1

Project No.: 0172.08.030.033

Project Name: Alaska Seafood

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

 

Date: 3-16-2011 Time: 2:50 – 3:30 PM 

EDT

Call placed by: Peter Stitzel to

Betsy Bicknell, ERG

Contact Name: Peter Stitzel

Company Name: Sitka Meal, Oil, and Technology

Phone No.: 206-781-7219

GENERAL SUBJECT : Upcoming meeting of AIDEA board to discuss SMOG plant funding

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Peter Stitzel contacted me as a follow-up to email correspondence we had last week. He enquired and I 

confirmed that I received his March 10 message correcting his analysis of the impact of waste hauling costs on tax 

revenues generated by the fishing industry. 

Mr. Stitzel mentioned that the follow-up AIDEA board meeting which will continue discussion of AIDEA 

funding of the SMOG plant had been moved from March 31 to April 1. Mr. Stitzel said he would send me call in 

information when it is available, closer to the time of the meeting. Mr. Stitzel asked if I listened into the meeting, 

what I would say. I indicated that as a contractor I would say nothing. He asked if I were asked what ERG is tasked 

to do for EPA if I would say that we are estimating costs and facility financial impacts. I indicated that I would be 

able to say that, because that information is publicly available (it is included in our work assignment, available by 

FOIA). 

Mr. Stitzel went on to explain that he had somewhat refined his plan for collecting waste from seafood 

processing centers. Instead of collecting the waste in 48,000 lb food grade ISO tanks he is now planning to use 

64,000 gallon tanks that SMOG would own. I asked how he planned to separate the fish waste solids from the 

wastewater stream. He explained that fish heads would be captured close to the mechanical de-header. They are easy 

to dewater and would be taken by a dewatering belt directly to a tank. He mentioned that waste fish heads would be 

handled as food grade (not touching the floor). 

He further explained that the guts be collected at the table where they are separated from roe. Minimal 

water would be used for handling guts because the water is very difficult to get out (i.e., it is hard to dewater guts). 

The guts would drop into a pump and pumped to the acid mix tank. 

I asked how skin and frames would be collected. He mentioned that the processors he plans to work with 

are not making skinless boneless so won’t generate this waste. I asked how the smaller solids would be removed 

from the wastewater stream, and mentioned that the technology basis for the non-remote TSS and O&G limits is 

screening with a 0.5 – 1mm wedgewire screen. Mr. Stitzel didn’t contemplate using screens or recovering the small 

bits. I mentioned I didn’t know if the processors could meet the limits without screens but that the Kodiak permit 

requires the use of screens. Mr. Stitzel supposed that if heads and guts were sent to SMOG the amount of solids 

screened out would be so small that it could go in the trash bin (i.e., be disposed of as solid waste). 

I asked if he was concerned about fish hooks. He assured me that the metal detectors would find the fish 

hooks and they can be removed. Therefore, he would accept waste from all fish species (not just salmon). 

We discussed the financial impact analysis that ERG is tasked with and that EPA will make decisions for 

each processing center, as to whether it will continue to be classified as non-remote (and so need to meet the TSS 
2

and O&G limits) or be reclassified as remote (and so continue to be required to grind their waste). I mentioned that 

Sitka was not originally named a non-remote processing center and was not part of the petition. I also mentioned 

that EPA sent the questionnaire to 9 seafood processing companies, none of which operate plants in Sitka. I did not 

know what type of analysis EPA will attempt to complete for Sitka. 

I mentioned that EPA’s next step will be to publish a notice in the Federal Register, possibly in the 

summer, but I didn’t know the date. The FRN will allow people the opportunity for people to comment on EPA’s 

analysis.