Ahorros de Agua en Plantas de Alimentos

In Food Processing Plants - An
Educational Program
The objective of this program is
to increase the knowledge of food
scientists, food processors,
engineers, scientists, waste
management specialists and
other practitioners in the con-
cepts and principles needed
to properly control water use and
product waste in food processing
facilities. The materials are
designed for individuals con-
cerned with management of food
plants, with pretreatment of food
processing wastewaters, with
treatment of food processing
wastewaters and with the utiliza-
tion or disposal of food plant
residuals. The modules in this
program incorporate knowledge
from food science and tech-
nology, food processing, sanitary
and environmental engineering,
agronomy, soil science, agricul-
tural engineering, economics and
law.
The program consists of some
15 modules. Introductory mate-
rial is presented in the Core
Manual to introduce the program.
Technical specifics are provided
in 7 technical spinoffs. The appli-
cation of water and waste
management in specific food
plants is related in 7 commodity
Spinoff Manuals.
Published by
THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSiON SERVICE
North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University at Greensboro, and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Cooperating. State University Station, Raleigh, N. C., T. C. Blalock, Director. Distributed in furtherance
of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service offers its programs to all
eligible persons regardless of race, color, or national origin, and is an equal opportunity employer.
SPI NOFF ON
SEAFOOD WATER AND
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ROY E. CARAWAN
J AMES V. CHAMBERS ROBERT R. ZALL
PROJ ECT SUPERVI SOR
ROGER H. WI LKOWSKE
EXTENSI ON SPECI AL REPORT No- AM- 18F
J ANUARY, 1979
PREPARED BY:
EXTENSI ON SPECI ALI STS AT:
NORTH CAROLI NA STATE UNI VERSI TY
CORNELL UNI VERSI TY
PURDUE UNI VERSI TY
WI TH THE SUPPORT OF THE
SCI ENCE AND EDUCATI ON
ADMI NI STRATI ON- EXTENSI ON
USDA - WASHI NGTON, D. C.
SEAFOOD SPI NOFF/ PREFACE
Scope: The subj ect of thi s gui de i s the management and control of
water use and waste di scharge i n seaf ood processi ng, wi th
emphasi s on necessary l egal , sani tary, envi ronmental and
energy f actors. Thi s document emphasi zes seaf ood processi ng
operati ons and procedures that contri bute to pol l uti on and
recommends practi ces to hel p al l evi ate the pol l uti on.
I nf ormati on i s presented f or di rect di schargers and al so f or
seaf ood processors that di scharge to muni ci pal treatment
systems.
I n prepari ng thi s gui de, the commi ttee has attempted to
mai ntai n a uni f ormi ty of recommendati ons and suggesti ons,
despi te the vari ety of seaf ood processi ng pl ants and the
di spari ty of requi rements f or pol l uti on control throughout
the country.
Li mi t at i ons: ' No wri tten materi al deal i ng wi th pol l uti on control regul a-
ti ons can remai n current and up- to- date wi th our rapi dl y
changi ng regul ati ons. Theref ore, the reader i s advi sed to
check on current l aws and l ocal regul ati ons bef ore con-
si derati on of any pol l uti on control proj ect. The vast
di f f erences and compl exi ti es that exi st i n seaf ood pro-
cessi ng do not al l ow f or a detai l ed i nf ormati on that woul d
be appl i cabl e to any pl ant wi thout modi f i cati on.
Di scl ai mer: The menti on of manuf acturers, trade names or commerci al
products i s f or i l l ustrati on purposes and does not i mpl y
thei r recommendati on or thei r endorsement f or use by the
Agri cul tural Extensi on Servi ce.
Learni ng Obj ecti ves:
1. Recogni ti on of uni t operati ons and, pl ant practi ces that
can or do contri bute to pol l uti on.
2. Understandi ng of the key el ements i n a water and waste
control programf or a seaf ood processi ng pl ant.
i i
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ PREFACE
3. I denti f i cati on of the key f ederal , state and l ocal
pol l uti on l aws and regul ati ons that af f ect seaf ood
processors.
4. Appreci ati on of the possi bl e rol e of an extensi on
speci al i st i n assi sti ng seaf ood processors i n meeti ng
water and pol l uti on control regul ati ons.
i i i
SEAFOOD SPI NOFF/ SUMMARY
SUMMARY
The i mportant consi derati ons f or extensi on speci al i sts to consi der i n
devel opi ng programs to assi st the seaf ood i ndustri es i n meeti ng water
pol l uti on requi rements are presented. Thi s document i ncl udes the
f ol l owi ng: ( 1) rol e an extensi on speci al i st can pl ay i n seaf ood pl ant
pol l uti on probl ems, ( 2) components of an ef f ecti ve water and waste control
program i n seaf ood processi ng, ( 3) methods f or moni tori ng and anal yzi ng
seaf ood wastewaters, ( 4) termi nol ogy and concepts of pretreatment and
treatment of seaf ood wastewaters, and ( 5) notes f or devel opi ng an
ef f ecti ve extensi on program f or seaf ood processi ng pl ants.
Each seaf ood pl ant has numerous operati ons that use water and
di scharge scal es, entrai l s, bi ts of f l esh or shel l whi ch can contri bute to
pol l uti on and speci f i c exampl es are revi ewed f or sel ected seaf ood pl ants.
The possi bl e ways these operati ons can be modi f i ed or empl oyee practi ces
changed to reduce water use and waste are i denti f i ed and di scussed. The
rol e of management i n seaf ood processi ng water and waste control i s
expl ai ned.
Vari ous practi ces to reduce pol l uti on af ter the i nsti tuti on of
i npl ant water and waste management procedures are presented. These
practi ces i ncl ude pretreatment, by- product recovery and/ or treatment. The
most i mportant aspects of each of these are revi ewed.
The opportuni ti es f or wastewater di scharge f rom a seaf ood processi ng
pl ant are recogni zed as ei ther di scharge to a muni ci pal systemor di s-
charge di rectl y to a stream, estuary or the ocean. Most seaf ood process-
ors di scharge di rectl y to some waterway as many coastal communi ti es,
because of terrai n and si ze, do not have muni ci pal treatment pl ants.
The i mportant f actors to consi der i n muni ci pal di scharge of seaf ood
processi ng wastes are i denti f i ed as sewer use ordi nances, user charges and
pretreatment. State, f ederal and l ocal regul ati ons f or pretreatment are
revi ewed. State and l ocal requi rements f or di scharge l i mi tati ons to meet
NPDES permi ts or water qual i ty cri teri a are l i sted and di scussed.
Parameters of i mportance f or seaf ood processors f or muni ci pal or
di rect di scharge are i denti f i ed as BOD
5
, TSS, FOG, pH and f l ow. The
i mportance of proper sampl i ng and anal yti cal techni ques are expl ai ned.
i v
SEAFOOD SPI NOFF/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LI ST OF TABLES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LI ST OF FI GURES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. I NTRODUCTI ON
A. Seaf ood I ndustri es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- BottomFi sh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- I ndustri al Fi sheri es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Anadromous Fi shery
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Tuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Shri mp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Crabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Cl ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. I ndustry Cl assi f i cati on
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. SEAFOOD PROCESSI NG PLANT SCHEMES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I .
J .
K.
I ntroducti on . . . . . .
Process Descri pti on . .
The I ndustri al Fi sheri es
T u n a . . . . . . . . . .
Sal mon . . . . . . . . .
Shri mp . . . . . . . . .
Crabs . . . . . . . . .
BottomFi sh . . . . . .
Cl ams .
Appl i cat
Ref erences
. . . . . . . .
i on . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERI ZATI ON I N THE SEAFOOD
PROCESSI NG I NDUSTRY
A. I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
i v
vi i i
X
6
6
8
9
12
14
16
16
19
23
24
25
V
CHAPTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/
PAGE NO.
- Wastewater Characteri zati on
. . . . . . . . . . . .
- Sampl i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Process Waste Poi nt Sources and Types
. . . . . . . .
- I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- The I ndustri al Fi sheri es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Tuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Sal mon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Shri mp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Cr ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- BottomFi sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. CONTROL OF WATER AND WASTEWATER I N
SEAFOOD PROCESSI NG
A. I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. I n- Pl ant Control Techni ques and Processes
. . . . . .
- I nterdependence of Harvesti ng and Processi ng
. . . .
- Nutri ti ve Val ue and Total Uti l i zati on
. . . . . . .
- I n- Pl ant Changes Di rected Toward
Compl ete Uti l i zati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Mi ni mi zi ng Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Mi ni mi zi ng Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. RECYCLI NG AND REUSE OF SEAFOOD PROCESSI NG WASTEWATERS
A. I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Sources of Water f or Use i n Seaf ood
Processi ng Pl ants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Legal Aspects of Water Reuse
. . . . . . . . . . . .
c. ASummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. BY- PRODUCT RECOVERY AND USE
A. I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Fi sh Scal es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Dungeness Crab Processi ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Cl amWash Water Recl amati on
. . . . . . . . . . . .
- Recoveri ng Edi bl e Meat f romSurf Cl amWastes
. . . .
B. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
26
26
28
28
28
31
33
33
35
39
44
46
46
47
48
49
51
51
54
55
55
56
68
70
71
71
72
75
82
84
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
7. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
A. Pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Al ternati ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Treatment Al ternati ves to Meet Regul ati ons . . . . .
- Treatment of Seaf ood I ndustry Wastewaters . . . . .
c. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. LAND DI SPOSAL OF SEAFOOD PROCESSI NG WASTES
A. I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Case Studi es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. MUNI CI PAL DI SCHARGE
A.
B.
I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
108
Questi ons to Ask About a Proposed Sewer Use
Ordi nance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Muni ci pal Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Concl usi ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
113
114
114
c. Ref erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
10. DI RECT DI SCHARGE
A. I ntroducti on . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
B. Ef f l uent Gui del i nes and Li mi tati ons . . . . . . . . . 119
- I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
PAGE NO.
85
86
86
87
90
98
99
99
107
107
vi i
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/
LI ST OF TABLES
TABLE
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
. *
16
17
18
19
20
21
Recommended Storage Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raw Wastewater Characteri sti cs - Canned and
Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng I ndustri es . . . . . . . .
Tuna Waste Characteri sti cs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sal mon Processi ng Waste Strengths . . . . . . . . . . .
Composi ti on of Shri mp Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wastewater Characteri zati on Shri mp
Processi ng and Canni ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Typi cal Crab Waste Composi ti ons . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bl ue Crab Wastewater Characteri zati on . . . . . . . . .
Bottom Fi sh Processi ng Wastewater Characteri sti cs . . .
Non- Al aska Bottom Fi sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ef f ect' of Waste El i mi nati on Measures
I n Shri mp Processi ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BOO5 of Sel ected Chemi cal s i n Detergents,
Sani ti zers and Lubri cants Used i n Food Pl ants . . . . .
Potenti al Poi nts of Water Reuse i n the
Food Processi ng I ndustry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Combi ned Wastewater Characteri sti cs Pl ant No. 1 . . . .
Fl ow Rates at Washi ng Stati ons . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dai l y Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BOO and COD Anal ysi s of Composi tes f rom
Washi ng Stati ons February 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protei n and Sol i ds Content of Hourl y Sampl es of Wash
Water f romStati on 3 . February and May 1975 . . . . .
Protei n and Total Sol i ds i n Composi te Sampl es
of Wash Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cal ci um, Phosphorus, and Chl ori de Concentrati on
i n Composi te Sampl es of Cl amWash Water . . . . . . . .
Sel ected Characteri sti cs of Concentrated Sampl es
of Wash Water f romStati on 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi i i
PAGE NO.
29
30
32
34
36
37
38
40
42
43
53
61
63
73
77
77
78
78
79
79
81
TABLE
22
23
PAGE NO.
Seaf ood I ndustry Wastewater Treatment Practi ces . . . .
Water- Ef f l uent Treatment Costs f or Canned and
Preserved Fi sh and Seaf ood . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
24
25
26
27
Treatment SystemPerf ormance and Cost Esti mates . . . .
Treatment Characteri sti cs of Overl and Fl ow Systems . .
Some Key Parts To a Sewer Use Ordi nance . . . . . . . .
1977 Ef f l uent Gui del i nes ( BPT) f or the
Seaf ood I ndustri es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1983 Ef f l uent Gui del i nes ( BAT) f or the
Seaf ood I ndustri es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104
105
106
112
123
28
124
29 BCT Standards f or the Seaf ood I ndustry . . . . . . . . 126
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/
LI ST OF TABLES
i x
SEAFOOD SPNOFFI
LI ST OF FI GURES
FI GURE
PAGE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MenhadenRenderi ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tuna Canni ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sal mon Canni ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mechani cal Shri mp Peel i ng f or Canned Shri mp
. . . . . .
The Dungeness Crab Process
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crab Freezi ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BottomFi sh Fi l l eti ng
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fl ow Di agramof Surf Cl amProcessi ng
. . . . . . . . .
Recovery of Mi l k Vapors i n Powdered Mi l k Producti on . .
Four- Stage Counterf l ow Systemf or Reuse of Water
I n a Pea Cannery
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seaf ood Waste Reducti on Program
. . . . . . . . . . . .
10
11
13
15
17
18
20
22
59
65
88
1
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ I NTRO
I NT R ODU C T I ON
The seaf ood i ndustry i s made up of many smal l processi ng centers,
l ocated al ong the Uni ted States coastl i nes wi th a number of the l arger
pl ants l ocated near i ndustry and popul ati on centers. The i ndustry i nvol ves
the processi ng of numerous speci es of seaf ood i ncl udi ng:
0
mol l usks ( oysters, cl ams scal l ops)
O crustaceans ( crabs and l obsters)
O vari ous speci es of both sal t- and f reshwater f i sh.
Seaf ood processors use the f ol l owi ng maj or uni t processes: washi ng,
evi scerati ng, dressi ng, processi ng, and renderi ng. Renderi ng of whol e f i sh
and f i sh by- products produces f i sh meal , oi l , and sol ubl es.
Currentl y,
f our cl asses of renderi ng processes are used: dry, wet, sol vent extrac-
ti on, and di gesti on.
Wet renderi ng i s the most promi nent process. I n thi s
process, the by- products are cooked wi th steam, and the materi al i s pressed
to yi el d a sol i d. cake and press l i quor. The l i quor i s centri f uged to
obtai n f i sh oi l and sti ckwater.
The sti ckwater i s evaporated to yi el d
condensed f i sh sol ubl es.
The annual U. S. f i sh catches average about 6 bi l l i on pounds and are
val ued at more than 1 bi l l i on dol l ars.
The f i sh are used as f ol l ows:
35% rendered
30%marketed f resh
20% canned
10% f rozen
1% cured
Seaf ood I ndustri es
BottomFi sh
One research team l i sted the most economi cal l y i mportant bottom f i sh
speci es whi ch are pri rnari l y marketed f resh or f rozen as:
Haddock
Hal i but
C o d
Ocean Perch
Whi ti ng ( si l ver hake)
2
Fl ounder
Hake
Pol l ock
Total l andi ngs of bottomf i sh total over 400 mi l l i on pounds per year wi th
the f l ounder bei ng the l argest si ngl e category wi th over 160 mi l l i on pounds
of the total . About 30% of the bottomf i sh i ndustry i s l ocated i n the
North Atl anti c regi on.
I ndustri al Fi sheri es
Menhaden, herri ng, and al ewi ves are oi l y f i shes whi ch compri se the
bul k of the "i ndustri al f i sheri es" i n thi s country. They are rendered i nto
meal , oi l s, and sol ubl es. The meal i s used pri mari l y as ani mal f eed and
f ert i l i zer. The oi l becomes an i ngredi ent i n pai nts, varni shes, resi ns,
and si mi l ar products. I t i s al so added to ani mal f eed, or used f or human
consumpti on abroad. The sol ubl es are ei ther f ed di rectl y to ani mal s or are
dri ed and processed i nto meal .
The menhaden f i shery i s the l argest i n the Uni ted States; the 1968
catch total ed 1. 4 bi l l i on pounds. The i ndustry i s l ocated mai nl y i n the
mi ddl e Atl anti c and the Gul f states. Fi shi ng takes pl ace predomi nantl y
duri ng the summer and f al l months.
Anadromous Fi shery
The onl y si gni f i cant commerci al anadromous f i shery i n the U. S. i s
the sal mon f i shery. The f i ve mai n speci es harvested i n thi s country are:
Chi nook ( ki ng)
Sockeye ( red)
Si l ver ( coho)
Pi nk
Chum.
The maj or porti on of the sal mon catch i s canned.
Tuna
Tuna ranks as the number one seaf ood i n the Uni ted States.
Ameri cans consume over one bi l l i on cans of tuna per year. Tuna are l arge
mi gratory f i sh whi ch f eed on smal l er macroscopi c sea l i f e.
Thei r di s-
tri buti on i n the ocean i s sti l l l argel y unknown. The l argest part of the
3
tuna harvest takes pl ace of f the Paci f i c Coast. The annual tuna catch i s
about 300 mi l l i on pounds.
Shri mp
The shri mp f i shery i n terms of total val ue i s the most i mportant i n
the Uni ted States. I n 1967- 68, the catch exceeded 290 mi l l i on pounds wi th
a val ue of approxi matel y 110 mi l l i on dol l ars. Currentl y the most i mportant
f i ni shed products are f rozen and breaded shri mp. I n 1968, these two
products compri sed 92 percent of the market. Both of these products were
successf ul l y devel oped duri ng the 1950' s and markets are apparentl y
conti nui ng to expand.
The shri mp i ndustry i s the most i mportant seaf ood i ndustry of the Gul f
of Mexi co and South Atl anti c areas. I t i s al so si gni f i cant al ong the
Paci f i c Coast. The season runs f romApri l to earl y J une and agai n f rom
August to earl y Oct ober .
The canni ng of shri mp was f i rst successf ul l y done i n 1867 by George W.
Dunbar, a New Engl ander who settl ed i n New Orl eans and operated a cannery
af ter the Ci vi l War . Today, the i ndustry consi sts of about 70 shri mp
canneri es i n t he U. S. , 25 of whi ch are l ocated on the Coast of the Gul f
of Mexi co. The Gul f Coast canneri es are l ocated pri mari l y i n Loui si ana and
Mi ssi ssi ppi on bays, bayous or wi thi n short trucki ng di stance of the
docks.
Crabs
Crab l andi ngs i n 1974 total ed 332. 4 mi l l i on pounds val ued at $85. 4
mi l l i on.
The bl ue crab, compri si ng 70 percent of the U. S. crab producti on, i s
harvested on the Atl anti c Coast, pri nci pal l y i n the Chesapeake Bay area.
The remai ni ng harvest takes pl ace on the Paci f i c Coast where Dungeness crab
i s the l eadi ng speci es f ol l owed by Al askan ki ng crab. Crabs are harvested
f romshal l ow water i n bai ted traps. Rapi d and caref ul handl i ng i s
necessary to keep the ani mal s al i ve. Dead crabs must be di scarded because
of rapi d decomposi ti on. Landi ngs of hard bl ue crabs were 149. 2 mi l l i on
pounds val ued at $19. 3 mi l l i on. Landi ngs of ki ng crabs were 95. 2 mi l l i on
pounds val ued at $39. 2 mi l l i on. Snow crab l andi ngs were 63. 9 mi l l i on
pounds whi l e Dungeness crab l andi ngs were 14. 0 mi l l i on pounds.
4
Cl ams
Landi ngs of cl ams exceed 120 mi l l i on pounds ( meat wei ght excl udi ng
shel l ) and are val ued at more than $40 mi l l i on. Surf cl ams i n 1974
accounted f or 79 percent of the total cl aml andi ngs but onl y 30 percent of
the val ue.
The surf cl ami s a rel ati vel y recent addi ti on to the Atl anti c Coast
shel l f i sh processi ng i ndustry. The maj or i ndustry growth occurred i n the
mi d 1940' s and i n 1958, when new of f shore beds near Long I sl and, New York
were di scovered. Hard cl ams account f or onl y 12 percent of the l andi ngs
but about 50 percent of the val ue. The Chesapeake and Mi ddl e Atl anti c
areas combi ne f or much of the cl aml andi ngs.
I ndust ry Cl assi f i cat i on
Accordi ng to Standard I ndustri al Cl assi f i cati ons of the seaf ood
i ndustry, the f ol l owi ng subcategori es have been assi gned to the vari ous
seaf ood i ndustri es. The desi gnati ons are those assi gned f or i denti f i cati on
purposes.
The catf i sh, crab, shri mp and tuna segment of the canned and preserved
seaf ood processi ng i ndustry has been subcategori ed as f ol l owed:
Subcategory
Farm- rai sed Catf i sh Processi ng
Conventi onal Bl ue Crab Processi ng
Mechani zed Bl ue Crab Processi ng
Non- Remote Al askan Crab Meat Processi ng
Remote Al askan Crab Meat Processi ng
Non- Remote Al askan Whol e Crab & Crab Secti on Processi ng
Remote Al askan Whol e Crab & Crab Secti on Processi ng
Dungeness & Tanner Crab Processi ng i n the Conti guous States
Non- Remote Al askan Shri mp Processi ng
Remote Al askan Shri mp Processi ng
Northern Shri mp Processi ng i n the Conti guous States
Desi gnati on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Southern Non- Breaded Shri mp Processi ng i n The Conti guous States L
Breaded Shri mp Processi ng i n the Conti guous States M
Tuna Processi ng N
5
The remai ni ng segments of the i ndustry have been tentati vel y di vi ded i nto
the f ol l owi ng subcategori es
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
Fi sh meal processi ng
Al askan- hand butchered sal mon processi ng
Al askan mechani zed sal mon processi ng
West Coast hand- butchered sal mon processi ng
West Coat mechani zed sal mon processi ng
Al askan bottom f i sh processi ng
Non- Al askan conventi onal bottom f i sh processi ng
Hand- shucked cl am processi ng
Mechani zed cl am processi ng
West Coast hand- shucked oyster processi ng
Atl anti c and Gul f Coast hand- shucked oyster processi ng
Steamed/ canned oyster processi ng
Sardi ne processi ng
Al askan scal l op processi ng
Non- Al askan scal l op processi ng
Al askan herri ng f i l l et processi ng
Non- Al askan herri ng f i l l et processi ng
Abal one pr ocessi ng
6
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ PLANT SCHEMES
S E A F OOD P R OC E S S I N G
PLANT SCHEMES
I nt roduct i on
A si gni f i cant porti on of the f i shes and shel l f i shes processed i s
wasted. The percentage of each speci es wasted ranges f romabout 0% f or
f i sh whi ch are compl etel y rendered ( e. g. , menhaden) to approxi matel y 85%
f or some crab ( e. g. , bl ue crab) . The average wastage f i gure f or al l f i sh
and shel l f i sh i s about 30%. I n addi ti on to these l arge vol umes of sol i d
wastes, si gni f i cant wastewater f l ows resul t f rom the butcheri ng, washi ng
and processi ng of the products. The vol umes of sol i ds and wastewater
produced vary wi del y dependi ng on the seaf ood processed and the processi ng
met hods.
Seaf ood processi ng i nvol ves the capture and preparati on of several
di f f erent speci es of mari ne and f reshwater ani mal s. The f l ow di agrams and
process descri pti ons that f ol l ow are grouped accordi ng to speci es, and are
di scussed separatel y. Much of thi s i nf ormati on has been taken f rom
publ i cati ons by Soderqui st, et al . ( 1970 and 1972) , and more i nf ormati on on
crab, shri mp and tuna processi ng was obtai ned f rom another publ i cati on
( EPA, 1974) .
Process Descri pti on
The processes used i n the seaf ood i ndustry general l y i ncl ude the
f ol l owi ng: harvesti ng, stori ng, recei vi ng, evi scerati ng, precooki ng,
pi cki ng or cl eani ng, preservi ng and packagi ng.
Harvesti ng uti l i zes some of the ol dest and newest technol ogi es i n the
i ndustry. I t may be consi dered a separate i ndustry suppl yi ng the basi c raw
materi al f or processi ng and subsequent di stri buti on to the consumer.
Harvest techni ques vary accordi ng to speci es, and consi st of f our general
methods: netti ng, trappi ng, dredgi ng, and l i ne f i shi ng. Fi shi ng vessel s
uti l i ze the l atest technol ogy f or l ocati ng f i sh and shel l f i sh and harvest
themi n the most expedi ent and economi cal manner consi stent wi th l ocal
requl ati ons. Once aboard the vessel , the catch ei ther i s taken di rectl y to
the processor, or i s i ced or f rozen f or l ater del i very.
7
The recei vi ng operati on usual l y i nvol ves three steps: unl oadi ng the
vessel , wei ghi ng, and transporti ng by conveyor or sui tabl e contai ner to the
processi ng area. The catch may be processed i mnmedi atel y or transf erred to
col d storage.
Preprocessi ng ref ers to the i nti al steps taken bef ore the raw materi al
enters the pl ant. I t may i ncl ude beheadi ng shri mp at sea, evi scerati ng
f i sh or shel l f i sh at sea, and other operati ons to prepare the f i sh f or
but cheri ng.
Wastes f rom the butcheri ng and evi scerati on are someti mes dry- cap-
tured, or screened f romthe waste stream, and processed as a f i shery
by- product .
Occasi onal l y, cooki ng or precooki ng of crab or tuna may be practi ced
i n order to prepare the f i sh or shel l f i sh f or pi cki ng and cl eani ng
operati on. The steamcondensate, or sti ck water, f romthe tuna or crab
precook i s of ten col l ected and f urther processed as a by- product.
The f i sh i s- prepared i n i ts f i nal f ormby pi cki ng or cl eani ng to
separate the edi bl e porti ons f rom non- edi bl e porti ons. Wastes generated
duri ng thi s procedure are someti mes col l ected and saved f or by- product
processi ng. Dependi ng on the speci es, the cl eani ng operati on may be
manual , mechani cal , or a combi nati on of both. Wi th f resh f i sh and f resh
shel l f i sh, the meat product i s packed i nto a sui tabl e contai ner and hel d
under ref ri gerati on f or shi pment to a retai l outl et. I f the product i s to
be hel d f or extended peri ods of ti me bef ore consumpti on, several f orms of
preservati on are used to prevent spoi l age caused by bacteri al acti on and
autol ysi s: f reezi ng, canni ng, pasteuri zati on and ref ri gerati on.
Bacteri al growth i s arrested at temperatures bel ow - 9C ( 16F) . For
thi s reason, f reezi ng i s an excel l ent method of hol di ng uncooked f i sh f or
an extended peri od of ti me. Freezi ng i s al so advantageous because the meat
remai ns essenti al l y unchanged, i n contrast to canni ng, whi ch al ters the
product f orm. However, autol ysi s sti l l conti nues at a reduced rate,
necessi tati ng the consumpti on of the meat wi thi n approxi matel y 6 months.
Storage ti mes vary f romspeci es to speci es. Cooki ng of crabs pri or to
f reezi ng i nacti vates many enzymes and f urther sl ows autol ysi s.
Preservati on by canni ng requi res speci al equi pment to f i l l the can,
preservati ves and seasoni ngs, and a parti al vacuumto seal the can. A
parti al vacuumi s necessary to avoi d di storti on of the can due to i ncreased
i nternal pressures duri ng cooki ng. Af ter seal i ng, the cans are washed and
retorted ( pressure- cooked) at approxi matel y 115
O
C ( 240F) f or 30 to 90
mi nutes, dependi ng on the can si ze. Al though the enzymes are i nacti vated
at rather l ow temperatures, hi gh temperatures must be reached to i nsure the
destructi on of harmf ul anaerobi c bacteri al spores. Cl ostri di umbotul i num,
the most harmf ul of these, must be subj ected to a temperature of 116
O
C
( 24O
O
F) f or at l east 8. 7 mi nutes. A l onger cooki ng ti me i s empl oyed to
achi eve thi s temperature throughout the can and to i nsure total destructi on
of the bacteri a. Af ter the cook, the can i s cool ed wi th water and the
canned f i sh or shel l f i sh i s transported to the l abel i ng roomf or casi ng and
shi pment.
I ndustri al f i shery products i ncl ude such commodi ti es as f i sh meal ,
concentrated protei n sol ubl es, oi l s, and al so mi scel l aneous products i n-
cl udi ng f erti l i zer, f i sh f eed pel l ets, kel p products, shel l novel ti es and
pearl essence. The maj or f i sh speci es used f or produci ng i ndustri al
f i shery products are the Atl anti c menhaden and the Paci f i c anchovy.
Meal , oi l , and sol ubl es are extracted f romthe f i sh vi a a wet
reducti on process. Thi s process consi sts of cooki ng the f i sh wi th l i ve
steamat about 204
0
F. The cooked f i sh are then pressed, separati ng the
f i sh i nto press cake ( sol i ds) and press l i quor ( l i qui d) . The press cake i s
dryed, ground and sol d as f i sh meal . The press l i quor i s cl ari f i ed and the
oi l i s separated. The oi l i s then f urther ref i ned, stored and shi pped.
The de- oi l ed press l i quor, known as sti ckwater, i s usual l y evaported to
bout 50 percent sol i ds and sol d- as f i sh sol ubl es.
Menhaden, herri ng, and al ewi ves are oi l y f i shes whi ch compri se the
bul k of the "i ndustri al f i sheri es" i n thi s country. They are rendered i nto
meal , oi l s, and sol ubl es. The meal i s used pri mari l y as ani mal f eed and
f erti l i zer. The oi l becomes an i ngredi ent i n pai nts, varni shes, resi ns,
and si mi l ar products. I t i s al so added to ani mal f eed, or used f or human
consumpti on abroad. The sol ubl es are ei ther f ed di rectl y to ani mal s or are
dri ed and processed i nto meal .
The menhaden f i shery i s the l argest i n the Uni ted States; the 1968
catch total ed 1. 4 bi l l i on pounds. The i ndustry i s l ocated mai nl y i n the
9
mi ddl e Atl anti c and the Gul f states. Fi shi ng takes pl ace premdomi nantl y
duri ng the summer and f al l months.
I n many cases, the menhaden renderi ng operati ons are hi ghl y
mechani zed. The process, outl i ned schemati cal l y i n Fi gure 1, i nvol ves
f i rst the harvesti ng of the f i sh i n purse sei nes and storage i n the hol ds
of the f i shi ng boats. I ce or ref ri gerati on i s used f or preservati on i f the
f i shi ng tri p exceeds one day. At the pl ant, the f i sh are pumped f romthe
hol ds, washed, automati cal l y sprayed and conveyed i nto the pl ant. Cooki ng
i s done conti nuousl y by steam. The f i sh are then pressed to remove the oi l
and most of the water. Thi s presswater i s screened to remove sol i ds and
centri f uged to separate the oi l . The remai ni ng water, cal l ed sti ckwater,
i s di scharged to evaporators to produce condensed f i sh sol ubl es. The sol i d
resi dual f romwhi ch the water and oi l have been pressed i s known as press
cake. The press cake i s dri ed to about 10 percent moi sture and then ground
f or f i sh meal .
Tuna
Tuna ranks as the number one seaf ood i n the Uni ted States.
Ameri cans consume over one bi l l i on cans of tuna per year. Tuna are l arge
mi gratory f i sh whi ch f eed on smal l er macroscopi c sea l i f e. Thei r di stri -
buti on i n the ocean i s sti l l l argel y unknown. The l argest part of the tuna
harvest takes pl ace of f the Paci f i c Coast. The annual tuna catch i s about
400 mi l l i on pounds.
Most tuna canned i n the Uni ted States are caught i n rel ati vel y di stant
waters. A modern tuna vessel can hol d f rom150 to 300 tons of f i sh and has
a range of 1, 000 mi l es. Because of the l ength of ti me i n transport, the
f i sh are normal l y f rozen on board the vessel s. Af ter the boat arri ves at
docksi de, the tuna canni ng operati on, as shown i n Fi gure 2, begi ns wi th the
mechani cal unl oadi ng of the f i sh, whi ch are wei ghed and i nspected whi l e
they are sti l l f rozen.
Then the tuna are thawed. The next step, evi scerati on, i s normal l y
conducted by hand i n several phases. The body cavi ti es are f l ushed wi th
water and al l adheri ng vi scera caref ul l y removed. The vi scera are used f or
f i sh meal or pet f ood and the l i vers are someti mes recovered f or oi l and
12
vi tami ns. Af ter butcheri ng, the f i sh are steamprecooked. The ti me of
cooki ng vari es wi th the f i sh si ze, but i t i s usual l y about three hours.
Thi s cooki ng removes 22 to 26 percent of the moi sture. Fol l owi ng cooki ng,
the f i sh are cool ed f or approxi matel y 12 hours to f i rmthe f l esh. The meat
i s then separated by hand f romthe head, bones, f i ns and ski n. Al l dark
meat i s removed and usual l y recovered f or pet f ood. The l i ght meat f or
canni ng i s pl aced on a conveyor bel t and transf erred to the "Pak- Shaper".
Tuna sl i ces are arranged l engthwi se i n the Pak- Shaper whi ch then mol ds the
meat i nto a cyl i nder, f i l l s the cans and tri ms the meat af ter f i l l i ng.
Each machi ne has a capaci ty of f rom125 to 150 cans per mi nute. Pri or to
vacuumseal i ng, sal t and vegetabl e oi l s are added to the cans. Af ter
seal i ng, the cans are retorted by standard procedures.
Sal mon
The onl y si gni f i cant commerci al anadromous f i shery i n the U. S. i s
the sal mon f i shery. The f i ve mai n speci es harvested i n thi s country are:
Chi nook ( ki ng)
Sockeye ( red)
Si l ver ( coho)
Pi nk
Chum.
The maj or porti on of the sal mon catch i s canned.
The f i sh are caught f ai rl y cl ose to the canneri es and are of ten stored
i n the boats wi thout ref ri gerati on. Canni ng operati ons are conducted f or
the most part empl oyi ng standard cannery equi pment i n a conventi onal manner
as shown i n Fi gure 3. Af ter transf er f romthe hol ds of the f i shi ng boats,
the f i sh are evi scerated, beheaded and the f i ns removed. The raw meat,
i ncl udi ng the bones, i s then pl aced i nto cans, the cans are wei ghed, and
thei r wei ghts are adj usted ( i f necessary) pri or to seal i ng. The cans are
then seamed, retorted, cool ed and cased pri or to shi ppi ng.
The pri nci pal excepti on to thi s standard canni ng operati on i s the use,
predomi nantl y i n Al aska, of the "i ron chi nk". The i ron chi nk perf orms
several f uncti ons i n one operati on, removi ng heads, f i ns and vi scera
mechani cal l y.
14
Shri mp
Shri mp are caught commerci al l y i n otter trawl s i n the coastal
waters. The shri mp are separated f romthe trash f i sh and stored by vari ous
methods. When short storage ti mes wi l l suf f i ce, no preservati on methods
are used; the shri mp are taken di rectl y to a processi ng pl ant or to a
whol esal e marketi ng vessel . When l onger storage ti mes are necessary, the
shri mp are i ced i n the hol ds. I n some pl aces, notabl y i n the Gul f of
Mexi co area, the shri mp are beheaded at sea and the heads dumped overboard.
The heads contai n most of the acti ve degradati ve enzymes, so thi s practi ce
retards spoi l age. I f the shri mp are beheaded wi thi n 30 mi nutes af ter bei ng
caught, the i ntesti nal vei ns are usual l y removed wi th the heads, whi ch i s
desi rabl e f roma qual i ty standpoi nt.
The shri mp are unl oaded f romthe vessel s i nto a f l otati on tank at
docksi de to remove the packi ng i ce, and then conveyed to a rotary drumto
remove surpl us water and bi ts of debri s. Thi s i s f ol l owed by wei ghi ng. I n
Texas and the South Atl anti c states parti cul arl y, the shri mp are i ced af ter
the i ni ti al preparati on to opti mi ze peel i ng condi ti ons.
Next the shri mp are peel ed ( or pi cked) by hand or machi ne. Machi ne-
peel ed shri mp are used mostl y f or canni ng. The machi ne- peel ed shri mp are
pal er i n col or, have a poorer f l avor and have a texture i nf eri or to
hand- pi cked shri mp. These di sadvantages are of f set by the f act that an
automati c peel er can handl e more than 500 pounds of shri mp per hour
compared to average rates of 100 to 400 pounds of shri mp per day per man
f or hand- pi cki ng.
Af ter peel i ng, the meats are i nspected and washed. They are then
bl anched i n a sal t sol uti on f or about 10 mi nutes and dri ed by vari ous
methods to remove surf ace water. Agai n the shri mp are i nspected and then
canned. The mechani cal process f or canned shri mp i s outl i ned i n Fi gure 4.
Shri mp are marketed f resh, f rozen, breaded, canned, cured and as
speci al ty products. An i ncreasi ng amount are sol d breaded or f resh- f rozen,
whereas the quanti ti es of canned shri mp produced i n recent years have been
rel ati vel y constant. About 40 percent are sol d f rozen i n the shel l .
16
Crabs
At most canni ng pl ants, the whol e crabs are steam- cooked i n retorts
f or 20 to 30 mi nutes. Paci f i c Coast Dungeness crab operati ons di f f er i n
that they f i rst butcher the crabs ( i . e. , remove the backs) and then cook
the crabs f or 12 mi nutes or l ess ( see Fi gure 5) . Cooked crabs are al so
marketed i n the shel l , butchered, or the meats pi cked f romthe shel l are
marketed f resh, f rozen or canned. The maj ori ty of the Atl anti c bl ue crab
meat i s marketed f resh or f rozen, whi l e the maj ori ty of the Paci f i c crab
meat i s canned. A l arge quanti ty of Dungeness crab i s sol d i n the shel l
and a l arge quanti ty of ki ng crab i s butchered at sea. Both practi ces
reduce the quanti ty of butcheri ng waste to be handl ed at the processi ng
pl ant si te.
Fi gure 6 depi cts a f rozen crab operati on. Crab canni ng and crab
f reezi ng operati ons are understandabl y si mi l ar. Af ter cooki ng, the crabs
are water- cool ed to f aci l i tate handl i ng. The backs are removed, i f they
haven' t been previ ousl y, and the remai ni ng vi scera are washed f ree. The
cooki ng, cool i ng, and washi ng waters contai n consi derabl e sol i ds and
organi c pol l utants. Af ter cool i ng, the meat i s pi cked f romthe shel l by
hand wi th a smal l kni f e. Mechani cal methods have been recentl y devel oped
to extract the meat f romthe shel l but are not as yet wi del y empl oyed.
Crab meat qui ckl y degrades i n qual i ty and must be chi l l ed, f rozen, or
canned. Chi l l ed meat can be stored f or onl y a f ew days and even f rozen
meat l oses texture and f l avor qual i ti es rapi dl y. Canni ng of crab meat
resul ts i n the addi ti onal wastewater f l ows of the retort and cool i ng
waters. Bl ue crab meat i s of ten canned and pasteuri zed to prol ong the
storage l i f e of the crab meat.
Bottom Fi sh
One research team l i sted the most economi cal l y i mportant bottom f i sh
speci es as:
Haddock
Hal i but
Cod
Ocean Perch
Whi ti ng ( si l ver hake)
19
Fl ounder
Hake
Pol l ock
About 30% of the bottomf i sh i ndustry i s l ocated i n the North Atl anti c
regi on. The maj or hal i but f i shery i s centered i n the Paci f i c Northwest
where the commerci al season extends f romApri l through October.
Bottomf i sh are usual l y caught i n otter trawl s. I n a typi cal
operati on, the f i sh are spread on the trawl er decks, sorted and i ced.
Perch, f l ounder and whi ti ng are stored whol e, whereas cod, haddock, hal i but
and pol l ock are usual l y evi scerated on deck. The vi scera and bl ood are
washed overboard.
Bottomf i sh are normal l y f i l l eted. The typi cal f i l l eti ng operati on i s
depi cted i n Fi gure 7. Af ter unl oadi ng, the f i sh are wei ghed, washed, and
i ced i n tote boxes. I n some l arger pl ants, mechani zed unl oadi ng methods
are used to mai ntai n qual i ty. I n smal l pl ants, the f i sh are processed by
hand. The f i l l ets are cut on a wooden board next to a si nk, washed and
i mmedi atel y i ced i n boxes f or di stri buti on.
Most pl ants processi ng f i l l ets use mechani zed equi pment. Fi rst, the
f i sh are washed wi th sprays of water i n l arge rotati ng tumbl ers; then they
l eti ng
i der-
pass through f i l l eti ng machi nes or
machi nes onl y operate on certai n s
abl y more ef f i ci ent and economi cal
removed f romthe f i l l et by hand or
al ong hand f i l l eti ng tabl es. Fi l
i zes and shapes, but they are cons
than hand f i l l eti ng. The ski n i s
machi ne. The sol i d wastes f rom
f i l l eti ng and ski nni ng operati ons are usual l y rendered f or pet f ood or
ani mal meal .
The ski nned f i l l ets are transported by a conveyor bel t to a washi ng
and someti mes a bri ni ng tank. Af ter i nspecti on, the f i l l ets are packed i n
contai ners or f rozen and then packed. Fi l l ets are marketed f rozen ( f resh
or breaded) , chi l l ed, or f resh.
Cl ams
The surf cl ami s a rel ati vel y recent addi ti on to the Atl anti c Coast
shel l f i sh processi ng i ndustry. The maj or i ndustry growth occurred i n the
mi d 1940' s and i n 1958, when new of f shore beds near Long I sl and, New York
were di scovered.
21
A f l ow chart of a typi cal surf cl ampl ant operati on i s shown i n Fi gure
8. Surf cl ams are del i vered to the pl ant s by truck and transf erred to
ref ri gerated storage i n 32- bushel capaci ty tote bi ns.
At processi ng ti me, the tote bi ns are moved wi th f orkl i f t trucks to
the dumpi ng tabl e where cl ams are dumped i nto a 190F water bath and hel d
f or about one mi nute. Thi s procedure removes surf ace si l t and a bl ack
membrane above the openi ng of the cl amshel l . The hot bath al so warms the
cl ams and makes themeasi er f or the shuckers to handl e. The cl ams are then
transf erred by bel t conveyor to a shucki ng stati on where up to 30 peopl e
open the shel l s and harvest the cl ammeats. Here the shel l s and bel l i es
are separated f romedi bl e cl ammeats and sent to waste col l ecti on on a bel t
conveyor system.
Waste i s sent outsi de the bui l di ng and separated i nto appropri ate
f racti ons such as bel l i es, and shel l s. These are then di sposed of vi a dump
trucks, garbage boat, or di rectl y to the harbor.
The cl ammeats are pl aced i n gal l on buckets and taken by the shuckers
to a dump tabl e i n a wash area. Here the meats are washed i n a mechani cal
spray- cl eani ng rotati ng chamber.
Ri nsed meat i s manual l y sorted on a sl ow- movi ng bel t by several
i nspectors at a second tabl e, and washed agai n through a second stai nl ess
steel spray- tumbl i ng devi ce si mi l ar to the f i rst washi ng chamber.
The washed cl ams are then transf erred vi a pl asti c pai l s to a mi nci ng
devi ce that resembl es a l arge meat gri nder, but wi thout cutti ng kni ves, i n
the di scharge port. Mi nci ng i s supposed to remove the l ast resi dues of
sand, and tenderi ze the meat.
Fromthi s poi nt, meat i s ei ther packed f or f resh sal es, f rozen i n
trays f or f rozen sal es, or cooked i n broth f or canni ng purposes as shown i n
Fi gure 8. Broth i s made i n steamkettl es and then canned. Fi l l ed cans are
f urther processed i n retorts, cool ed, marked, and cased f or truck l oad
shi pments to sal es outl ets.
The cl amcan al so be shucked mechani cal l y usi ng a heati ng oven. I n
thi s procedure the cl ams are sent through a hot box on a sl ow- movi ng
conveyor where the shel l s "gape". The bi val ves open and then the enti re
cl amf al l s onto a vi brati ng tabl e that i nduces the cl amto f al l f ree f rom
i ts shel l s. Fromthi s poi nt the meat i s handl ed as i n the manual
operati on.
22
Fi gure 8. Fl ow Di agramof Surf Cl amProcessi ng.
23
Some i ndustry peopl e thi nk the qual i ty of the hand shucki ng product i s
better than that f romthe heat- treated cl ams.
Appl i cat i on
A number of processi ng schemes have been presented to i denti f y the
vari ous types of operati ons speci f i c f or the seaf ood i ndustry. The control
of water and wastes i n the seaf ood i ndustry i s onl y possi bl e by attacki ng
the water use and wastes at the vari ous sources - each operati on i n the
parti cul ar pl ant under consi derati on.
The i ndustri es sel ected were not chosen because of i mportance but
pri mari l y to exhi bi t the range of process acti vi ti es i n the seaf ood
i ndustry. The next chapter wi l l i denti f y waste characteri sti cs rel ati ng to
some of the more si gni f i cant operati ons.
24
Ref erences
EPA. 1974. Devel opment Document f or Ef f l uent L
New Source Standards f or the Catf i sh, Crab,
i mi tati ons Gui de
Shri mp, and Tuna
of the Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Poi nt Source
l i nes and
Segment
Category. Uni ted States Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Washi ngton,
D. C. EPA- 440/ 1- 74- 020- a. J une.
Maul di n, A. F. and A. J . Szabo. Gul f Shri mp Canni ng Pl ant Wastewater
Processi ng. Proceedi ngs Fi f th Nati onal Symposi um on Food Processi ng
Wastes. J une, 1974. EPA- 660/ Z- 74- 058.
Muni ci pal Wastewater Treatment Works Constructi on Grants Program. USEPA.
Ref erences, Regul ati ons, Gui dance, Procedures.
Soderqui st, M. R. , et al . Seaf ood Processi ng: Pol l uti on Probl ems and
Gui del i nes f or I mprovement. Proceedi ngs Fi rst Nati onal Symposi um on
Food Processi ng Wastes. Apri l , 1970.
Soderqui st, M. R. , et al . Progress Report: Seaf oods Processi ng Wastewater
Characteri zati on. Proceedi ngs Thi rd Nati onal Symposi um on Food
Processi ng Wastes. November, 1972. EPA- R2- 72- 018.
Zal l , R. R. , et al . Recl amati on and Treatment of Cl amWash Waster.
Proceedi ngs Seventh Symposi umon Food Processi ng Wastes. December,
1976. EPA- 600/ 2- 76- 304.
25
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ WW CHARACTERI ZATI ON
WA S T E WA T E R C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I ON I N T HE
S E A F OOD P R OC E S S I N G I NDU S T R Y
I nt r oduct i on
Whenever f ood, i n any f orm, i s handl ed, processed, packaged and
stored, there wi l l al ways be an i nherent generati on of wastewater. The
quanti ty of processi ng wastewater that i s generated and i ts general qual i ty
i . e. , pol l utant strength, nature of consti tuents) , has both economi c and
envi ronmental consequences wi th respect to i ts treatabi l i ty and di sposal .
The economi cs of the wastewater l i e i n the amount of product l oss f rom
the processi ng operati ons and the cost of treati ng thi s waste materi al .
The cost f or product l oss i s sel f evi dent, however, the cost f or treati ng
the wastewater l i es i n i ts speci f i c characteri sti cs. Two si gni f i cant
characteri sti cs whi ch di ctate the cost f or treatment are the dai l y vol ume
of di scharge and the rel ati ve strength of the wastewater. Other charac-
teri sti cs become i mportant as system operati ons are af f ected and speci f i c
di scharge l i mi ts or restri cti ons are i denti f i ed ( i . e. , exoskel etal
materi al , scal es, entrai l s) .
The envi ronmental consequences i n not adequatel y removi ng the pol l u-
tants f rom the waste stream can have seri ous ecol ogi cal rami f i cati ons.
For exampl e, i f i nadequatel y treated wastewater were to be di scharged to a
stream or ri ver, an eutrophi c condi ti on woul d devel op wi thi n the aquati c
envi ronment due to the di scharge of bi odegradabl e, oxygen consumi ng com-
pounds. I f thi s condi ti on were sustai ned f or a suf f i ci ent amount of ti me,
the ecol ogi cal bal ance of the recei vi ng stream, ri ver or l ake ( i . e. ,
aquati c mi crof l ora, pl ants and ani mal s) woul d be upset. Conti nual depl e-
ti on of the oxygen i n these water systems woul d al so resul t i n the devel op-
ment of obnoxi ous odors and unsi ghtl y scenes.
Thi s chapter wi l l deal wi th those i ndustri es who uti l i ze processes of
the canned and preserved seaf ood i ndustry. These processes i ncl ude the
f ol l owi ng uni t operati ons: harvesti ng, stori ng, recei vi ng, evi scerati ng,
precooki ng, pi cki ng or cl eani ng, preservi ng and packagi ng of whi ch exampl es
have been presented i n the previ ous chapter. I nherent i n the seaf ood
i ndustry i s the great vari abi l i ty i n the l ength of the processi ng season
and the amount of materi al processed. Al so associ ated wi th thi s i ndustry
26
i s the wi de vari ati ons i n both the amount of water used and the waste
l oadi ng f romprocess pl ant to process pl ant. I n general , wastes f romthe
seaf ood i ndustry contai n bi odegradabl e organi c matter ( BOD) i n the f orm of
di ssol ved and suspended sol i ds and oi l s and greases ( FOG) .
Wastewater Characteri zati on
Maj or wastewater characteri sti cs of concern to the seaf ood
processi ng i ndustri es are pol l utant parameters, sources of process waste
and types of wastes. These characteri sti cs wi l l be consi dered i n the
f ol l owi ng di scussi on.
Pol l utant parameters of i mportance to the seaf ood i ndustry are
bi ochemi cal oxygen demand ( BOD) , chemi cal oxygen demand ( COD) , total
suspended sol i ds ( TSS) , f ats, oi l and greases ( FOG) , and water usage.
Mi ni mi zi ng the concentrati ons of these and water usage wi l l hel p reduce
the sewer use costs or decrease the cost of operati ng a pretreatment or
treatment system. These parameters can be def i ned by moni tori ng the
pl ant' s processi ng f l ow as presented i n Fi gures 2 ( Tuna Canni ng) , 3 ( Sal mon
Canni ng) , 4 ( Shri mp) , 6 ( Crab) , 7 ( f i sh Fi l l eti ng) , and 8 ( Cl amProcess-
i ng) . Dependi ng on the wastewater characteri sti c prof i l e as di scharged
f roma seaf ood processi ng pl ant, any number of waste reducti on opti ons may
have to be i ni ti ated to meet the ul ti mate di scharge requi rements.
Sampl i ng
Of equal i mportance i s the probl emof obtai ni ng a trul y represen-
tati ve sampl e of the streamef f l uent. The sampl es may be requi red not onl y
f or the 24 hr ef f l uent l oads, but to determi ne the peak l oad concentra-
ti ons, the durati on of peak l oads and the occurrence of vari ati on
throughout the day. Assumi ng that a sampl e can be taken f romthe ef f l uent
drai n whi ch wi l l be representati ve of the l i qui d i n the wei r or f l ume,
there are a number of di f f erent ways of obtai ni ng a 24 hr composi te.
( a) A ti me- proporti onal method, whi ch i nvol ves taki ng a sampl e at a
set ti me i nterval , e. g. , every 1 mi n, or every 30 mi n; the greater the
f requency of sampl i ng, the more representati ve wi l l be the sampl e;
( b) A vol ume porporti onal method, i n whi ch a smal l sampl e i s taken
f romthe drai n af ter a known vol ume, e. g. , 1000 1, has passed through the
f l ow measuri ng devi ce;
27
( c) A f l ow proporti onal method, i n whi ch a si mpl e i s taken f romthe
drai n at a parti cul ar ti me but proporti onal to the f l ow passi ng the
parti cul ar devi ce at the ti me the sampl e i s taken, and
( d) A combi nati on method, i n whi ch the sampl e i s taken porporti onal to
both ti me and vol ume.
Obtai ni ng good resul ts wi l l depend upon certai n detai l s. Among these are
the f ol l owi ng:
( a) I nsuri ng that the sampl e taken i s trul y representati ve of the
wastestream.
( b) Usi ng proper sampl i ng techni ques.
( c) Protecti ng the sampl es unti l they are anal yzed.
The f i rst of these requi rements, obtai ni ng a sampl e whi ch i s trul y
representati ve of the wastestream, may be the source of si gni f i cant errors.
Thi s i s especi al l y apparent i n the case of "grab' or non- composi ted
sampl es. I t must be remembered that waste f l ows can vary wi del y both i n
magni tude and composi ti on over a 24- hour peri od. Al so, composi ti on can
vary wi thi n a gi ven streamat any si ngl e ti me due to a parti al settl i ng of
suspended sol i ds or the f l oati ng of l i ght materi al s. Because of the l ower
vel oci ti es next to the wal l s of the f l ow channel , materi al s wi l l tend to
deposi t i n these areas. Sampl es shoul d theref ore be taken f romthe
wastestreamwhere the f l ow i s wel l mi xed. Si nce sui tabl e poi nts f or
sampl i ng i n sewer systems are l i mi ted, numerous i deal l ocati ons are not
usual .
The usual method f or accounti ng f or vari ati ons i n f l ow and waste
consti tuents and mi ni mi zi ng the anal yti cal ef f ort i s by composi ti ng the
sampl es. Basi cal l y, suf f i ci ent sampl es shoul d be taken so that, when mi xed
together ( bef ore anal ysi s) , the resul ts whi ch are obtai ned wi l l be si mi l ar
to taki ng a sampl e f roma compl etel y- mi xed tank whi ch had col l ected al l the
f l ow f romthe streami n questi on. Greater accuracy i s obtai ned i f the
amount of sampl e i n the composi te i s taken i n porporti on to the f l ow. I n
general , the greater the f requency of sampl es taken f or the composi te, the
more accurate the resul ts.
Obtai ni ng a representati ve sampl e shoul d be of maj or concern i n a
moni tori ng program. A thorough anal ysi s of the waste f l ows i n the pl ant
must be made and a responsi bl e staf f member shoul d be assi gned to i nsure
that the sampl es taken are representati ve. As a general rul e, cl oser
28
attenti on must be gi ven to waste sampl i ng than i n the sampl i ng of a
manuf acturi ng process stream.
I n many process operati ons, the wastes are pumped f romsumps wi thi n
the pl ant bef ore the l i qui d goes i nto settl i ng tanks. Where a l i qui d i s
bei ng pumped through a pi pe, f l ow moni tori ng and sampl i ng are of ten
si mpl i f i ed, f or i n most cases the vari ati ons i n pumpi ng rate are mi nor and
can ei ther be cal cul ated f romthe pump curves, or by cal i brati ng pumps.
Sampl i ng under these systems i nvol ves usi ng ti me- operated sol enoi d val ves
whi ch open f or a bri ef i nterval every mi nute or so. The ti mers shoul d be
attached to the pump motors so that sampl es are taken onl y when the
ef f l uent i s bei ng pumped.
Once the sampl es have been obtai ned, anal ysi s procedures shoul d be
i ni ti ated as soon as practi cal . Tabl e 1 summari zes the recommended storage
procedure f or speci f i c anal ysi s.
Process Waste Poi nt Sources and Types
I ntroducti on
Fi gures 1 through 8 present wastewater f l ow di agrams f or represen-
tati ve seaf ood processi ng operati ons. I n these f l ow schemes, the l i qui d
and sol i d waste poi nt sources are i denti f i ed. A summary of the raw waste-
water characteri sti cs f or the canned and preserved seaf ood processi ng
i ndustry i s presented i n Tabl e 2.
Maj or types of wastes f ound i n seaf ood processi ng wastewaters are
bl ood, of f al products, vi scera, f i ns, f i sh heads, shel l s, ski ns and meat
"f i nes". These wastes contri bute si gni f i cantl y to the suspended sol i ds
concentrati on of the waste stream. However, much of the sol i ds can be
removed f romthe wastewater and col l ected f or ani mal f ood appl i cati ons.
I n a properl y managed menhaden renderi ng pl ant, the quanti ti es of
wastes produced are smal l . The onl y i nherentl y troubl esome waste i s the
f i sh pumpi ng water. The other wastes resul t f romspi l l s and l eakages, both
of whi ch can be mi ni mi zed.
The wastewaters f romthe producti on of f i sh meal , sol ubl es, and oi l
f rom herri ng, menhaden and al ewi ves can be di vi ded i nto two categori es:
hi gh- vol ume, l ow- strength wastes and l ow- vol ume, hi gh- strength wastes.
Analysis
29
Tabl e 1. Recommended Storage Procedure
Sample Storage
Refrigeration Frozen
Total Solids OK
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Up to several days
Up to several days
COD Up to several days
BOD Up to one day in composite
sampling systems
Oil and Greese Add 2 mg H
2
SO
4
/1 of
sample Preservation good
for 24 days
OK
NO
NO
OK
OK
Lag develops;
must use fresh
sewage seed.
Color Preservation good for 24 hours
31
The hi gh- vol ume, l ow- strength wastes consi st of the water used f or
unl oadi ng, f l umi ng, transporti ng, and handl i ng the f i sh pl us the washdown
wat er. The f l umi ng f l ow has been esti mated to be 200 gal l ons per ton of
f i sh wi th a suspended sol i ds l oadi ng of 5, 000 mg/ l . The sol i ds consi sted
of bl ood, f l esh, oi l and f at. The above f i gures vary wi del y. Other
esti mates l i sted herri ng pump water f l ows of 250 gpmwi th total sol i ds
concentrati ons of 30, 000 mg/ l and oi l concentrati ons of 4, 000 mg/ l . The
boat' s bi l ge water has been esti mated to be 400 gal l ons per ton of f i sh
wi th a suspended sol i ds l evel of 10, 000 mg/ l .
The sti ckwaters compri se the strongest wastewater f l ows. The average
BOD
5
val ue f or sti ckwater has been l i sted as rangi ng f rom56, 000 to
112, 000 mg/ l , wi th average sol i ds concentrati ons, mai nl y protei naceous,
rangi ng up to 6%. The f i sh processi ng i ndustry has f ound the recovery of
f i sh sol ubl es f romsti ckwater to be at l east margi nal l y prof i tabl e. I n
most i nstances, sti ckwater i s now evaporated to produce condensed f i sh
sol ubl es. Vol umes have been esti mated to be about 120 gal l ons per ton of
f i sh processed.
Tuna
The annual tuna catch averages about 400 mi l l i ons pounds, al most al l
of whi ch i s canned. I t has been esti mated that 65% of the tuna i s wasted
i n the canni ng process. The degree of wastage depends somewhat on the
speci es bei ng processed, so vari ati ons i n thi s 65%f i gure wi l l occur. One
study exami ned i n detai l the waste f roma tuna canni ng and by- product
renderi ng pl ant f or a f i ve- day peri od. The f ol l owi ng observati ons were
made:
The average waste f l ow was 6, 800 gal l ons per ton of f i sh.
Organi c l oadi ngs vari ed f rom500 to 1, 550 mg/ l BOD
5
.
The average dai l y COD ranged f rom1, 300 to 3, 250 mg/ l
and the total sol i ds averaged 17, 900 mg/ l of whi ch 40%
was organi c.
The mean val ues and thei r expressi ons i n terms of pounds per ton of f i sh
are l i sted i n Tabl e 3.
These f i gures i ndi cate that the f i ve- day BOD of the tuna waste was
onl y approxi matel y 40 percent of the COD val ue. Due to the hi gh proporti on
of parti cul ate matter i n the total sol i ds ( l eadi ng to l ow surf ace- area- to-
33
vol ume rati os) , and to the organi c nature of the wastes, a consi derabl e BOD
i s exerted af ter f i ve days. I n thi s case, at 22 cl ays, the ROD exerted was
3, 520 mg/ l and was noted to sti l l be ri si ng. I t i s i mportant to real i ze
that the waste exerts a consi derabl e ni trogenous demand ( that oxygen
requi red to oxi di ze the l ess reduced f orms of ni trogen to ni trate) i n
excess of the f i ve- day carbonaceous val ue.
Sal mon
The quanti ti es and possi bl e uses of sal mon wastes have been pretty
wel l researched. One i nvesti gati on f ound that waste f romprocessi ng
amounted to 34%of the catch. Si mi l ar esti mates were reported by other
researchers. Of these wastes, 50 to 61% ( dependi ng on the speci es)
consi sts of heads and col l ars. Another 11 to 16%i s made up of tai l s and
f i ns. Other waste f racti ons i n decreasi ng order of magni tude are: l i ver,
roe ( unl ai d eggs) , mi l t, di gesti ve tract, and heart.
One study ' l i sted the f l ow f roma sal mon canni ng l i ne at 300 gal l ons
per mi nute, wi th a total sol i ds concentrati on of 5, 000 mg/ l and an oi l
concentrati on of 250 mg/ l . Other i nvesti gators have characteri zed the
wastes f rom sal mon canni ng operati ons as shown i n Tabl e 4.
The val ues f or al l parameters are qui te vari abl e, the wastewater
strength probabl y dependi ng on the ef f i ci ency of sol i ds removal .
The BOD
5
concentrati ons ranged f rom200 to 4, 000 mg/ l
Suspended sol i ds ranged f rom40- 5, 000 mg/ l
Total sol i ds ranged f rom80- 8, 000 mg/ l
Vol ati l e sol i ds ranged f rom60- 7, 000 mg/ l .
Cavi er producti on of ten accompani es sal mon canni ng processes. Thi s
process resul ts i n extremel y strong wastes, but the f l ows are smal l .
Shri mp
I t has been esti mated that 78 to 85 percent of the shri mp i s wasted
i n mechani cal peel i ng and 77 to 85 percent i n hand- pi cki ng. The Oregon
State Department of Envi ronmental Qual i ty esti mated 78 percent f or
hand- pi cki ng and the Bureau of Commerci al Fi sheri es l i sted a cl eani ng l oss
of 55 percent. The l ow val ue f romthe Bureau of Commerci al Fi sheri es was
apparentl y due to i gnori ng of the bl anchi ng l oss, whi ch ranges f rom30 to
35 percent of the pi cked wastes. Usi ng a val ue of 80 percent wastage, the
35
quanti ty of shri mp wastes generated i n 1968 was cal cul ated to be 233
mi l l i on pounds.
Shri mp waste has been anal yzed and been shown to be predomi nantl y
protei n, chi ti n ( a compl ex pol ysacchari de, not readi l y bi odegradabl e) and
cal ci umcarbonate, as outl i ned i n Tabl e 5. The protei n concentrati on i n
shri mp waste has been j udged sati sf actory f or ani mal f eed.
Tabl e 6 shows BOD5 and suspended sol i ds characteri zati on f or the
pri mary shri mp processi ng and canni ng operati ons. The peel i ng operati on
contri butes approxi matel y 70% of these parameters to the total di scharge.
The mi scel l aneous operati ons i ncl ude water f l ume dumps, canni ng, retort
cool i ng and i nspecti on. The BOD5 concentrati on f or the total di scharge
vari es f rom 1, 000 mg/ l to 1, 800 mg/ l and the suspended sol i ds concentrati on
f or the total di scharge vari es f rom400 mg/ l to 800 mg/ l .
Bough ( 1978) reported on the hi gh waste l oads f ound i n a shri mp
breadi ng and f reezi ng pl ant. The waste l oads were 117 l b BOD f or
processi ng and 104 l b BOD f or cl eanup f romthe processi ng of 1000 l b of
green, headl ess shri mp. The total waste l oad was 221 l b/ 1000 l b green,
headl ess shri mp. Bough noted practi ces i ncl udi ng screeni ng and dry
cl eanup to reduce thi s l oad whi ch wi l l be di scussed i n the next chapter.
Crab
The maj or porti on of the crab i s i nedi bl e and as a resul t, i s wasted
duri ng processi ng. The waste consi sts of the shel l and entrai l s, and
amounts to about 80%of the crab' s wei ght. Large quanti ti es of water are
necessary f or cooki ng, cool i ng, and washi ng the entrai l s f romthe body.
The wastage f or the total crab has been reported as:
86%f rombl ue crab
80%f romki ng crab
73%f romDungeness crab.
The composi ti on of the shel l f i sh wastes i s l argel y determi ned by the
exoskel eton. The exoskel eton i s composed pri mari l y of chi ti n, protei n
bound to the chi ti n, and cal ci umcarbonate. The maj or porti on of the
wastes consi sts of exoskel eton materi al s accompani ed by varyi ng si gni f i cant
amounts of attached or unrecovered f l esh and vi sceral materi al . Tabl e 7
l i sts typi cal composi ti ons of these wastes. The protei n l evel i s con-
39
si dered l ow compared wi th vi sceral f i sh wastes, so thi s materi al i s
consi dered onl y margi nal l y sati sf actory as an ani mal f eed.
Crab processi ng wastes, l i ke shri mp processi ng wastes, i ncl ude l arge
vol umes of processi ng wash waters, sol i d wastes, canni ng waters, and pl ant
cl eanup water.
Bri nsf i el d, et al . ( 1977) surveyed the Maryl and seaf ood i ndustri es
i ncl udi ng crab processors. The conventi onal processi ng of bl ue crabs was
f ound to yi el d waste characteri sti cs as shown i n Tabl e 8. The wastewater
f l ow i s shown to be 1513 gal / ton processed wi th a 5- day BOD of 2. 67 l b/ ton
processed.
BottomFi sh
About 35 to 40 percent of the hal i but i s wasted duri ng processi ng.
The vi scera are usual l y di sposed of at sea. The remai ni ng wastes ( heads,
ski ns and f i ns) have been esti mated to amount to about 1. 2 percent of the
total wastes. Usi ng thi s 12 percent f i gure, the hal i but wastes i n 1978
were cal cul ated to total 3 mi l l i on pounds. I n most other f i l l eti ng
operati ons, the f i sh are not evi scerated. The unf i l l eted porti ons are
di scarded or recovered f or by- products. Water i s run conti nuousl y i n the
spray- washers and duri ng f i l l eti ng and ski nni ng f or bacteri ol ogi cal
control . Bl ood and smal l pi eces of f i sh f l esh are trapped i n thi s f l ow.
Other waste f l ows i ncl ude the packi ng i ce and the cool i ng waters.
One researcher determi ned the composi ti on of wastes f romsol e and
f l ounder processi ng. Composi te sampl es were prepared f romthe i nedi bl e
parts of 214 f i sh. The average composi ti on was:
moi sture, 77. 4%
oi l , 5. 68%
protei n, 13. 6%
ash, 3. 84%
sodi um, 0. 16%
potassi um, 0. 22%
Al though the i nedi bl e parts of sol e and f l ounder had l ower val ues f or
protei n and ash than di d those of other sal twater speci es, they were j udged
to be of hi gh enough qual i ty f or by- product uti l i zati on. The waste f l ows
f rombottomf i sh processi ng i ncl ude l arge vol umes of wastewater contai ni ng
bl ood, smal l pi eces of f l esh, the skel eton ( e. g. f rame or rack) of the f i sh
40
Tabl e 8. Bl ue Crab Wastewater Characteri zati on.
PARAMETER UNIT MEAN STD DEV
PRODUCTION (TONS/DAY)
PROCESS TIME (HRS/DAY)
FLOW RATE (GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO (GAL/TON)
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS ( ML/ L)
TSS (LBS/lOOO LB)
5 DAY BOD (LBS/lOOO LB)
OIL 6 GREASE (LBS/lOOO LB)
PHOSPHORUS(TOTAL) (LBS/lOOO LB)
NITROGEN (NITRITE- (LBS/lOOO LB)
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3 (LBS/lOOO LB)
KJELDAHL NITROGEN (LBS/lOOO LB)
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE (LBS/lOOO LB)
PH
7.63
COLIFORM (MPN/lOO ML)
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
1.8 x l0
3
FECAL COLIFORM (MPN/lOO ML)
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
2.20
7.24
7.67
1512.86
2.79
1.92
2.67
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.27
0. 29
200.00
0.78
0.89
9.10
624.43
5.13
4.26
7.81
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.13
0.66
1.00
0.54
41
af ter f i l l eti ng, and the ski n. Tabl e 9 summari zes f i sh processi ng
wastewater characteri sti cs.
Bri nsf i el d, et al . ( 1977) i n studyi ng f i sh processi ng pl ants i n
Maryl and f ound that the f l ow rati o was 3254 gal / ton as shown i n Tabl e 10.
The 5- day BOD rati o was f ound to be 137 l b/ 1000 l b as shown al so i n Tabl e
10.
42
Tabl e 9. Bottom Fi sh Processi ng Wastewater
Characteri sti cs.
Fl ow B0D
5 Suspended
Sol i ds
105 640 300
320- 410 192- 640 - - -
132 1726 - - -
450 - - - 750
43
Tabl e 10. Non- Al aska BottomFi sh.
PARAMETER UNIT MEAN STD DEV
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL & GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH
3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(TONS/DAY) 0. 49 0.78
(HRS/DAY) 6.65 1.86
(GAL/MIN) 4.02 3.37
(GAL/TON) 3253.51 478.23
(ML/L)
2.29 2.61
(LBS/lOOO LB) 9.36 9.05
(LBS/lOOO LB) 137.19 259.32
(LBS/lOOO LB) 0.00 0.00
(LBS/lOOO LB) 1.35 2.81
(LBS/lO0O LB) 0.00 0.01
(LBS/lOOO LB)
(LBS/lOOO LB)
(LBS/lOOO LB)
(MPN/lOO ML)
(MPN/lOO ML)
1.27
10.95
0.02
6.89
79.50 x 10
175.00
2.88
15.31
0.03
0.69
44
I n addi ti on to those ref erences f or Chapter 2, the f ol l owi ng are of
i nterest:
Ref erences
Bough, Wayne A. 1978. Dry Cl ean- Up Techni ques f or Reduci ng BOD Waste Load
f romShri mp Processors. Proceedi ngs 3rd Annual Tropi cal and Sub-
tropi cal Fi sheri es Technol ogi cal Conf erence, Texas A&M Sea Grant
Col l ege Program.
Bri nsf i el d, Russel B. and Dougl as G. Phi l l i ps. 1977. Waste Treatment and
Di sposal f romSeaf ood Processi ng Pl ants. EPA- 600/ 2- 77- 157. U. S.
Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Ada, Okl ahoma 74820.
Bri nsf i el d, R. B. , P. N. Wi nn and D. G. Phi l l i ps. 1978. Characteri zati on,
Treatment and Di sposal of Wastewater f rom Maryl and Seaf ood Pl ants.
J . Water Pol l uti on Control Federati on. August, pp. 1943- 1952.
Brungs, Wi l l i amA. 1973. Ef f ects of Resi dual Chl ori ne on Aquati c Li f e:
J . Water Pol l uti on Control Federati on, Vol 32: 10, October.
Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Poi nt Source Category Gui del i nes
and Standards ( Catf i sh, Crab, Shri mp and Tuna Processi ng
Subcategory) , U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Federal Regi ster
39- 23134, J une 26, 1974, as amended by Federal Regi ster 40- 55780,
December 1, 1975.
Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Poi nt Source Category, Ef f l uent
Gui del i nes and Standards ( Fi sh Meal , Sal mon, Bottom Fi sh, Cl am,
Oyster, Sardi ne, Scal l op, Herri ng and Abal one Processi ng
Subcategory) , U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Federal Regi ster
40- 55770, December 1, 1975.
Devel opment Document f or Proposed Ef f l uent Li mi tati ons Gui del i nes and New
Source Perf ormance Standards f or the Catf i sh, Crab, Shri mp and Tuna
Segment of the Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Pl ant Source
Category, U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, EPA 440/ l - 74- 020a,
Washi ngton, D. C. , J ul y, 1974.
45
Devel opment Document f or I nteri m Fi nal Ef f l uent Li mi tati ons Gui del i nes and
Proposed New Source Perf ormance Standards f or the Fi sh Meal , Sal mon,
Bottom Fi sh, Sardi ne, Herri ng, Cl am, Oyster, Scal l op, and Abal one
Segment of the Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Poi nt Source
Category, Phase I I , U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, EPA
440/ l - 74- 041, Washi ngton, D. C. , J anuary, 1975.
Economi c Anal ysi s of Ef f l uent Gui del i nes f or Sel ected Segments of the
Seaf ood Processi ng I ndustry ( Catf i sh, Crab, Shri mp, and Tuna) , U. S.
Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, EPA 230/ 2- 74- 025, Washi ngton, D. C. ,
J ul y, 1974.
Economi c Anal ysi s of Fi nal Ef f l uent Gui del i nes f or the Seaf oods Processi ng
I ndustry ( Fi sh Meal , Sal mon, Bottom Fi sh, Cl ams, Oysters, Sardi nes,
Scal l ops, Herri ng, Abal one) , U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency,
EPA 230/ 2- 74- 047, Washi ngton, D. C. , October, 1975.
Fi nal Report on Cost of I mpl ementati on and Capabi l i ti es of Avai l abl e
Technol ogy to Compl y wi th P. L. 92- 500, I ndustry Category I I : Canned
and Preserved Seaf ood; f or Nati onal Commi ssi on on Water Qual i ty,
Battel l e' s Col umbus Laboratori es, J ul y 3, 1975.
Food Wastewater and I ts Treatment, 1976. Publ i shed by EPA, Constructi on
Grants Programs, Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency- Techni cal Transf er
Seri es ( EPA- 43- 9- 76- 017c) , Vol . I I I , Appendi x 8.
Roberts, Morri s H. J r. , R. J . Di az, M. E. Bender, and R. J . Huggett. 1975.
Acute Toxi ci ty of Chl ori ne to Sel ected Estuari ne Speci es; J . of The
Fi sheri es Research Board of Canada, Vol . 32: 12, pp. 2525- 2528.
Scott, Paul M. , Mari e D. Wri ght and Wayne A. Bough. 1978. Characteri za-
ti on of Waste Loadi ng f romA Shri mp Packi ng House and Eval uati on of
Di f f erent Screen Si zes f or Removal of Heads. Proceedi ngs 3rd Annual
Tropi cal and Subtropi cal Fi sheri es Technol ogi cal Conf erence, Texas
A&M Sea Grant Col l ege Program.
Tsai , Chu- f a. 1975. Ef f ects of Sewage Treatment Pl ant Ef f l uent on Fi sh:
A Revi ew of Li terature; Chesapeake Research Consorti um I nc. ,
Publ i cati on No. 36, March.
A search of the l i terature reveal s l i ttl e i nf ormati on on the i n- pl ant
control per se of water and wastewater f romseaf ood processi ng operati ons.
However, several studi es have i nvesti gated methods f or gl eani ng by- products
f romi n- pl ant "waste" f l ows bef ore those f l ows reach the sewer. These meth-
ods and process modi f i cati ons are somewhat commodi ty- speci f i c, so they wi l l
di f f er accordi ngl y. They serve i ndi rectl y as an i n- pl ant control mechani sm;
they "ki l l two bi rds wi th one stone" i n that they capture a sal abl e by- pro-
duct whi ch i f l ef t to f i nd i ts way to the sewer, woul d contri bute to the
waste strength, thereby addi ng to the waste treatment cost. These methods
are di scussed more thoroughl y i n the "By- Product Recovery and Use" secti on of
thi s manual .
Becomi ng f ami l i ar wi th the techni ques avai l abl e f or managi ng water and
waste i s i mportant. But, perhaps more i mportant i s your understandi ng of the
concepts that gi ve ri se to those techni ques. I t shoul d be no surpri se that
the same basi c waste management concepts hol d true f or j ust about every type
of f ood processi ng operati on.
Thi s chapter i s di vi ded i nto two mai n parts. The f i rst secti on presents
some concepts and techni ques whi ch appl y to control l i ng water and wastewater
i n the i ndustry. The second secti on presents some i deas on recycl i ng and re-
usi ng f ood processi ng wastewaters, and al so some case studi es whi ch deal wi th
recoveri ng and usi ng by- products f romseaf ood processi ng wastewaters. Bef ore
readi ng thi s chapter, you may wi sh to ref er to Chapter 2 of thi s Spi nof f Man-
ual , "Typi cal Seaf ood Processi ng Pl ant Schemes". Chapter 2 presents some f l ow
di agrams of steps i nvol ved i n processi ng vari ous seaf ood commodi ti es, and di s-
cusses the wastewater characteri sti cs associ ated wi th those processes. There
are a f ew pl aces i n thi s chapter ( Chapter 4) whi ch ref er to those f l ow di a-
grams i n Chapter 2.
I N- PLANT CONTROL TECHNI QUES AND PROCESSES
The concept of uti l i zi ng i n- pl ant changes to reduce or prevent waste and
pol l uti on requi res a maj or change i n thi nki ng on the part of i ndustry and the
consumer. Present waste and pol l uti on comes f romthe f i shi ng boats ( where
47
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ CONTROL OF WATER & WW
sol ubl e components accumul ate i n the bi l ge and are of ten subsequentl y di s-
charged i nto harbors adj acent to the pl ants) as wel l as the di scharge water
f rom pl ants, contai ni ng both sol i ds and sol ubl es. Not onl y do sol ubl es cre-
ate an unacceptabl e pol l uti on probl em, but they represent a val uabl e protei n-
aceous f ood materi al that shoul d be recovered. Li kewi se, much of the sol i d
waste currentl y bei ng reduced to l ow- gradeani mal f ood or di scarded as a waste
product can and shoul d be upgraded to human f oods or hi gh- grade ani mal f eed
components.
The seaf ood i ndustry must rapi dl y reori ent i ts ef f orts toward a "total
uti l i zati on concept", wherei n many of the current waste materi al s are vi ewed
as "secondary raw materi al s". Thi s reori entati on i s not onl y necessary f or
mai ntai ni ng and i mprovi ng envi ronmental qual i ty, but f or usi ng the f ood that
i s now bei ng wasted.
One of the key poi nts i n tryi ng to i ntroduce conceptual changes i nto
the seaf ood i ndustry i s to i ncrease our hori zons to mai ntai n a broad perspec-
ti ve i n terms of f i sh producti on and consumpti on. Presentl y more than two-
thi rds of the harvested seaf ood i s not bei ng di rectl y uti l i zed as human f ood
and approxi matel y one- hal f of thi s amount i s bei ng di scarded. Froma nutri -
ti onal poi nt of vi ew, thi s wasted porti on i s comparabl e to the porti on bei ng
marketed f or human f ood and represents a tremendous potenti al f or i ncreasi ng
the suppl y of protei n suppl i es. Furthermore, ef f ecti ve uti l i zati on of f ood
materi al s requi res f ami l i ari zati on wi th the worl d eati ng habi ts. For exampl e,
ten years ago sal mon eggs, whi ch account f or about f i ve percent of the total
wei ght of the f i sh, presented a waste di sposal probl em. Today the J apanese
are payi ng as much as $6. 00 per kg ( $2. 70 per l b) f or sal mon eggs to be used
as cavi ar. On the other hand, Ameri cans wi l l not eat sal mon egg cavi ar.
Hence, waste f romone nati on i s consi dered a del i cacy by another.
Mai ntai ni ng the theme of "total uti l i zati on", i t i s the obj ect of thi s
di scussi on to anal yze the vari ous f actors i nvol ved i n "cl osi ng the processi ng
cycl e" so that raw materi al i s used to the f ul l est extent possi bl e wi th the
subsequent mi ni mi zati on of envi ronmental pol l uti on. The i mpl ementati on of
i n- pl ant changes to accompl i sh thi s goal i s certai nl y more l ogi cal than spen-
di ng l arge amounts of money to si mpl y treat f ood processi ng wastes at the end
of the ef f l uent pi pe.
I NTERDEPENDENCE OF HARVESTI NG AND PROCESSI NG
The harvesti ng of f i shery products can be di vi ded i nto two broad cl assi -
48
SFAFOOD SPNOFF/ CONTROL OF WATER & WW
f i cati ons, namel y those i nvol vi ng the catchi ng of l arge masses i n a si ngl e
ef f ort and those of catchi ng or harvesti ng i ndi vi dual ani mal s. Mass harves-
ti ng of f i sh ordi nari l y requi res expensi ve and sophi sti cated equi pment com-
pared to the catchi ng of i ndi vi dual ani mal s. Hence, the practi ce of mass
harvesti ng, parti cul arl y as appl i ed to the hi gh seas f i sheri es, i s l i mi ted
to countri es whi ch can af f ord the expensi ve vessel s and gear that are requi red.
Even marketi ng of hi ghl y desi rabl e seasonal f i sh, such as sal mon, has
been somewhat restri cted by the gl uts of raw materi al that are avai l abl e dur-
i ng a short peri od of the year. Al though the market demand and processor' s
prof i t are greater f or qui ck- f rozen sal mon, he has conti nued to can much of
the pack because adequate f reezi ng and handl i ng f aci l i ti es have not been
avai l abl e. Furthermore, i f a company cannot di versi f y i nto other f i sheri es
and operate over a maj or porti on of the year, capi tal i nvestment versus pro-
f i t greatl y l i mi ts the degree to whi ch new f reezi ng and col d storage f aci l i -
ti es can be purchased to handl e l arger porti ons of the seasonal catch. Hence,
extensi ve ef f orts are bei ng made by compani es handl i ng seasonal f i sh to di ver-
si f y i nto other f i sheri es to j usti f y thei r capi tal i nvestment. Thi s di versi -
f i cati on shoul d be benef i ci al to the envi ronment i n at l east two ways:
1) The l onger processi ng season shoul d j usti f y i ncreased
capi tal expendi tures on waste treatment systems ( as wel l
as processi ng f aci l i ti es) .
2) More regul ar and conti nuous processi ng schedul es shoul d
i ncrease the number of opti ons avai l abl e to the waste
treatment system desi gn engi neer.
Furthermore, a constant suppl y of sol i d wastes may j usti f y i nstal l ati on of
f i sh meal pl ants i n areas where they are currentl y economi cal l y i nf easi bl e.
Compani es processi ng and marketi ng seaf oods caught i n smal l quanti ti es
someti mes f ace the probl emof l abor costs bei ng more i mportant than capi tal
i nvestment. Theref ore, the f i sheri es that i nvol ve greater harvesti ng ef f ort
and/ or that requi re more manual l abor i n processi ng, generate products more
costl y to the consumer. Unf ortunatel y, many of the most desi rabl e products,
such as shri mp, crabs, oysters, cl ams, and trol l caught f i shes, f al l i nto
thi s category. I n many cases, these speci es are not onl y expensi ve to obtai n,
but represent dwi ndl i ng resources.
NUTRI TI VE VALUE AND TOTAL UTI LI ZATI ON
Fi sh l i qui ds consi st of saturated, mono- unsaturated, and pol yunsaturated
f atty aci ds. Pol yunsaturated f atty aci ds consti tute the maj or porti on. A
49
l arge part of the twenty- carbon f atty aci ds of f i sh l i pi ds i s made up of
pentenes ( 5 doubl e bonds) , whereas a l arge porti on of the twenty- two carbon
f atty aci ds consi sts of hexenes ( 6 doubl e bonds) . The l atter are present
i n consi derabl y greater amounts than the f ormer i n the phosphol i pi ds, a pat-
tern whi ch appears to be typi cal of f i sh f l esh. Fi sh f l esh i s not onl y
hi ghl y desi rabl e as a compl etel y bal anced protei n f ood, but has f ats or l i p-
i ds that are currentl y i n demand, si nce they are hi ghl y pol yunsaturated.
A maj or probl emi n the marketi ng of f i sh as a protei n f ood l i es i n the
f act that the desi rabl e unsaturated l i pi ds tend to oxi di ze qui te rapi dl y,
resul ti ng i n rapi d f i sh degradati on. Thi s probl emi s mi ni mi zed by f i l l eti ng,
si nce the tri mmi ngs usual l y have a consi derabl y hi gher l i pi d content and
l ower protei n content than does the edi bl e porti on. These di f f erences can
be qui te pronounced. Al though the edi bl e f l esh ( the f i l l et) has a rel ati vel y
smal l l i pi d content and wi l l probabl y be much more resi stent to oxi dati on
than the non- edi bl e porti on, i t must al so be poi nted out that the non- edi bl e
porti on accounts f or as much as 70 percent of the ori gi nal whol e f i sh and
contai ns al most as much protei n as the ori gi nal f i sh.
Hence, al though f i sh i s a hi ghl y desi rabl e ani mal protei n, marketi ng
techni ques i n the f uture must not onl y i mprove the di stri buti on and consump-
ti on of the so- cal l ed "edi bl e porti ons", but must devel op markets f or the
porti ons now bei ng di scarded or whol l y converted to ani mal f eed suppl ements.
I N- PLANT CHANGES DI RECTED TOWARD COMPLETE UTI LI ZATI ON
The opti mal approach to sol vi ng the waste and pol l uti on probl ems i n the
seaf ood i ndustry i s to ut i l i ze the raw materi al f ul l y, rather than waste most
of i t and subsequentl y be stuck wi th treati ng that waste.
There are rel ati vel y f ew uni t operati ons and uni t processes used i n sea-
f ood processi ng. Furthermore, there are even f ewer components i n the resi dual
sol i ds and l i qui ds. Essenti al l y al l f i sh waste components have desi rabl e nu-
tri ti onal properti es. Based on thi s anal ysi s, the approach to i n- pl ant chan-
ges i s to anal yze the vari ous steps i n each processi ng cycl e, determi ne the
f ormand amount of materi al avai l abl e i n each step, and then appl y recovery
techni ques to produce marketabl e products f romthe secondary raw materi al .
I n general , al l processi ng resul ts i n vi sceral porti ons whi ch have es-
senti al l y the same nutri ti ve val ue and composi ti on, and occur i n ef f l uent
streams that vary pri mari l y i n suspended sol i ds and di ssol ved sol i ds content.
The di ssol ved sol i ds vary f romhi ghl y nutri ti ous protei ns to l ow mol ecul ar
wei ght degradati on products f rom the protei ns. The breakdown products have
l i mi ted or no nutri ti onal val ue and i ncrease, at the expense of the protei ns,
wi th the age of the raw materi al and the severi ty of the process.
The sol i ds and ef f l uents f romal l f i sh and shel l f i sh operati ons consi st
of :
1) Hot and col d water ( f resh or seawater) sol uti ons contai ni ng
di ssol ved materi al s ( protei ns and breakdown products) , sus-
pended sol i ds consi sti ng of bone, shel l or f l esh, and f or-
ei gn materi al carri ed i nto the pl ant wi th the raw materi al .
2) Sol i d porti ons consi sti ng of f l esh, shel l , bone, carti l age,
and vi scera. Fromthe bi ol ogi cal standpoi nt, al l of these
materi al s are ei ther i nert or have suf f i ci ent nutri ti ve
val ue to make themavai l abl e as a f ood or f ood addi ti ve.
Many f actors i nf l uence the character and vol umes of wastewaters di s-
charged
vari abi l i ty i n raw product suppl y
condi ti on of the raw product ( e. g. maturi ty of the f i sh and
storage ti me i n the vessel )
speci es bei ng processed
harvesti ng method
degree of preprocessi ng, i f any ( Gul f of Mexi co shri mp are
of ten beheaded at sea, as i s much of the Al askan hal i but
catch)
manuf acturi ng process
f ormof f i ni shed product ( canned pri me f i l l et vs. f i sh
paste, f or exampl e)
l ocati on of pl ant ( New Engl and vs. Southern Cal i f orni a;
congested metropol i tan area vs. remote, i sol ated si te)
pl ant age
maxi mumproducti on capaci ty and speci f i c operati ng l evel
operati ng schedul e ( i ntermi ttent vs. conti nuous)
water suppl y avai l abi l i ty and cost
waste treatment and/ or di sposal methods requi red and thei r
costs
l ength of ti me the sol i d wastes are i n contact wi th the
water that carri es them.
The i n- pl ant changes that can be made to sol ve waste and pol l uti on pro-
bl ems do not i nvol ve extensi ve study and devel opment of each type of seaf ood
f roma seaf ood processi ng pl ant. These i ncl ude:
processi ng procedure, but conversel y, the devel opment of a f ew basi c tech-
ni ques that wi l l be appl i cabl e to any process. These i ncl ude:
1) mi ni mi zi ng the use of water ( thus mi ni mi zi ng l oss of
sol ubl es)
51
2) recovery of di ssol ved protei ns i n ef f l uent sol uti ons
3) recovery of sol i d porti ons f or use as edi bl e products.
Ef f ecti ve use of these three procedures woul d reduce pol l utant l evel s i n ef f -
l uents f rom seaf ood processi ng pl ants.
MI NI MI ZI NG WATER USE
Wi thout questi on, the f i rst step i n reduci ng the l oss of nutri ti ve mater-
i al i n a f i sh processi ng pl ant i s to reduce the water use. There are many
areas i n whi ch thi s can be accompl i shed at once, i mmedi atel y.
One of the f i rst water- savi ng techni ques empl oyed shoul d be to el i mi nate
the extensi ve use of f l umes f or i n- pl ant transport of product. There are f ew
areas where dry handl i ng of products coul d not repl ace f l umes wi th i nci dental -
l y si gni f i cant i ncreases i n product yi el ds. Cl eani ng a dry conveyor bel t or
contai ner requi res a smal l f racti on of the water that woul d be used f or f l um-
i ng. Thi s techni que was dramati cal l y demonstrated at one pl ant whose water
consumpti on was reduced f romover 300 to about 100 gal / bushel of f i sh. Many
pl ants are now usi ng pneumati c ducts rather than f l umes f or movi ng smal l par-
t i cl es - dry materi al such as shel l , and wet screened sol i ds.
Another water- savi ng techni que i s the use of spri ng- l oaded hose nozzl es
whi ch automati cal l y shut of f when rel eased by the user. Much more water i s
bei ng used i n the average butcheri ng operati on than i s necessary. I t i s a
common practi ce i n a butcheri ng l i ne to open the water val ve and l et i t run
uncontrol l ed, even when no one i s acti vel y usi ng the butcheri ng tabl e. St eam
and water val ves are f requentl y not repai red, al l owi ng the l oss of water and
steam, and the di scharge of condensate onto the f l oor. Water commonl y i s al -
l owed to run through unused machi nes, overf l ow cl eani ng or cool i ng tanks, or
pass through empty f l umes.
Teachi ng pl ant personnel the methods they can use to mi ni mi ze water con-
sumpti on i s the f i rst step i n the process of reduci ng the i ndustry' s envi ron-
mental i mpact.
MI NI MI ZI NG WASTE
Bough ( 1978) f ound that tangenti al screens were ef f i ci ent at reduci ng
the waste l oads f romshri mp breadi ng and f reezi ng pl ants. These screens
were shown to reduce the BOD waste l oad by 45%. The waste l oad rati o was
52
f ound to be reduced f rorn 221 to 121 l b BOD/ 1000 l b green, headl ess shri mp
processed as l i sted i n Tabl e 11.
Bough ( 1973) al so f ound that by i nsti tuti ng dry cl eanup techni ques
the waste l oad ( BOD) coul d be f urther reduced to ef f ect a total reducti on
of 69%. The dry cl eanup techni ques have been expl ai ned i n a paper
( Bough, 1973) and presented i n a bul l eti n ( Bough et al . , 1973) . The dry
cl eanup techni ques f or the shri mp pl ant i ncl ude the f ol l owi ng:
( a) Pl aci ng pan to col l ect breadi ng or dri ppi ng batter.
( b) Squeege batter f romf l oor and col l ect bef ore wet cl eanup.
( c) Empty batter tanks i n barrel s i nstead of to drai ns.
( d) Use sti f f broomto sweep up breadi ng f romf l oor and col l ect f or
ani mal f ood.
( e) Col l ect breadi ng f rommachi nes by hand bef ore hosi ng or ai r gun
use.
The above techni ques were i nsti tuted i n a l arge, commerci al shri mp
pl ant by Bough and hi s co- workers. Such programs can onl y be i mpl emented
af ter study and educati onal programs f or empl oyees whi ch can be conducted
by extensi on or advi sory servi ces personnel . Bef ore i mpl ementati on,
management must be sol d on the i dea f or thei r encouragement i s necessary
f or any successf ul water and waste control program.
The i dea of col l ecti ng wastes bef ore they enter the pl ant wastewaters
i s not uni que to shri mp processi ng. I n f act, i t i s of paramount
i mportance to any water and waste program. The same ki nd of techni ques
can be uti l i zed i n any f ood pl ant and experi ences i ndi cate that si mi l ar
percentage reducti ons i n waste l oads are possi bl e.
53
Tabl e 11. Ef f ect of Waste El i mi nati on Measures i n
Shri mp Processi ng.
Operati on
Processi ng
Cl eanup
Total
BOD/ Green, Headl ess Shri mp
Bef ore Af ter Af ter Dry
Screen Screen Cl eanup
( l b/ 1000 l b)
117 72 71
104 49 21
221 121 92
54
Ref erences
Bough, Wayne A. 1973. Dry Cl eanup Techni ques f or Reduci ng the BOD Load
f romShri mp Processors. Proceedi ngs the 3rd Annual Tropi cal and
Subtropi cal Fi sheri es Technol ogi cal Conf erence. Texas A&M
Uni versi ty, Sea Grant Col l ege Program.
Bough, W. A. , R. J . Rei nol d, M. S. Hardi sky and T. C. Hal l . 1973.
Pol l uti on Reducti on Through Dry Cl eanup and By- product Recovery.
Mari ne Extensi on Bul l eti n No. 3. Georgi a Sea Grant Program,
Uni versi ty of Georgi a, Athens.
RECYCLI NG AND REUSE OF SEAFOOD PROCESSI NG WASTEWATERS
I nt roduct i on
Thi s sect i on expl ores several aspects of recycl i ng and reusi ng f ood
55
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ RECYCLI NG & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
processi ng wastewaters. I t i s meant to gi ve you an overvi ew of the f actors
af f ecti ng wastewater reuse and recycl i ng i n seaf ood processi ng.
Keep the f ol l owi ng basi c concept i n mi nd wi th regard to reusi ng
wastewater. Reusi ng wastewater basi cal l y i nvol ves col l ecti ng the ef f l uent
f romone or more uni t processes, and then usi ng that ef f l uent as the
i nf l uent f or other uni t processes. The key to wastewater reuse l i es i n
matchi ng the ef f l uent f rom one uni t process wi th the i nf l uent requi rements
of another uni t process. The "matchmaker" must be caref ul to take i nto
account the ef f l uent' s quanti ty and qual i ty when exami ni ng the source
requi rements of prospecti ve processes.
Sources of Water f or Use
i n Seaf ood Processi ng Pl ants
Water can be obtai ned f romtwo sources, surf ace reservoi rs or
streams, and underground reservoi rs or streams. These sources can be
tapped by a muni ci pal i ty or by a pri vate party. I f a f ood processor' s
water comes f roma muni ci pal suppl y system, the water' s qual i ty i s the
responsi bi l i ty of the muni ci pal i ty. But, a f ood processor who suppl i es hi s
own potabl e water comes di rectl y under the provi si ons of the Saf e Dri nki ng
Water Act.
Food processi ng pl ants must use water that i s of potabl e qual i ty.
Potabl e water must al so be used f or cl eani ng al l equi pment whi ch contacts
the f ood. Water must meet Federal l y establ i shed qual i ty standards i n order
to be cl assi f i ed as potabl e. However, the standards set by any gi ven state
may be even more stri ct than the Federal standards. For thi s reason, a
f ood processor must know exactl y what qual i ti es the state expects of a
processi ng pl ant' s water suppl y.
56
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ RECYCYCLI NG & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
Legal Aspects of Water Reuse
Water ri ghts and rel ated l aws are under nati onwi de revi ew. Sci en-
ti sts, economi sts and l awyers are eval uati ng current and f uture use of our
water resources; consti tuti onal ri ghts as wel l as i ndi vi dual state l aws may
be i nvol ved bef ore the present systems of water regul ati ons can be appl i ed
to mul ti pl e- use water.
Reusi ng water i s not a new concept. Publ i shed data esti mate that 60
percent of the popul ati on presentl y reuses water. The i ntake water suppl y
pi pe of one ci ty i s of ten downstreamf romthe di scharge sewage pi pe of
another metropol i s, and coastal muni ci pal i ti es have no choi ce but to com-
mi ngl e suppl y and wastewaters when ti dal condi ti ons return the sewage
ef f l uents i nto the water suppl y storage reservoi r. The use of i nterstate
streams i s not onl y subj ected to the l aws of each user state but i s al so
under regul ati ons and control by f ederal authori ti es.
Two basi c systems of water l aw i n the Uni ted States i ncl ude ri pari an
and appropri ati on. General l y, those areas wi th abundant water suppl i es use
the common- l aw doctri ne of ri pari an ri ghts. Areas sparse i n water re-
sources f ound the f i rst users and statutory pri or appropri ati on doctri ne
more sui tabl e. Unf ortunatel y, there are al so some states that use combi na-
ti ons of both systems wi th regi onal speci al i nterpretati ons.
Pol l uti on abatement programs have general l y cl assi f i ed state waters
accordi ng to use and thus have establ i shed standards of qual i ty i n accor-
dance wi th these obj ecti ves. I t seems onl y prudent that the processor
shoul d consul t the stream cl assi f i cati ons and standards that govern water
puri ty i n the state wi thi n whi ch wastewater i s to be reused.
Publ i c Heal th Aspects of Wastewater Recl amati on
Deci si on to reuse renovated wastewater f or human consumpti on or i n
processes that normal l y requi re potabl e water ( i . e. , f ood processi ng) , must
be equated wi th potenti al heal th ri sk and hazards. The U. S. Publ i c Heal th
Servi ce i n a pol i cy statement bel i eves that renovated wastewater i s not
sui tabl e f or dri nki ng water when other sources are avai l abl e.
Recl amati on Methods
Water i s absol utel y necessary i n f ood processi ng, and by practi ci ng
conservati on, reuse and recycl i ng, the amount of l i qui d waste and conse-
quentl y the pol l uti on l oad f romf ood processi ng operati ons can be reduced.
57
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ RECYCLI NC & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
Reducti on of water use through reuse of the same water can pay si gni f i cant
di vi dends i n i mprovi ng a waste di sposal si tuati on. Water reuse i s bene-
f i ci al because water i s no l onger a f ree commodi ty; i t costs money to
procure water; i t costs money to pump water; and i t costs money to di spose
of water.
Food processi ng waters cannot be reused i ndi scri mi natel y. Thei r
reci rcul ati on i n contact wi th f ood products must al l ow sati sf actory product
and pl ant sani tati on. To of f er more speci f i c gui dance i n the use of
recl ai med waters, NCA of f ered the f ol l owi ng recommendati ons:
The water shoul d be f ree of mi croorgani sms of publ i c heal th
si gni f i cance.
The water shoul d contai n no chemi cal s i n concentrati ons toxi c or
otherwi se harmf ul to man, and no chemi cal content of the water
shoul d i mpose the possi bi l i ty of chemi cal adul terati on of the f i nal
product.
The water shoul d be f ree of any materi al s or compounds whi ch coul d
i mpart di scol orati on, of f - f l avor, or of f - odor to the product, or
otherwi se adversel y af f ect i ts qual i ty.
The appearance and content of the water shoul d be acceptabl e f rom
an aestheti c vi ewpoi nt.
As an exampl e of the possi bi l i ti es f or water reuse, a survey was made
i n a tomato and vegetabl e packi ng pl ant. The ef f ect of water reuse was
measured i n terms of the percent reducti on i n water use per ton of product
processed. Wi th no water reuse i n can cool i ng, product washi ng, or other
operati ons, water use total ed 3, 340 gal / ton of product. When product wash
waters were reci rcul ated, water use was reduced by 16%. Reci rcul ati on of
can cool i ng water added a 22% reducti on. I n the case of vegetabl e pro-
cessi ng these water reuses al l owed a total water use reducti on of 33%.
When tomatoes were bei ng processed, reuse of the excess water f romthe
evaporati ve condenser systemto wash product al l owed a total overal l
reducti on of 45% i n water use/ ton of product.
53
Water i s best saved by reduci ng i ts rate of consumpti on. I ndustri es
that routi nel y moni tor thei r water usage and thei r waste ef f l uent f l ows
have been abl e to reduce the i n- house uses of water by as much as 50%.
Unf ortunatel y, some water managers consi der renovated wastewater to be
acceptabl e onl y as a l ast resort al ternati ve. Such atti tudes obscure the
real i mportance of wastewater as bei ng potenti al l y the most economi cal
choi ce avai l abl e as a source of water.
Wastewater treatment and renovati on can exi st i n vari ed f orms. Di rect
reuse occurs i n canneri es when counterf l ow untreated streams are used
stepwi se. Cl ean water i s pi ped i nto the cooki ng areas where, f ol l owi ng
use, i t f l ows to bl anchi ng operati ons. Havi ng f ul f i l l ed i ts servi ce here,
i t di scharges to water- conveyi ng canal s and f i nal l y to i ncorni ng washi ng
troughs where i t removes f i l ed detri tus f romf rui ts and vegetabl es.
Spent water handl i ng can be si mpl i f i ed by segregati ng wastes i nto
appropri ate categori es. The commi ngl i ng of f l ui ds i nto common sewers
compl i cates reuse and recl amati on programs. The f i rst task i n reusi ng
wastewater i s to establ i sh the obj ecti ves. A water demand i nventory shoul d
be taken to determi ne usage amounts wi th qual i ty l evel s of puri ty.
Subtotal s of departmental ( i ndustri al pl ant secti ons) use shoul d add to the
total documented need requi red f or the si te.
The dai ry i ndustry ( Fi g. 9) col l ects sal vaged condensed mi l k vapors
f romvacuumpan evaporators and uses themf or boi l er water f eed and f or
pl ant cl eani ng wash water. I nl i ne turbi di ty meters moni tor the sal vaged
condensate and di vert contami nated mi l k and water vapors to the sewer i n
case of a mal f uncti on.
Sal vageabl e Food Fracti ons
Food wastes f ound i n water can consi st of parti cul ate matter, di s-
sol ved sol i ds and f ats - ei ther as an emul si on or i n a f ree- f l oati ng state.
Both the f ood and the water qual i ty have an i nf l uence on deci di ng whether
or not the sal vaged f racti ons gathered f romwastewater are sui tabl e f or
human or ani mal consumpti on. I f wastes are channel ed i nto sewer l i nes,
these materi al s become a treatment burden, at some cost to a waste treat-
ment system. Obvi ousl y, processes that recl ai m human f ood- grade materi al s
must meet sani tary standards. By- products f or ani mal f oods are conti nu-
ousl y bei ng upgraded; thus, i t may be prudent to f urni sh reasonabl e
60
dupl i cati on i n nonhuman f ood producti on of those techni ques used i n human
f ood processi ng.
Food as parti cul ate matter i s of ten separated f roml i qui ds by settl -
i ng,
screeni ng, ski mmi ng, or centri f ugi ng. Automated conti nuous processes
sui tabl e f or cl eani ng i n pl ace are most attracti ve ( as contrasted wi th
batch methods) f or both short- termand l ong- termgoal s. Caref ul pl anni ng
wi th wel l - def i ned obj ecti ves i s requi red to create resources f rom wastes.
Toward the end of thi s text you wi l l f i nd a secti on enti tl ed "By- Product
Recovery Use. " Thi s secti on outl i nes some commodi ty- speci f i c recovery
schemes.
Recovery of Chemi cal s
Whi l e cl eani ng chemi cal s i n waste matter of ten cause toxi ci ty and poor
perf ormance of the bi ol ogi cal treati ng processes, they al so represent a BOD
demand. For exampl e, surf actants or common aci d detergents produce 0. 65 l b
BOD
5
/ l b of substance. Tabl e 12 shows the BOD demand of sel ected substances,
cl eaners and sani ti zers.
Li qui d detergents, sani ti zers and other anal ogous products can be
handl ed i n bul k i n a seri es of vessel s. These materi al s may then be pi ped
to reservoi rs that can store and f eed the cl eani ng sol uti ons. Cl ean- i n-
pl ace ( C. I . P. ) ci rcui ts can be desi gned to reuse f l ui ds that are ci rcul ated
by pumpi ng through pi pel i nes, bul k tanks, storage reservoi rs and other
medi a. Fi nal uses of captured l i qui ds i ncl ude f l oor cl eani ng or use as the
f l ui di zi ng l i qui d i n sl udge pumpi ng.
Heat Recovery
Fl ow measurernents are al so necessary because the temperature al one i s
not adequate to ref l ect the magni tude of potenti al heat recovery. Waste-
waters shoul d be grouped accordi ng to puri ty and temperature, and the
hot- test water shoul d be wi thout di l uti on to avoi d heat di ssi pati on. Steam
condensate i s returned to the boi l er by deaerators because the water i s
sof t as wel l as hot.
Someti mes a water demand may be sati sf i ed by pref erenti al water make-
up, where the i dea i s to use al l the sal vage water f i rst wi th f resh water
suppl i ed onl y when the other sources are exhausted.
62
Water Reuse
Water reuse may be adopted wi th economi cal advantage when:
there i s i nsuf f i ci ent water avai l abl e l ocal l y to mai ntai n
an open ci rcui t systemal l year ' round.
val uabl e by- product materi al s can be economi cal l y recovered f rom
the treatment processes.
treatment cost of recycl i ng water i s l ess than the i ni ti al
cost of water, pl us the cost i ncurred i n di schargi ng the
ef f l uent i nto the sewer.
cost of treati ng the ef f l uent to a requi red standard i s
such that, f or a l i ttl e extra i nvestment, the water qual i ty
can be made sui tabl e f or recycl i ng.
The practi ce of water reuse can be di vi ded i nto sequenti al reuse,
reci rcul ati on wi thout treatment and reci rcul ati on wi th treatment.
Sequenti al reuse i s the practi ce of usi ng a gi ven water streamf or two or
more processes or operati ons bef ore f i nal treatment and di sposal , i . e. , to
use the ef f l uent of one process as the i nput to another. Reci rcul ati on i s
the practi ce of recycl i ng the water wi thi n a uni t process or group of
processes. A combi nati on of these practi ces wi l l probabl y be requi red f or
an opti mumreuse scheme.
Tabl e 13 i ndi cates some of the cannery operati ons i n whi ch water may
be reused i ndi scri mi natel y. I ts reci rcul ati on i n contact wi th f ood
products must al l ow f or sati sf actory pl ant and product sani tati on.
I n an ef f ort to opti mi ze i ndustri al water use and wastewter manage-
ment, emphasi s i s now bei ng gi ven to decreasi ng the quanti ti es of water
used and the contami nants i ntroduced duri ng use. Al ternati ves avai l abl e
f or vol ume and pol l utant reducti on i ncl ude water conservati on, good
housekeepi ng, waste stream segregati on, process modi f i cati on and water
reuse.
Hi stori cal l y, l i ttl e consi derati on was gi ven to water reuse because of
i ts abundance i n nature and because i t was consi dered to be hazardous due
63
Tabl e 13. Potenti al Poi nts of Water Reuse i n the Food I ndustry.
Operati on Can Can Water f rom Source of Water
of Reserved thi s Equi pment f or Reuse i n
Equi pment Water be Reused El se- Equi pment"
be Used? where i n Pl ant?
Aci d di p f or f rui t
Washi ng of product:
A. f i rst wash f ol l owed by
2nd wash
B. f i nal wash of product
Fl umes:
A. f l umi ng of unwashed or un-
prepared product ( peas,
pumpki n and so on)
B. f l umi ng parti al l y prepared
product
C. f l umi ng f ul l y prepared product
D. f l umi ng of wastes
Lye Peel i ng
Product- hol di ng vats; product
covered wi th water or bri ne
Bl anchers - al l types:
A. ori gi nal f i l l i ng water
B. repl acement or makeup water
Sal t bri ne qual i ty graders
f ol l owed by a f resh water wash
Washi ng pans and trays:
A. tank washers - ori gi nal water
B. spray or makeup water
Lubri cati on of product i n
machi nes such as pear peel ers,
f rui t si ze graders, and so on
Washi ng empty cans
Washi ng cans af ter cl osi ng
Bri ne and syrup
Processi ng j ars under water
Can cool ers:
A. cool i ng canal s
a. ori gi nal water
b. makeup water
B. conti nuous cookers
where cans are parti al l y
i mmersed i n water
a. ori gi nal water
b. makeup water
C. spray cool ers wi th cans
not i mmersed i n water
D. batchcool i ng i n retorts
Cl eanup purposes
A. prel i mi nary wash
B. f i nal wash
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no Can cool ers
Can cool ers
Can cool ers
yes
0
Can cool ers
Any wastewater
Can cool ers
no
no
no
onl y i n thi s equi pment
no
no
Can cool ers
Can cool ers
For processi ng Can cool ers and
processi ng
waters
Water f romthese cool ers may be re-
used sati sf actori l y f or cool i ng
cans af ter ci rcul ati ng over cool -
i ng towers, i f caref ul attenti on
i s pai d to proper control of re-
pl acement water and to keepi ng
down bacteri al count by chl ori na-
ti on and f requent cl eani ng
Thi s water may be reused i n other
pl aces as i ndi cated
yes
0
no
Can cool ers
Box washers yes no Can cool ers
o
A certai n amount of water may be reused f or makeup water and i n precedi ng operati ons
i f the counterf l ow pri nci pl e i s used wi th the recommended precauti ons.
64
to bacteri al contami nati on. Contami nati on potenti al shows that, i n washi ng
f rui t, unl ess 40% of the water i s exchanged each hour, the growth rate of
bacteri ol ogi cal organi sms becomes extremel y hi gh. I n order to overcome
thi s, other means of control , such as chl ori nati on, must be used. When
chl ori nati on i s di sconti nued, the bacteri al count more than doubl es. As
soon as chl ori nati on i s resumed, the bacteri al counts are agai n brought
under control .
Water conservati on can be achi eved through counterf l ow reuse systems.
Fi gure 10 outl i nes a counterf l ow systemf or reuse of water i n a pea
cannery. At the upper ri ght, f resh water i s used f or the f i nal product wash
bef ore the peas are canned, and f romthi s poi nt the water i s reused and
carri ed back i n successi ve stages f or each precedi ng washi ng and f l umi ng
operati on. As the water f l ows countercurrent to the product, the washi ng
and f l umi ng water can become more contami nated; theref ore, i t i s extremel y
i mportant ( Fi g. 10) to add chl ori ne i n order to mai ntai n sati sf actory
sani tati on. At each stage, suf f i ci ent chl ori ne shoul d be added to sati sf y
compl etel y the chl ori ne demand of the organi c matter i n the water. Wi th
thi s arrangement, sati sf actory bacteri ol ogi cal condi ti ons shoul d exi st i n
each phase of the washi ng and f l umi ng program.
Water Conservati on
There may be several operati ons i n a f ood processi ng pl ant where water
i s wasted conti nuousl y, thus causi ng an overl oad to subsequent col l ecti on
and treatment systems. Consi derati on shoul d be gi ven to steps that can be
taken wi thi n a pl ant to conserve water, thus enabl i ng the l i qui d waste
di sposal system to operate more ef f i ci entl y and thereby reduce water
pol l ut i on. As an exampl e of water conservati on methods the steps possi bl e
i n a f ood processi ng pl ant i ncl ude 1) usi ng automati c shutof f val ves on al l
water hoses to prevent waste when hoses are not i n use ( a runni ng hose can
di scharge up to 300 to 400 gal l ons of water/ hour) , 2) usi ng l ow- vol ume,
hi gh- pressure nozzl es rather than l ow- pressure sprays f or cl eanup,
3) avoi di ng unnecessary water overf l ow f rom equi pment, especi al l y when not
i n use, and provi di ng automati c f resh water makeup val ves, 4) avoi di ng
usi ng water to transport the product or sol i d waste when the materi al can
be moved ef f ecti vel y by dry conveyors, and 5) reduci ng cool i ng water f l ow
to the mi ni mumto accompl i sh product cool i ng.
65
SEAFOOD SPI NOFF/ RECYCLI NG & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
Fi g. 10. Four- stage counterf l ow systemf or reuse of water i n a pea cannery.
Key: A. Fi rst use of water; B. Second use of water; C. Thi rd use
of water; D. Fourth use of water; E. Concentrated chl ori ne
water.
66
Recentl y, i t was determi ned that by control l i ng the pH of f rui t
f l umi ng waters by the addi ti on of ci tri c aci d, i t was possi bl e to reduce
the water use wi thout an i ncrease i n bacteri al numbers. A pH of 4 wi l l
mai ntai n opti mumcondi ti ons wi th cut f rui t, such as peaches. The system
not onl y reduces the total vol ume of water requi red and theref ore the
amount of wastewater di scharged, but al so i ncreased the product yi el d as a
resul t of decreasi ng the l oss of sol i ds f roml eachi ng of sugar and aci ds.
Consequentl y, there i s a reducti on i n the total pounds of organi c pol l u-
tants i n the wastewater. Another advantage i s i mproved f l avor and col or of
the canned f rui t because of better retenti on and sol ubl e sol i ds.
Another water conservati on method i s usi ng the cl osed l oop systems on
certai n processi ng uni ts, such as a hydrostati c cooker- cool er f or canned
product. The water i s reused conti nuousl y, f resh makeup water bei ng added
onl y to of f set the mi nor l osses f romevaporati on. Cl osed l oop systems not
onl y conserve water but al so recl ai mmuch heat and can resul t i n si gni f i -
cant economi c savi ngs. .
I t i s not possi bl e to descri be al l the concepts and rami f i cati ons
i nherent i n vari ous f ood processi ng i ndustri es to reduce water and waste
l oads whi l e at the same ti me mai ntai ni ng product qual i ty. Many f actors
determi ne the f i nal ef f ecti veness of proper water use. For exampl e,
tomatoes spray- washed on a rol l er bel t where they are turned are al most
twi ce as cl ean as the same tomatoes washed on a bel t of wi re mesh construc-
ti on. Al so, warmwater i s approxi matel y 40 percent more ef f ecti ve i n
removi ng contami nants than the same vol ume of col d water.
A del i cate bal ance exi sts between water conservati on and sani tati on.
there i s no strai ghtf orward or si mpl e f ormul a to obtai n the l east water
use. Each case and each f ood process has to be eval uated wi th the
equi pment used i n order to arri ve at a sati sf actory procedure i nvol vi ng
water use, chl ori nati on and other f actors, such as detergents.
El i mi nati on of Water Use
El i mi nati ng water i n certai n uni t operati ons i n turn el i mi nates
attendant probl ems of treati ng the wastewaters, whi ch were generated by
those operati ons. Wherever possi bl e, f ood shoul d be handl ed by ei ther a
mechani cal bel t or pneumati c dry conveyi ng system. I f possi bl e, the f ood
shoul d be cool ed by an ai r systemrather than by a water cool i ng system.
Recent studi es by the Nati onal Canners Associ ati on i n compari ng hot ai r
bl anchi ng of vegetabl es wi th conventi onal hot water bl anchi ng show that
both product and envi ronmenta1 qual i ty were i mproved by usi ng ai r. Bl anch-
i ng,
used to deacti vate enzymes, produces a very strong l i qui d waste. For
a pea processi ng operati on, thi s smal l vol ume of wastewater i s esti mated to
be responsi bl e f or 50% of the enti re wastel oad BOD; f or corn, 60%, and f or
beets wi th peel i ngs, 80%. Prel i mi nary resul ts show a reduced pol l uti on
l oad, whi l e at the same ti me provi di ng a product qual i ty i mprovement i n
terms of nutri ents, vi tami ns and mi neral content.
Waste Stream Segregati on
Waste segregati on i nvol ves the separati on of waste streams accordi ng
to thei r wastewater l oad. Noncontami nated streams of f er the possi bi l i ty of
bei ng di scharged di rectl y to recei vi ng bodi es of water, whereas contami nat-
ed waste streams have to be treated.
As a general rul e, al l pl ants shoul d be provi ded wi th three water
di scharge systems, namel y 1) stormand cool i ng water, 2) sani tary waste,
and 3) i ndustri al waste.
The stormwater systemshoul d recei ve al l surf ace and stormrunof f .
Thi s systemcan al so be used f or di schargi ng uncontami nated waters, such as
cool i ng waters, that requi re no treatment pri or to di scharge. Al though i t
i s desi rabl e to keep uncontami nated
the cost of i nstal l i ng separate col l
streams may be so hi gh that by- pass
nomi cal .
wastewater out of the treatment pl ant,
ecti on systems f or smal l , i sol ated
i ng the treatment pl ant becomes uneco-
The sani tary systemshoul d col l ect the wastewaters f romal l washrooms
and shower rooms. For most i ndustri al pl ants i t i s desi rabl e to send these
wastes to a muni ci pal pl ant f or treatment, rather than to treat them
i ndi vi dual l y.
Process Modi f i cati on
One al ternati ve avai l abl e f or el i mi nati ng or reduci ng the wastes
created duri ng processi ng i nvol ves the modi f i cati on or el i mi nti on of the
step or steps whi ch are produci ng the wastes. For exampl e, si nce the
peel i ng process i s one of the greatest sources of wastes i n most f rui t and
vegetabl e processi ng pl ants, ef f orts have been di rected toward modi f yi ng
the peel i ng process so that the peel waste can be removed wi thout usi ng
68
SEAFOOD SPNOFF- / RECYCLI NG & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
excessi ve amounts of water. One recent process modi f i cati on, i s the "dry"
causti c peel i ng process f or potatoes. I n conventi onal steamor hot l ye
peel i ng processes, potato peel s may contri bute up to 80 percent of the
total pl ant wastewater BOD. The new dry causti c vegetabl e peel i ng method
col l ects peel s and causti c as a dry and semi dry resi due, thus preventi ng
thei r entrance i nto pl ant wastewaters.
Dry causti c peel i ng i s di scussed i n more detai l i n the Frui t and
Vegetabl e Water and Wastewater Mangement Spi nof f Manual .
A Summary
Reuse of wastewater i s the uti l i l i zat i on of a process waste streamone
or more ti mes bef ore i t l eaves pl ant boundari es. Thi s can be accompl i shed
by pi pi ng the wastewater f romone uni t to another, by treati ng or di l uti ng
ef f l uents bef ore reuse i n other uni ts, or by combi ni ng a f ew or al l ef f l u-
ents, treati ng themand reusi ng the water.
I ncenti ves f or water reuse i nvol ves the possi bi l i ti es of reducti on of
wastewater treatment costs and raw water costs. Al though l ower waste
treatment costs currentl y provi de the maj or savi ngs f romreuse, i n some
areas the suppl y of acceptabl e raw water i s decreasi ng, the pri ce i s
i ncenti ve i n
to compl etel y
i re very
reuse i s that
l i ty water
be consi dered
ri si ng, and reduced raw water usage may provi de a si gni f i cant
the f uture. The typi cal pl ant consi deri ng reuse sel dompl ans
el i mi nate wastewater di scharges si nce thi s woul d usual l y requ
extensi ve modi f i cati ons. The i mportant standard f or economi c
an unused makeup process water can be repl aced by a l ower- qua
wi thout harmi ng the process. So, reuse schemes shoul d al ways
i n pl anni ng f or pol l uti on abatement.
Ul ti mate requi rements f or water pol l uti on control may be compl etel y
cl osed systems f romwhi ch no di scharges are permi tted, and use of f resh
water i s onl y requi red as makeup f or evaporati on l osses. Cl osed water
systems as the f i nal goal of pol l uti on research has l ong been an i deal .
Even though total reuse may not be l egal l y requi red, i t may be a vi abl e
al ternati ve to meeti ng stri ngent di scharge regul ati ons.
Possi bl e steps f or proceedi ng toward an i ntermedi ate or total reuse
system are:
Determi ne the ef f l uent qual i ti es and quanti ti es and
makeup requi rements f or pl ant uni ts. A waste stream
63
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ RECYCLI NC & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
survey i s a must f or such an anal ysi s.
Study the l owest- cost treatments needed f or vari ous
ef f l uents to reach the requi red qual i ti es of secondary
users. Trends have been toward treatment of combi ned
waste streams. Segregati on of waste streams may of f er
better reuse possi bi l i ti es.
Reduce wastewater vol umes by i ncreased mai ntenance and
equi pment modi f i cati ons can reduce f l ows si gni f i cantl y.
Study the ef f ects of reuse on exi sti ng treatment equi pment
because water reuse general l y resul ts i n a l ower vol ume,
more concentrated waste stream.
Commi tment to total reuse requi res an economi c j usti f i cati on coveri ng
the expectred f uture costs of f resh water and ul ti mate waste di sposal . I n
some areas of the worl d, the cost of f resh water i s ri si ng and the cost f or
ul ti mate di sposal may gradual l y decrease as technol ogy i mproves. The key
to i nexpensi ve reuse i s vol ume reducti on. The total reuse wi l l be abl e to
economi cal l y treat onl y a smal l waste streamf or total removal of
contami nants.
The deci si on of whether to i mpl ement total reuse wi l l be set by a
compari son of costs of raw water and water treatments wi th and wi thout
di scharges. These i ncl ude: water suppl y; treatment requi red bef ore use of
f resh water; waste treatment requi red bef ore di scharge; treatment requi red
f or use of reused water; pl ant modi f i cati on to accept l ower qual i ty or
hi gher temperature reused water; extra pi pi ng and control val vi ng; l oss of
f l exi bi l i ty due to i ntegrated water system.
A total reuse pl an shoul d begi n at the i ndi vi dual process uni ts, si nce
i t wi l l af f ect thei r operati on. I n certai n cases i t may even be more
economi cal to modi f y a process so that i t requi res l i ttl e or no water. The
economi cs of total reuse wi l l vary f rompl ant to pl ant.
70
Ref er ences
Mercer, W. A. Conservati on and Recycl i ng of Water and Other Materi al s.
Food I ndustry Week Conf erence. Proceedi ngs Waste Management and
Pol l uti on Control . 1971
Li ptak, B. G. Envi ronmental Engi neer' s Handbook. Vol ume I - Water
Pol l uti on. 1974.
Morresi , A. C. , et al . Cool i ng Water and Boi l er Possi bi l i ti es f or
Wastewater Reuse. I ndustri al Wastes, March/ Apri l , 1978.
71
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ BY- PRDT RECOV & USE
BY - P R ODU C T R E C OV E R Y A ND US E
I NTRODUCTI ON
Food processi ng pl ants i nherentl y tend to generate si gni f i cant quanti ti es
of waste materi al . Frequentl y, the waste i s bel i eved to have potenti al nutri -
ti onal or i ndustri al val ue, thereby representi ng a possi bl e basi s f or a new
busi ness opportuni ty. But turni ng these bel i ef s i nto new busi ness i s of ten a
compl ex techni cal and economi c probl em. Extracti ng the cri ti cal busi ness and
engi neeri ng parameters f or deci si on- maki ng requi res an anal ysi s of the econom-
i c, technol ogi cal , and marketi ng f actors i nvol ved, as wel l as an abi l i ty to
resol ve probl ems ari si ng f rom these f actors.
Thi s secti on presents some recovery attempts by seaf ood processors to
transf ormhi therto waste products i nto usef ul by- products. Thi s i dea of re-
coveri ng by- products f romwaste has been "catchi ng on" throughout the f ood
processi ng i ndustry, but many of these recovery schemes have not been publ i sh-
ed. The exampl es that f ol l ow are not meant to represent a f ul l - scal e revi ew
of the state- of - the- art.
FI SH SCALES
Wel sh ( 1978) has used scal es f romcarp and porgy as coagul ati ng agents
to remove suspended materi al f romf ood processi ng wastewaters. The scal es
were added to aci di f i ed wastewaters f romthe f ol l owi ng f ood processi ng opera-
Egg washi ng water f romegg breaki ng operati on equi pment
Scal l op shucki ng wastewaters
Frui t j ui ce processi ng wastewaters.
The f ol l owi ng suspended sol i ds ( SS) removal ef f i ci enci es were attai ned
i n Wel sh' s l aboratory- bench studi es:
90- 95%SS removal f romthe egg washi ng water
95- 97%SS removal f romscal l op shucki ng wastewaters
80%SS removal f romf rui t j ui ce processi ng wastewaters.
ti ons:
I n thi s exampl e, the f i sh scal es, whi ch i n themsel ves are by- products,
hel p to recover possi bl e by- products f romother f ood processi ng wastewaters.
The f easi bi l i ty of usi ng these coagul ated sol i ds f romvari ous f ood processi ng
wastewaters wi l l requi re f urther study.
DUNGENESS CRAB PROCESSI NG
Let' s l ook at a three- pl ant study made by Soderqui st, et al . , i n l i ght
of the water use and wastewater producti on whi ch characteri ze Dungeness crab
processi ng. Thi s process has been depi cted schemati cal l y i n Fi gure 6 ( see
Chapter 2, "Typi cal Seaf ood Processi ng Pl ant Schemes") .
Af ter del i very to the pl ant, the crabs are f i rst butchered, unl ess they
are to be marketed whol e. Thei r backs are detached, the vi scera removed, and
the l egs separated f romthe bodi es. Some pl ants f l ume the sol i ds f romthi s
process to a central screen, but most empl oy dry capture techni ques. When dry
capture methods are used, the onl y f l ows f romthe butcheri ng area are those
f romthe cl eanup shi f t.
From butcheri ng, the crabs go to the bl eedi ng- ri nsi ng operati on. They
are ei ther conveyed vi a a bel t bel ow a water spray, or packed i n l arge steel
baskets and submerged i n ci rcul ati ng ri nsewater. I n ei ther case, a conti nuous
wastewater f l ow resul ts.
The crab parts ( and whol e crabs) are then cooked i n boi l i ng water. Whol e
crabs are boi l ed i n a 50, 000- 60, 000 mg/ l ( as Cl - ) sodi umchl ori de sol uti on con-
tai ni ng 650- 800 mg/ l ci tri c aci d f or 20 to 30 mi nutes.
I n al l pl ants surveyed, "pi cki ng" of the meat f romthe shel l was a manual
operati on. "Pi cki ng stock" i ncl uded bodi es and l egs. Yi el ds vari ed f rom17
to 27%. Thi s vari ati on was mai nl y a f uncti on of the maturi ty of the ani mal s;
yi el ds i ncreased as the season progressed. No water was used i n thi s uni t
operati on except duri ng washdown.
The cl eaned meat was conveyed to bri ne tanks where l oose shel l was sepa-
rated f romthe meat by f l otati on. The 100, 000 to 200, 000 mg/ l ( as Cl - ) sodi um
chl ori de sol uti ons were di scharged i ntermi ttentl y.
Most of the sal t sol uti on remai ni ng on the meat was removed i n the next
uni t operati on, the ( i mmersi on) ri nse tanks. The di scharges f romthese tanks
were conti nuous and contai ned 1500- 2000 mg Cl - / l .
Af ter ri nsi ng, the meat was drai ned and packed. Thi s operati on contri -
buted l i ttl e to the wastewater systemregardl ess of whether the meat was pack-
ed i n cardboard and pl asti c f or the f resh market, or canned.
Cl eanup f l ows
were the onl y maj or f l ows resul ti ng f romthi s operati on.
I n those i nstances where meat was canned, the f i nal step was retorti ng;
i n those where f resh packi ng was practi ced, the l ast step was ref ri gerati on.
Both processes used water, but nei ther appreci abl y contami nated i t.
Tabl e 14 reveal s the nature of the combi ned wastewater stream, both wi th
and wi thout the contri buti on of the whol e crab processi ng l i ne. A typi cal
pl ant woul d handl e both pi cki ng stock and whol e crab, but the bul k of the
process woul d be devoted to pi cki ng stock. The dual presentati on shoul d
al l ow a pl ant engi neer or a wastewater treatment pl ant desi gner to consi der
the i nf l uence of ei ther system al one. On thi s tabl e standard devi ati ons
are not l i sted because the val ues l i sted represent summati ons of means,
maxi ma and mi ni ma f rom the sub- processes.
The study di scovered that Dungeness crab processi ng used more than twi ce
the water used i n the average f rui t and vegetabl e processi ng pl ant. I t seems
l i kel y that a water conservati on programcoul d si gni f i cantl y l ower processi ng
costs i n terms of l owered water uti l i ty bi l l s.
Another compari son of Dungeness wastewaters wi th f rui t and vegetabl e pro-
cessi ng wastewaters reveal ed that the ni trogen and phosphorus content of the
crab wastewater was an order of magni tude greater than ni trogen and phosphorus
val ues of f rui t and vegetabl e processi ng wastewaters. Organi c ni trogen l evel s
were especi al l y hi gh wi th concentrati ons of 1500 mg organi c N/ l bei ng common.
WATER CONSUMPTI ON
Except f or those pl ants that f l ume thei r butcheri ng waste ( a practi ce not
recommended) , the onl y wastewater f l ow f romthe butcheri ng area i s washdown
water.
Two waste streams ori gi nated i n the bl eedi ng area. The f i rst was the
overf l ow f romthe ri nse tank; the second was the once- per- shi f t dumpi ng of the
tank. Al though 13%of the total pl ant COD ori gi nated f romthese two f l ows,
the process was not a maj or waste source.
The cookers represented the second- most- i mportant waste source. The
whol e crab cooker used more water per ton of crab and generated much more COD
on a tonnage basi s. Thi s observati on i s mi sl eadi ng, however, because the
whol e crab cooker throughput was much l ower than that of the crab secti on
cooker. Si nce cooki ng water COD concentrati on was a f uncti on of crab through-
put, and si nce dumpi ng schedul es were f ai rl y constant, i t was not surpri si ng
that the whol e cooker COD l evel ( on a producti on basi s) appeared to be so much
hi gher than the secti on cooker counterpart. The secti on cooker was the maj or
source of ammoni a and the "number two" source of COD, suspended sol i ds, and
total ni trogen i n one of the pl ants.
The tremendous total sol i ds l evel i n the whol e crab cooker was due mai nl y
to the NaCl added to the uni t, and has been previ ousl y di scussed. The f act
that onl y 1. 3 l b/ T of 287 l b/ T total sol i ds were retai nabl e on gl ass f i ber
75
f i l ters supports thi s contenti on.
The cool i ng tank was a maj or water user ( 30%) , but contri buted l i ttl e to
the total COD, sol i ds, or nutri ent l oads. The pi cki ng area cl eanup waters
were not maj or of f enders ei ther.
The bi ggest of f ender i n Dungeness crab processi ng, i n terms of water
pol l uti on potenti al , was the bri ni ng step. The bri ne tank di scharge of one
pl ant was the maj or contri butor of COD, total sol i ds ( mai nl y sal t) , suspended
sol i ds ( af ter 20- mesh screeni ng) , total ni trogen, and total phosphorus. The
i nf l uence of the bri ne tank was especi al l y hi gh, bei ng onl y second to the
bri ne i tsel f .
Some pl ants f l ume sol i d wastes. Thi s i s not necessary. Repl acement of
f l umes wi th dry capture systems woul d si gni f i cantl y reduce the total pl ant
waste l oad and i s strongl y recommended.
The maj or waste contri butors are the cooki ng and bri ni ng operati ons. I n
the f uture, segregati on and separate treatment of these streams may be advi s-
abl e. Furthermore, al ternati ves to bri ni ng may be avai l abl e. El i mi nati ng
the bri ni ng step woul d greatl y reduce the pol l uti onal i mpact of thi s i ndustry.
CLAM WASH WATER RECLAMATI ON
A Cornel l Uni versi ty research teamstudi ed the f easi bi l i ty of recl ai mi ng
protei n and f l avor materi al f romcl amwash water. The purpose of the proj ect
was to assi st the cl amprocessi ng i ndustry i n devel opi ng methods f or creati ng
sal abl e products f rommateri al that woul d otherwi se be sewered, thereby turn-
i ng the economi cs of waste handl i ng i nto a credi t rather than a debi t. The
ai mwas al so to devel op process f l ows f or reduci ng water consumpti on and BOD
di scharge l oads f rom the processi ng operati ons.
The study was made at one Long I sl and, N. Y. surf cl am processi ng f i rm.
About 30, 000- 40, 000 gal water/ day were used i n the Long I sl and pl ant to
process about 500 bushel s of surf cl ams. The cl amprocessi ng operati on under
study operated about 270 days/ year and spent $8, 000- 9, 00O/ year on water sup-
pl i es and sewage treatment f aci l i ti es.
Water use and waste basi cal l y occur at the three washi ng l ocati ons
i denti f i ed
show the f
as stati ons 15, 16, and 17 on Fi g. 8 i n
l ow rates measured, whi ch vari ed onl y s
Chapter 2. Tabl es 15 and 16
l i ghtl y f romday to day.
Dai l y water use was moni tored on di f f erent operati ng days, and typi cal
data are shown i n Tabl e 16.
Wastewater was sampl ed at hourl y i nterval s duri ng operati ng days. Com-
posi te sampl es of each stati on were prepared f romi ndi vi dual hourl y sampl es
based upon f l ow rates so as to f orma representati ve sampl i ng pi cture of the
day' s actual operati ons.
Tabl es 17, 18, 19, and 20 show perti nent bi ol ogi cal - chemi cal data needed by
the researchers to hel p eval uate the rel ati ve f ood val ues of these waste f l ows.
Stati on 3 wash water contri buted about hal f of the total organi c l oad
wasted to the sewer i n thi s pl ant' s operati ons. The removal of nutri ents
f romthe waste f l ows woul d appreci abl y di mi ni sh waste treatment costs resul -
ti ng f romthi s processi ng step.
Stati on 1, as i ndi cated i n Tabl es 15, 16, and 17, uses 80%of the total
water and contri butes about hal f of the total BOD l oad.
Water and waste f l ow conti nuousl y even though the cl ammeat requi ri ng
washi ng i s batch- produced by buckets f roma manual shucki ng operati on.
Exi sti ng washi ng equi pment can cl ean more than three ti mes the number
of cl ams now bei ng sent through the system. I f the operator at Stati on 1
woul d operate the wash water onl y when cl ams traverse the tumbl i ng spray sys-
tem, i t woul d be possi bl e to cut water consumpti on by about 60%. I n addi ti on,
wash water spent i n Stati on 2 coul d be used to pre- ri nse cl ams at the dump
tabl e pri or to wash Stati on 1. Fresh water i s now used to prewash cl ams be-
f ore the Stati on 1 washi ng equi pment.
By combi ni ng water economi es f romStati on 2 wi th i ntermi ttent f l ows,
rather than conti nual water use i n Stati on 1, the total water used at both
stati ons coul d be reduced f romabout 70 gpmto 30 gpm. The drop i n water
consumpti on f or si x operati ng hours woul d be 6 hours x 60 mi n/ hr x 40 gpm,
or 14, 400 gal / day. Thi s represents hal f the dai l y vol ume now used.
Stati on 3 woul d generate l i ttl e to no waste i f the cl amwash water was
used to create a cl amj ui ce product, rather than bei ng wasted as shown i n
Tabl e 15. I n f act, the f ol l owi ng secti on expl ai ns how the researchers di d
80
j ust that - - converted the wash water i nto a cl amj ui ce product.
CONVFRSI ON OF WASH WATER TO A CANNED J UI CE - PRODUCT
The research teamtrai ned i tsel f to eval uate the f l avor components i n
Stati on 3' s wash water. Prel i mi nary tasti ng sessi ons were used to i denti f y
f l avor characteri sti cs pecul i ar to cl amwash water. Comments such as "f i shy",
"bi tter", "astri ngent", "uncl ean", and "musty" were noted.
The cl amj ui ce product al ready bei ng marketed by the f i rmwas used as
the ref erence sampl e. Thi s product was made by cooki ng cl ammeats i n water,
addi ng sal t, canni ng, and retorti ng. The product i s used i n i nsti tuti ons to
make soups and broths. I t i s a sweet, sl i ghtl y greeni sh- yel l ow, mi l d cl am-
f l avored l i qui d. Anal yses of di f f erent commerci al batches of j ui ce showed
that i ts composi ti on vari ed. Average composi ti on was:
3. 5% total sol i ds
2. 0% sal t
1. 5%protei n.
Because wash water f romStati on 3 was a di l ute protei n sol uti on, i t was
necessary to concentrate i t two- to three- f ol d to bri ng i ts sol i ds composi ti on
up to l evel s approxi mati ng those present i n the marketed cl amj ui ce.
Di f f erent concentrati on techni ques were used to i ncrease the total sol i ds
content:
ul t raf i l t rat i on
open boi l i ng
vacuumevaporati on
Materi al s were processed, canned, and retorted under varyi ng test condi -
ti ons, and eval uated f or f l avor characteri sti cs af ter varyi ng storage ti mes.
Tabl e 21 shows the composi ti on of products concentrated by the three di f f erent
methods l i sted above.
The f ol l owi ng process was devel oped to convert cl ammeat wash water i nto
a cl amj ui ce product whi ch i s now marketed by the company:
1) Water used to wash mi nced cl ammeats i s pumped di rectl y
i nto a steam- j acketed kettl e.
2) Thi s cl amwash water i s boi l ed f or 30- 40 mi n to concen-
trate i t and remove obj ecti onabl e vol ati l es.
3) The concentrated j ui ce i s then strai ned to remove coagu-
l ated cl am protei ns.
4) Sal t i s added to the concentrated j ui ce.
81
Tabl e 21. Sel ected Characteri sti cs of Concentrated Sampl es of Wash Water
f romStati on 3.
Sample type
Protein
Protein as %
Total solids of total solids
Clam juice
Juice from fresh clams
Ultrafiltration - p.m. shift
No salt, retorted
No salt, unretorted
Ultrafiltration - a.m. shift
No salt, retorted
No salt, unretorted
Salt, retorted
Salt, unretorted
Open boiling - a.m. shift
No salt, retorted
No salt, unretorted
Salt, retorted
Salt, unretorted
Vacuum evaporation - a.m. shift
No salt, retorted, 80C
Salt, retorted, 80C
No salt, retorted, 50C
Salt, retorted, 50C
1.36 3.6 37.78
2.47 6.4 38.59
2.31 3.1 74.19
2.50 3.15 79.36
0.49 0.7 70.00
0.53 0.8 66.25
1.45 2.6 55.62
1.57 2.8 56.14
1.35 3.1 43.55
1.47 3.15 46.67
2.34 5.4 43.33
2.25 5.0 45.00
0.9
3.4
0.8
3.0
82
5) The product i s canned and retorted.
Thi s f i ni shed product i s equi val ent i n qual i ty to the cl amj ui ce made by
boi l i ng cl am meats i n water i n a kettl e cooki ng- type operati on.
RECOVERI NG EDI BLE MEAT FROM SURF CLAM WASTES
Shel l f i sh processors, l i ke f i nf i sh processors, are f aced wi th i ncreasi ng
probl ems of waste handl i ng and di sposal . Besi des l i qui d ef f l uents f romcl am
processi ng pl ants, the sol i d wastes generated f romcl ams are shel l s, bel l i es,
mantl es, and parts of the adductor muscl es. These sol i d f racti ons are both
costl y and troubl esome to deal wi th.
Zal l and Cho ( 1977) i nvesti gated some potenti al methods f or capturi ng
f ood f romcl amresi dues by recoveri ng edi bl e meat f racti ons f romcl amproces-
si ng wastes. A bri ef descri pti on of thei r work at one cl amprocessi ng pl ant
f ol l ows.
Fi gure 8 ( i n Chapter 2) depi cts the process f l ow used i n processi ng the
cl ams. Pri or to processi ng, cl ams are i mmersed i n a hot water bath ( about
88C or 190F) f or about one mi nute. The bath removed the bl ack membrane that
exi sts on the shel l openi ng, and al so opens the shel l s and warms themf or the
conveni ence of the workers engaged i n shucki ng.
These preheated shel l s go to the shucki ng roomvi a a conveyor bel t where
shucki ng and evi scerati on are done manual l y i n a si ngl e operati on. Here, the
workers separate the val uabl e part of the cl ambody f romthe waste and send
thi s meat porti on f oward to a seri es of washi ng stati ons. Waste i s di scarded
on an outgoi ng conveyor and del i vered to a shel l chopper or a col l ecti on re-
ceptacl e. I t i s i mportant to note that the shuckers i n thi s operati on are
pai d accordi ng to the amount of usabl e product they harvest. Theref ore, the
speed wi th whi ch the cl ams are shucked i nf l uences the amount of meat harvested.
Of ten whol e cl ams as wel l as l arge amounts of muscl e attached to the shel l s
are di scarded al ong wi th the i nedi bl e porti ons of the cl am.
Al so, damaged
cl ams, those too smal l to shuck and odorous ones, are di scarded by the shucker
i nto the waste l i ne. The shel l chopper then reduces shel l si ze to make waste
handl i ng more manageabl e.
The shel l s wi th adheri ng meat were col l ected at di f f erent ti mes and used
i n experi mental tri al s f or sal vagi ng meat. Shel l s col l ected bef ore choppi ng
were sel ected on an i ndi vi dual basi s whereby waste shel l s contai ni ng meat
were cul l ed f rom waste shel l s contai ni ng no meat.
Post- shel l choppi ng sampl es
were col l ected as bul k sampl es onl y and at randomti mes.
83
Several di f f erent experi mental techni ques were used to remove cl ammeat
f romthe shel l s. These techni ques were:
i mmersi ng the shel l s and shel l parts wi th adhered meat
f ragments i n boi l i ng water wi th and wi thout agi tati on
dry heati ng shel l f ragments wi th adhered meat i n a muf f l e
f urnace at di f f erent temperatures and f or varyi ng ti mes
pressure cooki ng ( at 121C at 17 psi ) shel l f ragments
wi th attached meat, and whol e cl ams, f or varyi ng l engths
of ti me.
Of these vari ous methods, i t was di scovered that the pressure cooki ng tech-
ni que worked best. Thi s procedure produced a j ui ce product i n addi ti on to
the detached meat f ragments. Fromthese vari ous experi mental tri al s, i t
appeared that regardl ess of heati ng method, removi ng the anteri or adductor
muscl es was more di f f i cul t than removi ng the posteri or muscl es. Whi l e the
pressure heati ng techni que di d f ree meat f romthe shel l s, i t al so cooked the
meat; so the sal vaged product coul d not be consi dered raw cl ammeat.
Concurrent wi th devel opi ng a meat sal vage system, gradi ng the recovered
waste f racti ons f or taste and aroma was al so necessary. Mi crobi al content
of the meat was al so determi ned. These mi crobi al data showed that a meat
product wi th a l ow mi crobi al count coul d be made f roma waste product.
The researchers concl uded that edi bl e cl ammeat can be sal vaged f rom
cl amprocessi ng pl ant wastes i n amounts that shoul d make thei r capture econom-
i cal l y attracti ve. By manual l y cul l i ng shel l s wi th vi si bl e adhered l arge
amounts of meat at a work stati on on the outgoi ng waste conveyor, one pl ant
coul d recover al most 77%of the meat di scarded wi th waste shel l s. Thi s re-
captured meat amounts to about 5%of the total mass amount of sal eabl e meat
bei ng processed. For the Long I sl and pl ant, thi s meant that the pl ant coul d
recover up to an addi ti onal 146 kg ( 321 l b) of cl ammeat/ day. Thi s f i gure
approxi mates a f i f th of the total amount of adductor muscl e present i n whol e
cl ams processed, of whi ch much i s l ost i n manual shucki ng operati ons. Sal -
vagi ng the di scarded cl ammeat f racti ons coul d resul t i n a substanti al prof i t
gai n by the pl ant.
SEAFOOD SPNDFF/ BY- PRDT RECOV & USE
LI TERATURE CI TED
1) Zal l , R. R. et al . Recl amati on and Treatment of Cl amWash Water. Proceed-
i ngs Seventh Nati onal Symposi um on Food Processi ng Wastes. December, 1976.
2) Devel opment Document f or Ef f l uent Li mi tati ons Gui del i nes and New Source
Perf ormance Standards f or the Catf i sh, Crab, Shri mp, and Tuna Segment
of the Canned and Preserved Seaf ood Processi ng Poi nt Source Category.
EPA- 440/ 1- 74- 020- a. J une, 1974.
3) Soderqui st, M. R. et al . Progress Report: Seaf oods Processi ng Waste-
water Characteri zati on. Proceedi ngs Thi rd Nati onal Symposi umon Food
Processi ng Wastes. EPA- RZ- 72- 018. November, 1972.
4) Kamm, R. et al . Eval uati ng New Busi ness Opportuni ti es FromFood Wastes.
Food Technol ogy. J une, 1977.
5) Wel sh, F. W. Fi sh Scal es: A coagul ati ng Ai d to Recover Col l oi dal
Sol i ds i n Food Processi ng Wastewater. Master of Sci ence Thesi s. Cornel l
Uni versi ty, 1978.
6) Zal l , R. R. and I . J . Cho. Producti on of Edi bl e Foods f romSurf Cl am
Wastes. Transacti ons of the ASAE, Vol . 20, No. 6. 1977.
85
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ WWTREATMENT
WA S T E WA T E R T R E A T ME N T
Pr et r eat ment
The pretreatment of f ood processi ng wastewaters i s commonl y associ a-
ted wi th di scharges to a muni ci pal waste treatment system. The degree of
pretreatment requi red of the f ood processor i s determi ned by the speci f i ed
di scharge l i mi tati ons def i ned i n the muni ci pal Sewer Use Ordi nance ( see
Chapter 9) . The l i mi tati ons f ocus on wastewater characteri sti cs whi ch
have, hi stori cal l y, caused ei ther a hazardous condi ti on f or the waste
treatment pl ant operators or have been responsi bl e f or detri mental
i nf l uences on the waste treatment system' s operati on and waste removal
ef f i ci enci es.
Another f actor whi ch has i denti f i ed pretreatment as a necessi ty when
di schargi ng to a muni ci pal waste treatment f aci l i ty i s the advent of the
Federal Water Pol l uti on Control Act of 1972 whi ch requi res that bef ore any
grant i s approved to a muni ci pal i ty f or f aci l i ty expansi on or i mprovement,
the EPA must be assured that provi si ons are made to prevent the muni ci pal
systemf romrecei vi ng pol l utants that woul d i nhi bi t the operati on of the
muni ci pal treatment works, or that woul d pass through the systemuntreated.
Theref ore, i f the muni ci pal i ty recei ves a Federal grant, the f ood processor
may be requi red to provi de some f ormof pretreatment i f the waste bei ng
di scharged, "as i s", to the muni ci pal i ty i s j udged detri mental to the
systemand modi f i cati ons are i ndi cated. However, EPA has def i ned al l f ood
wastewaters to be bi odegradabl e and compati bl e. Thus, pretreatment i s not
requi red unl ess the f ood pl ants contri buti on to the muni ci pal treatment
systemi s l arge
As the seaf ood processi ng wastewaters are consi dered, i t i s doubtf ul
that many seaf ood processors wi l l be di schargi ng to a muni ci pal waste
treatment system. For those who do, pretreatment i s of ten empl oyed to
reduce the suspended sol i ds l oadi ng to the sewer. Common pretreatment
practi ces empl oy the use of screens wi th 0. 030 - i nch openi ngs. Di ssol ved
ai r f l otati on uni ts are al so used f or some wastes such as tuna. However,
by the very nature of the commodi ty bei ng processed, most seaf ood
processi ng pl ants wi l l be f ound l ocated adj acent to ti dal waters and must
86
provi de adequate waste treatment to the seaf ood process wastewaters to meet
NPDES permi t l i mi tati ons ( see Chapter 10) .
Treat ment
Al ternati ves
I t shoul d be an obvi ous economi c f act that bef ore a seaf ood pro-
cessor undertakes the task of bui l di ng a waste treatment f aci l i ty, he
shoul d i ni ti ate an i n- pl ant waste control program. The maj or i n- pl ant
control f or thi s i ndustry i s the recovery of what i s now wasted f ood stock.
Much of the seaf ood harvested i s wasted even though i t contai ns val uabl e
protei n whi ch can be used f or human or ani mal consumpti on. There are al so
non- edi bl e parts of f i sh such as the shel l s of shri mp and crab whi ch
contai n chi ti n can can be recovered as a val uabl e product. There are three
maj or i n- pl ant changes that woul d f aci l i tate the recovery of presentl y
wasted val uabl e protei n:
a) Mi ni mi zi ng the use of water ( thus mi ni mi zi ng l oss of sol ubl es)
b) Recovery of di ssol ved protei ns i n ef f l uent sol uti ons
c) Recovery of sol i d porti ons f or use as edi bl e products.
The use of water may be mi ni mi zed someti mes by substi tuti ng pneumati c
transporti ng systems f or water transporti ng. Another water savi ng
techni que i s the use of spri ng l oaded hoze nozzl es that automati cal l y shut
of f when rel eased by the operator. Presentl y hoses are f requentl y l ef t
runni ng when not bei ng used. Protei n recovery may be accompl i shed by use
of one of the f ol l owi ng techni ques.
a) Conventi onal Reducti on Processes
b) Protei n Preci pi tati on f romEf f l uent Streams
c) Sol i ds Recovery
Once i n- pl ant control measures are i ni ti ated, the seaf ood processor
must then assess the proj ected strength and vol ume of the pl ant' s pro-
cessi ng wastewater. These parameters are si gni f i cantl y i nf l uenced by the
f l uctuati on i n producti on vol umes and producti on l i ne expansi on programs.
The desi gn of the waste treatment systemmust take these f actors i nto
account as si zi ng and equi ppi ng the system( i . e. adequate aerati on) are
devel oped and i denti f i ed. Thi s agai n f ocuses upon the i mportance of
properl y characteri zi ng the wastewater stream, as di scussed i n Chapter 3 of
thi s manual and bui l di ng a systemthat
current and f uture waste treatment needs.
Treatment Al ternati ves to Meet Regul ati ons
87
wi l l be f l exi bl e enough to meet
I n the treatment of seaf ood processi ng wastewaters, one shoul d be
cogni zant of the i mportant consti tuents i n the waste stream. These
wastewaters contai n consi derabl e amounts of i nsol ubl e suspended matter
whi ch can be removed f romthe waste streamby chemi cal and physi cal means.
For opti mumwaste removal , some f ormof pri mary treatment i s recommended
pri or to a bi ol ogi cal treatment process or l and appl i cati on. A maj or
consi derati on i n the desi gn of treatment equi pment i s that the sol i ds
removal shoul d occur as qui ckl y as possi bl e. I t has been f ound that the
l onger the detenti on ti me between waste generati on and sol i ds removal , the
greater the sol ubl e BOD and COD wi th correspondi ng reducti on i n by- product
recovery. Other wastewater characteri sti cs i mportant to the treatment of
these i nf l uents are the hi gh col l oi dal and sol ubl e
and greases ( FOG) whi ch are not al ways adequatel y
chemi cal and physi cal means.
An overvi ew of treatment al ternati ves f or the
presented i n Fi gure 11. Thi s f i gure shows the ava
protei n as wel l as oi l s
removed f romthe water by
seaf ood i ndustry are
i l abl e opti ons f or waste
reducti on and i denti f i es most of the vari abl es i nvol ved i n treati ng pro-
cessi ng wastewaters. I f addi ti onal i nf ormati on i s requi red by the reader
about speci f i c uni t processes menti oned, thi s desi red i n- put can be
obtai ned by ref erri ng to the suppl emental ref erence materi al provi ded i n
the Spi nof f Manual enti tl ed "Wastewater Treatment of Food Processi ng
Ef f l uents. " For seaf ood processi ng wastewater, the treatment processes
i ncl ude screeni ng, f l ow equal i zati on, di ssol ved ai r f l otati on and some f orm
of bi ol ogi cal assi mi l ati on or l and appl i cati on.
Common pri mary treatment f or seaf ood wastewaters i ncl udes screeni ng,
f l ow equal i zati on and di ssol ved ai r f l otati on. These uni t operati ons
general l y wi l l remove up to 85% of the total suspended sol i ds, and 65% of
the BOD and COD present i n the wastewater.
The type screens used i n the seaf ood i ndustry coul d be vi brati ng,
rotary or stati c. Usual l y the screens used have 0. 03- i nch openi ngs.
However, assorted mesh si zes are avai l abl e rangi ng f rom0. 5 i nch i n a
stati c screen to 200 mesh i n hi gh- speed ci rcul ar vi bratory pol i shi ng
69
screens. Screeni ng systems may be used i n combi nati on ( i . e. , prescreen-
pol i sh screen) to achi eve the desi red sol i ds removal ef f i ci ency.
Fol l owi ng the screeni ng process and precedi ng the di ssol ved ai r f l o-
tati on uni t i s a f l ow equal i zati on step. Fl ow equal i zati on i s i mportant i n
reduci ng hydraul i c l oadi ng i n the waste stream. Equal i zati on f aci l i ti es
consi st of a hol di ng tank and pumpi ng equi pment desi gned to reduce the
f l uctuati ons of the waste streams. The equal i zi ng tank wi l l store excess-
i ve hydraul i c f l ow surges and stabi l i ze the f l ow rate to a uni f ormdi s-
charge rate over a 24- hour day. The tank i s characteri zed by a varyi ng
f l ow i nto the tank and a constant f l ow out.
Sequenti al to the f l ow equal i zati on step i s the di ssol ved ai r f l ota-
ti on process. Di ssol ved ai r f l otati on i s a waste- treatment process i n
whi ch oi l , grease, and other suspended matter are removed f roma waste
stream. Thi s treatment process has been i n use f or over 15 years and has
been most successf ul i n removi ng oi l f romwaste streams. Essenti al l y,
di ssol ved ai r f l otati on i s a process that uses mi nute ai r bubbl es to remove
the suspended matter f romthe wastewater stream. The ai r bubbl es attach
themsel ves to a di screte parti cl e thus af f ecti ng a reducti on i n the
speci f i c gravi ty of the aggregate parti cl e to l ess than that of water.
educti on of the speci f i c gravi ty f or the aggregate parti cl e causes
separati on f romthe carryi ng l i qui d i n an upward di recti on. Attachment of
the ai r bubbl e to the parti cl e i nduces a verti cal rate of ri se. The
mechani sm of operati on i nvol ves a cl ari f i cati on vessel where the parti cl es
are f l oated to the surf ace and removed by a ski mmi ng devi ce to a col l ecti on
trough f or removal f romthe system. The raw wastewater i s brought i n
contact wi th a recycl ed, cl ari f i ed ef f l uent whi ch has been pressuri zed ( 40
psi g) through ai r i nj ecti on i n a pressure tank. The combi ned f l ow stream
enters the cl ari f i cati on vessel and the rel ease of pressure causes ti ny ai r
bubbl es to f ormwhi ch begi n thei r ascendancy to the surf ace of the water,
carryi ng the suspended parti cl es wi th thei r verti cal ri se. To i mprove the
ef f i ci ency of sol i ds removal , f l occul ati ng ai ds such as f erri c chl ori de,
al um, l i ne ( pH 10- 10. 5) , ani oni c pol ymers, and aci d adj ustments to pH 5 has
been used. Vari ed combi nati ons of al umand pol ymer, l i ne and f erri c
chl ori de, and aci d adj ustment, al umand pol ymer have been demonstrated to
i ncrease the parti cl e removal ef f i ci ency of the di ssol ved ai r f l otati on
process.
90
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ WW TREATMENT
To compl ete the treatment of the seaf ood processi ng wastewaters, the
waste treammust be f urther processed by bi ol ogi cal means or di sposed on
the l and. Frequentl y used systems are, af ter adequate pri mary treatment:
extended aerati on; aerated l agoon; tri ckl i ng f i l ter; and l and appl i cati on.
Treatment of Seaf ood I ndustry Wastewaters
A number of waste treatment systems are empl oyed f or treati ng
seaf ood processi ng waste streams. These systems are summari zed i n Tabl e
22 whi ch def i nes the uni t process, i ts order of use i n the waste sequence
and the expected waste reducti on perf ormances by these uni t processes.
Acti vated Sl udge. I n an acti vated sl udge treatment system, an
accl i mati zed, mi xed, bi ol ogi cal growth of mi croorgani sms ( sl udge) i s
contacted wi th organi c materi al i n the wastewater i n the presence of excess
di ssol ved oxygen and nutri ents ( ni trogen and phosphorus) . The mi croor-
gani sms convert the sol ubl e organi c compounds to carbon di oxi de and
cel l ul ar materi al . Oxygen i s obtai ned f romappl i ed ai r whi ch al so
mai ntai ns adequate mi xi ng. The ef f l uent i s settl ed to separate bi ol ogi cal
sol i ds and a porti on of the sl udge i s recycl ed; the excess i s wasted f or
f urther treatment such as dewateri ng.
Acti vated sl udge systems uti l i zed i n the seaf ood processi ng i ndustry
are the extended aerati on types: that i s, they combi ne l ong aerati on ti mes
wi th l ow appl i ed organi c l oadi ngs. The detenti on ti mes are one to two
days. The suspended sol i ds concentrati ons are mai ntai ned at moderate
l evel s to f aci l i tate treatment of the l ow stength wastes. ( BOD of l ess
than 800 mg/ l ) .
I t i s usual l y necessary to provi de pri mary treatment and f l ow equal i -
zati on pri or to the acti vated sl udge process, to ensure opti mumoperati on.
BOD
5
and suspended sol i ds removal s i n the range of 95- 98%can be
achi eved. However, pi l ot or l aboratory scal e studi es are requi red to
determi ne organi c l oadi ngs, oxygen requi rements, sl udge yi el ds, sl udge
settl i ng rates, etc. f or these hi gh strength wastes.
The f ol l owi ng i nf ormati on requi red f or the desi gn of acti vated sl udge
systems can be obtai ned f rombench or pi l ot scal e experi ments:
1. BOD
5
removal rate data.
2. Oxygen requi rements f or the degradati on of organi c materi al and
the degradati on of dead cul l ul ar materi al ( endogenous
respi rat i on) .
91
Tabl e 22. Seaf ood I ndustry Wastewater Treatment Practi ces.
Treatment System Use Effluent Reduction
Dissolved air flotation
without flocculant aids
Primary treatment
or by-product
recovery
Crease, 60% removal, to
100 to 200 mg/l
BOD
5
, 30% removal
SS, 30% removal
Dissolved air flotation
with pH control and
flocculant aids
Activated Sludge
Extended aeration
Aerated Lagoon
Trickling Filter
Spray irrigation
Flood irrigation
Ponding and evaporation
Primary treatment or
by-product recovery
Secondary treatment
Secondary treatment
Secondary treatment
Secondary treatment
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
Grease, 95-99% removal,
BOD
5
, 50-65% removal
SS, 60-97% removal
COD, 50-75% removal
BOD
5
,
90-95% removal
BOD
5
95-97% removal
BOD
5
90-95% removal
BOD
5
80-85% removal
Total
Total
Total
92
3. Sl udge yi el d, determi ned f rom the conservati on of sol ubl e organi cs
to cel l ul ar materi al and the i nf l ux of i norgani c sol i ds i n the raw
waste.
4. Sol i d/ l i qui d separati on rate; the f i nal cl ari f i er woul d be
desi gned to achi eve rapi d sedi mentati on of sol i ds whi ch coul d be
recycl ed or f urther treated. A maxi mumsurf ace settl i ng rate of
16. 5 m
3
/ day/ m
2
has been suggested f or seaf ood processi ng
wastes.
I n contrast to other f ood processi ng wastewaters ( i . e. , dai ry, f rui t
and vegetabl e) , seaf ood wastes appear to requi re hi gher oxygen avai l abi l i ty
to stabi l i ze these type wastes. Whereas, dai ry and f rui t and vegetabl e
wastes requi re approxi matel y 1. 3 l bs of oxygen per l b of BOD, seaf ood
wastes seemto demand as much as 3 l bs of oxygen per l b o- f BOD appl i ed to
the extended aerati on system. At that aerati on rate up to 30 l bs of BOD
can be appl i ed dai l y f or each 1000 cu f t of aerati on basi n vol ume. F/ M
rati os of 0. 1 to 0. 3 show the best operati ng condi ti on f or thi s type sys-
tem. Sl udge age shoul d be mai ntai ned at a constant 18 to 20 days. Temper-
ature ( wi nter operati ons i n the northern regi ons of the U. S. ) can have a
si gni f i cant i nf l uence on the waste removal perf ormance of the extended
aerati on systemsi nce pi n- poi nt f l oc can devel op and l oss of bi ol ogi cal
acti vi ty wi l l decrease the perf ormance ef f i ci ency of thi s system under- col d
weather operati ng condi ti ons.
Aerated Lagoons. Aerated l agoons are used where suf f i ci ent l and
i s not avai l abl e f or seasonal retenti on or l and appl i cati on and economi cs
do not j usti f y an acti vated sl udge system. Ef f i ci ent bi ol ogi cal treatment
can be achi eved by the use of the aerated l agoon system. Ai r i s appl i ed to
these ponds by f i xed or f l oati ng mechani cal aerators or by compressors
through ai r di f f users l ocated on the bottomof the pond.
between 2. 4 and 4. 6 meters deep, wi th 2 to 10 days retent
achi eve 55 to 90% reducti on i n BOD
5
.
There are two types of aerated l agoons i n common use
1. Compl etel y mi xed ( al l sol i ds are kept i n suspensi
aerobi c oxi dati on takes pl ace) .
The ponds are
on ti me and
on and onl y
2. Facul tati ve- aerated l agoon ( the contents of the pond onl y
parti al l y mi xed and suspended sol i ds settl e to depths where
anaerobi c decomposi ti on occurs) .
93
Loadi ng rates f or aerated l agoons vary consi derabl y and are determi ned by
ri gorous l aboratory or pi l ot scal e testi ng carri ed out on the raw waste.
Aerated l agoons achi eve good BOD
5
removal . Level s of suspended
sol i ds i n the ef f l uent are usual l y hi gh and theref ore aerated l agoons are
usual l y f ol l owed by qui escent settl i ng to reduce the concentrati on of
sol i ds.
Stabi l i zati on/ Pol i shi ng Ponds. A common practi ce f or i mprovi ng
the ef f l uent treated i n the aerated l agoon i s the use of a stabi l i zati on/
pol i shi ng pond system. Thi s systemdepends on the acti on of aerobi c
bacteri a on the sol ubl e organi s contai ned i n the waste streams.
The organi c carbon i s converted to carbon di oxi de and bacteri al cel l s.
Al gal growth i s sti mul ated by i nci dent sunl i ght whi ch penetrates to a depth
of 1 to 1. 5 meters. Photosynthesi s resul ts i n the producti on of excess
oxygen whi ch i s avai l abl e to the aerobi c bacteri a; addi ti onal oxygen i s
provi ded by mass transf er at the ai r/ water i nterf ace.
Aerobi c stabi l i zati on ponds are 0.
acti vi ty and are usual l y saturated wi th
depth duri ng dayl i ght hours. The ponds
ti me of 2 to 20 days, wi th surf ace l oad
8 - 0. 9 mdeep to opti mi ze al gal
di ssol ved oxygen throughout the
are desi gned to provi de a detenti on
ngs of 5. 5 to 22 g BOD
5
/ day/ m2.
The ponds are usual l y mul ti pl e cel l uni ts operated i n seri es to
el i mi nate the possi bi l i ty of short ci rcui ti ng and to permi t sedi mentati on
of dead al gae and bacteri al cel l s. The ponds are constructed wi th i nl et
and outl et structures l ocated i n posi ti ons to mi ni mi ze short ci rcui ti ng due
to wi nd i nduced currents; the di mensi ons and geometry are desi gned to
maxi mi ze mi xi ng. These systems can achi eve 80 - 95%removal of BOD
5
and
ef f
t he
reg
approxi matel y 80% removal of suspended sol i ds, wi th most of the
uent sol i ds di scharged as al gae cel l s.
Duri ng wi nter peri ods the degree of treatment decreases markedl y as
temperature decreases and i ce cover el i mi nates al gal growth. I n
ons where i ce cover occurs, the l agoons may be equi pped wi th vari abl e
depth overf l ow structures i n order that processi ng waste f l ows can be
stored duri ng the wi nter. An al ternati ve method i s to provi de l ong
retenti on storage ponds; the wastes can then be treated aerobi cal l y duri ng
the summer peri od pri or to di scharge.
94
Aerobi c stabi l i zati on ponds are uti l i zed where l and i s readi l y
avai l abl e. I n regi ons where soi l s are permeabl e, i t i s of ten necessary to
use pl asti c, asphal ti c, or cl ay l i ners to prevent contami nati on of adj acent
groundwater.
Tri ckl i ng Fi l ters. Tri ckl i ng f i l ters, uti l i zi ng pl asti c medi a i n
col umns 4. 5 to 6. 0 meters hi gh, have been used i n the treatment of hi gh
strength f rui t and vegetabl e wastes ( 3000 to 4000 mg/ l BOD
5
) . Hi gh
l i qui d reci rcul ati on rates and f orced ai r ci rcul ati on are used to achi eve
BOD
5
removal s up to 90%. There i s l i mi ted experi ence as to how
tri ckl i ng f i l ters wi l l perf orm when treati ng seaf ood pl ant wastewaters.
Wastewater i s di stri buted by rotati ng arms at constant rates onto the
top surf ace of packed col umns of pl asti c medi a. A bi ol ogi cal f i l mi s
f ormed on the medi a and cel l ul ar materi al peri odi cal l y sl oughs- of f when the
thi ckness becomes suf f i ci entl y great that oxygen transf er cannot occur
throughout i ts depth and anaerobi c condi ti ons devel op. Underdrai ns l ocated
beneath the col umn transport the ef f l uent to settl i ng tanks where the dense
sl udge i s separated f romthe l i qui d ef f l uent. A porti on of the ef f l uent i s
reci rcul ated to seed the process wi th bi ol ogi cal cel l s and to promote
consi stent sl oughi ng.
General desi gn cri teri a f or tri ckl i ng f i l ters are as f ol l ows:
roughi ng f i l ters may be l oaded at rates of 4. 8 kg BOD
5
/ day/ m3 f i l ter medi a
and achi eve BOD
5
reducti ons of 40 - 50%; hi gh rate f i l ters achi eve BOD
5
reducti ons of 40- 70% at organi c l oadi ngs of 0. 4 to 4. 8 kg BOD
5
/ day/ m3;
achi eve standard rate f i l ters are l oaded
BOD
5
removal s greater than 70%.
Both hi gh rate and roughi ng
addi ti onal treatment. I n genera
at 0. 08 to 0. 4 kg BOD
5
/ day/ m3 and
f i l ters are normal l y f ol l owed by
1 they are used to reduce the l oadi ng on
subsequent treatment processes because of cost and east of operati on.
Land Di sposal of Wastewater. The appl i cati on of wastewater to
l and i s a l ow capi tal and operati ng cost method f or the treatment of
seaf ood processi ng wastes, provi ded suf f i ci ent l and havi ng sui tabl e
characteri sti cs i s avai l abl e. The ul ti mate di sposal of wastewater appl i ed
to l and i s by one of the f ol l owi ng methods:
- percol ati on to groundwater,
- overl and runof f to surf ace streams,
95
- evaporati on and evapotranspi rati on to the atmosphere.
The f ol l owi ng methods are used f or l and appl i cati on:
- i rri gati on,
- surf ace pondi ng,
- groundwater recharge by i nj ecti on wel l s,
- subsurf ace percol ati on.
Al though each of these methods may be used i n parti cul ar ci rcumstances
f or speci f i c seaf ood processi ng waste streams, i rri gati on methods are used
the most f requentl y. I rri gati on processes can be f urther di vi ded i nto f our
subcategori es accordi ng to the rates of appl i cati on and ul ti mate di sposal
of l i qui d. These subcategori es are overl and f l ow, i rri gati on, hi gh- rate
i rri gati on, and i nf i l trati on- percol ati on.
Two types of l and appl i cati on techni ques seemmost ef f i ci ent, namel y -
i nf i l trati on and overl and f l ow. As these l and appl i cati on techni ques are
used, the processor must be cogni zant of potenti al harmf ul ef f ects of the
pol l utants on the vegetati on, soi l and surf ace and ground waters. He must
al so be aware of such f actors as the wastewater qual i ty, cl i mate, soi l ,
geol ogy, topography, l and avai l abi l i ty, and return f l ow qual i ty
requi rements as a l and appl i cati on techni que i s sel ected.
The treatabi l i ty of seaf ood processi ng wastewater by l and appl i cati on
has been shown to be excel l ent f or both i nf i l trati on and overl and f l ow type
systems. Wi th respect to organi c carbon removal , both systems have been
shown to achi eve pol l utant removal ef f i ci enci es of approxi rnatel y 98%and
84%f or the i nf i l trati on and overl and f l ow systems, respecti vel y. The
advantage of hi gher ef f i ci ency obtai ned wi th the i nf i l trati on system i s
of f - set somewhat by the more expensi ve and compl i cated di stri buti on system
i nvol ved. The overl and f l ow systemal so i s l ess l i kel y to pol l ute the
potabl e water suppl i es.
Ni trogen removal i s f ound to be sl i ghtl y more ef f ecti ve wi th the
i nf i l trati on type l and appl i cati on system when compared to the overl and
f l ow appl i cati on. However, the i nf i l trati on type of appl i cati on has been
shown to be qui te ef f ecti ve f or phosphorous and grease removal and thus
of f ers a def i ni te advantage over the overl and f l ow i f phosphorous and
grease removal are of pri me i mportance. One f actor that may negate thi s
advantage i s i f the soi l condi ti ons are not f avorabl e f or phosphorous and
grease removal and chemi cal treatment i s requi red.
96
I rri gati on i s a treatrnent process whi ch consi sts of a number of
segments:
1. Aerobi c bacteri al degradati on of the deposi ted suspended materi al s
and evaporati on of water and concentrati on of sol ubl e sal ts.
2. Fi l trati on of smal l parti cl es through the soi l cover, and
bi ol ogi cal degradati on of entrapped organi cs i n the soi l by
aerobi c and anaerobi c bacteri a.
3. Adsorpti on of organi cs on soi l parti cl es and uptake of ni trogen
and phosphorus by pl ants and soi l mi croorgani sms.
4. Uptake of l i qui d wastes and transpi rati on by pl ants.
5. Percol ati on of water to groundwater.
The i mportance of these processes depends on the rate of appl i cati on of
waste, the characteri sti cs of the waste, the characteri sti cs of soi l and
substrata, and the type of cover crop grown on the l and.
Loadi ng Rates. The appl i cati on rates shoul d be determi ned by
pi l ot pl ant testi ng f or each parti cul ar l ocati on. The rate wi l l depend on
whether i rri gati on techni ques are to be used f or roughi ng treatment or as
an ul ti mate di sposal method.
There are both hydraul i c and organi c l oadi ng constrai nts on the use of
thi s method f or the ul ti mate di sposal of ef f l uent. I f the maxi mum
recommended hydraul i c l oadi ngs are exceeded, the surf ace runof f woul d
i ncrease. Shoul d the speci f i ed organi c l oadi ngs be exceeded, anaerobi c
condi ti ons coul d devel op wi th resul ti ng decrease i n BOD
5
removal and
the devel opment of odor probl ems. Appl i ed l oadi ngs of organi c suspended
sol i ds average approxi matel y 8 g/ m2 but l oadi ngs up to 22 g/ m2 have been
appl i ed successf ul l y. A resti ng peri od between appl i cati ons i s i mportant
to ensure survi val of the aerobi c bacteri a. The spray f i el d i s usual l y
l ai d out i n secti ons such that resti ng peri ods of 4- 10 days can be
achi eved.
Two potenti al probl ems may be encountered wi th l and appl i cati on of
seaf ood processi ng wastewaters. These probl ems may be i n the presence of
di sease produci ng bacteri a and unf avorabl e sodi um absorpti on rati os of the
soi l . A key to mi ni mi zi ng the heal th hazard of spreadi ng di seasi ng
produci ng bacteri a can be accompl i shed by usi ng l ow pressure wastewater
di stri buti on systems whi ch wi l l reduce the aerosol dri f t of the water
97
spray. Wi th respect to unf avorabl e sodi um absorpti on rati os as associ ated
wi th the soi l type, the seaf ood processor shoul d be aware that cl ay-
contai ni ng soi l s wi l l cause the most seri ous sodi umabsorpti on probl em.
Sandy type soi l s appear to not be general l y af f ected by unf avorabl e sodi um
absorpti on rati os and seemto be the best sui ted f or accepti ng the hi gh
sodi umchl ori de content f ound i n most meat packi ng pl ant wastewaters.
As seaf ood processi ng pl ant wastewaters are appl i ed to the l and,
certai n types of grasses have been f ound to be compati bl e wi th these type
wastewaters. These grasses are Bermuda NK- 37, Kentucky- 31 Tal l Fescue,
J ose Wheatgrass, and Bl ue Pani cum. I n addi ti on, the southwestern coast of
the Uni ted States, wi th i ts ari d cl i mate, mi l d wi nters, and vast avai l abl e
l and areas, present i deal condi ti ons f or l and appl i cati on treatment
systems. Two case studi es of l and di sposal of seaf ood wastewaters are
presented i n detai l i n Chapter 8.
98
Ref erences
Most of the text i n thi s chapter has been adapted di rectl y f romthe
f i rst ref erence source -
Food Wastewater and I ts Treatment, 1976. Publ i shed by EPA, Constructi on
Grants Programs, Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency- Techni cal Transf er
Seri es ( EPA- 43- 9- 76- 017c) , Vol . I I I , Appendi x 8.
Bi ssonnette, P. A. , S. S. Li n, and P. B. Li ao, 1977. Sal mon Processi ng
Wastewater Treatment, i n Proceedi ngs Ei ghth Nati onal Symposi umon
Food Processi ng Wastes. EPA- 600/ Z- 77- 184, p. 333, August.
Bri nsf i el d, Russel l B. 1978. Waste Treatment i n Seaf ood Processi ng.
Extensi on Bul l eti n 264. Maryl and Cooperati ve Extensi on Servi ce,
Col l ege Park.
Ertz, D. B. , J . S. Atwel l , and E. H. Forsht, 1977. Di ssol ved Ai r Fl otati on
Treatment of Seaf ood Processi ng Wastes- An Assessment, i n Proceedi ngs
Ei ghth Nati onal Symposi umon Food Processi ng Wastes.
EPA- 600/ Z- 77- 184, p. 98, August.
Mul yk, P. A. and A. Lamb of Stanl ey Associ ates Engi neeri ng Ltd. , 1977.
Revi ew of Treatment Technol ogy i n the Frui t and Vegetabl e Processi ng
I ndustry i n Canada. Economi c and Techni cal Revi ew Report
EPS- 3- WP- 77- 5, Water Pol l uti on Control Di rectorate.
Stef f en, A. J . , 1973. I n- pl ant Modi f i cati ons and Pretreatment- Upgradi ng
Meat Packi ng Faci l i ti es to Reduce Pol l uti on. EPA Technol ogy Transf er
Semi nar Publ i cati on #l , October.
Tarqui n, Anthony J . , 1976. Treatment of Hi gh Strength Meat Packi ng Pl ant
Wastewater by Land Appl i cati on. Envi ronmental Protecti on Technol ogy
Seri es EPA- 600/ Z- 76- 302, December.
99
SFAFOOD SPNOFF/ LAND DI SPOSAL
L A ND DI S P OS A L OF S E A F OOD
P R OC E S S I N G WA S T E S
I nt roduct i on
The seaf ood processi ng i ndustry i s made up of srnal l to moderatel y
si zed i ndependent pl ants. Treati ng seaf ood processi ng wastes by usi ng
l and appl i cati on methods i s a systemthat has several stri kes agai nst i t:
1) These processi ng pl ants operate on a very smal l capi tal
i nvestment basi s. Some 80 of every 100 pl ants each
operate on l ess than $100, 000 capi tal i nvestment. So,
j ust the l and purchase woul d be a tremendous drai n on a
pl ant' s f unds.
2) The l and surroundi ng most pl ants doesn' t l end i tsel f to
l and appl i cati on system desi gn requi rernents. Coastal
l ands are usual l y characteri zed by rocky outcroppi ngs,
f l at to rol l i ng sandy l andscapes, or marshl ands, none
of whi ch coul d easi l y support a harvestabl e cover crop.
Addi ti onal drawbacks are that steep sl opes of ten
accompany rocky coastl i nes whi l e hi gh water tabl es are
coupl ed wi th marsh or ti dewater l ands.
These coastal areas are pri me si tes f or resort enterpri ses and/ or
pri vate homes and cottages because they provi de that much desi red "ocean
vi ew". As a resul t, thi s acreage i s of ten pri ced so hi gh as to prohi bi t
the average seaf ood processor f rom purchasi ng the requi red acreage even i f
i t was sui tabl e f or a l and appl i cati on system.
A revi ew of the l i terature reveal s a dearth of i nf ormati on on l and
appl yi ng seaf ood processi ng wastes. Neverthel ess, a f ew such studi es have
shown promi si ng resul ts. The text that f ol l ows descri bes two studi es, one
conducted i n Oregon, and the other i n the Loui si ana coastal zone.
Case Studi es
1)
Some Oregon shri mp and crab processors are usi ng l and appl i cati on
systems to sol ve thei r sol i d waste probl ems.
Oregon shri mp and crab
processors generate 15 to 30 mi l l i on pounds of sol i d waste annual l y. The
100
SLAFOOD SPNOFF/ LAND DI SPOSAL
state' s maj or processi ng ports are abl e to appl y thei r sol i d shri mp and
crab wastes to nearby agri cul tural l and.
Sea Grant research f undi ng supported a study by Costa, ( 1978) , at
Oregon State Uni versi ty to determi ne:
1) the best ways to handl e and appl y the shri mp and crab processi ng
wastes,
2) the ef f ects of waste appl i cati ons on pl ant and soi l chemi cal
composi ti on,
3) the val ue of the wastes compared wi th the val ue of conventi onal
f erti l i zers.
A bri ef summary of thi s study f ol l ows.
The shri mp and crab processi ng wastes were f ound to contai n:
1. 3 to 1. 6%ni trogen ( N)
0. 47 to 0. 54%phosphorus ( P)
7 to 14%l i me ( CaC0
3
) equi val ent
other nutri ents
64 to 78%water
Greenhouse experi ments were conducted to determi ne the ef f ects of :
0
gri ndi ng the shri mp and crab wastes,
0
surf ace vs. i ncorporated waste appl i cati ons,
0
waste appl i cati ons vs. i norgani c N appl i ed at equi val ent N rates
( 56, 168, and 336 kg/ ha) wi th appl i cati ons of P, sul f ur, ( S) and
CaC0
3
suppl i ed wi th i norgani c N onl y.
The f erti l i zer materi al s were appl i ed to two coastal soi l s, and two
pasture crops were grown. Forage yi el ds and the P concentrati on i n
"Potomac" orchard- grass ( Dactyl i s gl omerata L. ) were si gni f i cantl y hi gher
wi th i ncorporated waste appl i cati ons than wi th surf ace waste appl i cati ons.
Appl i cati on method di d not af f ect the P concentrati on i n New Zeal and whi te
cl over ( Tri f ol i umrepens L. ) .
Gri ndi ng crab waste si gni f i cantl y i ncreased f orage yi el ds when the
waste was surf ace appl i ed, but not when i t was i ncorporated i nto the soi l .
Unground shri mp waste supported si gni f i cantl y hi gher f orage yi el ds than
ground shri mp waste. No si gni f i cant di f f erence was noted i n f orage yi el ds,
orchard grass N uptake, or P concentrati ons i n orchard grass and whi te
cl over upon compari ng resul ts f rom appl i cati ons of shri mp waste, crab
waste, and i norgani c nutri ents wi th l i me. Appl i cati ons of shri mp waste and
101
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ LAND DI SPOSAL
crab wastes i ncreased whi te cl over yi el ds over the control yi el ds by a
f actor of more than 3. 5 on Knappa si l t l oam( pH 4. 9- 5. 0) but di d not
measurabl y i ncrease the soi l pH. I ncreasi ng appl i cati on rates of shri mp
and crab wastes on Knappa and Nehal emsi l t l oams si gni f i cantl y i ncreased
the extractabl e soi l P and cal ci um ( Ca) , and si gni f i cantl y decreased the
extractabl e soi l potassi um( K) af ter 28 weeks of orchard grass growth. No
consi stent ef f ect on soi l pH was measured.
I n an i rri gated coastal pasture, f resh shri mp waste was appl i ed at
6, 726, 17, 936 and 35, 872 kg/ ha and ammoni um phosphate f erti l i zer ( 12- 20- 0
15S) was appl i ed at 224 and 448 kg/ ha, and a stand of orchard grass was
establ i shed. Shri mp processi ng waste appl i cati ons resul ted i n f orage
yi el ds hi gher than those achi eved usi ng ammoni umphosphate. Shri mp waste
appl i cati ons greater than 17, 936 kg/ ha di d not f urther i ncrease the f orage
yi el d or P uptake. Shri mp waste appl i cati ons i ncreased the extractabl e
soi l P, sul f ate, sol ubl e sal ts, and ni trate, but resul ted i n a depl eti on of
soi l K at the end of the growi ng season.
Shri mp and crab processi ng wastes can be ef f ecti ve sources of N and P
f or some crops. Land appl i cati on of these wastes can resul t i n depl eti on
of soi l K by the crop f romsome soi l s. I n these cases, potassi umf erti l i -
zer shoul d be appl i ed to suppl ement the waste appl i cati ons on soi l s wi th
l ow l evel s of avai l abl e K.
Shel l f i sh waste appl i cati ons i n excess of 18, 000 to 22, 000 kg/ ha are
not recommended because the appl i ed N i s not used ef f i ci entl y and ni trate
contami nati on of groundwater can occur as a resul t of hi gh appl i cati on
rates.
Work wi th coastal f armers was an i mportant aspect
of thi s study. A
f ew growers appl i ed the processi ng wastes to thei r f i el ds, and demonstrated
the f easi bi l i ty of usi ng the wastes i n commerci al f armi ng operati ons. No
spec i al equi pment was requi red to handl e the wastes. Chemi cal anal yses of
soi l sampl es f romf armers' f i el ds showed marked i mprovement i n soi l
nutr i ents as a resul t of these waste appl i cati ons.
11)
Meo, et al . studi ed l and appl yi ng f i sh processi ng wastes on dredge
spoi l si tes i n Loui si ana. Resul ts i ndi cated that l and appl i cati on can
achi eve advanced treatment at a cost of about $. 17/ 100 gal treated, a
savi ngs of $. 25 to $1. 06 over other methods. Lower costs ref l ect the f act
102
that thi s method depends on "f ree" work by natural systems to a much
greater extent than do conventi onal treatment processes.
The Loui si ana control zone i ncl udes a di verse array of processi ng and
packi ng operati ons f or agri cul ture, commerci al f i nf i sh, and shel l f i sh
products. These i ndustri al pl ants are of ten rural l y l ocated, usual l y
seasonal l y operated, and produce organi c waste streams that requi re
treatment to avoi d envi ronmental degradati on through stream di scharge.
The obj ecti ve i n the Meo, et al . paper was to compare present costs
and ef f ecti veness of di f f erent methods f or treati ng f i sheri es wastes by
l and treatment on dredge spoi l si tes.
The authors present f i ve di f f erent treatment schemes wi th whi ch they
compare a l and appl i cati on treatment scheme. These f i ve schemes are l i sted
bel ow.
1) Physi cal separati on i ncl udes coarse screeni ng, vi brati ng screen-
i ng, tangenti al screeni ng, the hydrasi eve, the hydrocycl oni cs
hydroscreen, and the hydrocycl oni cs rotostrai ner.
2) Physi cochemi cal separati on i s desi gned to remove f i sh oi l and
soi l ds remai ni ng i n sol uti on, col l oi dal suspensi on, or emul si on
af ter physi cal separati on. Chemi cal treatment by f l occul ati on and
preci pi tati on has been used to remove the emul si f i ed and
col l oi dal l y di spersed sol i ds. However, the rates are sl ow and may
permi t excessi ve bacteri al growth and probl emodors to devel op i n
the cl ari f i er.
3) Di ssol ved ai r f l otati on can achi eve al most compl ete removal of
suspended sol i ds and up to 30% removal of the sol ubl e organi c
mater f romf i sh processi ng ef f l uents ( BOD reducti on f rom60 to
90%) . The bi ggest di sadvantage to thi s systemi s an economi cal
one. I t i s costl y both f romthe capi tal and operati ng requi re-
ments. Al so, i f the sl udge produced by the systemcannot be sol d,
then the cost of the systembecomes prohi bi ti ve.
4) Bi ol ogi cal treatments have been commonl y used on f i shery wastes.
Aerated l agoons are used i n combi nati on wi th cl ari f i ers and
rel ated sl udge di sposal f aci l ti es. Tri ckl i ng f i l ters have
perf ormed wel l wi th f i shery waste, removi ng 60- 75% of the BOD
l oad, but tower pl uggi ng and odor f ormati on are probl ems. Maj or
probl ems wi th usi ng bi ol ogi cal treatment are:
103
a) the seasonal operati ng peri ods of the pl ants,
b) the short work weeks i n some f i sheri es, such as the sal mon
f i shery,
c) The rel ati vel y hi gh cost of these systems.
5) Ocean dumpi ng i s an adequate di sposal method f ol l owi ng screeni ng.
I t may be used i n areas where suf f i ci ent ti dal di spersi on occurs
but i s subj ect to some stri ngent EPA regul ati ons. Many of the
outf al l s presentl y used are not sati sf actory and are acute sources
of pol l uti on to recei vi ng waters.
A vari ety of seaf ood processi ng treatment costs are presented i n Tabl e
23. The costs of the di f f erent treatment systems are cumul ati ve. Treat-
ment costs f or i ndustri al f i shmeal processes i ncl udi ng those wi th pl ants
f or on- si te sol ubl es and bai l water onl y are representati ve of the
Loui si ana f i shery f or Gul f menhaden.
Treatments 1 through 5 l i sted above, and thei r concomi tant costs
represent avai l abl e technol ogy f or achi evi ng secondary treatment and, i n
s o m e c a s e s , advanced treatment. They do not represent "zero di scharge" as
evi denced by hi gh BOD, total suspended sol i ds, and grease and oi l l evel s i n
ef f l uents ( Tabl e 23) . Land treatment, i n contrast, can provi de a much
cl eaner ef f l uent at a more economi cal cost ( Tabl e 24) , i f a l and- pl ant
systemcan be used. Most f i sh processi ng pl ants i n Loui si ana are l ocated
wi thi n pumpi ng di stance of dredge spoi l si tes. Theref ore take note that
l and costs are not i ncl uded i n the esti mates i n Tabl e 24 because the spoi l
si tes are avai l abl e at l i ttl e or no cost.
I n other coastal areas, dredge spoi l si tes are normal l y not as common
as i n Loui si ana. So l and pri ces may become a si gni f i cant cost f actor. Two
f actors may sti l l make l and treatment attracti ve i n other coastal areas.
1) Rel ati vel y smal l amounts of l and ( l - 20 acres) are normal l y
requi red.
2) Under certai n condi ti ons, wastes can be appl i ed di rectl y to
wetl ands ( Tabl e 25) .
These f actors woul d al l have to be eval uated i n determi ni ng the f easi bi l i ty
of usi ng l and treatment i n speci f i c cases.
Land appl i cati on of waste ef f l uents has been i nvesti gated i n Loui si ana
si nce 1948. I n coastal Loui si ana, overl and f l ow i s best sui ted f or waste
ef f l uent treatment because of i mpermeabl e c l ay soi l s and hi gh water tabl es.
106
Tabl e 25. Treatment characteri sti cs of overl and f l ow systems.
Treatment efficiency
Mean concn.
(mg/liter) % Removal
System Concn. Mass
Waste water effluent basis basis
Avg. conditions
Total suspended solids
Total organic C
B O
Total P
Total N
Menhaden processing
waste, Dulac, La.
Overland flow alone
Total organic C
Total P
T o t a l N
Overland flow plus
marsh percolation
Total organic carbon
Total P
Total N
Maximum acceptable S
content in waste water
Pretreatment of waste waters
Hydraulic loading by
S spray irrigation
Organic loading in
food industry
263.0 16.0 93.5 98.2
264.0 23.0 90.8 -
616.0 9.0 98.5 99.1
7.6 4.3 42.5 61.5
17.4 2.8 83.9 91.5
800.0 337.0 58.0 -
51.0 24.2 53. 0
642.0 3 12.0 51.0 -
800. 00
51.0 0.22 99.0 -
642.0 1.45 99.0 -
1000 ppm, unless applied to saline
vegetation
Screening or settling, and grease removal
Up to 3 in./wk
100-250 lb BOD/acre/day normal;
500- l 000 maxi mum
107
SEAFOOD SPNDFF/ LAND DI SPOSAL
Summary
I n some cases, use of l and appl i cati on systems by today' s seaf ood
processors i s f easi bl e. However, i n many cases l and di sposal of seaf ood
processi ng wastes must be rul ed out as a treatment al ternati ve. Coastal
topographi c and soi l characteri sti cs, and hi gh cost of coastal property are
the two maj or f actors l i mi ti ng the use of l and appl i cati on systems f or
treati ng seaf ood processi ng wastes. A detai l ed l i sti ng of the maj or
f actors to be consi dered i n l and di sposal of seaf ood wastes i s i ncl uded i n
the "Land Di sposal " Spi nof f .
Ref er ences
Green, J ohn H. 1977. Personal communi cati on. Feb. 23.
Nati onal Mari ne Fi sheri es Servi ce Revi ew of EPA Gui del i nes Phase I I .
J oseph W. Sl avi n, Associ ate Di rector f or Resource Uti l i zati on, NMFS.
Apri l 26, 1974.
Costa, E. , J r. 1978. Di sposal of Shel l f i sh Waste on Agri cul tural Land.
The Sea Grant Associ ati on Student Abstracts. Oregon State Uni versi ty
Sea Grant Col l ege Program Communi cati ons.
Meo, M. , et al . 1977. Land Treatment of Fi sh Processi ng Wastes on Dredge
Spoi l Si tes: Comparati ve Cost Eval uati ons. Coastal Zone
Management J ournal , Vol . 3, No. 3.
108
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ MUNC DI SCH
MU NI C I P A L D I S C H A R G E
I nt roduct i on
PL 92- 500 and PL 95- 217 have some subtl eti es that wi l l i ncrease
costs f or your seaf ood pl ants di schargi ng to muni ci pal systems. The
requi rements f or i ndustri al cost recovery, user charges and sewer use
ordi nances wi l l surel y af f ect seaf ood pl ants. Probabl y no more than 20- 30%
of the seaf ood pl ants now di scharge to muni ci pal systems. However, wi th
devel opi ng regul ati ons and technol ogi es, the f uture may f i nd 90%of the
seaf ood pl ants di schargi ng to muni ci pal systems.
The sewer use ordi nance as used i s to ref er to the "sewer ordi nance"
def i ned as an i nstrument setti ng f orth rul es and regul ati ons governi ng the
use of the publ i c sewer system( Anon. 1975 a. ) . I n most cases, the i ndus-
tri al cost recovery and surcharges ( user charges) may be a part of thi s
i nstrument. Li ttl e can be reported about i ndustri al cost recovery as f ew
muni ci pal i ti es have i mposed the same and an 18 month moratori umhas been
i mposed i n PL 95- 217. Surcharges wi l l be treated as a secti on of the sewer
use ordi nance al though i n real i ty some muni ci pal i ti es pass separate
ordi nances f or user charges.
Seaf ood processors must ask themsel ves what i s happeni ng now and what
wi l l happen i n the near f uture. Al though charges f or i ndustri al wastes
began as earl y as 1907 ( Cl eary, 1971) , as l ate as 1969 onl y about 10%of
Uni ted States muni ci pal i ti es col l ected these charges ( Anon. 1970 a. ) . Most
muni ci pal i ti es di d not have a stri ngent sewer use ordi nance unti l af ter
1960. Most muni ci pal i ti es do not have one i n 1978 al though state and
f ederal pressure and encouragement wi l l surel y f orce most muni ci pal i ti es to
draf t such an ordi nance. Key questi ons that must be asked by i ndustri al
di schargers i s how they can get a reasonabl e ordi nance that gi ves both them
and the ci ty systemprotecti on - - themi n havi ng sewage treatment, at a
reasonabl e cost and the ci ty i n preventi ng i l l egal or toxi c di scharges.
PL 92- 500 and EPA requi re that muni ci pal i ti es i nsti tute i ndustri al
cost recovery, a systemof user charges and have a sewer use ordi nance i f
they obtai n f ederal f unds f or water or wastewater f aci l i ti es. However, one
must l ook caref ul l y at exactl y what i s requi red. The i ni ti al requi rements
were modi f i ed substanti al l y by PL 95- 217.
109
I ndustry must assi st i n the devel opment of a "practi cal and sound
regul atory ordi nance f i tted to l ocal condi ti ons" ( Anon. 1975 a. ) .
Carawan ( 1973) expressed the bel i ef that i ndustry shoul d want the mi ni mum
number of restri cti ons that wi l l protect the muni ci pal system. These
restri cti ons shoul d be techni cal l y sound and ri gi dl y enf orced.
The seaf ood i ndustry i s perhaps uni que i n that many of the seaf ood
processi ng pl ants, especi al l y the smal l er ones, are l ocated on docks over
the water wi thout the benef i t of ci ty sewage. However, many of these areas
wi l l recei ve muni ci pal sewage f aci l i ti es i n the next several years.
Pai ( 1976) i ndi cated that sewer use ordi nances were l argel y a matter
of l ocal and state j uri sdi cti on. However, many i ndi vi dual s have been to a
town counci l meeti ng and been tol d that "EPA i nsi sts and requi res a 28 page
document ".
Carawan ( 1973) reported that EPA documents contai n the f ol l owi ng
menti on of speci f i c requi rements f or a sewer use ordi nance i f Federal
moni es are recei ved.
( 1) 35. 927- 4 Prohi bi t new connecti ons f romi nf l ow sources
( 4) 4. 2. 2
( 1976 a. )
( 5) x.
( 1976 a. )
( 6) Appendi x B. ( f ) ( 3)
( 1976 a. )
( 7) 35. 905- 6
( 2) 35. 927- 4
35. 925- 11
( 3) 35. 935- 13
X. ( 1976 a. )
i nto sani tary sewers.
I nsure that new sewers and connecti ons are
properl y desi gned and constructed.
System of user charges payi ng proporti onate
share of 0 + M.
User charge systemmust be i ncorporated.
Equi tabl e systemof cost recovery. Note - al l
users pay user charge - - not j ust i ndustri al
users.
Users shal l be requi red to i mmedi atel y noti f y
waste treatment pl ant of any unusual di scharge
( f l ow or waste parameters) .
Pretreatment of wastes that woul d otherwi se be
detri mental .
User charges shal l be revi ewed annual l y to
assure 0 + Mrecovery.
Recovery f romi ndustri al users of the grant
amount al l ocabl e to the treatment of thei r
wast es.
110
The preceedi ng was a summary of what was f ound to be requi red. Now where
do we get restri cti ons such as: Temperature l ess than l OO
0
F, FOG l ess than
100 mg/ l , BOD
5
l ess than 2000 mg/ l , and pH l ess than 9. 0.
Carawan ( 1973) reported that speci f i c probl ems have devel oped f or a
number of f ood pl ants. Of ten sewer use ordi nances were reported to be
passed as emergency l egi sl ati on ( no publ i c heari ng necessary) . Repeatedl y,
thi s i s of ten recommended by the Consul ti ng Engi neers who draf t the
respecti ve ordi nance. Most ordi nances are a composi t of several "model
ordi nances". Model ordi nances of ten used i ncl ude the f ol l owi ng:
- WPCF MOP No. 3 - Regul ati on of Sewer Use - 1975
- APWA - Speci al Report No. 23 - Gui del i nes f or Draf ti ng a Muni ci pal
Ordi nance on I ndustri al Waste Regul ati ons and Surcharges - 1971
- WRRI - UNC - Surcharges f or I ndustri al Wastes: Suggesti ons and
Gui del i nes - 1972
- League of Muni ci pal i ti es f romeach state
The key to i ndustri al i nput appears to be contact wi th the body whi ch
passes the ordi nance. Most ordi nances are passed rel yi ng on thei r techni -
cal and l egal consul tants. They must understand the seri ous consequences
of thei r acti ons.
Revi ew of Proposed Sewer Use Ordi nance
The best and perhaps the onl y ti me that i ndustry can get i nput i nto a
sewer use ordi nance i s duri ng the passage by the ci ty counci l or the sewer
di stri ct board; i . e. , the governi ng body. Normal l y publ i c heari ngs are
hel d but everyone must be most observant f or the heari ng noti ce.
The study of a proposed sewer use ordi nance requi res ti me and
experti se. However, anyone can read and understand such an ordi nance wi th
a l i ttl e extra ef f ort. The key parts of a sewer use ordi nance i ncl ude the
f ol l owi ng:
. Preambl e - Whereas
. Def i ni ti ons
. Use of publ i c sewers requi red
. Use of sewers - Prohi bi ti ons
- Li mi tati ons
. Power and authori ty of i nspectors
. Surcharge - Sampl i ng, anal ysi s and f ormul a
131
. Enf orcement and penal ti es
. Conf l i ct cl auses
. Revi ew process
. Ef f ecti ve date
A descri pti on of some of these and other key parts can be f ound i n
Tabl e 26. Each word and sentence can have a real meani ng. One shoul d not
onl y ask the engi neer or uti l i ti es di rector to expl ai n what they meant to
say but i nsi st that the ordi nance have l anguage that cl earl y states the
same. For exampl e, does "sampl e manhol e" ref er to the manhol e i n the
street or does i t ref er to a speci al l y constructed box wi th a wi er, f l ow
recorder, sampl er and sampl e ref ri gerator that mi ght cost as much as
$25, 000. Speci f i c probl emseen i n ordi nances f or seaf ood pl ants have
i ncl uded:
- Hol di ng tanks or f l ow equi l i zati on bei ng requi red - where are you
goi ng to put the tank?
- Control manhol e or sampl i ng f aci l i ty
Li mi tati ons or prohi bi ti ons on BOD, FOG, etc.
- Surcharge f or i ndustri al users onl y wi th other contri buti ng
commerci al customers not charged equal l y.
Speci f i c revi ew poi nts when consi deri ng a sewer use ordi nance shoul d
i ncl ude the f ol l owi ng:
Questi ons to Ask About a Proposed Sewer Use Ordi nance
- What' s i t goi ng to cost as proposed - af ter enactment?
- Are there def acto or real l i mi tati ons prohi bi ti ng your di scharge?
- Who i s the boss?
- Who handl es compl ai nts and revi ews deci si ons?
- Wi l l sampl es be representati ve and who pays f or sampl i ng and anal ysi s?
- Are there unreal i sti c l i mi tati ons - pH, FOG, BOD
5
?
- Di d you revi ew the ordi nance bef ore enactment?
- Can you obtai n spl i t sampl es?
- Can you obj ect to unreasonabl e resul ts? I f so, how?
Now, the most i mportant poi nt to remember i s that you can not al ways
expect l ocal of f i ci al s to consi der your pl ant' s i nterests. I n other words,
when you get speci f i cs i n an ordi nance that can cause your pl ant probl ems,
they wi l l ! I t mi ght be 5 years, but i t i s worth the ef f ort to try to
112
Tabl e 26. Some Key Parts to A Sewer Use Ordi nance
Def i ni ti ons
Resampl i ng
Mock Bi l l
Appeal Procedure
Responsi bl e Person
Representati ve Sampl es
( wastewater
characteri sti cs)
Wai ver ( Speci al Agreement)
When i n the event that
metered water does not
equal wastewater
Pretreatment
Al l key words shoul d be i ncl uded i n the
def i ni ti ons. For i nstance: Does
representati ve sampl e mean a grab sampl e, an
average of 4 grab sampl es at 15 mi nute
i nteri al s or a 24 hour, proporti onal composi t
sampl e?
Does the ordi nance contai n the speci f i cs of
resampl i ng i f i ndustry obj ects to a parti cul ar
sampl e? What are the costs of the resampl i ng?
A cl ause i n a new ordi nance can requi re the
ci ty to sampl e f or a peri od of 6- 12 months to
perf ect thei r techni ques whi l e bi l l i ng you on a
"mock bi l l " whi ch does not have to be pai d. I f
there are hi gh charges, you have ti me to
i nsti tute i n- pl ant changes or pretreatment.
State l aw probabl y requi res an appeal i f an
acti on i s consi dered unreasonabl e or i nj ust.
However, i f a procedure and ti me schedul e f or
appeal i s not speci f i ed, an i ndustry may f i nd
themsel ves wi thout water and sewer f or an
extended peri od whi l e court acti on i s f ol l owed.
The i ndi vi dual ( s) responsi bl e f or
i nterpretati on and enf orcement shoul d be
speci f i ed. Everyone shoul d be aware of any
i nterpretabl e deci si ons that mi ght be made.
What method( s) i s speci f i ed f or sampl i ng? I s
the sampl e proporti onal to f l ow? What i s the
f requency of the sampl es? Does each sampl e
peri od gi ve a set of characteri sti cs or are
sampl e peri ods averaged to determi ne wastewater
characteri sti cs?
Does the ordi nance have a speci al cl ause
al l owi ng a contract or agreement between
i ndustry and the muni ci pal i ty to al l ow
otherwi se prohi bi ted f l ows or concentrati ons?
Who okays such a pact? Wi l l you be abl e to get
one approved?
There shoul d be a cl ause al l owi ng pl ant records
or meteri ng or engi neeri ng studi es to establ i sh
a percentage of metered water whi ch actual l y
l eaves i n the sani tary sewer whi ch i s sampl ed.
Thus a "f ai r" wastewater l oad can be estab-
l i shed.
When, who and how i s pretreatment or f l ow
equi l i zati on requi red?
113
change the ordi nance bef ore i t i s passed. For exampl e, remember that the
current ci ty engi neer mi ght l eave tomorrow. Where i s hi s promi se wri tten
that he does not pl an to enf orce the maxi mumFOG restri cti on? I f i t i s not
wri tten, i t i s not the l aw!
Al so, normal l y the ordi nance i s passed by a publ i c body. Thi s i s your
best chance of getti ng 2 recepti ve audi ence. You can more easi l y obtai n
changes now than l ater. The procedures f or obtai ni ng changes are presented
i n the "Muni ci pal Di scharge Spi nof f ".
Muni ci pal Charges
Muni ci pal charges f or i ndustri al pl ants i ncl ude water, sewer,
surcharge ( user charge) and i ndustri al cost recovery. Most muni ci pal i ti es
compute water and sewage charges as f ol l ows:
Water . . . Based on water consumpti on metered i nto the pl ant.
Of ten on a decl i ni ng bl ock scal e so that the cost/
uni t decreases as you use more water. Note that
the bi l l i s usual l y i n hundreds of cubi c f eet
( 1 cu. f t. = 7. 48 gal . ) . Cost usual l y ranges f rom
$0. 10 to $1. 00 per 1000 gal l ons.
Sewer Charge . . . Based on computed water charge and usual l y
represents 10 to 200 %of the water bi l l . Normal l y
100% i s the most common f i gure seen i n the
Southeast.
Surcharge . . . Based most of ten on metered water consumpti on and a
parameter( s) measured i n the wastewater. The most
common f actor i s BOD
5
and usual l y charged at a
rate of $0. 10 to $2. 00 per pound f or those pounds
i n excess of normal sewage. Si mi l arl y, the
suspended sol i ds ( TSS) l oad i s al so used. A
hydraul i c l oad charge i s someti mes i ncl uded and i s
of ten used as a "demand charge" especi al l y f or
seasonal operati ons.
I ndustri al Cost
Recovery . . . Recovery by the grantee f romthe i ndustri al users
of a treatment works of the grant amount al l ocabl e
( Rul es & to the treatment of wastes f romsuch users pursuant
Reg. 35. 905- 6) to secti on 204 ( b) of the Act and thi s subpart.
114
( Note that I CR i s under revi ew ai d there may be
some changes. )
Surcharges
Surcharges are of ten i ncl uded i n a sewer use ordi nance. However,
they may be i ncl uded i n a separate ordi nance.
Surcharges are usual l y passed because of l ocal government' s probl ems
such as: ( 1) Waste treatment costs are ri si ng, ( 2) More treatment i s bei ng
requi red, ( 3) Loads are of ten i ncreasi ng, ( 4) Property tax i s al ready
overburdened, or ( 5) because the muni ci pal i ty has recei ved f ederal f unds
and i s requi red to i nsti tute user charges.
Any f ood pl ant shoul d keep caref ul records about thei r surcharge
bi l l . A pl ant shoul d keep up wi th the f ol l owi ngi n respect to thei r
surcharge bi l l s:
- For whi ch characteri sti cs are you payi ng
- Do these vary wi del y
- Does your f l ow vary wi del y
- How does your bi l l compare wi th si mi l ar pl ants
Caref ul attenti on shoul d be pai d to the method the ci ty uses f or cal cu-
l ati ng the surcharge. Caref ul attenti on shoul d be di rected toward the
sampl i ng method, sampl e anal ysi s procedures, f l ow measurement method and
the val i di ty of the resul ts. A surcharge cal cul ati on i nvol ves f l ow
measurement, sampl i ng, sampl e preservati on, sampl e anal ysi s, l aboratory
cal cul ati on, and surcharge cal cul ati on. An error i n any of these wi l l
cause an error i n the surcharge bi l l . However, remember that errors can be
i n your f avor.
Concl usi ons
The l ack of detai l s i s expl ai ned by the procedure a sewer use
ordi nance f ol l ows. As a normal rul e, the person i n charge of the waste
treatment works and pl anni ng presents an ordi nance draf ted by an
engi neeri ng f i rmf or approval of the board or counci l . As the counci l
members f eel i ncompetent to revi ew and di scuss the same, rapi d passage i s
the rul e. Mr. Ranki ne, an attorney, noted that i t i s the most i mportant
matter that a sewer regul ati ng authori ty can pass.
115
The seaf ood i ndustry i s af f ected because f or heal th and sani tati on,
much cl eani ng and washi ng resul ts i n l arge amounts of organi c wastes whi ch
equate to BOD
5
. Al so, many seaf ood wastewaters contai n f at whi ch i s
f orbi dden above certai n l evel s i n most ordi nances. Further, much of the
raw materi al i s wasted i n seaf ood processi ng.
The most obvi ous l egal f aul t general l y observed i n sewer use
consi derati ons i s gi vi ng any or adequate l egal noti ce and a chance f or a
heari ng. A sewer use ordi nance requi res vast amounts of technol ogi cal
expert i se. And i f the ci ty i s tryi ng to reduce l oads and not generate
revenue, ti me i s requi red by i ndustry to i nsti tute changes. Another
probl empresented i n many ordi nances i s that i ndustry i s si ngl ed out to pay
f or waste because many users are too smal l to easi l y sampl e.
The l egal f i el d of sewer use ordi nance maki ng i s compl ex and i l l
reported. Chal l enges are usual l y settl ed out of court and l egal records and
precedents have not been establ i shed. The best def ense to a badl y draf ted
sewer use ordi nance i s a good l awyer and a f ri end( s) on the body
responsi bl e f or voti ng on the same. I ndustri es f aced wi th bad ordi nances
must ral l y thei r f orces and present a uni ted f ront. Ci ty managers shoul d
consul t i ndustry when they draf t sewer ordi nances.
A maj or probl emi s i n al l owi ng engi neeri ng f i rms to pl an f or sewage
treatment f aci l i ti es on a f ee basi s. Thus, they bui l d sewage treatment
pl ants oversi zed f or they work on a %of total cost and to them, cost =
prof i ts. I n al l f ai rness, no one has adequate pl anni ng data. Most ci ti es
have bui l t oversi zed treatment pl ants and i t makes l i ttl e sense to reduce
thei r l oad when i t i s al ready bel ow desi gn capaci ty. Li kewi se, i ncreased
revenues of surcharges are usual l y consumed by sampl i ng, regul ati ng and
moni tori ng costs.
A seri ous and detai l ed l egal study shoul d be made of sewer use
ordi nances f or the seaf ood i ndustry. Techni cal i nput i s requi red i f thi s
study i s to be a success. The 1975 revi si on of MOP No. 3, ( WPCF) appears
to have much techni cal i nput, but l egal questi ons may remai n unanswered.
Al so, recommendati ons concerni ng i ndustri al i nput and assi stance are
l argel y i gnored.
A pact wi th the ci ty f athers al l owi ng speci f i c exempti on f or your
wastes i s a real i sti c al ternati ve i f an ordi nance i s i n exi stence wi th a
116
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ MUNC DISCH
cl ause f or such a pact. But, a seaf ood processor shoul d get the best
techni cal and l egal advi se bef ore doi ng thi s.
I n concl usi on, your seaf ood pl ants wi l l probabl y f ace the i ssues
di scussed herei n wi thi n the next several years. It woul d be to your
benef i t to be ready to assi st themi n these most seri ous negoti ati ons. You
must tel l then, to be al ert to any i ndi cati on that a sewer use ordi nance i s
bei ng devel oped or revi sed.
Anon. 1971a
Anon. 1973a
Anon. 1974a
Anon. 1974b
Anon. 1973b
117
Ref er ences
Federal Gui del i nes Equi tabl e Recovery of
I ndustri al Waste Treatment Costs i n Muni ci pal
Systems. USEPA. Washi ngton, D. C.
Federal Gui del i nes Pretreatment of Pol l utants
I ntroduced I nto Publ i cal l y Owned Treatment
Works. USEPA. Washi ngton, D. C.
Code of Federal Regul ati ons Part 40, Subpart E.
February 11, 1974. p. 241.
Code of Federal Regul ati ons Part 40, Subpart E.
February 11, 1974. p. 247.
Federal Regi ster, Vol . 38, N. 161. Grants f or
Constructi on of Treatment Works - - User Charges
and I ndustri al Cost Recovery. Tuesday, August
21, 1973. pps. 22524- 22527.
Anon. 1974c Federal Regi ster, Vol . 39, No. 29. Fi nal
Constructi on Grant Regul ati ons. Monday,
February 11, 1974. pps. 5252- 5270.
Anon. 1973a Federal Regi ster, Vol . 38, No. 215.
Pretreatment Standards. Thursday, November 8,
1973. pps. 30982- 30984.
Carawan, Roy E. 1973 Rel ati ng Sewer Use Ordi nances and Surcharges to
the Food I ndustry. Unpubl i shed manuscri pt.
N. C. State Uni versi ty.
Lanvi n, Al l en S. 1968 I ndustri al Wastes Ordi nance Enf orcement Hel ps
Abate Pol l uti on at Chi cago. Water and Wastes
Eng. 5 ( 9) . pps. 27, 29.
Cl ements, E. V. 1975 Sewer Surcharges: tl ow to Ease the Spi ral i ng
Cost of Wastewater Di scharge. Canner/ Packer
144 ( 7) . pps. 71- 73.
Carawan, Roy E. 1975 Muni ci pal Water and Wastewater Charges f or Dai ry
Processi ng Pl ants. Unpubl i shed manuscri pt.
N. C. State Uni versi ty, Ral ei gh, N. C.
Washburn, J ack E. 1975 Cri ti que on User Charges Under the Federal Water
Pol l uti on Control Act. N. C. Conf erence on
Water Conservati on. Water Resources Research
I nsti tute of the Uni versi ty of N. C. , Ral ei gh,
N. C.
Anon. 1975a Regul ati on of Sewer Use. WPCF Manual of
Practi ce No. 3, Water Pol l uti on Control
Federati on, Washi ngton, D. C.
118
Cl eary, E. J . 1971
Anon. 1972a
Wi l l i ams, R. T. 1974
Anon. 1970
Gui del i nes f or Draf ti ng a Muni ci pal Ordi nance on
I ndustri al Waste Regul ati ons and Surcharges.
Speci al Report No. 23. Ameri can Publ i c Works
Assoc. , Chi cago, I l l i noi s.
Surcharges f or I ndustri al Wastes: Suggesti ons
and Gui del i nes. Water Resources Research
I nsti tute of the Uni versi ty of North Carol i na,
Ral ei gh, N. C.
Use of a Muni ci pal Permi t Programf or
Establ i shi ng Fai r Wastewater Servi ce Charges.
Proceedi ngs Fi f th Nati onal Symposi um on Food
Processi ng Wastes. USEPA ( EPA- 660/ 2- 74- 058) ,
Corval l i s, Oregon. pps. 31- 52.
Sewer Servi ces and Charges. Urban Data Servi ce.
Vol . 2 ( 2) . I nternati onal Ci ty Management
Assoc. pps. 6- 32.
Anon. 1974d Model Wastewater Di scharge Ordi nance.
Cal i f orni a Water Pol l uti on Control Assoc.
Berkl ey, Cal i f orni a.
McDermott. 1973 Vol ume vs. Surcharges: I t' s No Contest. Water
and Wastes Engi neeri ng. J ul y, 1973. pps.
Dl O- D17.
Mcphee, W. 1. and
I . Rosentei n. 1974 How to Get The Most FromI ndustry- Muni ci pal i ty
Pacts. Water and Wastes Engi neeri ng. J anuary,
1974. pps. A- 11 - A- 24.
Anon. 1976a Muni ci pal Wastewater Treatment Works
Constructi on Grants Program. Uni ted States
Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency. Washi ngton, D.
c.
Pai , J ohn T. 1976 Personal communi cati on.
Massey, Dean T. and
Loui s H. Dunl ap. 1975 Federal Water Pol l uti on Control Act Amendments
of 1972: Constructi on Grants f or Sewage
Treatment Works and Ef f ects on I ndustri es. Law
School , Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n.
11. 9
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ DI RECT DI SCH
D I R E C T D I S C H A R G E
I nt roduct i on
Seaf ood pl ants that di scharge wastewaters di rectl y to streams, bays,
sounds, ri vers, creeks and/ or estuari es must have a permi t f or thi s
di scharge. In most cases, even pl ants that have septi c tanks f or process
wastewaters must al so have a permi t. Seaf ood pl ants that use non- di scharge
systems such as l and di sposal wi l l al so need a permi t.
Permi ts f or di s-
charge are usual l y obtai ned f romthe state envi ronmental control agency.
Ef f l uent Gui del i nes and Li mi tati ons
I ntroducti on
I n response to wi despread publ i c concern about the condi ti on of the
Nati on' s waterways, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pol l uti on Control
Act Amendments of 1972. The 1972 act bui l t upon the experi ences of earl i er
water pol l uti on control l aws. The 1972 act brought dramati c changes.
What the 1972 l aw says, i n essence, i s that nobody - no ci ty or town,
no i ndustry, no government agency, no i ndi vi dual - has a ri ght to pol l ute
our water. What was acceptabl e i n the past - the f ree use of waterways as
a dumpi ng ground f or our wastes - i s no l onger permi tted. Fromnow on,
under the 1972 l aw, we must saf eguard our waterways even i f i t means f un-
damental changes i n the way we manuf acture products, produce f armcrops,
and carry on the economi c l i f e of our communi ti es.
Congress decl ared that the obj ecti ve of the 1972 l aw i s "to restore
and mai ntai n the chemi cal , physi cal , and bi ol ogi cal i ntegri ty of the
Nati on' s waters. "
- The l aw requi res EPA to establ i sh nati onal "ef f l uent l i mi tati ons"
f or i ndustri al pl ants - i ncl udi ng seaf ood products pl ants. An "ef f l uent
l i mi tati on" i s si mpl y the maxi mumamount of a pol l utant that anyone may
di scharge i nto a water body.
- By J ul y 1, 1977, the l aw requi red exi sti ng i ndustri es to reduce
thei r pol l utant di scharges to the l evel attai nabl e by usi ng the best
practi cabl e" water pol l uti on control technol ogy ( BPT) . BPT was determi ned
120
by averagi ng the pol l uti on control ef f ecti veness achi eved by the best
pl ants i n the i ndustry.
- By J ul y 1, 1983, the l aw requi res exi sti ng i ndustri es to reduce
thei r pol l utant di scharges sti l l more - to the l evel attai nabl e by usi ng
the "best avai l abl e" pol l uti on control technol ogy ( BAT) . BAT i s based on
uti l i zi ng the best pol l uti on control procedures economi cal l y achi evabl e.
I f i t i s technol ogi cal l y and economi cal l y f easi bl e to do so, i ndustri es
must compl etel y el i mi nate pol l utant di scharges by July 1, 1983.
- The l aw requi res new seaf ood pl ants to l i mi t pol l utant di scharges to
the l evel attai nabl e by meeti ng nati onal "standards of perf ormance"
establ i shed by EPA f or new pl ants. A new pl ant must meet these standards
i mmedi atel y, wi thout wai ti ng f or 1977 or 1983. These new pl ant standards
may requi re greater reducti on of pol l utant di scharges than the 1977 and
1983 standards f or exi sti ng pl ants. Where practi cabl e, zero di scharge of
pol l utants can be requi red. However, f or the seaf ood i ndustry, the
standards are equal to the 1983 standards, i n most cases.
- The l aw requi res seaf ood f aci l i ti es that send thei r wastes to
muni ci pal treatment pl ants - as some seaf ood pl ants do - to make sure the
wastes can be adequatel y treated by the muni ci pal pl ant and wi l l not damage
the muni ci pal pl ant. I n some i ndustri es, di scharges to muni ci pal pl ants
may thus have to be "pre- treated. " That i s, the porti on of the i ndustri al
waste that woul d not be adequatel y treated or woul d damage the muni ci pal
pl ant must be removed f romthe waste bef ore i t enters the muni ci pal
system. To date, the seaf ood i ndustry has not been requi red by l aw to
pretreat thei r wastewaters.
- The l aw does not tel l any i ndustry what technol ogy i t must use.
The l aw onl y requi res i ndustri es to l i mi t pol l utant di scharges to l evel s
prescri bed by l aw.
- The l aw al so says that i f meeti ng the 1977 and 1983 requi rements i s
not good enough to achi eve water qual i ty standards, even tougher control s
may be i mposed on di schargers.
- And whi l e the l aw requi res i ndustri es to meet the nati onal di s-
charge standards set f or 1977, 1983 and f or new pl ants, the l aw al so al l ows
a state or communi ty to i mpose stri cter requi rements i f i t wi shes. The
nati onal standards are thus mi ni mum requi rements that al l i ndustri es must
meet.
121
The key to appl yi ng the ef f l uent l i mi ts to i ndustri es - i ncl udi ng the
seaf ood i ndustry - i s the nati onal permi t systemcreated by the 1972 l aw.
( The techni cal name i s the "nati onal pol l utant di scharge el i mi nati on
system, " or NPDES. )
Under the 1972 l aw i t i s i l l egal f or any i ndustry to di scharge any
pol l utant i nto the Nati on' s waters wi thout a permi t f romEPA or f roma
State that has an EPA- approved permi t program. Every i ndustri al pl ant
that di scharges pol l utants to a waterway must theref ore appl y f or a
permi t.
When i ssued, the permi t regul ates what may be di scharged and the
amount of each i denti f i ed pol l utant. I t sets speci f i c l i mi ts on the
ef f l uent f romeach pl ant. I t commi ts the di scharger to compl y wi th al l
appl i cabl e nati onal ef f l uent l i mi ts and wi th any State or l ocal
requi rements that may be i mposed. I f the i ndustri al pl ant cannot compl y
i mmedi atel y, the permi t contai ns a compl i ance schedul e - f i rmtarget dates
by whi ch pol l utant di scharges wi l l be reduced or el i mi nated as requi red.
The permi t al so requi res di schargers to moni tor thei r wastes and to report
the amount and nature of wastes put i nto waterways.
The permi t, i n essence, i s a contract between a company and the
government.
Thi s combi nati on of nati onal ef f l uent standards and l i mi ts, appl i ed to
speci f i c sources of water pol l uti on by i ndi vi dual permi ts wi th substanti al
penal ti es f or f ai l ure to compl y, consti tutes the f i rst ef f ecti ve nati onwi de
system of water pol l uti on - control .
Now what does al l thi s mean to the seaf ood i ndustry? How does one
determi ne the NPDES permi t l i mi tati ons f or a pl ant di scharge i nto a
recei vi ng stream?
The U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency prepared standards f or
seaf ood pl ants under the 1972 l aw. EPA di d so, af ter consi deri ng many
f actors: the nature of seaf ood pl ant raw materi al s and wastes; manuf ac-
turi ng processes; the avai l abi l i ty and cost of pol l uti on control systems;
energy requi rements and costs; the age of si ze of pl ants i n the i ndustry;
and the envi ronmental i mpl i cati ons of control l i ng water pol l uti on. ( For
i nstance, we woul d gai n nothi ng i f , i n control l i ng water pol l uti on, we
created a new ai r or l and pol l uti on probl em. )
122
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ DI RECT DISCH
The proposed regul ati ons were i ssued by EPA. Then, they were sent to
the i ndustry and other i nterested organi zati ons f or revi ew and comments.
They were made publ i c by publ i cati on i n the Federal Regi ster. Comments'
were submi tted by seaf ood compani es and seaf ood i ndustry organi zati ons, by
State agenci es, and by Federal agenci es. EPA then caref ul l y anal yzed the
comments and made appropri ate changes i n the standards. On J une 26, 1974,
EPA i ssued the f i nal standards f or seaf ood pl ants to f ol l ow i n order to
meet the requi rements of the 1972 l aw.
The standards are contai ned i n an of f i ci al government regul ati on
publ i shed i n the Code of Federal Regul ati ons. Thi s regul ati on i s supported
by a detai l ed techni cal document cal l ed the "Devel opment Document f or
Ef f l uent Li mi tati ons, Gui del i nes and New Source Perf ormance Standards f or
the Seaf ood Product Processi ng Poi nt Source Category. " Subsequent
regul ati ons and amendments have been made over the l ast several years.
I n bri ef , here i s what the regul ati on does:
- Sets l i mi ts on i denti f i ed pol l utants that can be l egal l y di scharged
by pl ants i n the subcategori es of the seaf ood products i ndustry that are
i denti f i ed i n Tabl es 27 and 28.
- Zeroes i n on the maj or seaf ood i ndustry pol l utants, i t establ i shes
maxi muml i mi tati ons f or BOD and suspended sol i ds that seaf ood pl ants can
di scharge duri ng any one day, and on an average over a thi rty- day peri od
based on terms of l bs pol l utant that can be di scharged per 1000 l bs of raw
materi al processed.
- Sets l i mi ts that can be met by usi ng the "best practi cabl e control
technol ogy currentl y avai l abl e" - the 1977 requi rement ( Tabl e 27) .
- Sets more stri ngent l i mi ts that can be met by usi ng the "best
avai l abl e technol ogy economi cal l y achi evabl e" - the 1983 requi rment ( Tabl e
28) . ( For an exampl e of the di f f erence betweeen the 1977 and 1983
standards, consi der thi s: By J ul y 1, 1977, a tuna pl ant shoul d have
l i mi ted i ts di scharge of organi c waste ( BOD) to 23 l b per 1000 l b of tuna
taken i nto the pl ant. By J ul y 1, 1983, the BOD di scharge must be l owered
to 2. 2 l b per 1000 l b of tuna taken i nto the pl ant. )
- Requi res that the pH ( aci di ty or al kal i ni ty) of seaf ood pl ant
di scharges be wi thi n the range of 6. 0 to 9. 0.
- Establ i shes perf ormance standards that new seaf ood pl ants must meet
wi thout wai ti ng f or 1977 or 1983. For the seaf ood i ndustry, the new pl ant
Tabl e 27. 1977 Ef f l uent Gui del i nes ( BPT) f or the Seaf ood I ndustri es
Contami nant l evel s ( per 1000 l b raw product)
BOD TSS Oi l and grease
maxi mum average maxi mum average maxi mum average
I ndustri al category dai l y 30 days dai l y 30 days pH dai l y 30 days
( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b)
Southern ( nonbreaded) shri mp
Breaded shri mp processi ng
Tuna processi ng
Fi sh meal
Al askan hand- butchered sal mon
Al askan mech. processed sal mon
West Coast hand- butchered sal mon
West Coast mech. processed sal mon
Al askan bottom f i sh processi ng
Non- Al askan conventi onal bottom-
f i sh processi ng
Hand- shucked cl am processi ng
Mechani zed cl am processi ng
Paci f i c Coast hand- shucked oyster
processi ng
Atl anti c and Gul f Coast hand-
shucked oyster processi ng
Steamed/ canned oyster processi ng
Al askan scal l op processi ng
Non- Al askan scal l op processi ng
Al askan herri ng f i l l et processi ng
Non- Al askan herri ng f i l l et processi ng
Farm- rai sed catf i sh
Bl ue crab ( conventi onal )
Bl ue crab ( mechani zed)
Al askan crabmeat ( remote) 1983
Al askan crabmeat ( nonremote)
Al askan whol e crab ( nonremote)
Al askan whol e crab ( remote) 1983
Dungeness and Tanner crab
Al askan shri mp process ( nonremote)
Al askan shri mp process ( remote)
Northern shri mp processi ng
Non- Al askan mechani zed bottom-
f i sh processi ng
110. 0
280. 0
2. 2 . 62 2. 2
7. 0 3. 9 3. 7
44. 0
2. 6
44. 0
3. 1
3. 6 2. 0 6-9 1. 0 0. 55
59. 0 18. 0 6-9 0. 6 0. 23
90. 0 15. 0 6-9 4. 2 0. 97
47. 0 38. 0 6-9 2. 4 1. 8
Tabl e 28. 1983 Ef f l uent Gui del i nes ( BAT) f or the Seaf ood I ndustri es
I ndustri al category
Contami nant l evel s ( per 1000 l b raw product)
BOD TSS Oi l and grease
maxi mum average maxi mum average maxi mum average
dai l y 30 days dai l y 30 days pH dai l y 30 days
( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b) ( l b)
Breaded shri mp
Tuna processi ng
Fi sh meal
Al askan hand- butchered sal mon
Al askan mechani zed sal mon
West Coast hand- butchered sal mon
West Coast mechani zed sal mon
processi ng
Al askan bottom- f i sh
Non- Al askan conventi onal
bottom- f i sh processi ng
Non- Al askan mechani zed
bottom- f i sh processi ng
Hand- shucked cl am
Mechani zed cl am process
Paci f i c Coast hand- shucked oysters
Atl anti c and Gul f Coast hand-
43. 0
23. 0
6. 7
1. 9
26. 0
1. 2
5. 4
15. 0
shucked oysters
Steamed and Canned Oysters
Al askan scal l op
Non- Al askan scal l op
Al askan herri ng f i l l et
Non- Al askan herri ng f i l l et
Abal one processi ng
Farm- rai sed catf i sh
Bl ue crab ( conventi onal )
Bl ue crab ( mechani zed)
Al askan crab ( remote)
Al askan crab ( nonremote)
67. 0 17. 0
6. 8 6. 2
4. 6 2. 3
0. 30 0. 15
5. 0 2. 5
5. 0 2. 0
1. 3 Al askan whol e crab ( nonremote)
Al askan whol e crab ( remote)
Dungenesse and Tanner crab
Al askan shri mp ( nonremote)
Al askan shri mp ( remote)
1. 7
28. 0
23. 0 16. 0 6- 9
56. 0 39. 0 6- 9
36. 0 10. 0 6- 9
5. 7 1. 4 6- 9
5. 7 1. 4 6- 9
23. 0 18. 0 6- 9
2. 3 1. 8 6- 9
26. 0 14. 0 6- 9
11. 0 5. 7 6- 9
0. 90 0. 45 6- 9
13. 0 6. 3 6- 9
16. 0 5. 3 6- 9
1. 3 0. 53 6- 9
0. 83 0. 33 6- 9
9. 9 3. 3 6- 9
0. 58 0. 23 6- 9
45. 0 18. 0 6- 9
270. 0 180. 0 6- 9
0. 77
0. 42
0. 52
0. 23
0. 23
7. 3
0. 73
1. 3
0. 45
0. 065
1. 3
0. 52
0. 082
0. 048
0. 36
0. 07
1. 5
15. 0
17. 0
9. 0
3. 8
1. 2
16. 0
0. 71
3. 1
5. 7
79. 0 7. 4 6- 9 2. 5
8. 3 3. 3 6- 9 2. 1 0. 84
3. 7 1. 5 6- 9 1. 4 0. 76
2. 3 1. 4 6- 9 0. 28 0. 17
42. 0 25. 0 6- 9 28. 0 10. 0
0. 23 0. 14 6- 9 0. 045 0. 018
4. 2 2. 5 6- 9 2. 8 1. 0
1. 9 1. 1 6- 9 2. 6 0. 34
1. 5 0. 73 6- 9 0. 077 0. 042
1. 8 0. 97 6- 9 0. 79 0. 32
55. 0 17. 0 6- 9 0. 56 0. 21
26. 0 4. 4 6- 9 0. 40 0. 092
45. 0 36. 0 6- 9 2. 2 1. 7
standard i s the same as the 1983 standard f or exi sti ng pl ants i n most
cases. However, regul atory of f i ci al s shal l be consul ted f or up- to- date
i nf ormati on.
- Does not requi re zero di scharge of any pol l utant by a seaf ood pl ant.
Zero di scharge may be techni cal l y possi bl e i n the i ndustry, but the cost
woul d be prohi bi ti ve f or most i f not al l pl ants i n the i ndustry.
- Does not tel l seaf ood compani es what technol ogy to use to meet
regul ati ons. The standards onl y requi re seaf ood compani es to l i mi t pol l u-
tant di scharges to l evel s f ound attai nabl e by usi ng best practi cabl e
control technol ogy.
I n 1978, EPA revi ewed the BAT standards i n l i ght of Secti on 304 ( b) ( 4)
of the Cl ean Water Act whi ch establ i shed "best conventi onal pol l utant
control technol ogy" ( BCT) . BCT was i ntended to repl ace BAT. Congress
di rected EPA to consi der the:
. . . reasonabl eness of the rel ati onshi p between the
costs of attai ni ng a reducti on i n ef f l uents and the
ef f l uent reducti on benef i ts deri ved, and the
compari son of the cost and l evel of reducti on of such
pol l utants f rom the di scharge of publ i cal l y owned
treatment works to the cost and l evel of reducti on of
such pol l utants f roma cl ass or category of i ndustri al
sources
The canned and preserved seaf ood processi ng i ndustry was studi ed and
regul ati ons were proposed i n the August 23, 1978, Federal Regi ster. The
resul ts of these studi es are shown i n Tabl e 29. Note that i n about hal f of
the seaf ood i ndustry, BAT regul ati ons were f ound to be establ i shed f rom
i nsuf f i ci ent data and they were recommended to be suspended.
Despi te the vol umi nous amount of materi al avai l abl e i n regard to the
regul ati ons, many seaf ood processors wi l l f i nd they are f aci ng state
regul ati ons more stri ngent than the BPT, BAT or BCT standards. Di scharge
i nto coastal waters i s of ten restri cted and stri ngentl y control l ed. When
f aci ng a permi t si tuati on, prompt contact wi th the proper regul atory
of f i ci al s i s recommended.
126
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/ DI RECT, DI SCH
Tabl e 29. BCT Standards f or the Seaf ood I ndustry
BAT
1
I ndustry Subcategory BCT=BAT Suspended
Farmrai sed catf i sh
Conventi onal bl ue crab
Mechani zed bl ue crab
Nonremote Al askan crab
Remote Al askan crab
Nonremote Al askan whol e crab
Dungenesse and Tanner crab
Nonremote Al askan crab
Remote Al askan shri mp
Northern shri mp
Southern nonbreaded shri mp
Breaded shri mp
Tuna
Fi sh meal w/ out sol ubl es pl ant
West Coast butchered sal mon
West Coast mechani zed sal mon
Non- Al askan conventi onal bottom- f i sh
Non- Al askan mechani zed bottom- f i sh
Hand- shucked cl am
Mechani zed cl am
Paci f i c hand- shucked oyster
Atl anti c & Gul f hand- shucked oyster
Steamed & canned
Sardi ne
Non- Al askan scal l op
Non- Al askan herri ng f i l l et
Abal one processi ng
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1Found to be i nsuf f i ci ent data to j usti f y.
The development of this program and the preparation of the
modules resulted from the collaboration of Drs. Roy E. Carawan, N.C.
State University, James V. Chambers, Purdue University, Robert R. Zall,
Cornell University and Roger H. Wilkowske, SEA-Extension, USDA.
Financial support which supported the development of this project and
the modules was provided by the Science and Education Administration-
Extension, U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., and the Cooperative Extension
Services of North Carolina, New York and Indiana.
STAFF AND PART-TIME PARTICIPANTS
An Advisory Committee made up of individuals from the food
processing industry, equipment manufacturers, regulatory agencies and
the legal profession assisted in the planning and development of these
materials. The authors appreciate their advice and support.
Much of the information presented in these documents has been
gleaned from the remarks, presentations and materials of others. Their
cooperation and assistance is appreciated.
Ms. Torsten Sponenberg (Cornell University) provided support in
developing several modules and chapters. The authors appreciate her
interest, enthusiasm and dedication.
Ms. Jackie Banks (Cornell University) provided many hours of typing
and proof-reading needed to pull together the wide array of material in
the different documents. The authors appreciate her contributions.
Mr. V. K. (Vino) Chaudhary (Purdue University) provided support in
developing the materials on pretreatment and treatment.
Ms. Cindy McNeil1 (N. C. State University) provided support in the
preparation of the final documents.
Mr. Paul Halberstadt (N. C. State University) provided support in the
development of many of the modules. He also was the principal reviewer
and editor for these materials. The authors acknowledge his contribution
to this program. .
Mrs. Gloria Braxton (N. C. State University) provided typing for
several of the modules.
Mrs. Judy Fulp (N. C. State University) served as secretary for the
project. She is primarily responsible for typing the materials in the many
modules. The authors deeply appreciate her invaluable contribution.
Only through her interest, dedication and hard work were the authors
notes turned into these documents.
Sets of the modules are available from:
Publications Office
N. C. Agricultural Extension Service
Ricks Hall
N. C. State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650

Ahorros de Agua en Plantas de Alimentos

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ahorros de Agua en Plantas de Alimentos

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

In Food Processing Plants - An

S-ar putea să vă placă și