|
Alternativesfor Wakulla County
Management of Blue Crab Processing
Solid Waste
Scott Andree
Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
Technical Paper 53
September 1988
Price: $1.00
8FANW
OiRANT2
r
i-
-
.s
Alternatives for Wakulla County Management
of Blue Crab Processing Solid Waste
By: Scott Andree
Florida Sea Grant Extension Agent
Tallahassee, Florida
INTRODUCTION
This document is a summary of discussions held at a meeting of Wakulla
County blue crab processors, county commissioners, staff, and solid waste
committee members, and university researchers on the potential uses of solid
wastes from blue crab processing plants. The meeting was held March 8, 1988, in
Panacea, Florida, organized by the Sea Grant Extension Program and the Wakulla
County Extension Office. The agenda and participants are attached as Appendix
I.
Based on a report by the Wakulla County Solid Waste Director (Appendix II),
approximately 17% of the solid waste entering the county landfill each year is
comprised of processing wastes from the counties' 13 blue crab processing plants.
Eleven of these plants were being serviced by Tri-county Refuse of Apalachicola
for $12.50/4 cubic yard container/pick-up. The other two plants were bringing
their wastes to the landfill themselves in barrels.
Overall, blue crab processing wastes require special handling during daily
landfill operations to reduce odors, mainly additional soil coverage. Also, due
to normal crab plant operations crab scrap waste is generally delivered to the
landfill late in the day making handling difficult before landfill closing time.
As a result of these handling problems, blue crab processing wastes are presently
costing an estimated 25% of the landfill operating budget per month during peak
production months, April November.
BLUE CRAB PROCESSING WASTE OUTPUT
Three types of wastes are produced by county blue crab processors: 1) scrap
(shell pieces, legs and viscera) from meat picking operations (all plants), 2)
shell pieces and brine from mechanical claw machines (3 plants), and 3) viscera
plus broken shells from shell (carapace) cleaning operations (4 plants). The
scrap from meat picking operation provides the bulk of the waste. Based on a
survey of 6 of the 13 county blue crab plants, approximately 3,000 3,500 tons
of blue crab scrap were produced in 1987. During the peak months approximately
90 tons are produced each week as compared to 35 tons (or less) produced per
week during the slow months.
The waste output figures were based on estimates of live blue crab weight
processed by each of the counties' crab plants in slow months versus peak months.
A 33% waste estimate per pound of live blue crab was used. In this county, 100
pounds of live blue crab yields 20% water when cooked, 12-14% meat, 35% shell
(carapace) leaving 31-33% waste.
The output figures were thought to be higher than the actual output for the
county by the blue crab processors present. A more detailed survey needs to be
Alternatives for Wakulla County Management
of Blue Crab Processing Solid Waste
By: Scott Andree
Florida Sea Grant Extension Agent
Tallahassee, Florida
INTRODUCTION
This document is a summary of discussions held at a meeting of Wakulla
County blue crab processors, county commissioners, staff, and solid waste
committee members, and university researchers on the potential uses of solid
wastes from blue crab processing plants. The meeting was held March 8, 1988, in
Panacea, Florida, organized by the Sea Grant Extension Program and the Wakulla
County Extension Office. The agenda and participants are attached as Appendix
I.
Based on a report by the Wakulla County Solid Waste Director (Appendix II),
approximately 17% of the solid waste entering the county landfill each year is
comprised of processing wastes from the counties' 13 blue crab processing plants.
Eleven of these plants were being serviced by Tri-county Refuse of Apalachicola
for $12.50/4 cubic yard container/pick-up. The other two plants were bringing
their wastes to the landfill themselves in barrels.
Overall, blue crab processing wastes require special handling during daily
landfill operations to reduce odors, mainly additional soil coverage. Also, due
to normal crab plant operations crab scrap waste is generally delivered to the
landfill late in the day making handling difficult before landfill closing time.
As a result of these handling problems, blue crab processing wastes are presently
costing an estimated 25% of the landfill operating budget per month during peak
production months, April November.
BLUE CRAB PROCESSING WASTE OUTPUT
Three types of wastes are produced by county blue crab processors: 1) scrap
(shell pieces, legs and viscera) from meat picking operations (all plants), 2)
shell pieces and brine from mechanical claw machines (3 plants), and 3) viscera
plus broken shells from shell (carapace) cleaning operations (4 plants). The
scrap from meat picking operation provides the bulk of the waste. Based on a
survey of 6 of the 13 county blue crab plants, approximately 3,000 3,500 tons
of blue crab scrap were produced in 1987. During the peak months approximately
90 tons are produced each week as compared to 35 tons (or less) produced per
week during the slow months.
The waste output figures were based on estimates of live blue crab weight
processed by each of the counties' crab plants in slow months versus peak months.
A 33% waste estimate per pound of live blue crab was used. In this county, 100
pounds of live blue crab yields 20% water when cooked, 12-14% meat, 35% shell
(carapace) leaving 31-33% waste.
The output figures were thought to be higher than the actual output for the
county by the blue crab processors present. A more detailed survey needs to be
done to determine an accurate amount of solid waste produced as well as in sur-
rounding counties. A similar Sea Grant Extension survey completed in 1977 (Cato,
et al) indicated that 1,300 and 2,156 tons of crab scrap were produced in Wakulla
County in 1976 and 1977, respectively. During 1977, 68/tons/week were produced
during the peak season and 19 tons/week during the slow period.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The participants of this meeting evaluated, qualitatively, the benefits and
drawbacks of nine alternative uses and disposal of blue crab processing wastes.
The items discussed and the relative pros (+) and cons (-) are shown in Table 1.
All alternatives examined required further study prior to implementation.
Following evaluation, the alternatives were prioritized into three general
categories based on the number of positive attributes assigned: 1) dehydration,
2) wet form uses and 3) ocean disposal.
Dehydration
Dehydration had the greatest number of positive aspects, especially if linked
with incineration which would reduce fuel costs. The greatest benefit of dehy-
dration was that the end product could be sold to offset operating expenses.
This method also appears to have the best chance for attracting outside funding
and private sector participation. See Table 2 for cost breakdown.
The value of crab meal fluctuates proportionally with the value of soybean
meal on the commodity exchanges. At the time of the meeting crab meal prices
were at $100/Ton. Based on the experience of Mr. Noah Posey, who operated a crab
meal plant in the county for 10 years, (1974-1983) the price varied from a low
of $95/Ton annually to a high of $200/Ton in 1983. Because of droughts expected
during summer months, prices could reach that high again.
It takes approximately 2.5 Tons of crab scrap to produce 1 Ton of the
finished crab meal at 10% moisture. If the county produced only 2,500 Ton/Year
that would equal 1,000 Tons of finished crab meal product. At $100/Ton the
county would make $100,000. Subtracting operating expenses (estimated at $80-
85/Ton see Table 2) the county could realize a net profit of 15-20,000
dollars/year. A detailed feasibility study of this process would be necessary
to determine an accurate cost/benefit value for the county.
Wet Form Uses
Several wet form uses exhibited potential, particularly land application and
composting. Land application would be the cheapest method of disposal if permits
could be obtained and cooperative landowners could be found. If properly spread
and tilled into the soil, odors would be minimal and benefits to the landowner
would be worth the cost of tilling. Composting, as in dehydration, would produce
a marketable product, but would require a cheap source of straw or sawdust as a
bulking agent to make this economical (see Table 3 for cost breakdown).
Both of the above wet form alternatives would be most practical if arrange-
ments could be made with large landowners in the county, such as St. Joe Paper
done to determine an accurate amount of solid waste produced as well as in sur-
rounding counties. A similar Sea Grant Extension survey completed in 1977 (Cato,
et al) indicated that 1,300 and 2,156 tons of crab scrap were produced in Wakulla
County in 1976 and 1977, respectively. During 1977, 68/tons/week were produced
during the peak season and 19 tons/week during the slow period.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The participants of this meeting evaluated, qualitatively, the benefits and
drawbacks of nine alternative uses and disposal of blue crab processing wastes.
The items discussed and the relative pros (+) and cons (-) are shown in Table 1.
All alternatives examined required further study prior to implementation.
Following evaluation, the alternatives were prioritized into three general
categories based on the number of positive attributes assigned: 1) dehydration,
2) wet form uses and 3) ocean disposal.
Dehydration
Dehydration had the greatest number of positive aspects, especially if linked
with incineration which would reduce fuel costs. The greatest benefit of dehy-
dration was that the end product could be sold to offset operating expenses.
This method also appears to have the best chance for attracting outside funding
and private sector participation. See Table 2 for cost breakdown.
The value of crab meal fluctuates proportionally with the value of soybean
meal on the commodity exchanges. At the time of the meeting crab meal prices
were at $100/Ton. Based on the experience of Mr. Noah Posey, who operated a crab
meal plant in the county for 10 years, (1974-1983) the price varied from a low
of $95/Ton annually to a high of $200/Ton in 1983. Because of droughts expected
during summer months, prices could reach that high again.
It takes approximately 2.5 Tons of crab scrap to produce 1 Ton of the
finished crab meal at 10% moisture. If the county produced only 2,500 Ton/Year
that would equal 1,000 Tons of finished crab meal product. At $100/Ton the
county would make $100,000. Subtracting operating expenses (estimated at $80-
85/Ton see Table 2) the county could realize a net profit of 15-20,000
dollars/year. A detailed feasibility study of this process would be necessary
to determine an accurate cost/benefit value for the county.
Wet Form Uses
Several wet form uses exhibited potential, particularly land application and
composting. Land application would be the cheapest method of disposal if permits
could be obtained and cooperative landowners could be found. If properly spread
and tilled into the soil, odors would be minimal and benefits to the landowner
would be worth the cost of tilling. Composting, as in dehydration, would produce
a marketable product, but would require a cheap source of straw or sawdust as a
bulking agent to make this economical (see Table 3 for cost breakdown).
Both of the above wet form alternatives would be most practical if arrange-
ments could be made with large landowners in the county, such as St. Joe Paper
Company, Apalachicola National Forest (USDA), or St. Marks National Wildlife
Refuge (USFWS) for either land application areas or a source of bulk materials
(sawdust/straw).
Feed applications, although showing equal number of positive attributes to
land application and composting, had several drawbacks that make them less
attractive than the others. Odors were the primary concern and costs associated
with controlling odors, e.g. ensiling. A further drawback was transportation
costs to areas where livestock could be fed, since Wakulla County and surrounding
counties have few cattle/hog operations that could handle the daily output of
crab processing wastes.
Ocean Disposal
Finally, ocean disposal had the fewest positive aspects, primarily due to
difficulties in permitting, on-shore handling and high costs of equipment and
maintenance. The major benefit would be short term gains in biological produc-
tivity in the disposal areas; e.g. on artificial reefs. Long term effects could
not be addressed due to lack of information on the subject, and would need to be
studied before it would be approved by state agencies. Federal agencies (EPA and
Coast Guard) currently do not require permits if disposal is beyond 12 miles from
shore. See Table 4 for cost breakdown.
A major drawback was that a program started to dispose of crab scrap off-
shore would be a major financial drain on county budgets, or the crab processors,
to cover this expensive operation.
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
A Maryland Sea Grant report, "Composting Blue Crab Processing Waste",
(Cathcart, et al, 1984), provides the best comparison of the above methods of
disposal (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). Table 5 compares costs of disposal of several
of the above methods discussed for Wakulla County (i.e. composting, land applica-
tion, dehydration and ocean disposal) in comparison to current landfilling.
Table 6 compares value of products generated from crab processing wastes, and
Table 7 compares net cost, or value, of those same methods of disposal listed in
Table 5. Although it would need to be studied to determine how relative these
costs are to the Wakulla County situation, there is enough information given to
determine what the county could hope to expect from each method if implemented
as a management alternative for crab processing wastes.
Based on the cost/value estimates of the Maryland study alone, the ranking
of management alternatives would be: 1) composting (at premium market value
only), 2) dehydration, 3) land application, 4) landfill, 5) offshore dumping, 6)
composting (at lowest market value). Comparing these cost/values to the informa-
tion discussed at the Panacea meeting, the ranking for Wakulla County would be:
1) dehydration, 2) land application, 3) composting, 4) offshore dumping, 5) land-
fill.
Company, Apalachicola National Forest (USDA), or St. Marks National Wildlife
Refuge (USFWS) for either land application areas or a source of bulk materials
(sawdust/straw).
Feed applications, although showing equal number of positive attributes to
land application and composting, had several drawbacks that make them less
attractive than the others. Odors were the primary concern and costs associated
with controlling odors, e.g. ensiling. A further drawback was transportation
costs to areas where livestock could be fed, since Wakulla County and surrounding
counties have few cattle/hog operations that could handle the daily output of
crab processing wastes.
Ocean Disposal
Finally, ocean disposal had the fewest positive aspects, primarily due to
difficulties in permitting, on-shore handling and high costs of equipment and
maintenance. The major benefit would be short term gains in biological produc-
tivity in the disposal areas; e.g. on artificial reefs. Long term effects could
not be addressed due to lack of information on the subject, and would need to be
studied before it would be approved by state agencies. Federal agencies (EPA and
Coast Guard) currently do not require permits if disposal is beyond 12 miles from
shore. See Table 4 for cost breakdown.
A major drawback was that a program started to dispose of crab scrap off-
shore would be a major financial drain on county budgets, or the crab processors,
to cover this expensive operation.
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
A Maryland Sea Grant report, "Composting Blue Crab Processing Waste",
(Cathcart, et al, 1984), provides the best comparison of the above methods of
disposal (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). Table 5 compares costs of disposal of several
of the above methods discussed for Wakulla County (i.e. composting, land applica-
tion, dehydration and ocean disposal) in comparison to current landfilling.
Table 6 compares value of products generated from crab processing wastes, and
Table 7 compares net cost, or value, of those same methods of disposal listed in
Table 5. Although it would need to be studied to determine how relative these
costs are to the Wakulla County situation, there is enough information given to
determine what the county could hope to expect from each method if implemented
as a management alternative for crab processing wastes.
Based on the cost/value estimates of the Maryland study alone, the ranking
of management alternatives would be: 1) composting (at premium market value
only), 2) dehydration, 3) land application, 4) landfill, 5) offshore dumping, 6)
composting (at lowest market value). Comparing these cost/values to the informa-
tion discussed at the Panacea meeting, the ranking for Wakulla County would be:
1) dehydration, 2) land application, 3) composting, 4) offshore dumping, 5) land-
fill.
LITERATURE CITED:
Brinsfield, R. 1981. Crab Scrap Disposal in Maryland. In: Crab By-Products
and Scrap 1980. M.B. Hatem., ed. University of Maryland Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. pp. 1-20.
Cathcart, T.P., D.W. Lipton, F.W. Wheaton, R.B. Brinsfield, D.G. Schwartz and
I.E. Strand. 1984. Composting Blue Crab Processing Plant Waste. Maryland
Sea Grant Publication, 119 pp.
Cato, J.C., K. Clayton, B. Durden, J. Fisher and J. Gordon. 1977. A Report on
Alternatives for Managing Solid Crab Waste in Wakulla County. Florida Cooper-
ative Extension Service, IFAS Report to Wakulla County, 23 pp.
Coale, C.W., Jr. 1981. Crab Scrap Disposal in Virginia. In: Crab By-Products
and Scrap 1980. M.B. Hatem, ed. Bulletin UM-5G-MAP-81-03. Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland. pp. 21-25.
Fryer, L. 1981. Protein Extraction. In: Crab By-Products and Scrap 1980.
M.B Hatem, ed. Bulletin UM-5G-MAP-81-03. Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, pp. 68-73.
Krantz, G.E. 1983. Acting Administrator, Fisheries Administration, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland, Personal Communication
(with Cathcart, et al.)
Murray, T.J., and W.D. DuPaul. 1981. Feasibility of Crab Meal Processing in
the Chesapeake Bay Region. SRAMSOE No. 248. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Glouster Point, Virginia, 63 pp.
5
TABLE 1: Evaluation of Alternatives for Crab Scrap
Dehydration
Items Evaluated
Potential
Sites
Transportation
Odor
Costs
Grants
Permits
Needs Study
TOTAL POSITIVES
A B
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ ++
+ +
Y Y
5 6
Dehydration alone
Dehydration with
incineration
Wet Form Uses
A B C D E
- + + +
+ + + + +
- + + +
N/A + ? N/A N/A
? + ? ? N/A
Y Y Y Y Y
1 4 4 4 4
Swine (silage)
Livestock
Redfish/catfish
Land application
Compost
Ocean Disposal
Offshore
On artificial
reefs
Legend
+ = positive aspect
= negative aspect
Y = yes
N/A = not applicable
? = unknown, considered a negative
TABLE 2: Cost Breakdown for a Dehydration Plant
PLANT INSTALLATION
Item
7.5' x 22' drum dryer
Accessory equipment
Scrubber
Installation
Total
OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN
Fuel: Fuel oil
LP
Personnel (2-3 persons)
Maintenance
Total
Cost
$ 75,000.
75,000.
75,000.
55,000.
$280,000.
$ 40./Ton crab meal
45./T.
35./T.
5./T.
$ 80-85./Ton crab meal
Source: Information based on figures provided by Baker-Rullman
Mfg., Inc., Heil Dehydration Systems, Watertown, Wisconsin
7
TABLE 3: Costs for a 20-Ton Per Day Crab Scrap Composting Facility
Quality
Cost
Capital Costs
Land
Asphalt Pad
Blowers and Timers
Pipe (PVC)
Garden Shredder
Tractor
Total Capital Costs
4.5 acres
4.5 acres
14
1,400 feet
1
1
Operating Costs
Straw ($50/ton)
Hardwood sawdust ($18/ton)
Ferrous Sulfate
Labor
Fuel & Elec.
Maint., Repair & Insurance
Miscellaneous
Total Operating Costs
Average Cost/Ton Compost
1,750 tons
1,750 tons
34 tons
1.0 man-year
10% of fixed cost
$ 87,500
(35,000)
6,800
18,000
10,000
23,700
4.000
$150,000
($ 97,500)*
$ 74
($ 53)*
Value of Blue Crab Compost **
Average value of components of compost
(e.g. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium)
Comparison to value of sewage sludge compost
Substitute for potting soils, fertilizers, etc.
* If computing with hardwood sawdust.
**Net cost or (value) per ton of compost in parentheses.
$ 12/ton
($ 62/ton)
$ 35/ton
($ 39/ton)
$150/ton
( +76/ton)
Source: Cathcart, et al, 1984.
$ 13,500
184,500
2,100
3,025
8,000
26.000
$237,125
TABLE 4: Cost Breakdown for Ocean Disposal
OCEAN DISPOSAL FIXED COSTS
Cost
New
Used
56' LCM-6**
Sea going tug (85'-100')
$1,000,000.
Sea going barge (100'x26'7') 300,000.
Slurry pump
Storage bins or refrigeration
Total
35,000.
25,000.
$1,360,000.
OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN (per annum)
Insurance (2% of vessel
worth)
Personnel
(Capt., 5-man
crew)
Fuel ($50/hr. @ 10 hr./day,
276 day/year)
Maintenance (30-45 days/year)
Total $
$ 26,000.
138,000.
138,000.
40,000.
342,000.
12,000.
same
same
65,000.
353,000.
$ 1,000.
43,000.
(2-man)
70,000.
($25/hr.)
50,000.
$164,000.
*Price includes surveyor cost of vessel
**LCM was available for a short period of
vessels may be available on occasion.
time from state surplus. Other surplus
Source: Figures based on personal communication with project
coordinator for FL DNR oyster shell planting program
in Apalachicola, FL; commercial marine tug captain in
Panama City, FL; and FSU Academic Lab Diving Coordinator
Item
503,000.*
103,000.*
same
same
666,000.
$ 3,000.
same
same
$63,000.
TABLE 5: Estimated Costs of Crab Scrap Disposal
Method
Costs
Composting1'2
Landfill
Direct Farmland
Application
Crab Meal Production3
Offshore Dumping4',
Delivery
Plant
to Crab Meal
$131
ton (330)
$ 27.56
day
$ 14.00
day
$155.96
ton (600)
$ 75.00
day
$74
ton (2474)
$64
ton (4947)
$16.80
ton
$ 5.28
ton
$92.71
ton (1200)
$71.62
ton (1800)
$33.50
ton
$ 6.41 (Hampton Roads,
ton VA)
$10.30
ton
(Accomack, \
Cathcart, et al, 1984
Maryland Sea Grant
Survey (1981)
Maryland Sea Grant
Survey (1981)
Murray and DuPaul
(1981)
G. Krantz
(pers. comm.)
Coale (1981)
1 = $/day are average per processor
2 = numbers in parenthesis correspond to tons of output per year
3 = costs/ton of finished product before sale
4 = very rough estimate based on experimental dumping by the State of
Maryland in 1982
5 = adjust to 1981 dollars by Producer Price Index for prices paid by farmers
Source: Cathcart, et al, 1984.
Source
TABLE 6: Estimated Value of Crab Scrap Products
Product
Value
$100/Ton meal
(15 month average $131/Ton)
(1/80-3/81)
Fish Fertilizer
Direct Land Application
Compost4
$100/Ton
$150/Ton
$250/Ton
crab scrap
crab scrap
crab
$15-20/Ton crab scrap
$ 12/Ton'
$ 35/Ton2
$150/Ton3
Murray and DuPaul
(1981)
Fryer (1981)
Brinsfield (1981)
Cathcart et al (1984)
component method using the average value
perfect substitute for sewage sludge
substitute for potting soils, fertilizers, etc. (average)
adjusted to 1981 dollars by Producer Price Index
Source: Cathcart, et al, 1984.
Crab Meal
Liquid
Chitin
Source
11
TABLE 7: Estimated Net Cost (Value) Per Ton for
Crab Scrap Disposal
Method
Composting2
Landfill
Direct Farmland Application
Crab Meal Production3
Offshore Dumping
Different Methods of
Net Cost (Value)1
ton
$52 to ($86)
$16.80
($12.2?)
($28.38)
$33.50
1 = in 1981 dollars
2 = assuming 4,947 Ton/Year plant and a range in value for compost from $12
to $150/Ton
3 = assuming an 1,800 Ton/Year operation and $100/Ton value for meal
Source: Cathcart, et al. 1984.
12
APPENDIX I
MEETING ON: Alternatives for Wakulla County Management of
Solid Blue Crab Waste
WHEN: Tuesday, March 8, 1988 / 10:00 a.m. 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: Posey's Beyond the Bay, Highway 98 in Panacea, FL
TENTATIVE AGENDA
AM Introduction of Participants
Present Status of County Landfill Operation
Present Output of Solid Waste from Blue Crab
Processing Plants
Pros and Cons of Management Alternatives:
1. Raw form uses
a. Swine feed supplement (e.g. ensiling)
b. Livestock feed supplement
2. Ocean Dumping
a. Offshore (Federal waters)
b. On artificial reefs
3. Dehydration
a. Feed stuff supplement (e.g. aquaculture,
poultry, swine)
b. Fertilizers
c. Compost material
4. Incineration
LUNCH Dutch Treat Special
PM Continue Discussion of Alternatives, if necessary
Prioritize Waste Management Options
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Adams, Chuck
Marine Economics Specialist,
1170 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Andree, Scott
Sea Grant Ext. Agent, IFAS
615 Paul Russell Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Barwick, Charles
Barwick Crab Company
Post Office Box 695
Crawfordville, FL 32327
Bennett, Dale
County Ext. Director, IFAS
Post Office Box 40
Crawfordville, FL 32327
Carr, Madeleine
Chairman, Solid Waste Comm.
Rt. 3, Box 5598
Crawfordville, FL 32327
Hall, Carl
Post Office Box 6462
Tallahassee, FL 32314
Hartsfield, Albert
Annette's Crab Company
Post Office Box 592
Panacea, FL 32346
Hartsfield, Billy
Miracle Seafood
Post Office Box 445
Panacea, FL 32346
Henry, George
Agricultural Ext. Agent,
615 Paul Russell Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Hutton, Linda
Wakulla Co. Commercial
Fishermen Association
Post Office Box 273
Panacea, FL 32346
IFAS
Jacobs, Cal
Solid Waste Director
Post Office Box 428
Crawfordville, FL 32327
Kidder, Gerry
Soil Science Specialist, IFAS
G-159 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Kuperberg, Mike
Southern Waste Info. Exchange
361 Bellamy Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306
Metcalf, Danny
Metcalf Crab Co., Inc.
Post Office Box 627
Panacea, FL 32346
Myer, Bob
Swine Specialist, IFAS
AREC, Rt. 3, Box 493
Marianna, FL 32446
Otwell, Steve
Seafood Technology Specialist, IFAS
467 Food Science Building
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Posey, Noah
Posey's Seafood and Crab Shell
Post Office Box 294
Panacea, FL 32346
Schneider, John
Bureau, Marine Resource Reg. & Dev.
Dept. of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Stanton, Gregg
Academic Diving Program (FSU)
Rt. 3, Box 5322
Crawfordville, FL 32327
IFAS
Taylor, James
County Commissioner
Post Office Box 185
Panacea, FL 32346
Taylor, Mary Ann
Sea Pride Crab
Post Office Box 684
Havana, FL 32333
Thomas, Sam
Cryo Tech Industries, Inc.
4446 Entrepot Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32310
Voland, Ken
Member, Solid Waste Comm.
Rt. 2, Box 4390-4
Crawfordville, FL 32327
APPENDIX II
September 29, 1987
TO: Linda Day, County Coordinator
Wakulla County Board of Commissioners
FR: Cal Jacobs, Director
Solid Waste
RE: Crab Waste
For the immediately preceding five (5) months we have been battling the per-
sistent problem of the disposal of crab waste generated by our commercial pro-
cessors and tendered to us at the Lower Bridge Landfill facility.
I would briefly, if possible, outline our difficulties in handling this
waste, on a daily basis; the problems, complaints and inordinate expenditure of
landfill area and the additional expense attendant to the handling of this
particular byproduct.
The crab processors of all sizes like to open early and work their full
shift to closing time, generally 5:00 P.M. and haul their waste to the landfill
just at closing time 5:00 P.M. By that time we will have put in place our face
and top cover preparatory to closing. Crab waste arriving at this time must be
placed on the face of the fill rather than co-mingled/integrated with the
household garbage and buried beneath it. This then necessitates a large volume
of cover soil to curb the smell over the face of the fill. This consumes, daily,
a disproportionate amount of fill capacity, shortening its life span. We receive
an average of 500 Cu. Yds. per week from seven crab processors and all of it in
the afternoon, with larger houses' waste arriving from 4:00 P.M. until 5:00 P.M.
Based upon the volume of crab waste compared to the total number of cubic
yards of waste received each month, this crab waste represents 16.67% per cent
of our total volume of 6,220 Cubic Yds. The cost of handling all waste in the
month of August was $13,035.84. It is impossible at this time to extract from
this figure the pure cost, but considering complaints, chemical costs, additional
face cover, loss of fill life, and the disproportionate amount of time required
to handle crab waste that it will exceed 25% of our total monthly costs.
In wet weather it is impossible to render the face and top surface of the
face odorless even with the use of large volumes of lime. The fragments continue
to surface and emit their strong pungent odor. Additional soil cover would and
does further limit the life of the cell.
In an attempt to conserve space, and fill dirt and to address properly the
odor problem we are again burying the crab waste in separate fill pits daily.
We will have to double the handling time and expense as we will await the cold
winter months; exhume this waste which will be still extremely rotten and strong
and only then place it in the working face in the mornings to be covered by a
full days' household garbage and end of day soil cover.
There appears to be no way of reaching an accord with these Seafood Houses
as they feel we should not force them to shut-down early or they to carry over
any amount of their waste until the next day. They simply wish to transfer the
odor problem attendant to their operation to the landfill and wish the county to
absorb the extreme expense of specialized and time consuming disposal of a
byproduct created by their industry.
This is a special type of waste and consideration should be given by the
county/state to a fee system designated for the disposal of nuisance waste
requiring additional space and services to render it acceptable for public
landfill deposit. I am certain they would find this objectionable.
To accommodate these crabbers and conserve the life of our landfill we would
have to leave fully 50% of our household garbage sidelined until their late
arrival. After they dumped we would then need two to three hours to push our
household garbage in and cover it. Then compact it, put in place our face cover
preparatory to our next days operation. To entertain the expense, for this
specialized handling, seems imprudent and fiscally unsound, without some
contribution or assistance from the producers of this special waste. I do not
feel the county or its constituency should have to carry the expense nor the
total impact of a specialized landfill operation to accommodate this particular
industry.
Hence my prior recommendation of a special fee for the handling of their
particular waste.
In the absence of additional revenues and a frozen budget alternatives are
needed. In the absence of a sound fiscal alternative we will need monetary
assistance to accomplish this handling of a highly offensive byproduct produced
by the chief contributing industry to our county's economy.
I would appreciate your assistance and any advice in this highly sensitive
issue.
|
RSS
HIDE
