to be susceptibleto treatment by such treatment works or which would interfere with the operation of such treatment•



# . Section 304(b) of theAct 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 alternatives. 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 industrywere 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).



### 13Section 306 of the Act requb:el':> the Administratorr 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 Administratorpublished 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 l6r 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 catfishr 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 ClassificationManual 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 changedto 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 fishr shrimp, oysters, clamsr crabs, and other seafoodr including soups; and those engaged in smokingr saltingr drying or otherwise curing fish for the trade. Establishments primarily engaged in shucking andpacking fresh oysters innonsealed containers, or in freezing and packaging fresh fish, are classified in Industry 2092.It Canned fish, crustacear

and mollusks caviar: canned and

preserved Clambouillon, brothr

chowderr juice: bottled or canned Codfish: smoked, salted,

driedr and pickled Crab meat, canned and

preserved Finnanhaddie (smoked



### 14Fishr canned Fish egg bait, canned Herring: smokedr saltedr

dried, and pickled Mackerel: smokedr saltedr

dried, and pickled Oystersr canned and pre-

served

. Salmon: smokedr 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, andcold 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 significantwaste 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 shellfishwhich are canned or processed fresh or frozen for baitor 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.steadilyfrom 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

15Table 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 Average6 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 " IMPORTS til Q



# .... Z (Xl t:> 

### 8 0 P4

### ~ H ..:i H H III 

### 4

DOMESTIC CATCH


## o1960 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, roundweight 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 13,753N 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.SPINYLOBSTER II.MENHADEN 12.FIN FISH 13.CROAKERFISHCAKES 14.PICKLED HERRING liS.CLAMS 16.SEA HERRING 17.AMERICAN 1.0BSTER 18.WHITING 19.SARDINE



### Figure 2. 

### Locations and commoditiessampled 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 PACKAGING 

## 4.OYSTERS

Figure 4. Northwest region locations and commodities sampled.


### 22NEW HAMPSHIRE

MASSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT 

# / / '--../ I

MAINE

LBOTTOM FISH 2.SEAHERRING .3.LOBSTER 4.MENHADEN 5.WHITING 6.SARDINE

Fiqure 5. New England region locations and commodities sampled.


### 23PA. NEW YORK CONN.

2.0YSTERS 3.MENHADEN 4.PICKLED HERRING 5.FINFISH

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



### 24LOUISIANA**"""""""-~--'---------,,.,-----** ..---.-------..--_.-_..

MISSISSIPPI

GULF OF MEX,ICO ALABAMA

FLORIDA

LA BATRE

I.FINFISH 2.CROAKER FISH CAKES !.MENHADEN

, .. Figure 7. Gulf region locations andcommodities sampled.



### 25 

### \- \ 

# \ 

# \ 

# (

i."

## ~ 

# - -n 

# - o I. 

### SPINYLOBSTER 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.


### 26Table 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



### 27domestic andimported raw materials was a record $2.3 billion.**)~** percent above the previous record reached in 1971 (Table 5). In addition tothe value of these processed products, the total supply of fishery products increased in 1972, largely due to greaterimports (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 seafoodindustry considered inthis 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 andhandling are discussed in this section. Amore detailed discussion of specific processes and wastes generated will be found in sections IV and V, which deal with industry categorization andwaste 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 countrywas 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 ofthis 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 supplyof fish meal decreases. Table 7 shows the volume andvalue 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.



### 28with 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 anchovy0 These fishes and the attendant reduction industry were'considered to be important from a pollution impactviewpoint 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 duringthe day within 60 km (37 mil of the reduction plant. A small plane is used to spot concentrations of fish and direct the carrierboats 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 joinedand its perimeter reduced to concentrate the fish. The carrier vessel comes alongside the net and pumps 

### 29the catch aboard. The catch is generally reduction plantwithin 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 inJuly and August (2). Ninety-nine percentof 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 oilwhich 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 soldas fish solubles. , Anchovy The northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) is a small pelagic fish, averaging six inches in length atmaturity, which is found in large schools off thewest 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). Coincidentwith the failure of the sardine fishery, the anchovy fishery has exhibiteda 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
30w 

### '" 

### " 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 LANDINGSW 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 ,AClncSAAO'IHU



### \ /f"\

# !**~,'---.** \ .-1 135.27 Mn.LICN POUNOS

ANCt-lOVIES ' '-**~** 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** o

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). Preliminaryfigures indicate the catch for 1973 was higher than previous years (1). Once caught, the anchovy are pumped directlyinto 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,processingvary considerably. Over the years the industry has shifted emphasis from salting, drying, smoking, and pickling to freezing and'canning asmethods 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 detailedprocess description for each appears in Section IV.
Salmon One of the most iml;)ortant finfish processing segments coveredwas the preservation of salmon by canning and freezing. The first salmon cannerywas 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, growingurbanization 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 seasonwas also unimpressive. Processing plants in Alaska are typically located in isolated areas or in small towns. centers of production in Alasl{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 1.1934



## * 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

SALMONPINK_**~~ ~.-.I**  SOCKEYE**~. ~.-.I**  CHUM_**~.~ ~++I**  COHO_**~**

# ...

# .**-~** KING_ 

# •••••

# ...... HALIBUT 1+.**~**

# ....**~ ~** 

# ....**~**

# .....**~**

# ....

Table 10. 

### Processing seasonpeaks 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 orhumpbacked 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 1972r 22r200 kkg (48.8 million lbs) of this species were harvested. Each fish atmaturity weighs 1.4 kg to 2.3 kg (three to five lbs)• Caught incidentally along with the red and pink salmonr over l8r600 kkg (41 million lbs) of**ch~r** or dog salmon (0. ketal were harvested in 1972. This fishr like'the pink salmon, ranges from Northern California to the Bering Sea. Special late seasons for gill netting the dog salmon are held inAlaska. Their average weight is 2.7 kg to 3.6 kg (six to eight lbs). cohor or silver salmon**(~kisutch)** and the king, or chinook salmon**(~** tschawytscha)are caught mainly in southeasternAlaska and along the oregon and Washington coasts. Awell-known king salmon run also occurs at Dillingham inBristol 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 inBristol Bay are generally set on a day-to-day basis with closures in peak years occurring when the daily capacityof the canneries is reached. In "off" years, closures are enforced when escapementis not adequate to sustainthe 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 eightweighted lines fished atvarious depths. One or two men handle the relatively small boats. Both artificial lures and natural bait areused. 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 frozenr butmay be canned. High prices arepaid 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 byentanglement; 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 maybe 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 (- 290F). 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"Bottomfish,." 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 oceanbottom. 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 percentof the total landings of edible finfish for that year. Individual plants may utilizeboth 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,. withthe 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 hopefullywill 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
40Flounder: 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

41Table 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 2560depending on thetypes 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 ottertrawl is the major method used in the Gulf. Haul netting and pound netting are two methods regularly used along the mid-Atlantic- Coast; the thirdmethod 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 andkind 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 skilledworkers cut away the two fleshy sides. These portions are then eithermechanically 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 relativelynew 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
43stenolepis) 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) towhich the united States, Canada, and Japan belong. Itis 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 theirhalibut 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 immediatelybutchered 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 -450C (-490F). 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 

### 44Fiqure 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 Dfish 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 lawwas 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 andPacific 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 tryto 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 theC\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- I

### a: 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** 



### 48manufacture 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 fish are then**p.r.·~.:!cooked** in a Itsteam 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** England0 The filleting ?peration is a relatively recent development, having been used 

### 1P New England for only three years and having startedin Alaska just lastyear. 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.;fpodindustry 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 shellfishby species (1)


### 1971 1972 1967-1971 (average) Weight (lbs) Value ($) 

### Weight (lbs) Value ($) 

### Weight (lbs) Species x 1000 

# x1000 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 9386I 

# \ 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 areas0 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, ormuddy sand. Their sizevaries 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 orhog 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, alsoknown as cherry stone, chatter, little neck,. or round clam" is found from theGulf of St. Lawrence to the


### 51Gulf 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 compositionto 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 clamshave 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 economicallyimportant centers range from Maine to Massachusetts and the Chesapeake Bay region. It is a small industrywhich 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 whenwater quality fails to meet state regulations. In New England, where the soft clams are mainly intertidal, hand forks orhand hoes are the dominant harvesting teChniques., The hydraulic dredge is used in the Chesapeake Bay area. The dredge utilizes water pressure to disturbthe 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 industrialwastes, and dredging which has The number of clambeds 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 andThe 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, orused for baitby 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 (cassostreavirqinica), the Japanese or Pacific oyster (Cassostrea qiqass), and the Olympia or native oyster (Ostrea lurida). The eastern oyster is found on the east coastof 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 inthe Gulf. Pacific oyster seed originates in Japan and is planted along the west Coast. The shell iselongated and grows to 30 cm (12 in.) or longer. The olympia oyster, native to the Northwest, rarely exceed sixcm (2.75 in.) (14). Oysters are marketed in the shell, fresh packed, steamed, smoked, frozen, breaded, andin chowders and stews. A large amount is utilized by restaurants. The shell is used commercially as poultryfood, 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 seedused 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 thewires 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 Statesby 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 inMaryland (15). 

### 53Figure 15 reviews the history of oyster meat production in the United states by region. Aquaculture, using techniques developed by the Japanese, is being used increasinglyto raise production. Ithas been found that by "artificially" optimizing conditions more oysters can be grown per unit area of bottom, the growth rate canbe 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 increaseto 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 Americanmarket. 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 jarthe 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. 54IL 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

# 1

0

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) 

### 5570

60

,50

Ii 40 

# " :z: t; Z trJ ..oJ Z <C trJ :IE 30

20

10

o / / / /4 / I / / / I I '/ 'I**~** DIFFERENCE OF 20.48mm.

RAFT GROWN 

### I



# , DIFFERENCEOF

13.14mm. 

# I

.//

_/



### ------ /

BOTTOM GROWN**~** 

# j

() I I / /**SONDJFMAM~JASONDJFMAMJ** JASOND 1956 19157 1958



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

### 56Scallops 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 accomplishedby scraping the bottom with iron dredges of varying design. Sea scallops and calico scallops are usuallyfound 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 commerciallyharvested 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 eitherwith 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 

### 57Table 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

58load. 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. Althoughutilized by the Indians for thousands of years, abalone were not commercially collected until the early 1850's. Rapid depletion ofthe 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 earlyJapanese "sakebarrel"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 basketwhich 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 andwashed. 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 !!!



### 60SECTION 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 rawproduct 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 coveredunder a previous study (Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for theCatfish, Crab, Shrimp, andTuna Segment of the Canned and Preserved seafood Processing Point Source Category, June 1974, EPA-440/l-74-020-a). Since this studycovered a large number of commodities, the approachwas 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. Ahigh 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 theresults of the matrix analyses for the finfish and shellfishcommodities, 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.


### 61Table 

### 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

62Table 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



### 63The 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 obtainthe desired information were determined with the help of the importance matrix. It was estimated that there were about eight commodities with potentiallyhigh pollutional significance, about twelve commodities with potentially medium significance, and several other commodities of minimal signficance. Amaximum 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 effluentand 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,odities 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 treatmentwere also considered. Itwas 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 occasionallywith 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.
64The 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 varietyof 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 theywere 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, sincesimilar 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 theproceSSing 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
65fish 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 (especiallymanual versus mechanical) and the number of employees available. The evidence developed during the monitoring phase of this study indicates thatwaste 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 subcategorywould 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. Atotal 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 Ageneralized 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 indm.tr-y mll"t- pmploy**fa~t**, pffie-ient mpans of unloading. A
66AVAILABLE SlJRFACE WATE,I!

TO SOLIP.S DiSPOSAL BAILWATER**~-~"..,.--~---**



### I

# -~ ....

# ~..

# ~ PROCESS FLOW BAILWATERAN0

WASHWATER FLOW WASTEWATER FLOW WASTE SOLIDS FLOW

availablesurface WATER 

### -I 

### I 

### I I I

---------------- 

# 1 I 

# r

EFFLUENT**Figur~** 18. Typical large fish meal production process.


### 67mechanized bailing system is generallyused 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 screenswhich remove much of the remaining scales and small pieces from the bailwater. The bailwater is then collected in large holding tanks located belowthe 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 effectedwith 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 "rawboxes" in the industry. Depending on plant location, anchovy are**gener~lly** vacuum drawn from the boatholds directly into the processing plant. Some plants located inland transport the anchovyby 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 conveyedto 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 (2300F) and at the outlet, about l160C (2400F). 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 batteryof 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 conveyedto 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 areused in some plants. In the direct dryer, heat is generated by a gas flame. The gas from this combustion plus secondary airis passedg 

### along with the wet press cake, through large rotating drums. The temperature at the entrance of the dryer is typically about 5400

### e (lOOOOF) and at the outlet of the dryer is typically about 930

### 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 organicmaterial. The scrubber offgases may then be recirculated to the dryer inlet and burned. steam jacketed dryers cannot reburn thevapors. 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 themixture 

### 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 liquorby the use of centrifugal oil separators. These devices operate in a, continuous manner, spinning the press liquor at a high velocity to effecta three phase separation of solids, oil, and stickwater by 

### nature of' their different densities. The oil produced in this process is usually refined or polishedbythe reintroduction of water, known as washwater.**T~e** 

### oi1watermixture is then reseparated. This polishing removes fish protein and solub1es which cause putrefaction of the oil during storage. The oil is then pipedto large storage tanks andheld for shipment. The water separated from the press liquormixture contains dissolved and suspended protein, fats, oil, and ash., This mixture is termed "stickwater." As the stickwater is generated, itis pipedto 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 bodywhile the ·first body is suppliedwith steam at 2 atm (absolute) and 

### 1210

### C (15 psig, 250o

### F,. 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, 810

### e (-7.5 psig, l78°F); andthe third at 57o

### e, 

### 0.13 atm (1350

### F, -12.8 psig). Two 

### 69effects are sometimes used instead of three, and product flow direction may be opposite to that of the vapor. In ao,dition, some plants operate withvapor 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. Abarometric 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 "hotwell." 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 preventedby 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, thepH 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 rapidlyenough 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
70PRESS 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 (WHEIIEAVAILABLE '

....1
1

1 

## + EFFLUENr

Figure 19.Typical small fishmeal production process.
71Regardless of the species being rendered, there are three general types of discharges 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 thestickwaterbut 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. Atotal of 56 end-of-pipe composite samples and a total of'l45 unit pperation samples were collected. Five of the plan"t.s were menhaden reduction plants locatedon 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 spreadwith 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 bailwaterwas generally lower. Plants M2 and M3 provided good examples of the reduction in waste loads that canbe achieved bybailwater 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 stickwaterplus bailwater discharge. Table 

### 72Figure 20. 

### FISH 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 

### BG B 

### GP 

## • 0 

### S B G a GF' 1. F Q 

### S 

## eG a GP



## • BS BS F 

### SGP a G 

### a P 

## • S aSG a aSG BSGF 

## eG 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 PlantM2 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%



### 74Figure 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 SOLIDS 1 INCH 

### = 20 KG/kl(G G 

### GREASE '5 OIL 1 INCH

## = 20 KG/KKG P PRODUCTION 1 INCH 

## = 2 TON/HR**------------------------------------------~----------- --** 



### 75Table 

### 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 Unitoperationwastecharacteristicsforfishmeal processingwithouta solublesunit (PlantA3). Flow BOD5 TSS G&O l/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg kg/kkg UnitOperation (% oftotal) (%oftotal)(%oftotal) (%oftotal) Stickwater 842 66 55 36 (press liquor) (45%) (93%) (94%) (95%) Scrubberwater 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;

### nglepass (39%) 

### (7%) (6%) (5%) fish,unloading)



### 7619 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.fromplants 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 summaryparameters. 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), itwas 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 tenderholds 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. Abutcheringmachine is usedby most butchering operation. Many plants 

### 77 plants to accomplish the in -the Northwest manuallyTable 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~** 

# --------------------------------------------------------------.--------- PROOUCTI0N nOtuHR)· 33." 28.2 TIHE" (tiR/OAY)· 22.1 2.22 FLOW (LISEe)· 242 

### us. hiAL/Mlh)* 3840 2470 FLOW RATIC (LIKICG) 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 GREASE 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.TSCLlieLES 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...eNORI1Al**(UhhEIG~TE[)** HEAN ANC STA

..CARO CEVIATIOh, RESFECTIVELY

7970



### 60 

# •

'.,

., . 

### 50


### .-. , ' , 

### ,

.-.. 

### 8 40 0 r- ><



### ....... tn 

# •**~ ~**  ....... r- ::c 

### 30 0ru..

: 

# • 20 

# •

-'" 

### 10

00 2 4 6 8 

### 10 12 14 16 

### Production kkg/day (Xl00) rigure22 " 

### Fishmeal flow ratios versus production 1 evel
805

4 

# •

3 

# • 

# •

0'1**,~ ~** 
........ 0'1**~** L() 0 a co 2 

# •

1



## oL-----L-

__**~**____**~**____**~**____ _L

____**~**__**~~--~** 

## o 2 4 6 8 

### 10 12 14 

### 16 Production kkg/day (X100) Figure 23

Fishmeal BODS ratiosversus 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 

### 1.0 V')



### ..... I'd of-) 0 I- "';'

### 0.5



## o 

# •

o 2 

# •



# •

4 6 8 

### 10 12 14 Production kkg/day (X100) Figure 24 Fishmeal total suspended solids ratios versus production level

82 

# •

16Figure

### 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.
83butcher 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 withwarmwater tokeep 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 mechanicallypacked 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 vacuumpump 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 l200C (2500P). The cans are water cooled by either flooding the retort, placing the cans in a water bath, or spraying the cans withwater. These cans are then further aircooled before casing and shipping'. Many canneries do not employ water cooling of retorted cans; they simplyair-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 brinebefore 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 BristolBay and Puget Soundr 

### 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 andused for baitor pet food. Some plants grind the heads with the other solidwastes 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 onlymajor factor which may prompt further subcategorization is geographic location. The salmon canning industrywas 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 intothree 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 20g

### 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 summaryplot of the wastewater characteristics of three salmon canning plants inAlaska (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)• Itwas 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 atCSN3 appears to have been higher

,than average; however,·this may have been due to the fact that·

samples were taken from a sumpwhere solids accumulated overthe 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 inboth 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), itwas assumed 'that the waste loads oer unit of production are independent of production level. The canning operations in the Northwest which hand butcher are includedwith 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 FILL0PERATlON) PRODUCT FLOW WASTEWATER FLOW WASTE SOLIDS FLOW

DISCHARGE WHOLE OR GRIND a OISCHARGE OR GRIND,BAG FREEZE,SHIP FOR PETFOOD

Figure

### 26

.Typical salmon by-product operations.**~I** 

### I

I 

### I 

### +
EFFLUENT20 .1-

lIS -f---

....

"CO (/J CO kI 10 

## a: kI Z Z c( () I&. 0 II: kI 5

# - III ::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 10 

### z -Ic( (,) (X) \0 1&.. 0 0: Ia.I CD ::E :I Z 5 r

# I I
I I , 

### o 10 30 60 80 40 60 70 20
AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUT IN THOUSANDS OF CASES

Figure28 • 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 eG 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 (KGII{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 0rX 

# - C) ..:.<: ..:.<:

....... r-**~** 0rI.L. 

### 10

5



## oo 5 

# •

10 15 20 

### 25 

### 30 Production kkgjday Figure 30 Mechanized salmon flowratiosversus production level 92 

# ••

3590 

# • 80



### 70

10



## o

## o 5 10 

### 15 25 30 

### 35 

### Production.kkg/day
. ; . Figure31**.~**

## Mechanized:~~l~o~.BODS·'ra,t{os.

## ~~rsus production

, •• " -'<-

... 

### leyel 

### 93

### 45

40



### 35

C') 

### 30 .:.::: .:.:::



# -- C') .:.::: en ."0 .,...r

### 25 0 V) "0 <LJ 

## -g <LJ 0- 

### 20 en ::s V)
rItS 

# ...,**~** 

### 15



## 10



## o 

# ,.

o 5 

# •

•

10 '15
. 20 25 

### ProducttonkKg/di;lY '.**Fi~ure** 

### 32 Mechanized salmon total suspended solids versus production level

94 

# •

30 35SOLIDS COLLECTED c::: FORPETFOOD OPERATION (WIlEREAVAILABLE) (WHOLE) ROUND FISH

IIEADS,ROE,MILT**t:.:==::.:.:::;:...:::...:==:..rYl_SCE~WA!!!!** _ .TROLL DRESSED fiSH



### -------

TOSOLIDS DISPOSAL 

### -I -I I 

### -I

1 1 1



## .+ --- PRoolJeTFLOW

- WASTEWATERFLOW = = 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 byflatbed 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, andwhen 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 subsequentlyto'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," withoutbutchering. Freezing "in the round" is common in peak years, when the canneries cannothandle the largevolume 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 cleaningtank to remove remaining blood, slime" and parasites. InAlaska, the salmon are frozen at about -SloC (-600

### F), then glazed and packaged, or stored for shipping at -23°C (-10°F). 

### In contrastto Alaska, a significantportion 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 saltand packed into wooden barrels. When the barrels are filled with salmon halves, saturatedbrine is 

### added and the fish are stored at about 2°C (36°F) 

### to pre.serve the pack and prevent oil loss. '



### 96subcategorization 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 summaryplot 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. ' Itcan be seen that the waste loads from processes were lower than those from the roUnd the waste loads from the Alaskan plants slightlyhigher 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.


### 97Table23. Annual production of Northwest fresh/frozen salmon.
Raw Product Processed Annually PlantNumber (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)
Dail

# rPeak Production Rate Size {kkg (tons)
Large 80-110 90-120 Medium 45-70 50-75 Small 27-45 30-50



### 98Figure )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 

# - • ',)SSGP G -3 GP QaSG G 

# ", cw 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::i1 (5) SY!<l8CL FS2 ('") 

### FS11 (6)**PA~AME:T[R** FSH: 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~** 

# --------------------------------------------------------

99The 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 inboth 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

### Table25**.~** 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



### 1019

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-butcheredsalmonflow ratios versus production level
102 

# • •

20 

### 25t»**~**
....... C)-**~** LO 0 0' co 

### 4.5 

# • 4.0

3.5

3.0 

# • • 2.5

2.0 

# • 1.5 

# •

1.0

0.5



## oo 5. , 

### 10 15 

### 20 

### Production kkg/day Figure 36 HCind-butchered salmon.BOD5.ratios versus productionlevel'

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



## oo 5 

### 10 

### 15 

### Production kkg/day Figure 37 Hand-butchered sa1montotal suspended solids versus production level

104 

# • •

20 251. New England Groundfish--Figure 38 shows the flow diagram for 

### a typical New England groundfish filletingprocess. 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 certainweight 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 pallettedbins. This will increase the unloading rate, while at the same time decreasing the amount of contaminated ice.' ' The fish are filleted byhand. 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 toclean 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 commonlyused 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. Plantwashdowns 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.

106HEADS 

# 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 

# -.1I 

# I I I I 

# • EFFLuENT

Figure39 •'Typical New Englandwhiting process.

107which 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 ofwhiting 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 manuallybywomen 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. Itmaybe 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 andunloaded by hand or by vacuum. The fish are washed, sortedby 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 petor mink food. ' A relatively new process developing in the Gulf region is the utilization of flesh separating machinery. The process holds much promise because itcan improve yields, utilize previouslyignored fish species, and satisfyready,markets. These factors tend to reduce operating costs and make the process economically

108SCALES 

### «= - - 

# 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 FREEZEFORPET 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. 109attractive. At presentw 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 createdthe prototype machinery for extracting boneless and skinless flesh from eviscerated fish. In one design, the separation is effected through a shearing and pressing action createdby 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 otherwhole fish. The fish usually arrive by boat and are unloaded by,hand. Afew plants are converting to the vacuum unloading system. The fish



### 110TRASH FISH 

## Ir= II II II HEADS,VISCERA 

## lie:::

# = = = II MUTILATED FISH 

## e:::

# = = = II II 

## II II 

## II 

## II II 

## II SAWDUST 

### 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 solidwaste 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 arethe 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. Smallerfish, '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 inAlaska freeze all sizes of fish, which are processed later in the Northwesto The fish to be frozen whole are washed by spray orbyhand 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 andbreading. The edible cheeks are removed from

### the heads, and are trimmed, washed, bagged and frozen. 'The solid wastes inAlaska 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, andmiscellaneous finfish industry was subcategorized into "Alaska" and "non-Alaska" regions because of the greater costs and more complex treatment prob1ems encountered inAlaska.


### 113

# -- 

# -**~.** 

## II '11



## II CARCL.:.A-ss-E-s-----J**II~** 

## . = = 4=

-- 

# II SKIN.TRIMMINGS**.~** 

### = 

# = = II U
TOSOLIDS 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_ 

## -"1I I f EFFLUENT Figure43.• 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 essentiallybyhand 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 plantswas 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 QS Q' P S BS OB QS 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 QS 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 Q5G 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 SP 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 (3I (31 (51 FNF3_ FNF4 B4 B5 87 88 (ItI (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 (71Figure 

### 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 QSG t SG SG S 1. 0 G a SG SG S



### • Q G 

## oSG 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

### Table26 

### ALASKANBOTTOMFISH PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS**---------------------------------------------------~------~-~---** 

### 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 3.79

### t3 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



### 778Table 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

## arestaurant" 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), itwas.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



### 119Size 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



### CFCITable 28**CO~V~hTIONAL 30TTO~**  FrSM FF-OCESS SUMf"lARY OF SlLECTEO PARAMeTERS**-------------------------~---------------------------- ------------------**  LGG NORMAL LeG**~O~~~L** "IEAN 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** (llKKG) 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
Figure46

. Conventional bottomfishflow ratios versus production levels

122 

# •

30 35t:7l**~ ~** 

........**~** LO 0 0 co 6 

# ••

5 

# • 4 

# • 

# •
3 

# • 

# •

2 

# • • 

# • •

1 

# ..

oo 5 10 15 20 25 

### Producti.on

### kkg/day Figure47 Conventional bottomfish BOD5 ratios versus production levels

123 

# ••

30 35

### 3.0



# • 0.5



## o o 5 

### 10 15 20 

### 25 

### Production kkg/day
Ficure48 .Conventional bottomWfishtotal suspended solids ratiosversus production levels

124 

### 30 35Table 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/OAU· 6.21 2.8E' FLOW (L/SEC)·**13.~** 8.73 (GAL/t1IN)· 211 139 FLOW RATIO (llKl<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**

125The 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 conductedby the Maine Sardine Council (22). Atotal of 86 unit operation and effluent composite samples were**collec~ed** (or otherwisemade 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 plantc,by,boat or truck. Fish arriving by boatare pumped out of the holds andtransported 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 conveyedto 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 recycledthrough refrigeration units "to maintain low temperatures within the tanks. The fish are removed from the storagebins 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. Fishremaining 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 dryconveyor 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 areplaced in racks which are stacked onto. special hand-trucks which are then rolled into a steambox for precooking. The fish are precooked for about 30 minutes at about 1000C (2l20F), then removed from the steambox, drained and cooled to room temperature prior to sealing. This operation partiallycooks the fish and removes undesirable oils.

126PRODUCT 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.
127The liquid waste, or stickwater, generated represents one of the most troublesome waste loads from the sardine operation. The sardine cans are sealedby 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 systemwhich is emptied at the end of the day's operation. The sealed and waShed cans are automatically loaded intovertical retorts'which are partially filled with water to cushion the cans as they enter. In the retort, the cans are cooked at,about l130C (2350F) 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 520C (126°F). The cans are then removed from the bottom of the retortwhere 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 rangewidely. 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.

128Fiqure50 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,

### -------------~------------------------------------~---**--**

129Table

### 30. Waste load reduction using dry conveyor (Plant SA2).
Parameter
Flow ratio (l/kkg) Suspended solids (kg/kkg) BOD (kg/kkg)

130Before
20,400 8.7 12.3 After
7590 2.0 5.0 %Reduction
63 77 59

### TABLE 31 SARDINE IN-PLANT FISHTRANSPORTWATER, STORAGEAREATO PACKINGAREA

- (22)

Production 24.5 tons/day 22.2 kkg/day FishTransport WaterUse 70,000 gal/day 265,000 l/kkg FlowRatio 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

131Table 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. Itwas 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; howeverr itwas considered to be less: importantthan the canning segment of the he,rring industry because very few filleting operations exist in the United.States. The market outlook is promising; thereforer 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 ortrucks 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 herringwere 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, groovedwheels which partially eviscerated the fish after beheading. This pair ofwheels became less effective as viscera accumulated on them. This problemwas reduced by directing a high-pressure water stream onto them during operation. 2) Instead of a single circularhorizontal knife

132

### Table 32 

### SARDINE PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS

## --------------------~----------~~----------~----~--------~------ 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) 869

# 0. 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 RECEIVINGWATER

Figure 51. Typical herring filleting process. 

### 134for slittingthe 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 solidwastes 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 essentiallythe same from plant to plant and the number of plants is too small to separate the industryinto 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, plantHF2" 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

1356. 

### •
• 

### • • 

## s.

• • • 

### • 4.



### • 

### • • • • 3.



### • 

### • 

### • • 2.



### • 

### • • • 

### • 1.



### • • 

### • • •Figure52.**'~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



# --------------------------------------------------------

136low 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, itwould 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. Acomparison 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 identicalto 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. Becausethe one data point at the Alaskan herring filleting plant appeared to be highly questionable in comparison to the other available information, itwas 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 industrybecause 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 methodswas 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 basicallythe same as surf clam processing, except that higher percentages are handled manually.

137

### Table 33 HERRINGFILLET PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMET£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 01Lttijtl (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 

### llecausethegreaseandoil dataattheAlaskanherringfUletingplant

was nighlyquestionableincomparisontoother**avatla~le**

### information, itwas notusedtodetermineasubcategoryaverage. Ins:tead, the Echanizedsalmongreaseandoil datawas utilizedtodertveth.e sunnary datafortheherringfilletingprocess. 138The surf clam process consists of three basic operations: shucking, debellying, and packing. Most plants produce frozen or chilled clammeat 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 inthe 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 operationwhich is used in some processes. The clams are unloaded from the vessels in heavy wire cages and conveyed into the plantwhere they may receive a preliminarywash 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 inuse: 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 pipewithin 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 "ironman," is a large propane furnace reaching temperatures from 62SoC to 81SoC (11600F 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 1320C (270°F). The liquid generated is piped off and condensed for use as clambroth. The condenserwater maybe recycled and used in the first washer. The hot water cooker method immerses the clams in water at a temperature of approximately 820C (1800F) for one to two minutes. This method is most typical inhand-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 bythe 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 byhand 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
139TO SHELLS LANOFILL,-t:= = SHELLFISHNEDIUII CONSTRUCTION.ETC 

### 1-



### I 

### I 

### =1= 1 1 

### I I 1 SEWER. BELLIES 

### I DUIIl'ED.OnC=

## == = USEDFOIlEELBAIT

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 clamprocess.

140road**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. Afew 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 inmany**plants~** The viscera and gonads removed from the surf clam are dumped directly into the adjacentwaters, ground and discharged to the local sewer system, or recovered for bait or animal food. Only the adductormuscles and the muscle tissue of the foot and mantle edge of the clam continue on to the nextwasher, which may be a reel.washer, a circular jetwasher, or an air blowwasher. The circular jetwasher 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 bottomthrough the smaller trough, agitating the clams. In addition, an auger creates a current which helps to clean and move the clams along. After beingwashed, 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 choppedor 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 clamjuice 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·spraywasher and into a hot water blancher which partially opens the clams. Residence time in the blancher, which operates at about 800

## e (1760F) is approximately twenty seconds. The clams are next belted to a shucking table where the meat is removed manuallyby 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 clammeats 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

141SHELL FOR**~** LANDFILL, CONSTRUTION,OR SHELLFISHSUBSTRATA

BELLIES TO SEWER, 

### c:=

# == DUMPED,OR USED FOR EELBAIT 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 manuallyremoved. 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. Afew 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 orused 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 thenwashed, 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 theunit operations are performed essentially by hand and with a relatively low water flow. Amechanized 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 plantsFCLI, 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 canbe 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 didnot debelly the clams, resulting in lower waste**lo~ds.** 

### The plant with code FCL3 was a highly mechanized plantwith 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.



### 143Figure5&. CONI/ENTIONAL. OR MECHANIZEDCLP.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 BG 

## 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 QSG 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

8S

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 

## 5DAY 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

### --------------------------------------------~-----~----

144All 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 FCLlwas not included, since it was a hybrid operation and did not include the debellying operation. Plant CCL2 was not included because itutilized 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 meator 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

. .. PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS**---------------------------------------------~~--------~---~----** 

### 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, RESPECTIVELYTable35 

### MECHANIZEDCLAM PROCESS SUMMARY OFSELECTEDPARAMETERS**---------~--,--------------------------------~-------- ----------**  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

147SHELL**II~** 

## = 

## II SHELL**II~** 

### = 

## II SHELL**~** 

## II II 

## II I[ 

# II**II~** 

## II II 

## II II 

## II II 

## II II 

## II U

TO SHELLPILE 

### Figure

### 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 calledthe "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 brinetank, where a belt collects them and deposits them outside the plant. The meats go through a final drum washer before being manually inspected. The oystermeat 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 jarsor tins. Figure 57 shows a typical conventional hand-shucked oyster process as observed on both the East and westCoasts. The oysters are shuckedmanually and usually fresh packed, although some are breaded and some cooked for stew. The oysters arrive at the plant by boat, barge, ortruck 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, overflowwater is added to the tanks. The oysters are dewatered on a skimmer table and then packed in cans. Afew operations breadand freeze the oysters, which adds an additional waste load during washdown. A few plants sortout the broken oyster pieces and can them as a stew. This is a minor operationand 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 consideredto 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

149SHELL**~** 

### - 

### - - - 

# " 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 TOSHELL PILE 

### Figure 57. Typical hand-shucked oyster process.

150Ii.

• 5.

• It.



# · 3.

2.



# · 1.



# · Bc.p Q Q Q& GP

a GP BGP S 

### Figure58.

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 SP SP 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

SSIi

G Ii & G & Ii b G II Ii

G GP Q P Q P i a o

e s e

S SG

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

5G

_

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 (ItI (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 sovrepresents a steamed/canned oyster process in the Gulf coast area. Itwas.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 somewhathigher 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 Coasthand-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, itwas 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 peryear.
SCALLOPS

152Table36 

### STEAMED/CANNEDOYSTER PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS**------------------------------~---------------------------~-----** 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. 60435 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

153Table 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 •GALITO'" 

### 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.**

154Table 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**HAXIHU~** ______________________a
_______o
_________________________________________**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 GREASe: 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**

15560 

# • 50



### 40 

# •



# - • 0 0 0 

### ,.... >< 

# - en 

### 30 ,:,e. ,:,e.



### ....... 

### ,.... 3 0 

### ,....LI

### 20

10



## o o 0.5 1.0 

### 1.5 

### Production kkg/day Figure 59 HestCoastoysterflow ratiosversus production level

156 

# •

2.030



### 25

20



### 15

10

5



## o 

# •

o 0.5 

# • •

1.0 1.5 

### Production kkg/day Figure 60 WestCoastoysterBOD5 ratios versus production-revel

157 

# •

2.0

### 50

Ol 

### 40**~ ~** 

........ Ol**~** III -0


## .....r

### 30 0 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
Figure61 WestCoastoystertotal suspended solidsratios versus production level

158 

### 2.0

# - <:) 0' 0' .- X

......

# -**~ ~**  ;¥

........ ..-**~** 0' 

# - u... 

### 40

30

# t 

# l
2(1



### 10 

# •



# •

6

..5

Figure62 

### East;toastoysterflowra:Uos

versus: pro:duct:ton

### level ,.



# •

.**·t~·'"** .

..



### 1

...5C) 

### """ 

## """

.......**~** 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 EastCoastoysterBODS ratios versusproductionTevel

160 

### 2.0 2.5C7.1 .:.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 Coastoyster'total suspended solids**ratio~** 

### versus production level

161 

# •**~** :... '::'.' "



### 2.5The 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 andAlaskan scallops are similar. The calico scallop.is processed in a different manner from the others; unfortunately, the 1973 harvest of calico scallops was verypoor and no operations were observed.
Process Description The bay, sea andAlaskan**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 investigatedthe scallops were e.ither frozen in a package or individuallyquick frozen (IQF). The former involved a prewash in a five to**~even** percent saltbrine. In plants using a fresh-water wash, a continuous flow was observed. The brine tank wash is merely a holding tank

..,with no flow, except for makeup water and a complete recharge of the tankevery eighthours 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 scallopmeats are placedon a stainless steel mesh belt and conveyed intQ a blast freezer tunnel. After rapid freezing, the scallops are packaged andweighed, then packed in cartons for storage.**~n** some plants, the larger scallops are first cutinto smaller pteces before being frozen. A small percentage of the**scallop~** isprocessed for the fresh market, but the vastmajority is frozen in one form oranother. 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, themachinerywas sometimes installedon thedredging vessel and the shucking operation done at sea; however, the processes are now all landbased. Thetypical unit operations used are as follows (16). The scallops are'piledon the dredge andunloaded via conveyor belt to the plant. The live scallops are separated from the loose shells bya shucker and conveyed**t~rough** a heating tunnel. The heat opens the scallopand 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 meatthen passes through a grinder-roller which removes remaining viscera and is thenwashed, sorted, and packed. The

162ALTERNATE METHOD RECEIVE

1

__1"_**WA~.D~IS_** PRODUCT FLOW

-,

- WASTEWATER FLOW



# -.,

1 

# -., d

# , I I I I I 

# ,**~** EFFLUENT WASTE SOLIOSFLOW



### Figure65. Typical scallop process. 163yield isquite 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. Itwas noted that the flows andwas·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. otherplants 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 andbecause 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 shellwith 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

### ~ure66• 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 'KGII(I(G KG/KKG KG/KKG**TO~/HR** .,**~~.** <.**-------------------------.~.-.-----'fI~~::~,~~!--~---.--~~ .,~.:~!'t'!":~--!-~~** 

165 ,;"'.'.' 'f'

### PARAMETER 

### Tabl.39

.**~**-:**.~ ~.**  '.," 

### SCALLOP PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS
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.** 

### 9te691


### 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**~** TOSOLIDSOISP09A1. 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


### Figure67 Typical abalone process.



### 167number 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 intobreaded 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 manuallypounding the steaks. The steaks are then packaged tobe sold fresh or frozen. Some steaks are breaded priorto freezing. Subcategorization Rationale Sincethe abalone process is a relatively small industry which is located in one geographical area, itwas 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 inTable 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 c.; G>(i:.ASL**~** OIL 1 INCH

## = 1**KG/KK~** p**F"'ODU~**

### not.. 1 INCH = 

## v.2 TON/HR



# --------------------------------------------------------

169

### Table40 

### ABALONE PROCESSSUMMARYOFSELECTEDPARAMETERS**------------------~----------------~---~-----~---~-~~~--~-.-~~~~** 

### 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 Amajor effort ip the Seafood EffluentLimitations 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 seafoodprocessingwastewaterwas 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 rawwaste loads. This section presents the results of the data analysis whichwas performed on the wastewater information collected and used to help establish the subcategories as discussedin Section IV. The results are organized by commodity or process, in the same sequence as Section IV. Abrief 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, whichwere required. The water and product materialbalances are discussed to indicate the sources of wastewater and the disposition of raw product to food andbyproduct and waste for typical operations. The raw waste loadings are discussedwith special emphasis on major sources of water, BOD, and suspended solidwithin 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 bemost 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 atpoint sources wherethe variation of the waste load appeared to be greater. Estimates of the dailyfluctuations 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 atplants 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 samplewas taken over the processing period each dayby prpportioning according to the previous flows. In cases where.the effluentwas discharged from more than one point source, the individual discharge flows were spatiallycomposited on a flow proportioned basis to yield a total-effluent sample. These total-effluent samples were then time composited over the processing period. Some situationswere difficultto composite, such as, when two ormore :unitoperations 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 -theplant 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 SectionVI. Also, since flow**rat~s** 

### together with production rates werethe foundation upon whiCh the waste load calculations are based, several flow measuring techniques were often used in conjunction to check accuracy_ Productionrates were determined from the total volume of raW productprocessed dur,ing the day and the length of the processing interva,l. After determination of the flow rates, the effluent samples weretaken. Every attempt was madeto obtain

## a well mixed representative sample of the effluent being discharged at**thet~me** 

### of sampling. The correct volume of effluentwas taken from the effluent stream at or near 'the point of discharge**~nd** 

### the**temp~rat\lre measur~d**  

### immediately_ The samplewas 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 40

### C (400

### F), one sample was preserved "1ith 440 

### ppm of mercuric chloride and held at 40

### C (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

172VI 

### 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 wastewaterparameters 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 mustbe present from each sample pointon 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 theother 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** programwas UNITOP. The UNITOP option calculated the loads from each sample point together with the percent that the pointcontributed to thetotal effluent. This. informationwas.usedto develop the wastewater material balance tables presented in this section andwas very useful in helping to determinewhere in-plant controlswould 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 integratedtohelp 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 belowtheir 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. Thevertical spreadrepresents one standard deviation above and below the

173mean, hence, thewider the vertical_spreadthe more variable the data. These plots were used in section IV to help determine how the industry shouldbe subcategorized'andwhich plants should be used to compute the average raw waste loads for**~ach** subcategory.

once a decisionwas 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 andtbose without solub1es plants, because of the different sampling techniques andwaste loads involved.
Fish Meal Production with Solubles Plant Five fish meal processes with solub1es plants were sampled on the East, Gulf, andCaliforniaCoasts. 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 whichwas near, or at the period of peak production. The 1972 data was taken during November which was pastthe period of peak production. The data from the Gulf and Californiawas collected during october of 1973 when catches were intermittent and production was lower than normal. Since the solubles plant produces the majorityof 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 storagetanks 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 showingthe 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

174FISH PRESSING AND DRYING OPERATION ON

OFF

SOLUBLES OPERATION 

# I

SAIIPLING PERIOD

### ~

I I I



# -

OFF 2 4 15 6 (DAYS)



### Figure·69. 

### Fishmeal process time sequenceof 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 resultedfrom the volume of fish**proc~ssed** 

### just previous to the solub1es plant operationunder consideration. The amount of fish processed was then equally distributed over the solubles plant operation period which followed allowing the waste loads to be properlyproportioned 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 bailwaterwas 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). Itcan be seen that the largest flows byfar 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 andhow much is caused by 

### poor quality surface water, the evaporator intake, as well as the discharge was sampled atfour plants with the results plotted on Figure 70. The plant codes withthe suffix

## "I" correspond to data from the intake"s. The figure shows that while most of the BOD load is causedby 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 percentof the BOD, but 52 percent of the suspended solids and 78 percent of the greaseand 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.
Productmaterial balance

176

# -

..... 

### ..... Table 

### 41. Fishmeal productionwith solubles plantmal**"~rial** 

### balance

unit Operation a) evaporator b) air scrubber
Total effluent average M3, 

### A2 WastewaterMaterialBalance Summary

%

### of Total Flow 80

- 85% 15

- 20% %of Total BOD 60

- 85% 15

- 40% ·51,000 l/kkg 3.7 kg/kkg
ProductMaterial 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. Fishmeal productionwithbailwatermaterialbalance

Unit Operation a) evaporator b) bailwater
Total effluent average M2H, M3H WastewaterMaterial 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 FishMeal Process Plant (with solublesplant) Intake rin.' ['ischarge

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 

### QSG I)S 

### Q eSG 

### SG SG 8::; 

### c eSG SG SG 8S S 

### ae5G SG SG 

### es SGF 

### ceSGF SG G QesG SG 

### SG SG G GESG SG SG S S 

### assG SG SG S QaSG .;- SG Q Q 

### SG F 

# -**~u** 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 SOLIDS 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'I0 

### 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 &

### OILMG/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 SCRUBBERWATER)**-...---~--.,...----**

# ...**-~------------**

# ..**-~---------....---------------** 

### 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 &

### OILMG/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 

### SAMPLESTable**,~5** • 

### MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS (DISCHARGE)**------------------------------------------------------ --~-----**  

### PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM

### -----------------------------------------------~------**--------** PRODU**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 &

### OILMG/L RA

### 'I'I0 

### 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 SAMPLESTal"-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'~~~~~~~~~** 

### PRODUCTIONTON/BR 19.0 1.13 11 05 20.0 

### PROCESS TIME DR/DAY 24.0 

### PLOWL/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 5099 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 1101 GREASB " OIL MG/L 21.1 5.16 15.5 27

..8 RATIO KG/KlKG 1.02 0.250 0.1.9 1034 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)**

183The 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 mostlymenhaden alongwith 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 periodwas during the peak season, however, the weather and the fact that some fishing boats alternate between squid and anchovies, caused intermittentoperation.
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 inthe entire seafood industrybeing very high in BOD, suspended solids, and grease and oil. Thebai1water 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 showthe 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. PlantAl used a once pass bai1water system which increasedthe flow substantially, compared to A3 which unloaded the fish using a high pressure hose from a truck.
Productmaterial balance Table 

### 47 shows the disposition of the rawproduct for plants discharging stickwater. There is more waste from these plants because the solub1es are not recovered.

184

### ...... 00 01 

### Table 

### 47. Fishmeal productionwithout solub1es plantmaterial 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
ProductMaterial Balance Summary End Products Products

a) meal b) oil %

### of Raw Product
28%

8% 

### Wastes

a) stickwater b) watervapor 35% 29% Average Production Rate, 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day) %of Total Sus12. Solids 94%

6% 

### <1% <1%

59 kg/kkgTable48. 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'lI0 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

186Table49. 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 0411 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 08 20.6 42.0 92.1 COD MG/L 78200 38600 34200 138000 RATIO KG/KKG 146 72.1 63 08 258 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

187Both 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) atthe larger plan-t.
SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS Three salmon canningplants 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 theirwaste and discharging to a submarine outfall, therefore, end of pipe samples were relatively easyto obtain at a common sump. The Northwest plants investigatedwere 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 packingof sockeye was also done for special orders that required a finer quality product.
Wastewater Material Balance The intakewater for Alaskan salmon plants located in isolated places is obtained from nearby surfacewater streams. The intake water for plants located in town is usually from the municipal systems. The water used inthe canneries is chlorinated either by the plant or by the municipal treatment system. Citywater 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 butcheringoperation (CSN5, CS6M). Itcan be seen that the total loads are much lower for the hand butchering operation than

188

### Table 50



### UnitO(!eration a) unloadingwater b) ironchink c) fish scrubber d) slimingtable e) fishcutter f) canwasherandclincher g) washdown

Total effluentaverage Salmoncanningprocessmaterial balance (mechanized) WastewaterMaterial Balance**Summar~** %

### ofTotal %ofTotal %ofTotal 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%

19800l/kkg 45.5kg/kkg 24.5 kg/kkg ProductMaterial BalanceSummary EndProducts Foodproducts

. By-product a) roe b) milt c) oil d) heads e) viscera Wastes %ofRawProduct 62

- 68%

4 - 

### 6% 2 - 

### 3% 1% 12

- 14%



## o - 5% 11 ..: 16% AverageProductionRate, 37kkg/day (41 tons/day)

### Table 

### 51 Salmon canning process materialbalance (handbutcher). wastewaterMaterial Balance Summary

unitOperation a) butchering line b) fish cutter c) can filler d) canwasher e) washdown
Total effluentAverage

.CSN5, CS6M 

### %of Total Flow

20% 20%

5% 22% 33%

5400 l/kkg %of Total BOD 24% 16% 21%

5% 34%

3.4kg/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/kkgfor 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 wasteswere 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 butcheringmachine in between periods of operation. This practice caused the flow ratio tobemuch greater than normal at this plant0 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 interms 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. PlantCSN7 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 priorto analysis). The reason for this is believed'to be due to the type of pump used to deliver thewater to the screen. The pump could have pulverized some of the solidmaterial causing the number of undersize particles to increase (see section VII, screening)• ProductMaterial Balance Table 50 shows the productmaterial balancewhich is similar for eitherhand or mechanical butchering. The food recovery varies with species and is a little greater for the hand butchering operation. Solidwastes such as the heads and viscera are usually discharged to the rece1v1ng water in Alaska and are usuallyrecovered in the Northwest for pet food, mink food, or fish meal.


### 191Table

### 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 175 RATIO KG/KKG 3.19 ORGANIC-N MG/L 175 RATIO KG/KKG 3 020 AMMONIA-N MG/L 5 033 RATIO KG/KKG 0.097 PH 6 06B TEMP DEG e 11 09 0.761 1•

### in 2.50 10.0 2.07 10.1 17.8 42.5. 160 283 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 0.119 0.311 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'!' CSN4 (, SAMPLESTable 55. SA,IM)N CANNING PRCCESS**(~**BUTCHER)**-----------------.--.----------~-------------,.** 

### PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM**----------------------~---~---------~-----** 

### PRODUCTIONTON/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 DmC 13.7 2.11 12.4**1~.0**



# ------------------------------ . .

# ---,-... PLANT CSNS 8 SAMPLES

195Table 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 

### &OILmIL 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 

## smDEY
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 SAMPLESTable**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 SAMPLESThe production rates averaged 27 kkg/day (30 tons/day) for**th~** Alaska plants, howeverwthis was considered to be lower than normal due to the poor 1973 season. Plant CS8H in the Northwest whichwas 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 directlyinto a receiving body ofwater. 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 alsobe 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-dressedprocess. Northwest plants are representeq by codes FS3, FST3, and FS4. It can be seen that the round fish processes have consistentlyhigher 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/frozenround salmon process material balance WastewaterMaterial 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/TON) SETT.**SJLI~S** MLIL 

### RATIO L/KKG SCR. SOLIDS MG/L RATIO KG/Kt<G SUSP.**SDLI~S** 

### MG/L RATIO 

### KGIKKG 5 DAY 

## aoo '1GIL RATIO KG/KKG COO HG/L RATIO 

### KGIKKG 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 " SAMPLESTable 

### 60. SALMONFRESH/FROZENPROCESS (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

201Table 61·. SALMONFRESH/FROZENPROCESS (ROUND)

-------------....--------------------------------.-•..- ----______ -=-_ 

### PARAMETER MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM 

### MAXIMUM



### .**-----------------~---~~~---~-----~----------------------- -----**  

### PRODUCTION TON/HR PROCESS 'I'IME 

### uRiDAY 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 

### &OILMG/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 1040 304 616 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 SAMPLESTable 62. SALMON FRESH/FROZENPROCESS (ROUND)**----.=-~--_:..:e::III:=**____'lII8_..,.

..........__...........__...,,:_.
__**~**..._______.. _____._,...___**~**__**~_.:._ PARAMET~R**  MEAN 

### STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM**~-~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-----~~-~~------~--~----~--~---~** 

### PRODUCTIONTONIER 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. SOLIDR ML/L 0.720 0.589 0.113 1.29 

### RATIO L/KKG 2.10 1.72 0.329 3.78 

### SCR. SOLIDS HO/L 456 62.5 398**~40** 

### RATIO KG/KKG 1.33 0.183 1.16 1.58 

### SUSP. SOLIDS 

### MG/L 236 72.2 133 300 

### RATIO KG/KKG 0.6A9 0.211 

### 0.388 0.877 

### 5 DAY BOD MG/L 538 208 247 691 

### RATIO KG/KKG 1.57 0.609 0.722 2.02 

### COD MG/L 1070 459 500 1600 

### RATIO KG/KJ(G 3.13 1.34 1.46 4.67 

### GREASE &

### OIL MGIL 43.9 13.9 25.0 55.2 

### RATIO KG/KKG 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 MG/L 2.81 0.850 1.59 3.52 

### RATIO KS/KKG 0.008 0.002 0.005 0.010 

### PH 6.52 0 0179. 6.38 7.08 

### TEMP DEG C 15.7 0.,261 15.6 16.0**--------------...------.-.-~-----------------** PLAN'!' PS4 4 

### SAMPLES

203The waste flows and loads for both pre-dressed and round fresh/frozen processes are relatively low and are comparable to the loads from the conventionalbottom 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 productionrates for plantFST3. Table 58 shows that the food recovery of whole salmonvaries from 65 to 80 percent. Chum and silver salmonyield 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 onlyoccasionally 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 andMiscellaneous FinfishWastewater 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, andregions involved.
Non-Alaska ConventionalBottomFish 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 Englandwhere landings havebeen decreasing.



### 204

### wastewatermaterialbalance 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 Onlytwo

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 thewastewaterbalance 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 scalerwas so large and contributed such a large waste
.load that i.twas not considered to be a conventional operation. In general, thewaste loads were about the same·whether skinners or scalers were used. Tables 69 through 81 summarize thewastewater characteristics for each ofthe 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 representedby 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 arebottom.**~ish** plants on.thewest**coast~** Plant FNF3 was notconsidered 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 variabilityin flow ratios and waste loads between all ·the piants• This is caused partlybydifferent proc'essingmethods 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.
Productmaterial balance

205The production rate of conventional bottom fish processes varies considerably. The average' production level observed was 11 kkg/day (12 tons/day) butvaried 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 processedwhole 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. InNew England it lobster bait or sent to reduction plants. is commonlyused for petor animal food or plants. sent to reduction
Non-Alaska Mechanized Bottom Fish Four mechanized plants which used a high percentage of**machin~ry** andwater were sampled in the New England, Gulf'and Northwest regions between August and Oct,ober, 1973. Itwas'a particularly good year for whiting 

### inNew 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 andwas 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 largestportion 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 percentof the waste load and \ could be replaced by a dry conveyor system. The unit operations of the fish flesh plant were not sampled, however, itis estimated that the highest loads came from the washdownwhich lasted several hours. '



### 206I\) o

...... 

### Table b;:$. 

### Conventional bottom fish·process material balance (with skinner) WastewaterMaterial 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
ProductMaterialBalance 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

### Table64 • Conventional bottom fish process material balance (withdesca1er) WastewaterMaterial 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 30N



# -- o 

### Table66 • Whiting freezing process materialbalance

Unit Operation a) process water b) washdown c) visceral flume
Total effluent average W1, W2 

### WastewaterMaterial 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
ProductMaterial Balance Summary
End Products %

### of Raw Product FoodProducts· 50% 

### By-product

a) heads, scales, viscera (to 48% reductionplant) 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 

### UnitOperationTable 

### 68. Halibut freezinq processmaterialbalance WastewaterMaterialBalanceSummary

;,-of'Total. it

### of'Total Flow BOD a) headcutter/qrader 

### 3' 11' b) 

### washer c) washdown 79'**7~'** 

### 18' 17% 

### Totaleffluent average 

### FRHI 8600 

### l/kltq-**1~5** 

### kq/kkq
ProductMaterialBalanceSunmarf EndProducts %

### ofRaw Product Food products 90% 

### By-products

a) heads 10% 

### Wastes minimal AverageProductionRate, 33 

### kkg/day (36 

### tons/day) , ofTotal Susp. Solids 10% 62% 28%

1.2

### k9/kkq" 

### Table69. 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 AMMONIA-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 0.124 147 66.9 76.5 :. 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

### Table70 • 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. SOLIOS tilll 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/KKG;:, 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** 1.10 2.53 1.7&

, ...;-. 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**Table73 • 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 0030 0.032 0.132 Ph 7.12 0.161 6.85 7.45 'l'EMP DEG C 19.0 2011 17.6 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 

### &OILMG/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""""~~,~"'_""**_______**~**__..._____..._**"~'**-', :. '.. , 

### PRODUCTIONTON/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 SB'l'T. SOLIDS 'ML/L 4.88 1.82 '2.16 

### 7.24 RATIO L/KKG' 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. SOLIDSMG/L 171 62.6 85.9 266 RATIO KG/KKG 1.00 ,0.368 0.505 1.56 5 D.AY BOD

### ;fIIJ/L 346 157 

### 153 581 RATIO

## KGIKKG '2.04**A;~,·'22** 0.901 3.42 ' 

### COD MG/L 608 239 300 914 RATIO KG/I(KG 3.58 1.41 1.76 5.38**GR~SE** 

### &

### OIL'MG/L 60.9 18.1 34.9 89.0 

### RATIO 1(G/1(KO 0.359 0.'06 

### 0.205 0.523 ORGANIC-N MG/L 44.9 22.4 20.7 80.0 RATIO KG/KKG 0.264 0.132 

### 0.121 0.471 AMMONIA-N MG/L 2.49 1.19 1.25 

### 4.25 RATIO KG/1(KG ,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 

### IIKKG (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 

### &OILMG/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 1910 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 1.25 198 90.9 102 283 1.97 0.909 1.02 : 2.83 359 171 166 

### P29 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 0008 0.008 0.024 7.26 1.12 15.6 17.0**---------~--------------------------.----------------- ---------** 

220 

### PIANT B7 3 SAMPLESTable 

### 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'1'1C 

### LII<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 12.8 126 156 7550 1020 0150 8910 1810 245 1480 2140 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 5.13 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 SAMPLESTable 78. BOT'l'OM FISH FILLE'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 161 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 

### SAMPLESTable 

### 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 

### SAMPLESTabl.:! 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 SAMPLESTables 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 selectedwastewater parameters for each plant sampled.
Productmaterial 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 solidwaste 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 usingvarious species of bottom fish are listed in Table 67.
Alaska Bottom Fish The halibut is the most significantbottom fish processed in Alaska. Two halibut processes in urban" areas of Alaska were monitored during July and August, 1973. The sampling periodwas 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 highwaste 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 observedused 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 spraywasher is used, as well as spray hoses for the gut cavity. For this, the**flo~l** andwaste'loans are rather large, comprising about 80 percentof 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


### 226concentrations such that the waste load 

### is similarto the other method. Forboth processes observed, thewashdown 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 trimtable constituting about 80 percentof the total BOD load. Table 85 and 86 summarize the wastewater characteristics for the two halibut processes sampled.
Productmaterial 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 operationwas 5.6 kkg/day(6.2 tons/day).. Solidwaste.from 

### the**freez~g** operation is minimal sincethe only non-food**pro~uct** is the heads which are often used for bait. There isno visceral waste sincethe 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 themonth of September, 1973. Due 

### to the declining herring fishery, some difficulty was encounteredwith raw productavailability 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 surfacewater (salt or brackish) was used to transport the fish from trucks orboats to brine storage tanks. Conveying fish to the packing tables was observed to contribute 18 to 62 percent of the water. Anotherlarge 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 thetotal grease and


### 227Table 

### 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 1Q7 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 PROCE..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 SETT. SOLIDS 

### ML/L 5.40 3.24 1.77 8.30 RATIO L/KKG 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 SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 778 212 492 1040 RATIO KG/J<KG 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 COD MG/L 

### 2150 764 

### 974 2760 RATIO KG/KKG 36.3 12.9 16.4 46.6 GREASE 

### &OIL

### MG/L 323 177 104 494 RATIO KG/KKG 5.44 2.99 1.76 8.34 

### ORGANIC-N MG/L 79.9 19.4 53.2 99.7 RATIO KG/KKG 1.35 0.328 0.899 1.68 AMMONIA-N MO/L 4.04 1.18 2.94 5.37 

### RATIO KG/KKG 0.068 0.020 0.050 0.091 

### PH 7.71 TEMP DEG C


# ----------.----------------------...------------------

229 

### PLANT W2 4 

### SAMPLESTable 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 03 9.47 8.96 33.1 GREASE 

### &OILMG/L 91

..3 64.8 11.5 187 RATIO KG/KFm 1 053 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 SAMPLESTable 

### 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
...' ". 542 SCR. 944 321 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



### 231Table 86. HALIBur F'LE".ICHINGPRCX!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•118 0.684 0.893 1.88 10.9 1402 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-Passavantcorporation, 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 ElectricCompany, 901 South campbell Street, tuscon, Arizona 85719 Keene Corporation, Fluid Handling Division, cookeville, Tennessee 38501 Kom1ine-Sanderson Engineering corporation, peapack, New Jersey 07977 PermutitCompany, Division of SybronCorporation, E. 49 MidlandAvenue, 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 BritishThermal Unit/pound cubic feet/minute cubic feet/second cubic feet cubic feet cubic inches degree Fahrenheit feet gallon gallon/minute horsepower inches inches ofmercury 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 cum/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 cubicmeters 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