IIIEE Communications 2000:7

DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: The case of fish canning plants

Roberto López Chaverri

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) (IIEEEE) Internationella miljöinstitutet

IIIEE Communications 2000:7

DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: The case of fish canning plants

Roberto López Chaverri

Thesis for the fulfilment of the Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy Lund, Sweden, September 1999

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University Internationella miljöinstitutet vid Lunds Universitet

© You may use the contents of the IIIEE publication for informational purposes only. You may not copy, lend, hire, transmit or redistribute these materials for commercial purposes or for compensation of any kind without written permission from IIIEE. When using IIIEE material you must include the following copyright notice: 'Copyright © IIIEE, Lund University. All rights reserved' in any copy that you make in a clearly visible position. You may not modify the materials without the permission of IIIEE. . Published in 1999 by IIIEE, Lund University, P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden, Tel: +46 - 46 222 02 00, Fax: +46 - 46 222 02 10, e-mail: [email protected]. www.lu.se/IIIEE/ ISSN 1401-0798

Internationella miljöinstitutet vid Lunds Universitet

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University

DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: THE CASE OF FISH CANNING PLANTS

Roberto López Chaverri

M.Sc. Thesis Lund, September 1999

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................... 1 1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ 2 1.4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 3 1.5 FORESEEN OUTCOME .............................................................................................. 5 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION................................... 8 2.1 BENEFITS OF EPE ................................................................................................. 10 2.2 THE EPE PROCESS ............................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 planning EPE ............................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 developing and using data and information................................................. 19 2.2.3 reviewing and improving EPE ..................................................................... 19 2.3 EXAMPLES OF EPE (BASED ON THE EPE EXAMPLES STANDARD) ......................... 19 3. FISHERIES AND CANNING .............................................................................. 24 3.1 STATUS OF GLOBAL FISHERIES .............................................................................. 24 3.2 EU’S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL FISHERIES .......................................................... 25 3.3 FISH PROCESSING PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 26 3.3.1 heat treatment............................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 freezing ......................................................................................................... 27 3.3.3 controlling water activity ............................................................................. 28 3.3.4 irradiating .................................................................................................... 28 3.4 GLOBAL FISH CANNING......................................................................................... 28 3.4.1 finfish being canned ..................................................................................... 28 3.4.2 situation of canned fish and other fish products .......................................... 31 3.4.3 canned fish: harvesting, production and trading ......................................... 33 3.5 FISH CANNING IN SPAIN ........................................................................................ 38 3.6 FISH CANNING IN PORTUGAL ................................................................................ 43 4. THE CANNING PROCESS.................................................................................. 49 4.1 TUNA FISH CANNING PROCESS .............................................................................. 49 4.1.1 fish handling previous to reception in the processing plant ........................ 49 4.1.2 fish reception and initial storage ................................................................. 50 4.1.3 thawing ......................................................................................................... 50 4.1.4 cutting, eviscerating ..................................................................................... 51 4.1.5 meat cleaning and placing in metal baskets................................................. 52 4.1.6 meat cooking ................................................................................................ 52 4.1.7 cleaning and cooling .................................................................................... 53 4.1.8 peeling and packing ..................................................................................... 53 4.1.9 adding the filling media and can seaming ................................................... 55 4.1.10 can washing................................................................................................ 55 4.1.11 sterilization................................................................................................. 55 4.1.12 final operation ............................................................................................ 59 4.1.13 final storage ............................................................................................... 59 4.1.14 process flow diagram ................................................................................. 59

page i

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

4.2 SARDINE CANNING PROCESS ................................................................................. 62 4.2.1 fish handling previous to reception in the plant........................................... 63 4.2.2 fish reception and initial storage ................................................................. 63 4.2.3 thawing ......................................................................................................... 63 4.2.4 brining .......................................................................................................... 64 4.2.5 grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning................................. 64 4.2.6 washing ........................................................................................................ 64 4.2.7 meat cooking ................................................................................................ 64 4.2.8 cooling/filling media addition/can seaming................................................. 65 4.2.9 can washing.................................................................................................. 65 4.2.10 sterilization................................................................................................. 65 4.2.11 final operations .......................................................................................... 65 4.2.12 final storage ............................................................................................... 65 4.2.13 process flow diagram ................................................................................. 65 4.3 AUXILIARY PROCESS STAGES................................................................................ 68 4.3.1 cleaning and washing of equipment and facilities ....................................... 68 4.3.2 brine preparation ......................................................................................... 69 4.3.3 filling media preparation ............................................................................. 69 4.3.4 water chlorinating ........................................................................................ 69 4.3.5 filling media recovery................................................................................... 69 4.3.6 boiler house .................................................................................................. 69 4.3.7 tools and equipment maintenance ................................................................ 70 4.4 PRODUCT SAFETY AND HACCP .............................................................................. 70 5. FISH CANNING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................... 75 5.1 INPUTS - OUTPUTS PER PROCESS PHASE ................................................................ 76 5.1.1 tuna fish ........................................................................................................ 76 5.1.2 sardines ........................................................................................................ 79 5.2 INPUTS - OUTPUTS PER AUXILIARY PROCESS PHASES ............................................ 82 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS FROM TUNA/SARDINE PROCESSING ............................. 83 5.3.1 water consumption ....................................................................................... 83 5.3.2 wastewater.................................................................................................... 92 5.3.3 solid waste.................................................................................................... 96 5.3.4 spills of filling liquid media........................................................................ 101 5.3.5 energy consumption.................................................................................... 101 5.3.6 air emissions............................................................................................... 106 5.3.7 odors........................................................................................................... 106 5.3.8 noise ........................................................................................................... 107 5.3.9 hazardous/toxic substances ........................................................................ 107 5.3.10 summary of environmental aspects .......................................................... 108 5.3.11 a final material balance ........................................................................... 112 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND APPLICABLE LEGISLATION ................................ 112 5.4.1 wastewater.................................................................................................. 113 5.4.2 solid waste.................................................................................................. 116 5.4.3 air emissions............................................................................................... 116 5.4.4 hazardous/toxic waste ................................................................................ 118 5.4.5 noise ........................................................................................................... 118 5.4.6 other legislation in the eu........................................................................... 119

page ii

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

6. DEFINING THE EPIs ......................................................................................... 124 6.1 PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF THE EPIS ............................................................... 124 7. INFORMATION GATHERED THROUGH SITE VISITS............................ 137 7.1 ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE COMPANIES............................... 148 7.1.1 general information.................................................................................... 148 7.1.2 level of technology...................................................................................... 149 7.1.3 water consumption ..................................................................................... 150 7.1.4 wastewater.................................................................................................. 150 7.1.5 fish waste.................................................................................................... 151 7.1.6 energy ......................................................................................................... 152 7.1.7 air emissions............................................................................................... 152 7.1.8 noise ........................................................................................................... 152 7.1.9 major environmental concern .................................................................... 153 7.1.10 future plans on environmental management systems ............................... 153 8. FINAL SET OF EPIs........................................................................................... 155 8.1 SCREENING OF THE PRELIMINARY SET OF EPIS .................................................... 155 8.2 THE FINAL EPIS ................................................................................................... 157 8.3 SCREENING OF THE FINAL EPIS ............................................................................ 158 8.4 LIMITATIONS FOR USING THE FINAL EPIS IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE FIRMS .... 162 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. 165 9.1 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 165 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 172 9.2.1 general........................................................................................................ 172 9.2.2 specific (for Spain and Portugal) ............................................................... 173 APPENDIXES .......................................................................................................... 180 APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................. 181 APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................. 191 APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................. 198 APPENDIX 4 ............................................................................................................. 201 APPENDIX 5 ............................................................................................................. 203 APPENDIX 6 ............................................................................................................. 211 APPENDIX 7 ............................................................................................................. 213

page iii

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Criteria for selecting environmental indicators............................................ 12 Table 2.2 Environmental indicators of companies in the ISO-14032.......................... 20 Table 2.3 Environmental indicators in cases within the ISO-14032............................ 22 Table 3.1 EU fish production in the global context ..................................................... 26 Table 3.2 Summary of important countries in the fish canning industry..................... 35 Table 3.3 Major canning groups in Spain and their production................................... 42 Table 3.4 Horizontal concentration in major canning groups...................................... 44 Table 3.5 Ranking of company groups in Portugal...................................................... 45 Table 3.6 Imports, exports, and apparent consumption of sardines in Portugal .......... 46 Table 4.1 Characteristics of cans used in the tuna/sardine packing............................. 54 Table 4.2 Sterilization Fo values for different final product contents .......................... 58 Table 4.3 Retorting conditions for tuna processed ...................................................... 59 Table 4.4 Potential ccps in fish processing.................................................................. 71 Table 5.1 Input - output analysis of tuna fish canning................................................. 77 Table 5.2 Input - output analysis for sardine canning .................................................. 80 Table 5.3 Input - output analysis for auxiliary process phases .................................... 82 Table 5.4 Water consumption estimates in fish canning (UNEP) ............................... 85 Table 5.5 Water consumption estimates in tuna canning (IHOBE)............................. 85 Table 5.6 Water consumption in Spanish canning plant (ECOMAN)......................... 86 Table 5.7 Wastewater characteristics in tuna/sardine processing ................................ 93 Table 5.8 Typical values of wastewater parameters (UNIDO) .................................... 94 Table 5.9 Typical values of wastewater parameters (UNEP) ...................................... 94 Table 5.10 Detail of cooking wastewater in study cases from IHOBE........................ 95 Table 5.11 Fish waste estimates (UNEP)..................................................................... 99 Table 5.12 Common food industry autoclaves .......................................................... 103 Table 5.13 Energy savings in common food industry autoclaves by insulating ........ 103 Table 5.14 Electricity consumption estimates (UNEP) ............................................. 105 Table 5.15 Examples of electricity operated equipment............................................ 105 Table 5.16 Environmental aspect per process phase in tuna processing.................... 109 Table 5.17 Environmental aspect per process phase in sardine processing............... 110 Table 5.18 Environmental aspect per auxiliary phase in tuna/sardine processing..... 111 Table 5.19 Wastewater parameter limits for Spanish fish canning plants ................. 115 Table 5.20 Wastewater parameter limits in Portugal................................................. 115

page iv

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1 Preliminary set of EPIs .............................................................................. 125 Table 6.2 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 126 Table 6.3 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 127 Table 6.4 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 128 Table 6.5 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 129 Table 6.6 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 130 Table 6.7 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 131 Table 6.8 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 132 Table 6.9 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................... 133 Table 6.10 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................. 134 Table 6.11 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs............................................................. 135 Table 7.1 General information ................................................................................... 138 Table 7.2 Info. on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste............................ 139 Table 7.3 Info. on energy, air emissions and noise .................................................... 143 Table 7.4 Info. on environmental plans and concerns and other findings ................. 145 Table 8.1 Prioritization of environmental aspects ..................................................... 156 Table 8.2 Final results of the aspect’s prioritization.................................................. 157 Table 8.3 Final EPIs related to water ......................................................................... 159 Table 8.4 Final selected EPIs ..................................................................................... 160 Table 8.5 Limitations in companies for using the final EPIs..................................... 162

page v

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Methodological approach employed in the thesis......................................... 4 Figure 1.2 Information sources employed in the thesis ................................................. 5 Figure 2.1 The ISO 14000 standard series ..................................................................... 8 Figure 2.2 EPE information flows and relations............................................................ 9 Figure 2.3 The EPE process as defined by ISO ........................................................... 11 Figure 2.4 Relationship management-operations-state of environment ...................... 15 Figure 2.5 Classification of environmental indicators ................................................. 16 Figure 2.6 Environmental indicator matrix.................................................................. 17 Figure 3.1 Fish processing procedures......................................................................... 26 Figure 3.2 Types of finfish commonly canned ............................................................ 30 Figure 3.3 Spain’s autonomous communities .............................................................. 41 Figure 3.4 Map of Portugal .......................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.1 Types of tuna fish cutting performed.......................................................... 51 Figure 4.2 Process flow diagram for tuna canning ...................................................... 60 Figure 4.3 Process flow diagram for sardine canning.................................................. 66 Figure 4.4 Recovery of oil ........................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.1 Flowchart for water use .............................................................................. 84 Figure 5.2 Uses of finfish “unavoidable” fish waste (UNIDO) ................................... 97 Figure 5.3 Material balance for the canning industry ................................................ 112 Figure 5.4 EU legislation on water ............................................................................ 114 Figure 5.5 EU legislation on waste ............................................................................ 116 Figure 5.6 EU legislation on air emissions ................................................................ 117 Figure 5.7 EU legislation on noise............................................................................. 119 Figure 5.8 EU legislation industrial emissions, products, industrial risk .................. 120 Figure 5.9 Industry sectors affected by the IPPC directive ........................................ 121

page vi

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 2.1 Types of EPIs in cases analyzed in the draft ISO 14032............................. 21 Graph 2.2 Relative/absolute indicators in the draft ISO 14032 ................................... 21 Graph 2.3 Relative/absolute indicators in the draft ISO 14032 ................................... 21 Graph 3.1 Global fisheries utilization, 1987 - 1996 (millions of tons)........................ 31 Graph 3.2 Global fisheries exports by major commodity groups (millions of tons) ... 32 Graph 3.3 Global fishery exports (in volume) by major commodity groups (1996) ... 32 Graph 3.4 Global harvests for major canned species................................................... 34 Graph 3.5 Japanese fisheries’ catches.......................................................................... 36 Graph 3.6 Imports of canned fish in usa (tons)............................................................ 37 Graph 3.7 Imports of canned tuna in usa (monetary value) ......................................... 37 Graph 3.8 Food spending composition in European countries .................................... 39 Graph 3.9 Spanish production of canned and semi-canned fish (metric tons)............. 39 Graph 3.10 Spanish production of canned and semi-canned fish (monetary value).... 40 Graph 3.11 Spanish imports and exports of canned fishery products (tons) ............... 40 Graph 3.12 Spanish production, exports, imports and consumption (monetary value)41 Graph 3.13 Canning production in Portugal ................................................................ 43 Graph 3.14 Composition of canning production in Portugal ....................................... 44 Graph 3.15 Geographic distribution of sardine processing in Portugal ....................... 45 Graph 4.1 Temperature variations during the product sterilization ............................. 58 Graph 5.1 Water consumption in Spanish canning plant (ECOMAN)........................ 86 Graph 5.2 Contribution of process phases to wastewater volume (THAILAND) ....... 94 Graph 5.3 Contribution of tuna process phases to total wastewater (IHOBE) ............ 95 Graph 5.4 Tuna meat losses based on initial weight during processing (IHOBE)....... 98 Graph 8.1 Distribution of final EPIs on prioritised environmental aspects ............... 158

page vii

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF BOXES Box 2.1 Elements to consider for the initial selection of environmental indicators .... 12 Box 2.2 Summary of uses for environmental indicators.............................................. 18 Box 5.1 CP opportunities for reducing water consumption in canning (UNEP)......... 88 Box 5.2 CP possibilities related to water in tuna canning (IHOBE)............................ 89 Box 5.3 CP options for reducing water in (fin)fish canning (DITA)........................... 90 Box 5.4 CP possibilities related to water in tuna canning (COWI) ............................. 91 Box 5.5 CP possibilities related to fish waste generation (IHOBE) ............................ 99 Box 5.6 CP possibilities related to packaging waste generation (IHOBE)................ 100 Box 5.7 CP measures to reduce thermal energy consumption (UNEP)..................... 102 Box 5.8 Measures for improving performance during sterilization........................... 104

page viii

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics, IIIEE at Lund University as well as VTT Technical Research Center of Finland for the opportunity to conduct this research. Specifically, I would like to thank Rabbe Thun and Shisher Kumra, as they contributed in different stages with valuable comments. Also, for all the patience, support and understanding provided during this whole “experience abroad” and not only this thesis, I would like to express my gratitude to my wife Ingrid, my daughter Valeria and my mother Ana.

DEDICATION I would like to specially dedicate this effort to my father, Roger (1945-1996), who was in life one of the best examples of self improvement I could have had.

page ix

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following document presents the results of a research process carried out in fish canning plants, more specifically in Spanish and Portuguese plants canning tuna and sardines. The main purpose of this research was to define relevant Environmental Performance Indicators within these companies in order to help them initiate a process of Environmental Performance Evaluation. Therefore, a series of conditions and limitations were defined initially (Chapter 1), in order to guarantee that the final product obtained could be a set of relevant EPIs. The initial parts of this research helped to form an idea on the preferred characteristics of EPIs by companies (Chapter 2) and also an understanding of the fish canning sector worldwide and the specific situation in Spain and Portugal (Chapter 3). As a result, the importance of tuna processing plants in Spain and sardine processing plants was identified, as well as the preference of companies today towards absolute and not relative operational performance indicators, expressing quantities of raw materials and energy and not so much costs. All of these considerations were taken into account except for the preference towards absolute indicators, as these were not considered helpful in determining a company’s efficiency. In order to define these EPIs there was a need to conduct an analysis of the canning process for both fish (Chapter 4) and also identify the environmental consequences and legal aspects (Chapter 5) when canning these fish. The analysis helped to identify critical process phases (i.e., thawing, cooking, sterilization, steam generation with boilers) and the environmental aspects generated (i.e., water consumption, wastewater, solid waste -fish and packaging material, energy consumption, liquid media spills, use of refrigerants, use of chemicals, air emissions, use of detergents, odors and noise). Therefore, a preliminary set of thirty seven EPIs was defined (Chapter 6) covering all the aspects and considering the previous findings on preferences of EPI characteristics, environmental aspects and process phases originating them. Also, visits to some companies in these countries were made in order to obtain an idea on the interest and feasibility of using EPIs for starting an EPE process (Chapter 7). The information generated on the environmental consequences and legal aspects, as well as the visits to the companies became part of a set of criteria which was used to select the most critical environmental aspects (Chapter 8) so that the final set of EPIs recommended would reflect these aspects. Thus, fourteen indicators covering water consumption, wastewater, fish waste, energy and air emissions resulted as the final set of EPIs which could be used by these processing plants and where it was possible reference values were assigned to each EPI. Final conclusions and recommendations on the EPIs and their implementation in Spain and Portugal were also made (Chapter 9). Among these, the most important to bear in mind is that the EPIs should be accompanied in most cases by a reference to the attained product safety and quality level, as these issues are critical in a food product such as canned tuna/sardines.

page x

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

The final EPIs were: total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product, water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed, water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish, water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall, water used for washing per can of specific size, percentage of final wastewater samples meeting authorized discharge criteria, amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of tuna cooked, kg of fish waste meat per kg of total fish purchased, total electricity per ton of final canned product, fuel per ton of final canned product, energy used for sterilization and kg of CO2, NOx SO2 per ton of final canned product.

page xi

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANFACO AZTI BAT BOD CFC COD CP CTPISME DIFTA DG ECIs ECOMAN EMAS EMS EPE EPI EU (UN) FAO HACCP IHOBE

IIIEE IPIMAR IPPC ISO MPIs MSW OECD OPIs PCB PPM SMEs SS UNEP UNIDO VTT

National Fish Canneries Association of Spain (Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Conservas de España) Technological Institute of Fisheries and Food in Spain (Instituto Tecnológico Pesquero y Alimentario de España) Best Available Technologies Biological Oxygen Demand Chlorofluorocarbons Chemical Oxygen Demand Cleaner Production Cleaner Technology Performance Indicators in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Danish Institute for Fisheries Technology and Aquaculture Directorate Generale Environmental Condition Indicators Eco-Management and Audit Scheme Environmental Management System Environmental Performance Evaluation Environmental Performance Indicator European Union (United Nations) Food and Agriculture Organization Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Environmental Management Public Society of the Basque Country (Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental Industria Vasca Hondakinentzako Bateango Enularaztegi Sociedad Anonima) International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University Sea and Fisheries Research Institute of Portugal (Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Directive) International Organization for Standardization Management Performance Indicators Municipal Solid Waste Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Operational Performance Indicators Polychlorinated biphenyl compounds Parts per million Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Suspended Solids United Nations Environment Program United Nations Industrial Development Organization Technical Research Center of Finland (Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus)

page xii

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The term fish is commonly used to describe all forms of edible finfish, mollusks (e.g., the Bivalvia, clams, oysters, mussels, scallops, cockles, or Cephalopoda, octopus, squid, cuttlefish) and crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters, shrimp) that inhabit an aquatic environment1. However, when the term fish processing is used, a distinction is sometimes drawn between the processing of finfish and the rest of species (i.e., mollusks, crustaceans) whereby the first is referred to as simply fish processing and the latter as seafood processing. In the context of this study, such difference between the two types of processing will be adopted and where the term fish processing is employed it will address only finfish. In fish processing there are four basic procedures which can be used to perform the actual processing of the fish to obtain the final product2: heating, freezing, control of water activity and irradiating. These procedures are performed in order to increase the (shelf) life of the fish by limiting the organisms that promote spoilage and degradation and also affect the nutritional properties of the final product (a detailed explanation for each procedure is available in section 3.3). Fish processing is widely distributed worldwide and covers a wide range of species. Within these groups, the biological and anatomical variations of each fish will determine the technology needed and used for the processing, and consequently, the potential environmental problems that could arise. This particular research is intended to provide an instrument to processing plants using one of these processing procedures (heating and more specifically canning) and the emphasis is on two major species (tuna and sardines).

1.2 Purpose and research question The following thesis has as its main purpose the definition of relevant Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) within companies canning tuna and sardines in order to help them initiate a process of Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE). Therefore, the relevance of the EPIs lies upon the assumption that through their use and implementation, the companies in the sector should be able to perform an EPE, which would thus improve their existing operational practices. It would also minimize the effects from their environmental aspects3 and respective environmental impacts4,

1

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Term "fish processing". URL: http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120855andsctn=1 (99.05.29). 2 Ibid. 3 Defined in the International Standardization Organisation (ISO) committee draft ISO/CD 14031.2 as the “element of an organisation’s activities, products or services that can interact with the environment”.

page 1

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

determine quantifiable environmental objectives and targets, compare their environmental performance with other industries in the sector, document their continuous environmental improvement and communicate it to clients and other stakeholders. The specific objectives in this research include: • • • • •

To identify the environmental aspects generated when canning tuna or sardines. To define a set of EPIs related to these aspects, which could also help reflect the technology level and operational practices prevailing in these companies. To define the current status of environmental practices in canning industries in Spanish and Portuguese plants. To compare the designed EPIs with the current status of environmental practices in these companies and with other criteria in order to select the most relevant ones that could be used. To draw general conclusions as to the feasibility of using EPIs in the sector and provide concrete recommendations on possible actions to adapt and use them.

The thesis is a written examination of the M.Sc. in Environmental Management and Policy program of the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University in Sweden. It is also part of a larger research project called Cleaner Technology Performance Indicators for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (CTPISME)5, financed by DG XII of the European Commission under the Fourth Framework Program - Environment and Climate, RTD. The implementation and responsibility of the CTPISME project is shared and supervised by three research and development centers: IIIEE, VTT Chemical Technology/Environmental Technology in Espoo, Finland and Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Finland. Within the CTPISME project, research on EPIs is also being conducted in other industry sectors (e.g., textiles wet processing, lithographic industry, wine and olive oil).

1.3 Scope and limitations The research conducted in this thesis followed a defined scope with certain limitations. The main reason for this being that, as in most research activities, there were limited resources and time that had to be taken into account. Thus, the following considerations were made: 1. Species processed: because the main focus of the project was the canning industry, the emphasis was put on finfish, and more specifically on two major species canned today: all types of tuna fish and sardines. Consequently, the 4

Defined in the International Standardization Organisation (ISO) committee draft ISO/CD 14031.2 as “any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s activities, products or services”. 5 IIIEE, Lund University. URL: http://www.lu.se/IIIEE/projects/ctpi/main.htm/ (99.07.29).

page 2

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2.

3.

4.

5.

information gathered, the process descriptions, as well as the visits made, had an emphasis on industries processing these types of fish. Geographical area: because the research was part of the CTPISME project which has a geographical definition of the European Union (EU), the practical research conducted was also limited to this region. Specifically, two EU countries were analyzed in depth (Spain and Portugal) and companies operating in them were visited for the practical information gathering. Moreover, the emphasis was put on these countries due to: (a) the importance of these countries’ canning industry within the EU; (b) the level of environmental awareness at industry level is not as widespread as in other EU countries (e.g., Denmark, Netherlands); (c) a previous study6 on indicators covering two other EU countries (Finland, France) had already been conducted during 1998. Life cycle perspective: since the main concern of the CTPISME project is the processing industry, the emphasis for this research and the EPIs definition was put on the activities occurring only within the processing facilities of the canneries. That is, aspects such as the supply and transport of fish (i.e., if it came from fish farms, open sea or freshwater bodies) or those related to the sale and distribution of the final product (i.e., sales to the domestic market or exports to third countries) were not considered within the scope. Time: as the time available for conducting the research and writing the thesis was limited to fourteen weeks there were limitations as to the number of visits to companies for practical information gathering. For this reason, only eight visits were made. Although, this number of visits did not result in a systematic, statistical sampling—which could guarantee a confidence level and margin error evaluations for the information attained—the findings made, can still be regarded as representative to a large extent of the current practices prevailing in canneries situated in these countries. Information collected: this limitation concerns the information collected from the companies visited. In general, most of them lacked precise records of operations, and in some cases, only rough estimates—if at all—were provided. This fact, along with the fear of some of them in providing detailed information on their operations, raw material consumption, wastes, etc. constitutes another limitation.

1.4 Methodology The specific methodology used to perform the research was based on the principles established under the general management model “Plan-Do-Check-Act”. A Graphic representation of the approach adopted is presented in Figure 1.1. The figure also presents the relation of the activities performed, the different sections constituting this study and the time allocation.

6

Ny, Henrik. Sustainable Development Indicators for the Fishery Sector: A case of Finnish Fish Farming. Lund, 1998 (IIIEE Master's Thesis 98:22).

page 3

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

PLAN CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

34

35

DO CH. 5

CH. 6

Wf=37

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

33

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

31

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

Wo=22

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Figure 1.1 Methodological approach employed in the thesis

CHECK & ACT CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

CH. 9

The use of the “plan-do-check-act” approach is encouraged within the process of environmental performance evaluation, as suggested within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard on environmental performance evaluation (ISO-14031). As can be observed from Figure 1.1, the first activities were related to the research’s work plan and included finding out information about: EPE and EPIs, the canning sector worldwide and in Europe, the canned tuna/sardine production process, and required inputs and resulting outputs. This “plan” phase is included in the first five chapters and required approximately six weeks. The next phase, relating to the execution of the research or “do phase”, was constituted by an analysis of the environmental aspects occurring during the processing, a preliminary definition of EPIs for all of these aspects, visits to companies in Spain and Portugal and a screening process to select the most relevant EPIs. This phase is included in the first five chapters (part of Chapter 5, and Chapters 6-9) and required approximately six weeks.

page 4

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

The last phase, “check and act”, was constituted by a consultation made to the companies visited with a view to obtain some feedback on environmental performance evaluation and the EPIs (included already within Chapter 8). This phase was executed in two weeks7. One of the initial steps in the research process was the search for general relevant sources in order to attain the most representative information about EPE, the canning sector and process, as well as the environmental aspects. Additionally, and since a study visit was planned for two specific countries, efforts were also made to obtain specific information for them. A summary of the main types of information sources utilized is presented in Figure 1.2. It is important to mention that the information gathering was extended to numerous sources with the intention of not only drawing relevant EPIs that could be applicable within Spanish and Portuguese canning plants, but also be helpful for processing plants elsewhere. Figure 1.2 Information sources employed in the thesis

Articles from magazines

Specif reports from local associations Specific literature on certain topics Specific reports from multi/bilateral organizations

R E S E A R C H

Articles from scientific journals

Interviews in canning industries Internet searches in websites Interviews to other relevant organizations/experts

1.5 Foreseen outcome As the purpose sought with the research is the definition of relevant EPIs, this undoubtedly constitutes the main foreseen outcome. However, as important as the EPIs are, there is also interest that the findings will lead to the activation of an EPE process within canning industries. Whether this process is undertaken with the proposed EPIs or not will depend on the interest and specific conditions prevailing in each company; however, it is expected that the proposed EPIs will at least serve as a platform upon which an initial EPE process can be established. 7

Due to the summer vacation period in Spain during the month of August, the actual visit was made during weeks 26 and 27 (and not 33 and 34 as the original plan).

page 5

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Other deliverable products resulting as a consequence of the research process undertaken are: (a) the definition of a systematic approach for developing EPIs in a specific sector (summarized in Figure 1.2); (b) the analysis of limitations (barriers) for the implementation of the EPIs within the companies.

page 6

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

CHAPTER 2 Wf=37

CH. 9

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Today, environmental performance has become one of the many important measures of business success not only in the local context but also at international level. Currently, EPE is being subject to an international standardization effort by the ISO through its ISO 14000 series (refer to Figure 2.1), in particular with the standards ISO - 14031 Environmental Management - Environmental Performance Evaluation Guidelines (hereinafter the EPE Standard) and ISO - 14032 Environmental Management - Examples of Environmental Performance Evaluation (hereinafter the EPE Examples Standard). Figure 2.1 The ISO 14000 standard series

Environmental Management System (ISO-14001, 14004, 14061)

Environmental Management Vocabulary Environmental Aspects in Product Standards

(ISO-14050)

(ISO Guide 64)

ISO 14000 Standards Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040, 14041, 14042, 14043, 14049)

Environmental Auditing (ISO-14010, 14011, 14012, 14015, 1401X)

Environmental Performance Evaluation (ISO-14031, 14032) Environmental Labelling (ISO-14020, 14021, 14024, 14025)

Source: International Network for Environmental Management. URL: http://www.inem.org (99.07.12)

EPE is defined in the EPE Standard8 as the “ongoing internal management process and tool that uses indicators to convey information comparing an organization’s past and present environmental performance with its environmental performance criteria”. Environmental performance criteria are understood as the expected environmental objectives or targets set by an organization’s management. Thus, simply expressed, EPE can be defined as a tool to help an organization compare its actual environmental performance with its targeted performance, whereby the comparison is possible through the use of indicators. Another definition utilized to describe EPE is “the ongoing, focused evaluation of the environmental performance 8

ISO/CD 14031.2. ISO-14031Environmental Management-Environmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines, 1997 (p. 4).

page 8

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

of an organization; a method to measure the results of the organization’s management of the environmental aspects of its activities, products or services”9. Whichever definition, EPE should be conducted regularly by the organization; and, since it is an ongoing process, it is usually better for the organization to establish a continuous monitoring system for the most important environmental parameters. Therefore, EPEs should not be left to be done occasionally by external parties such as consultants. According to Kuhre10, EPE can be represented considering information flows and relations taking place within an organization (refer to Figure 2.2). The performance evaluation is placed in the middle. Negative aspects that are subject to the evaluation are placed on the right and the positives on the left. The most important aspects are included: air, water and land. The figure highlights how both positive and negative aspects must be assessed in a continuous form. Also, the communication of the performance must be included. Internally, the communication is important to assist employees in fulfilling their responsibilities. Externally, it is needed to communicate the performance to interested stakeholders. Figure 2.2 EPE information flows and relations

External Communication

Feedback

Feedback

Internal Communication Continuous or frequent evaluation of waste minimization performance, I.e. reuse, reduction, recycling, repurchase of recycled materials

EMS improvement

Continuous or frequent evaluation of impacts, aspects/ effects to air, water, land and wildlife

Assessment Assessmentofof organizational organizationalimpacts impacts

Source: Kuhre, W. Lee. “ISO 14031 EPE”. Prentice Hall PTR, 1998.

9

Kuhre, W. Lee, ISO 14031 Environmental Performance Evaluation (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), 3. 10 Ibid.

page 9

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2.1 Benefits of EPE The information generated from the EPE process may assist an organization to11: • • •

• •

•

• •

• •

•

11

Improve the environment: as it motivates it to minimize the impacts and aspects evaluated, there is an immediate positive effect on the environment. Improve organizational efficiency and profitability: As an outcome of the EPE process, improvements in the productive processes could occur which would result in better efficiency and/or cost savings. Help with cost/expense management: As a consequence of a better resource allocation, management also benefits with better control of costs or expenses. An EPE can help track environmental expenses, cost savings, financial gains and expenses. Some indicators can even be linked to expenses and consequently directed to cost management. Help determine proper resource allocation: an EPE can provide management with information on the key areas where resources should be allocated in order to improve their environmental performance. Determine if environmental performance criteria are met: As data and information are generated during the EPE, management should be aware if the environmental goals, targets and objectives are being met. Through the EPE, corrective actions become evident. Understand the impacts on the environment: This is one of the most important benefits of an EPE. If it is not achieved, at least partly, the EPE process is worthless. The evaluation should provide qualitative and quantitative information for the understanding of the impacts. Achieve and demonstrate compliance with regulations: Through an EPE, an organization will be able to identify how well it is meeting environmental regulatory requirements. Basis for continuous improvement of an existing environmental management system (EMS): As the ongoing EPE permits a comparison directly to environmental performance criteria, and assuming the results of the EPE are used to make corrections where necessary, the continuous improvement of the EMS is encouraged. Basis for rewarding employees: the information generated in the EPE can be used to reward those employees who really care about the employment vis a vis verbal recognition, certificates, dinners, monetary or other rewards. Improve community and customer relations: as the information resulting from the EPE is communicated externally, at least partly, it can help to improve the relations with the community and customers as the company is demonstrating its interest for helping the environment. An EPE is a proper platform for this communication and also for the elaboration of environmental reports. Raise awareness within the organization: as the EPE results and findings are relayed to others within the organization, the level of environmental awareness is increased.

Kuhre, W. Lee. ISO 14031 Environmental Performance Evaluation (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), 13-19.

page 10

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

•

•

Perform benchmarking: assuming that the information from the EPE process is properly established, and that other organizations are willing to communicate their performance, then an EPE is potentially an excellent instrument to foster benchmarking within the organizations on their environmental performance. Support environmental labeling programs: as direct monitoring of environmental performance is done through the EPE, it is easy to track compliance with stringent criteria set in the labeling programs.

2.2 The EPE Process Within the EPE Standard, there has been a definition of how the EPE should be ideally executed (refer to Figure 2.3). This definition is inspired on the “plan-docheck-act” management model. The research conducted in this study is focused on the “plan” phase of this model, since it is directly related to the EPIs (section A of Figure 2.3). The other phases (“do” and “check and act”) are to be implemented directly by companies once they start using the EPIs. Figure 2.3 The EPE process as defined by ISO A . P la n n in g en v iro n m en tal p erfo rm an ce ev alu atio n A .1 S ele ctin g in d ic ato rs fo r en v iro n m e n tal p e rfo rm a n ce e v alu atio n

B . D ev elo p in g an d u sin g d ata & in fo rm a tio n B .1 C o llec tin g d ata d a ta B .2 A n a ly zin g an d c o v ertin g d a ta in fo rm a tio n B .3 A ssessin g in fo rm a tio n B .4 R e p o rtin g an d co m m u n icatin g

C . R ev ie w in g a n d im p ro v in g en v iro n m en tal p e rfo rm an c e e v a lu a tio n

Source: ISO -14031 “Environmental Management-Environmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines”. ISO/CD 14031.2”. 1997, page 6.

2.2.1 Planning EPE As the model in the EPE Standard suggests, the process starts with the planning of environmental indicators, that is, developing or choosing them. A series of elements should be taken into account by the organization during this phase (refer to Box 2.1).

page 11

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Box 2.1 Elements to consider for the initial selection of environmental indicators • • • • • • • • • •

Overall business strategy Full range of activities, products, services Significant aspects that it can control and over which it can be expected to have influence Environmental policy and environmental performance criteria Environmental costs and benefits. Information about local, national, regional, global environmental conditions Information needed to meet legal and other requirements Cultural and social factors Understanding of the views of interested parties Financial, physical, human resources needed and organizational structure

Source: ISO -14031 “Environmental Management-Environmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines”. ISO/CD 14031.2”. 1997, page 8.

Prior to these conditions, highlighted in the EPE Standard, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had also defined in 1993 a series of criteria that environmental indicators should fulfill12 (however, it emphasized that indicators be applied at country and not specifically at corporate level). These are presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Criteria for selecting environmental indicators Policy relevance • Provide a representative picture of environmental conditions, pressures on the environment or society’s response • Simple, easy to interpret and able to show trends over time • Responsive to changes in the environment and related human activities • Provide a basis for international comparisons • Be either national in scope or applicable to regional environmental issues of national significance • Have a threshold or reference value against which to compare it so that users are able to assess the significance of the values associated with it

Analytical soundness • Well founded in technical and scientific terms • Based on international standards and consensus about its validity • Lend itself to being linked to economic models, forecasting and information systems

Measurability • Readily available or made available at a response cost/benefit ratio • Adequately documented and of known quality • Updated at regular intervals in accordance with reliable procedures

Source: OECD Report “Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews”, Paris 1993.

12

OECD. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews (Paris, 1993).

page 12

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Similar to the efforts by the EPE Standard, individual countries such as Germany, have also defined a series of characteristics/principles that a corporate system made up of environmental indicators should posses (in a special guide13, hereinafter referred to as the German Document): − Comparability: allow comparisons to be made and reflect changes of environmental impacts − Target orientation: pursue improvement goals that can be influenced by the company − Balance: represent the environmental performance accurately and provide a balanced illustration of environmental problem areas and improvement potentials − Continuity: in order to compare indicators, they must be established with the same data collection criteria in every period, refer to comparable intervals and be measured in comparable units − Timelines: should be determined in short enough intervals − Clarity: must be clear and comprehensible for the user and correspond to the user’s information requirements Other EPI issues that different sources such as the EPE Standard and the German Document14 address include the number of environmental indicators that should be employed for an EPE, as well as the possibility of using EPE and EPIs in an organization with or without an EMS. With respect to the number of indicators, there is a consensus that they should not be “too much or too little”. The German Document advises to use ten to fifteen indicators when one person is in charge of the EPE process, while the EPE Standard only states that the number of indicators should reflect the nature and scale of the organization’s operations (detailed comments in section 2.3). In relation to the use of EPE and EPIs, there is also a consensus that they could be used whether an organization has an EMS in place or not. If it does, then the EPIs will allow it to evaluate the environmental performance against the policy, objectives and targets. If it doesn’t, then the EPE will assist the organization in identifying its environmental aspects, prioritize them, and later set appropriate targets and goals. 2.2.1.1 Environmental Indicators Indicators in general, can be defined as “parameters or values derived from parameters, which provide information about a phenomenon and whose meaning extends beyond the properties directly associated with the parameter value; they can reduce the amount of measurements and parameters that would normally be required to give an exact presentation of a situation”15.

13

Federal Environment Ministry - Bonn et Federal Environmental Agency - Berlin. A guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators, 1997. 14 Ibid. 15 OECD. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews, Paris 1993.

page 13

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Environmental indicators can help to provide answers to questions such as Where are we in terms of environmental performance? Which way are we going? and How far are we from our environmental goals, target or policy?. They enable or promote information exchange regarding the key issue they address. As managerial control tools, they can provide decision-makers with important information, summarized to concise and illustrative statements. 2.2.1.2 Classification of Environmental Indicators The EPE standard divides environmental indicators into two broad categories: Environmental Performance Indicators and Environmental Condition Indicators (EPIs and ECIs respectively). The ECIs are defined as those that provide information about the condition of the environment that may be useful for the EPE within an organization. EPIs are firstly subdivided into two sets and each set is later defined. That is, they are constituted by management performance indicators and operational performance indicators (MPIs and OPIs respectively). MPIs provide information about the management’s efforts to influence environmental performance of the operations. OPIs relate to aspects such as the design, operation, and maintenance of the organization’s physical facilities and equipment; the materials, energy, products, services, wastes and emissions related to the organization’s physical facilities and equipment; the supply of materials, energy and services to, and the delivery of products, services and wastes from the organization’s physical facilities and equipment. Evidently, there is a relation among the company’s management and operations and the condition of the environment. Figure 2.4 summarizes this relation and puts it in the context the environmental indicators previously mentioned.

page 14

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 2.4 Relationship between management-operations-state of the environment Information

Interested Parties

EPIs MPIs ECIs Inputs (materials , energy, services)

OPIs

Outputs (products, services, wastes, emissions)

Physical Facilities & Equipment

Legend: Inform ation flows: Input/Output flows to/from the organization’s operations: Decision flows:

Source: ISO -14031 “Environmental Management-Environmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines”. ISO/CD 14031.2”. 1997, page 8.

Within the MPIs and OPIs, there are even further recommended categories, some of which have been proposed in the German document. Figure 2.5 presents a summary of detailed types of OPIs and EPIs.

page 15

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 2.5 Classification of Environmental Indicators E nvironmental Indicators

E nvironmental P erformance Indicators (E P Is)

O perational P erformance Indicators (O P Is)

M aterials / Energy Indicators

Input indicators

M anagement P erformance Indicators (M P Is)

E nviromental C ondition Indicators (E CIs)

Indicators of the condition of W ater, L and, A ir, Flora and Fauna

System Indicators

System Implementation L egal M atters and C omplaints

M aterials E nergy W ater

E nvironmental C osts Functional A rea Indicators

O utput indicators Training/ Staff W aste H ealth / Safety A ir emissions W aste w ater

P urchasing

P roducts

E xternal C ommunication

Infrastructure and Transportation Indicators

Q uality A ssurance

Infrastructure indicators Transportation indicators P rocess Indicators

Source: Federal Environment Ministry - Bonn et Federal Environmental Agency - Berlin. A guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators. December 1997 in combination with ISO -14031 Environmental ManagementEnvironmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines. ISO/CD 14031.2”. 1997.

page 16

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2.2.1.3 Types of Environmental Indicators Indicators can be divided into the following types16: •

Absolute or relative. Absolute indicators are the primary focus from an ecological point of view. However, to measure efficiency, absolute indicators must be examined in proportion to valid reference figures. In this way, they can reflect the environmental performance relative to the size or production capacity. At the same time, relative indicators can be defined in two forms: quotas or ratios. Quotas (or proportions) are used to determine a subgroup’s proportion of the total or, put in other words, its share. Ratios relate absolute indicators to the operational units from which they are caused. In the German Document, an environmental indicator matrix for obtaining possible ratios was developed (refer to Figure 2.6).

Production costs

Building space

Working hours

Workdays

Sales

x x x x x x

Employees

x

Water input

Materials input

x x

Energy input

Product output

B a sic d a ta

M a te ria ls inp u t P a c k a g in g C le a ning a g e nt s E n e rg y in p u t W a t er inp u t W a st e W a st e w a t e r A ir em issio n s T ra n sp o rta t io n O c c u p a tio na l ac c id e nts C o m p la in ts T ra in ing E n viro nm e nta l C o st s

Reference Figure

Figure 2.6 Environmental indicator matrix

x

x

x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x

x

Source: Federal Environment Ministry - Bonn et Federal Environmental Agency - Berlin. “ A guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators”. December 1997, page 17.

•

Corporate, site or process indicators. Indicators at process level are well suited as planning, controlling and monitoring instruments for the department concerned. Determining these indicators is especially important for the main source of consumption of resources and the main cause of emissions. Site and corporate indicators serve as general performance information tools for environmental management as well as to provide internal information.

•

Quantity and cost related indicators. Indicators are usually quantity related, that is, physical measurements such as kg, tons, items, etc. But, since there is an

16

Federal Environment Ministry - Bonn et Federal Environmental Agency - Berlin. A guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators, 1997.

page 17

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

increasing relevance of cost aspects in environmental protection, cost related indicators can be developed simultaneously. •

Aggregated. Indicators in which the data or information is of the same type, but comes from different sources, collected and expressed as a combined value.

•

Weighted. Indicators in which the data is modified by applying a factor related to its significance.

2.2.1.4 Uses of Environmental Indicators

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The uses of environmental indicators are multiple and vary according to the type employed, that is, MPIs, OPIs and ECIs. Box 2.2 presents a summary of the main uses. Box 2.2 Summary of uses for environmental indicators MPIs Implementation and effectiveness of environmental management programs Management actions which influence the environmental performance of the organization’s operations Efforts of particular importance to the successful organization’s environmental management Environmental management capabilities of the organization, including flexibility to cope with changing conditions, accomplishment of specific objectives, effective coordination, problem solving capacity Compliance with legal and regulatory requirements as well as conformance to other requirements Financial costs or benefits Possible changes in performance Root causes where performance exceeds or doesn’t meet relevant performance criteria Opportunities for preventive action OPIs Consumption of materials Products and emissions resulting from the organization’s operations Physical facilities and equipment, their design, operation and maintenance ECIs Identification and control of significant environmental aspects Selection of MPIs and OPIs Establishment of a baseline against which to measure change Changes over time in relation to an ongoing environmental program Relationships between environmental condition and the organization’s activities, products and services Needs for action Source: ISO-14031 Environmental Management-Environmental Performance Evaluation: Guidelines. ISO/CD 14031.2. 1997.

page 18

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2.2.2 Developing and using data and information Once the different elements have been identified and the indicators are initially drawn, the EPE Standard model suggests a second phase which consists of developing and using the data (refer to Figure 2.3). Thus, data is collected in order to provide input for estimating the selected indicators. It is important to establish guidelines for collecting and classifying the data, so that data reliability can be assured. Sources of data include: direct monitoring and measuring, interviews and observations regulatory reports, inventory/production/financial and accounting reports, environmental review, audit or assessment reports, environmental training records, scientific reports and studies, government agencies, academic institutions, non government organizations (NGOs), suppliers, subcontractors, customers and consumers. Once collected, the data must be analyzed and converted. This analysis should consider data quality, validity, adequacy and completeness necessary to produce reliable information. The information may be developed using calculations, best estimates, statistical methods, graphic techniques, indexing, aggregating or weighting. Next, comes the information’s assessment. This means that the information generated through the EPIs should be compared with the organization’s environmental performance criteria. The results of this comparison should be reported to management. Also, the information should be distributed internally and externally (for this case a selection of relevant information could be made). 2.2.3 Reviewing and improving EPE In order to close the “plan-do-check and act” model, this last phase of reviewing and improving the EPE (check and act) is the key as it is the basis for continual improvement of the organization’s environmental performance. Through the review of the EPE process, management can introduce proper measures to improve the condition of the environment.

2.3 Examples of EPE (based on the EPE Examples Standard17) In order to provide an idea as to how the EPE process is actually being implemented, as well as the types and number of environmental indicators employed, an analysis of the EPE Examples Standard was performed. The standard has seventeen examples of EPE and indicators. Fifteen of them are for companies (the other two for a whole city, Seattle, Washington, and an NGO, Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership) and of these, fourteen have included the specific EPIs used within the standard18. These

17

Draft ISO TR 14032 for voting. ISO -14032 Environmental Management-Examples of Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE), 1999. 18 The case excluded from the analysis was Electrolux from Sweden, because the information in the Standard did not include the EPIs used.

page 19

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

fourteen cases are the ones which have been analyzed and a summary of the indicator types is presented in Table 2.2 (a detailed list is included in Appendix 1). Table 2.2 Environmental indicators of companies included in the ISO-14032 Country

Company

# employees

MPI

OPI

ECI

OPI/ ECI

Total

Argentina

1. Manufacturer of flexible laminated packaging 2. Chemical Processing company 3. Oil refinery 4. Chemical company 5. Industrial laundry 6. Railway infrastructure company 7. Furniture making company 8. Brewery 9. Hospital 10. Food processing company (baby food) 11. Food processing company (pickles) 12. Rubber glove manufacturer 13. Silicon metal producing plant 14. Multinational chemical company

210

1

1

1

-

3

230

5

12

4

-

21

570 2000 70 3400

9 8 26 5

9 4 19 2

13 2

4 -

31 16 45 9

11 33 260 750

3 8

7 12 3 13

2 -

-

7 12 8 21

200

2

13

-

-

15

100 5300

3 5

5 7

2 4

-

10 16

67500

7

13

-

-

20

Total

82

120

28

4

Czech Rep. Denmark

Germany

Japan Malaysia Norway UK

Some general conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of these fourteen companies and their indicators include: •

There seems to be no direct correlation between the organization’s size and the number of environmental indicators used for EPE. The amount used seems to be simply adjusted to each company’s needs, interests and resources. Furthermore, it is important to see how, in all but two cases (Danish laundry and Argentinean oil refinery) the total number of indicators used has been twenty-one or less.

•

As can be seen in Table 2.2 and Appendix 1, companies seem to be more interested in EPIs (77% of the total indicators) than ECIs. Also, the interest within the EPIs is towards OPIs (66% of the EPIs) rather than MPIs. The total number of indicators used in the fourteen cases was 234, of which 91% were quantity indicators (according to “Quantity/Cost” classification) and 62% absolute indicators (according to “Absolute/Relative” classification). Graphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and Table 2.3 show these relations. Appendix 2 has the detail of the classification performed.

page 20

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 2.1 Types of EPIs in cases analyzed in the draft ISO TR 14032.2

OPIs 51%

MPIs 35%

OPIs/ECIs 2%

ECIs 12%

Note: Total number of environmental indicators in the fourteen cases studied is 234.

Graph 2.2 Relative/absolute indicators in the draft ISO TR 14032.2

Relative 38%

Absolute 62%

Graph 2.3 Relative/absolute indicators in the draft ISO TR 14032.2

Cost 9%

Quantity 91%

page 21

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 2.3 Environmental Indicators in cases within the draft ISO TR 14032.2

• • • •

•

Type OPIs MPIs ECIs OPIs/ECIs Subtotal Total

Classification I Quantity Cost 119 1 63 19 28 0 4 0 214 20 234

Classification II Absolute Relative 60 60 57 25 25 3 4 0 146 88 234

Both SMEs as well as large (and even multinational) companies have made use of EPIs to conduct EPE. Also, the different types of industries and geographical locations of facilities don’t seem to hinder the use of EPIs for conducting EPE, as the standard itself provides examples from eight countries and fourteen different production processes ranging from the food sector to chemical companies.

page 22

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

CHAPTER 3 Wf=37

CH. 9

3. FISHERIES AND CANNING 3.1 Status of global fisheries Fish have been a major source of food for mankind before recorded history. In 1996, fishery products directly provided an estimated 14 kg of food per person worldwide and approximately 28% of the global fishery products were used for animal feed and other products not contributing directly to human food (e.g., fish meal, fish oil). Fishing is an important international industry, generating first-sale revenues of approximately one hundred billion US dollars worldwide per year for all fishery products. Asia is the most important region for direct human consumption and Europe is the second largest food fish consuming continent (consumption is believed to be higher in developed countries than developing countries)19. Some general trends can be identified in the sector, such as an increasing demand for fresh and frozen products, as well as for added value products20. In 1950, global fish harvests were twenty million metric tons. Between 1950 and 1975 this amount tripled, and by the late seventies, it had reached seventy million metric tons. In recent years, total global catches appear to have stabilized to eighty four million metric tons21; although, total fish production has grown due to increased aquaculture (reaching one hundred and one million metric tons in 199322). Global landings are believed to have increased because of two main reasons23: (a) more fishing activity with additional people and larger fleets and (b) the continuous development of harvesting technology (e.g., acoustic systems for detecting fish schools in open sea) which has allowed a higher efficiency of ships and gears. However, the continuous improvement of catching power has also resulted in the present situation where many of the fisheries are overexploited. Aquaculture production24 of all kinds has doubled its proportion in overall supply since 1984, reaching 20% of all food fish supply in 1992 and optimistic estimates

19

US National Academy of Sciences. Sustaining marine fisheries (National Academy Press, 1999) 1. Westlund, Lena. Apparent historical consumption and future demand for fish and fishery products. exploratory calculations. Paper presented by the FAO fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/ agreem/kyoto/H13F.HTM (99.06.28). 21 US National Academy of Sciences. Ibid. 22 Westlund, Lena. Ibid. 23 MacLennan, David. Technology in the capture fisheries. Paper presented by the FAO fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/ FAOINFO/FISHERY/agreem/kyoto/H6F.HTM (99.06.28). 24 Aquaculture and freshwater fisheries account for approximately 25 percent of all fishery products considering weight. 20

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

consider that by 2010 it could reach a total of forty seven million tons (of which thirty three million tons would be produced for food)25. Various estimates of the total productivity of ocean ecosystems and the maximum long-term potential catch of marine animals have been made. Many of these estimates are close to 100 million tons per year, suggesting that the current landings of 84 million tons plus the unreported mortality are close to this maximum sustainable limit. Thus, what seems to be clear is that “the current catches could not be exceeded or perhaps even continued on a sustainable basis; considering individual stocks, about 30% globally are already over fished, depleted, or recovering and 44% are being fished at or near the maximum long-term potential catch rate”26. This situation leads to the conclusion that some scientists have already started considering: reducing the fishing effort in the short term will be the only option for achieving sustainable fishing levels. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the future food-fish demand alone will be between 100 and 120 million metric tons by the year 2010, where important regions for this demand will include China, Japan, rest of Asia, Europe (including former USSR) and North America. The over exploitation of resources, as well as the increasing demand (consequence of population growth) for these products means that the present catches must be used more efficiently and that the waste and losses occurring during the processing and harvesting ought to be reduced. This condition emphasizes the need for introducing environmental performance evaluation in fish processing, so that the resources are used more efficiently.

3.2 EU’s contribution to global fisheries The EU’s fish production within the global context has been moderate. In 1997, it constituted only 6% of the global production and, if accumulated data for the period 1990-1997 is considered, this share increases only by one percent (refer to Table 3.1). Within the European Union, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Spain were the most important fishing member states and represented approximately 50% of the total EU production in 1997. However, if the analysis is extended to the total production during period 1990-1997, the most important were Denmark, Spain and France.

25

Muir J.F. et Nugent C.G. Aquaculture production trends: perspectives for food security. Paper presented by the FAO fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/ FAOINFO/FISHERY/agreem/kyoto/H9F.HTM (99.06.28). 26 US National Academy of Sciences. Sustaining marine fisheries (National Academy Press, 1999) 3.

page 25

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 3.1 EU fish production in the global context* Area Rest of the world European Union World total

Percentage 93% 7% 100%

Accumulated production 1990-1997 (metric tons) 867,839,506 MT 62,233,841 MT 930,073,347 MT

Percentage 94% 6% 100%

1997 Production (metric tons) 122,604,329 MT 7,984,656 MT 130,588,985 MT

* Figures consider 1997 production and accumulated tonnage 1990-1997. Aquaculture production is included as well. Source: FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28).

Appendix 327 presents the largest fishing countries in the world and the EU according to an analysis of statistics compiled by FAO28. Considering the accumulated production between 1990 and 1997, the top five fishing countries in the world were China, Peru, Japan, Chile and United States (accounting for 5% of the total global accumulated production in this period).

3.3 Fish processing procedures As stated in section 1.1, four basic types of fish processing procedures can be applied (refer to Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1 Fish processing procedures Fish Processing

1. Heating

2. Freezing

3. Controlling W ater Activity

Cooking

Immediate Cooling

Drying

Canning

Rapid Freezing

Curing

Cold Storage

Smoking

4. Irradiating

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120855andsctn=1 (99.05.29)

27

The appendix includes four tables: Table 1 presents the top 20 fish producing countries in 1997; Table 2 presents the top 20 countries considering 1990-1997; Table 3 presents the EU’s production in 1997; and Table 4 presents the EU’s production considering 1990-1997. 28 FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28).

page 26

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

3.3.1 Heat treatment This procedure can significantly alter the quality and nutritional value of the fish. Basically, the fish is exposed to heat either by (a) cooking or (b) in the canning process. In the first, changes occur in the texture and flavor of the fish, and pathogenic microorganisms are killed by heating the fish to an internal temperature above 66°C, in which the most resistant microorganisms are killed. The cooking period should be closely regulated to prevent excessive loss of nutrients by heat degradation, oxidation, or leaching29. During canning, the main purpose is to use heat alone or in combination with other means of preservation, to kill or inactivate all microbial organisms and to package the product in hermetically sealed containers so that the fish meat is protected from recontamination. This sterilization technique requires these containers or cans to be exposed to high temperatures for a given amount of time. Consequently, canned fish can be stored for a long time (a more detailed description is provided in Chapter 4). 3.3.2 Freezing This is the only preservation method that can maintain the flavor and quality of fresh fish. It reduces, to a large extent, the biochemical reactions in the fish flesh30. The three variations of freezing include: immediate cooling and holding, rapid freezing and cold storage. If fish are frozen improperly, the structural integrity may be compromised because of enzymatic degradation, and the texture could change causing dehydration. Immediate cooling and holding of fish, at temperatures between 2°C and -2°C, takes place after the fish has been harvested. In rapid freezing, there is a quick reduction of temperature to a level between -2°C and -7°C (a range which represents the zone of maximum ice crystal formation in the flesh cells). If the water in the cells freezes quickly, then ice crystals will remain small and cause minimal damage to the cells. However, if slow freezing results, large ice crystals will form and provoke a rupture of the cell membranes. When slow frozen flesh is thawed, the ruptured cells release water (drip) and also many compounds that provide certain flavor characteristics to the meat. Consequently, the fish becomes a dry and tasteless product. In cold storage, the fish that has been frozen is stored at a constant temperature of -23°C or below, in order to maintain a longer shelf life and ensure quality. A large portion of fresh fish is water containing many dissolved substances. This means that the fish does not uniformly freeze at 0°C. Instead, the free water in the fish will freeze over a wide range of temperature starting from -2°C. The amount of remaining free water will decrease until the product reaches a temperature of approximately -40°C. Fish which are held below this temperature and packaged, so as not to allow water loss through sublimation, can be stored for an indefinite period. Unfortunately, there are relatively few commercial freezers capable of storing fish at this temperature, thus fish are usually stored at -18°C to -29°C resulting in a variable shelf life. 29 30

Leaching: loss of water soluble nutrients into the cooking liquid. Fish flesh: skeletal muscles which account for more than 50% of the total body mass of fish.

page 27

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

3.3.3 Controlling water activity By reducing the water activity of fish, the growth of microorganisms and the chemical reactions that may be detrimental to the quality of the fish product are inhibited. This control can be done through drying, curing or a combination of both. The principal methods of drying or dehydrating the fish are by forced air drying, vacuum drying or vacuum freeze drying. Each of these methods involves adding heat to aid in the removal of water from the fish product. During the initial drying stages, water is evaporated from the product’s surface and the product’s temperature remains constant. In the final drying stages, the temperature of the product increases, causing water to move from the interior to the surface for evaporation. In curing, the water activity is reduced through the addition of chemicals such as salt, sugars or acids. Smoking was traditionally a combination of drying and adding chemicals from the smoke to the fish, thus preserving and adding flavor to the final product. The smoking process consists of soaking butchered fish in a 70 to 80% brine solution for a few hours to overnight, resulting in a two to three percent salt content in the fish. Then, the fish are partially dried on racks. As the brine on the surface dries, dissolved proteins produce a glossy appearance, which is one of the commercial criteria for quality. Smoking is carried out in kilns or forced-air smokehouses that expose the fish to smoke from smoldering wood or sawdust. In cold-smoking, the temperature does not exceed 29°C, and the fish is not cooked during the process. 3.3.4 Irradiating Irradiating is a means of pasteurizing/sterilizing a variety of food products. However, its use has not been universally accepted throughout the food industry. Food irradiators utilize radioisotopes or electron beam generators to provide a source of ionizing radiation. The irradiation of seafood has been extensively studied since the 1950s. The pasteurization of fresh fish using low-level dosages of ionizing radiation may extend the shelf life of the product up to several weeks. The sensory and nutritional characteristics of the fish are unaffected at these low levels of radiation.

3.4 Global fish canning 3.4.1 Finfish being canned Because the severe thermal conditions of canning cause the disintegration and discoloration of the flesh of many species of finfish, only a few types can be processed and sold as canned products31. Among the most common types are tuna, sardines, salmon, herring, mackerel and anchovies. 31

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Term "fish processing" URL: http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120855andsctn=9> (99.07.29).

page 28

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 3.2 presents all of the types of finfish that are canned today; of these, tuna is the most important one commercialized today. The boxes colored black in this figure refer to fish species in which the canning process is under the scope of this research. As can be seen in figure, some of these are not tuna or sardines, yet they can be labeled and sold as such (further details in sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1).

page 29

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 3.2* Types of finfish commonly canned

Source: Hall, G.M. “Fish Processing Technology”. Blackie Academic and Professional. 2nd Edition 1997 (pg. 140-141).

page 30

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

3.4.2 Situation of canned fish and other fish products In the beginning of the 19th century, the Frenchman Nicolas Appert developed the technology for preserving foods. He had won a contest demonstrating that food that had been in airtight metal cans did not spoil even without being refrigerated. This was his response to a call made by Napoleon Bonaparte for a means of preserving food for army and navy use. Since then, a canning industry emerged and the first steps towards the conquest of consumers with nonperishable products began. Some decades later, and towards the start of the new millennium, a significant proportion of the world’s fisheries’ production is being canned. Graph 3.1 presents the worldwide utilization of fisheries production prepared by FAO, whereby the canning contribution can be observed. On average, between 1987 and 1996, the global canning production (including finfish, crustaceans and mollusks) remained relatively stable at approximately twelve million metric tons. Graph 3.1 Global fisheries utilization, 1987 - 1996 (millions of tons) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1987

1988

Human consumption

Source:

1989

1990

1991

Marketing as fresh products

1992

Freezing

FAO. Report “The state of world fisheries and http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9900e/w9900e00.htm (99.07.27).

1993

1994

Canning

aquaculture

1995

Curing

1998”.

1996

Other processes

URL:

Worldwide, not only the total global production of fishery products such as canned products has increased but also the international trade. In 1996, the total global export volumes for all fishery products reached twenty two million metric tons. This amount represented approximately 40% of world fisheries production if a conversion of the volume is made to an estimated live weight equivalent32. Of this amount, export volumes of canned finfish constituted approximately 1.8 million tons in 1996 and approximately 250,000 tons for canned crustaceans and mollusks. Graph 3.2 presents the detail of these figures. 32

FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9900e/w9900e02.htm#P0_0 (99.07.28).

page 31

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.2 Global fisheries exports by major commodity groups (millions of tons)

12 Fresh, chilled or frozen fish

10

Fishmeals

Dried, salted or smoked fish

8

Crustaceans and mollusks

6

Canned fish

4 Canned crustaceans and mollusks Fish oils

2

0 1976

1978

Source:

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

FAO. Report “The state of world fisheries and http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9900e/w9900e00.htm (99.07.27).

1992

aquaculture

1994

1998”.

1996

URL:

In terms of value, fishery exports are almost entirely composed of direct human food products; but, in terms of volume, products like fishmeal and fish oil constitute a significant volume. Canned finfish constituted 8% of the world’s total volume of exports and canned mollusks and crustaceans, 2%. Graph 3.3 presents information about these exports by major commodity groups. Graph 3.3 Global fishery exports (in volume) by major commodity groups (1996)

Dried, salted, smoked fish 3%

Crustaceans & mollusks 15%

Canned fish 8% Fish oil 4%

Fishmeal 19% Fresh, chilled or frozen fish 49%

Source:

FAO. Report “The state of world fisheries and http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9900e/w9900e00.htm (99.07.27).

Canned crustaceans and mollusks 2%

aquaculture

1998”.

URL:

page 32

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Considering value, more than 50% of all fishery export trade in 1996 originated in developing countries and consisted largely of imports by industrialized countries. In 1997, Norway was the largest exporter of fish products and replaced Thailand, which had been leading between 1993 and 1996. On the other hand, Japan was the largest importer in 1997, followed by United States. Both these countries, along with the EU, imported 75% of the value of internationally traded fishery products. 3.4.3 Canned fish: harvesting, production and trading Worldwide updated information on the situation of finfish canning can be obtained from FAO’s statistics. There is an electronic database which can be downloaded from FAO’s Internet website33 called Fishstat Plus V. 2.19. It has a series of files, including some with specific information (production, exports and imports) for different types of fish and regions. There are many combinations of data that the user can employ to make an analysis. For this research, a specific analysis was performed for canned finfish. As the data were taken from this source, the analysis included not only canned tuna and sardines but also other types of canned finfish available in the database (for a detail refer to Appendix 4). Thus, based on the results from this Fishstat Plus analysis, a summary of the global situation for the canning sector, as well as detail for the EU was prepared. This includes an analysis of production, exports and imports. The detailed tables used for the analysis are presented in Appendix 5. To complement this analysis, specific information from two important countries (United States, Japan) in the canning sector was also included. 3.4.3.1 Harvests in the world Global tuna catches continued to be low in 1997. In the Eastern and Western Pacific, the El Niño phenomenon led to lower catches and in the Atlantic, catches were also low. However, catching vessels in the Indian Ocean were successful in targeting skipjack. Apart from bluefin, higher landings were reported for all tuna species in 1997, with strong increases for fresh skipjack and frozen albacore. The total global catches, for tuna and other canned species are shown in Graph 3.4 based on the Fishstat Plus analysis.

33

FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.07.29).

page 33

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.4 Global harvests for major canned species* 30,000,000

25,000,000 Herrings, sardines, anchovies

Metric Tons

20,000,000

Mackerels, snoeks, cutlassfishes

15,000,000

10,000,000 Tunas, bonitos, billfishes

5,000,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Source: FAO. Fishstat database. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.07.29)

3.4.3.2 Canning production in the world and EU The world’s five major producers of canned finfish during 1997 were United States, Spain, Thailand, Mexico and Japan. Altogether, they accounted for 873,234 metric tons, that is, 46% of global canned production. However, if total figures for the period 1990-1997 are considered, the five major producers were United States, Thailand, Spain, Japan and Italy. Considering these countries, their combined production reached an accumulated value of 7,674,320 metric tons between 1990 and 1997 (i.e., 50% of total global production for this period). With respect to the EU’s canning production, the three largest producers in 1997 were Spain, Italy and France that produced a total of 371,430 metric tons. The three countries still remain on top when the analysis is made considering the accumulative value for the period 1990-1997. The EU’s contribution in the global production was 23% of the global total in 1997. However, if the period 1990-1997 is considered this contribution decreases to 21%. 3.4.3.3 Canning trade in the world and EU The world’s five major exporters of canned fish during 1997 were Thailand, Ecuador, Latvia, Morocco and Spain. Together they accounted for 422,278 metric tons, that is, 44% of global exports. However, if total figures for the period 1990-1997 are considered, the five major exporters were Thailand, Morocco, Philippines, Côte d'Ivoire and Ecuador. Considering the combined exports of these five countries, the accumulated value between 1990-1997 was 3,377,055 metric tons (i.e., 56% of total exports).

page 34

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

With respect to exports in the EU, the three largest exporters were Spain, France and Portugal in 1997. If the analysis includes data from 1990-1997, the top three were Portugal, Spain and Denmark. Considering the entire EU member states, the share of canned fish exports within the global total in 1997 was 18%. However, if the period 1990-1997 is considered, this value falls to 13%. The world’s five major importers of canned fish during 1997 were the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Russian Federation, France and Italy. Together they accounted for 536,869 metric tons, that is, 50% of global imports. However, if accumulated values for the period 1990-1997 are considered, the five major importers were the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. Considering these countries, their combined imports reached an accumulated value of 3,543,280 metric tons (i.e., 52% of total imports) during the 1990-1997 period. With respect to the imports in the EU, the three largest importers were the United Kingdom, France and Italy, which imported altogether a total of 291,768 metric tons in 1997. If the analysis is made for the period 1990-1997, the top three importers were: the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Considering the entire member states of the EU, the contribution to global imports in 1997 was 42% (if the period 1990-1997 is considered the contribution increases to 45%). The following table presents a summary of the most important countries at the global and EU level in fish canning according to production, exports and imports based on the analysis performed with Fishstat Plus for the period 1990-1997. The importance of EU countries in the global context can be seen in this table. On one hand, there is Spain, which has an important contribution to global production of canned fish products; and on the other hand, the United Kingdom and France are among the largest importers worldwide. Table 3.2 Summary of important countries in the fish canning industry

Global level

Producers Exporters 1. USA 1. Thailand 2. Thailand 2. Morocco 3. Spain 3. Philippines

Within the EU 1. Spain 2. Italy 3. France

1. Portugal 2. Spain 3. Denmark

Importers 1. USA 2. United Kingdom 3. France 1. United Kingdom 2. France 3. Germany

3.4.3.3.1 Japanese and USA Situation

Japan was the world's major market for tuna products, where the apparent consumption exceeded one million tons (nearly thirty percent of world tuna catches) in 1997. Seventy percent of this consumption came from domestic catches (refer to Graph 3.5) while the remainder was imported.

page 35

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.5 Japanese fisheries’ catches

Mackerel Sardines

1997

Salmon

1996

Tuna Herring Anchovy 0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Metric Tons

Source: Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Report Production of fisheries and Aquaculture. URL: http://www.maff.go.jp/esokuhou/index.htm (99.08.02).

According to FAO, during 1997, domestic landings of tuna in the forty-two major harbors of Japan increased to 385,000 tons. However, another 300,000 tons of catch have to be added to this figure as they were landed in other Japanese ports or outside the country and sent directly to canneries in the United States and Thailand. Taiwan is the main exporter of tuna to Japan followed by the Republic of Korea. In the United States, tuna fish commercial landings during 1997 were 207,110 tons with an approximate value of 294.3 million US dollars. In 1998, the landings totaled 217,474 tons with a value of 257.1 million US dollars34. On the other hand, the canned tuna production35 in 1996 reached 37,545,333 cases (8,164 kilos per case worth 956,924 US dollars); in 1997, it was 34,835,111 cases (worth 918,730 US dollars); and in 1998, it reached 37,825,167 cases (worth 983,012 US dollars). With respect to canned tuna fish imports, USA increased the values in 1997 with respect to 1996 levels36. The imports of tuna and other species are shown in Graph 3.6 (in tons) and Graph 3.7 (in dollars). The relevance of tuna, in comparison to other species, within the US market can be observed in both Graphs.

34

Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division / Office of Science and Technology / US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/commercial/ld-dfs.pdf (99.08.02). 35 Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division / Office of Science and Technology / US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/process/p-can.pdf (99.08.02). 36 Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division / Office of Science and Technology / US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/trade/i-prod.pdf (99.08.02).

page 36

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.6 Imports of canned fish in the USA (tons)

Tuna

Sardines

1997 1996

Salmon

Mackerel

Herring

Anchovy 100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Metric Tons

Source: Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division/Office of Science and Technology/US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/trade/i-prod.pdf (99.08.02).

Graph 3.7 Imports of canned tuna in the USA (monetary value)

Tuna Sardines

1997

Salmon

1996

Mackerel Herring Anchovy $0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

US Dollars

Source: Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division/Office of Science and Technology/US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/trade/i-prod.pdf (99.08.02).

page 37

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

3.5 Fish canning in Spain Traditionally, Spain has been considered among the most important fishing countries worldwide. The analysis performed in section 3.4.3.2 confirms this situation for canned fish products. However, the country has been losing some ground in the international context when total fish production is considered. In 1971, according to FAO, they were the fourth most important fishing country, yet two decades later it was in seventeenth place37. During the last few years, a series of events have taken place which have conditioned the sector’s dynamics in the whole production chain: negotiations within the EU, conflicts with third countries, the alternation of production and markets, and global climate changes such as El Niño. Also, there is the problem of the ocean’s inability to recover due to over-fishing. This is provoking a situation whereby obtaining an adequate supply of fish is becoming more difficult and the sector is being pushed towards fish farming38. In 1990, the country’s fishing fleet was composed of 20,829 vessels with a net registered tonnage of 687,436 tons. The economic population in the fishery sector went from 120,000 people in 1986 to 70,000 in 1996. Also, in 1996, the fleet fell to 18,091 vessels, a net registered tonnage capacity of 506,734 metric tons39. However, the fleet is considered to be in good shape with modern vessels capable of high yields, placing it among the most effective in the world. Also, the country has one of Europe’s highest per capita consumption of fish products, estimated at 30 kg per person (including household and institutional consumption). Fresh products, 4 kilos of frozen fish, 3 kilos of canned products and the rest of seafood at 8 kilos constitute 50% of this consumption. Spaniards spend 13% of their food budget in fishery related products, which places them among the highest in Europe (refer to Graph 3.8).

37

Europa Azul. URL: http://www.europa-azul.com/datosde.htm (99.06.17). Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99. 39 Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99. 38

page 38

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.8 Food spending composition in European countries Average United Kingdom Sweden Spain Portugal Norway Netherlands Luxemburg Italy Ireland Greece Germany France Finland Denmark Belgium Austria

0%

20%

Bread & Cereals Fruits & Vegetables

40%

Meat Potatoes

60%

Fish Sugar

80%

100%

Milk & Dairy Products Coffee, tea, Chocolate

Oils & Fats Others

Source: Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99.

The country’s production of canned fishery products is presented in Graphs 3.9 (volume of tons) and 3.10 (in pesetas) for the period 1993-1997. In the case of tuna, production increased during this period, whereas it was more or less constant for sardines, and the other types of finfish and shellfish. Graph 3.9 Spanish production of canned and semi-canned fish (metric tons) Rest of shellfish

1997 Cockle

1996 1995

Cephalopods

1994 Mussels

1993

Rest of fish Mackerel Tuna Sardine

Metric Tons

Anchovies

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Source: ANFACO (National Fish Canneries Association of Spain). File “Producción 1997” can be downloaded in URL: http://www.anfaco.com/scripts/lista.asp?tema=904 (99.07.29).

page 39

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.10 Spanish production of canned and semi-canned fish (monetary value)

Rest of shellfish Cockle

1993 1996

Cephalopods

1994 1997

1995

Mussels Rest of fish Mackerel Tuna Sardine Anchovies 0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

million pesetas

Source: ANFACO (National Fish Canneries Association of Spain). File “Producción 1997” can be downloaded in URL: http://www.anfaco.com/scripts/lista.asp?tema=904 (99.07.29).

The detail of imported and exported canned products for 1997 and 1998 is shown in Graph 3.11. A summary of canned fish production, exports, imports and theoretical consumption40 is presented in Graph 3.12. Graph 3.11 Spanish imports and exports of canned fishery products (tons)

Source: ANFACO (National Fish Canneries Association of Spain). File “Exportaciones 98” can be downloaded in URL: http://www.anfaco.com/scripts/lista.asp?tema=904 (99.07.29).

40

Equal to: total production minus total exports plus total imports.

page 40

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.12 Spanish production, exports, imports and consumption (monetary value) Production

Exports

Imports

Theoretical Consumption

120,000

million pesetas

100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Source: ANFACO (National Fish Canneries Association of Spain). File “Exportaciones 98” can be downloaded in URL: http://www.anfaco.com/scripts/lista.asp?tema=904 (99.07.29).

Out of Spain’s seventeen autonomous communities, ten have access to the sea and are engaged, to some degree, in fishing activities. However, the largest and main fish canning areas are considered to be País Vasco (Basque Country) and Galicia (refer to Figure 3.3). Figure 3.3 Spain’s autonomous communities

Source (of the map): URL: http://www.lugaresdivinos.com/map.htm (99.07.29).

page 41

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Fish canneries in Spain produce between 230,000 and 240,000 metric tons, of which more than one third are canned tuna, followed by sardines, and other species such as mackerel, mussels, cephalopods, etc. Although not very important in terms of volume, anchovies are also among the highest quality semi-preserved fish products also produced in Spain. Estimates made by the Spanish magazine Alimarket41 indicate that there are one hundred seventy-four companies within the canning sector, including micro enterprises to the larger companies. In the Basque Country, there are forty-six canneries, of which twenty-six process tuna fish and anchovies (these processed 20,000 metric tons of tuna and 2,000 of anchovies42 in 1998). On the other hand, according to the Spanish National Fish Canneries Association (ANFACO), in Galicia there are forty-three canneries processing tuna and anchovies43. All of these canning companies can be subdivided in two groups: the artisan companies with high quality products (usually family-owned enterprises) and larger companies which produce “less specialized products of generally good quality but without any special connotation”44. Today, this segment of larger companies is experiencing an acute concentration process, whereby the first five groups in the sector account for half of the total Spanish production. These groups, as well as others, can be seen in Table 3.3 with their production volumes in monetary value. Table 3.3 Major canning groups in Spain and their production (millions of pesetas) Company 1. Luis Calvo Sanz S.A. 2. Conservas Garavilla S.A. 3. Jesus Alonso S.A. 4. Bernardo Alfageme S.A. 5. Escuris S.A. 6. Hijos de Carlo Albo S.A. 7. Conservas Friscos S.A. 8. Conservas del Noroeste S.A. 9. Pita Hermanos S.A. 10. Conservas Antonio Alonso S.A. 11. Thenaise-Provote S.A.

1996 20,600 19,500 16,425 11,429 6,400 7,206 7,093 4,911 3,617 3,380 3,290

1997 22,300 22,000 18,000 13,047 9,000 7,500 7,100 5,040 4,300 4,025 3,950

Market Brand Calvo Isabel Rianxeira Miau Escurís Albo Friscos Calvo de Peñas Cuca Palacio de Oriente Grands Hotels

Source: Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99.

41

Alimarket. URL: http://www.alimarket.es (99.07.29). IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries) 1999 (p. 7). 43 Personal interview to Mr. Gonzálo Taboada from ANFACO (99.06.24). 44 Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99. 42

page 42

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

These large groups are increasing their production rapidly and consequently their market share. Furthermore, the canning sector in Spain seems to have “woken up after a long nap”45 and now has an important investment portfolio estimated to be worth approximately 25,000 million pesetas. Much of this investment is due to the need to achieve standardization as per EU Directives.

3.6 Fish canning in Portugal Portugal is also another country with a long fishing history. The industry in Portugal can be characterized as one with a “high adaptation capacity, which has allowed it to maintain an oscillating production close to fifty thousand tons, with a decreasing amplitude variation”46. Graph 3.13 presents the detail of the canning production for the most important products. The importance of sardines with respect to other canned fish product can be seen in this Graph.

Graph 3.13 Canning production in Portugal 60 Total 50 1000 Metric Tons

Sardines 40 Tuna

30 20

Others

10 Semicanned products

0 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

The sector’s ability to adapt is also reflected in the production composition and the product dynamic, where a slow decrease in the sardine processing took place between 1988-1998, as well as a slight increase in tuna processing (refer to Graph 3.14).

45

Langreo, Alicia. Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products. Magazine Distribución y Consumo. Year 9, Number 43. Dec. 98 - Jan. 99. 46 Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

page 43

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 3.14 Composition of canning production in Portugal 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1988

1989

Sardine

1990

1991

Tuna

1992

1993

Mackerel

1994

1995

Semi-preserved

1996

1997

1998

Others

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

Likewise Spain (and France), and Portugal has faced a reduction in the number of companies canning fish. In 1968 there were one hundred and seventy seven companies operating, ninety-six in 1980, fifty-two in 1990 and forty in 1996. Simultaneously, there has also been reorganization in the sector, which has contributed to this downsizing, also giving place to more efficient and specialized plants. Consequently, the production volumes increased in the existing companies. Between 1986 and 1996, the production quota of the top four and eight companies went from 19% and 34% to 42% and 63% respectively. This relationship can be seen in Table 3.4. Along with this high concentration, the “ranking” of these companies has also been maintained to a large extent (refer to Table 3.5). Table 3.4 Horizontal concentration in major canning groups Sardines Top 4 Top 8 Tuna Top 4 Top 8 Mackerel Top 4 Top 8 Semipreserved Top 4 Top 8

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

54% 80%

52% 80%

61% 84%

58% 81%

57% 83%

86% 97%

84% 96%

87% 97%

83% 98%

78% 98%

69% 88%

65% 88%

65% 86%

66% 90%

64% 85%

90% 100%

87% 100%

93% 100%

100% 100%

100% 100%

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. “Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe”. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

page 44

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 3.5 Ranking of company groups in Portugal

Company Group Gr. COFACO* Idal A.Lucas A and H Serrano Ramírez Gr. Conserveira** Gr. Vasco de Gama*** EPA Idamar

Sardines 96 97 1 1 2 2 5 4 3 5 6 3 4 8 8 7 -

98 1 2 4 6 5 7 8 -

Tuna 96 97 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 4 10 3 3 7 6 -

98 1 2 3 5 4 6 -

Mackerel 96 97 2 2 6 10 10 5 3 1 1 3 4 7 6

98 2 9 3 1 5 4

* Constituted by: Cofaco, Comalpe, Cofisa, Copefa, Comada and J.A. Pachecho. ** Constituted by: Conserveira Portuguesa, Prado, Portugal Norte e Briosa. *** Constituted by: Vasco de Gama, Imperconser, Pátria e Socoa.

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. “Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe”. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

As a consequence of the companies shifting, there have also been “geographical” distributions of the processing plants or regions in Portugal (refer to Graph 3.15 and Figure 3.4). Graph 3.15 Geographic distribution of sardine processing in Portugal 100%

80% VRS Antonio Olhao Portimao/Lagos

60%

Lisboa/Setubal Peniche Aveiro/Figueira da Foz

40%

Matosinhos Povoa de Varzim 20%

0% 1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

page 45

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 3.4 Map of Portugal

Source (of map): URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/dest/eur/Graphics/map-por.htm (99.07.29)

In the case of the most important Portuguese canned product, that is, sardines, the apparent consumption and amounts imported and exported are presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 Imports, exports, and apparent consumption of sardines in Portugal Values (thousands of tons) Sales fish market (lota) Fresh imports Frozen imports Fresh exports Frozen exports Apparent consumption Destined for canning %

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

86.9 3.54 0.42 8.25 4.13 78.4 47.9%

87.7 7.1 0.1 6.1 5.2 83.6 44.4%

94.5 6.9 0.5 7.3 4.8 89.9 48.6%

90.4 2.5 0.6 2.6 3.4 87.5 52.6%

83.3 1.9 5.7 2.7 6.5 81.6 51.2%

Source: Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

page 46

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Some of the conclusions mentioned in the main study47 used for this sector description of the Portuguese industry, indicate that there is: • • • • • • •

47

An apparent stability of the fish canning production (≈ 50,000 metric tons) A high industrial concentration, when considering company groups A high geographical concentration of the production High stability in the companies’ ranking Production hyper-specialization in tuna and sardines Production hyper-specialization in exporting markets (mainly Germany, United Kingdom, France and United States) Significant decrease of Portuguese imported products in key markets (e.g., Italy)

Ferreira, Joao et al. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe. Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha”. Matosinhos, Portugal. Organized by GAPIC in March 1999.

page 47

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

CHAPTER 4 Wf=37

CH. 9

page 48

4. THE CANNING PROCESS As described in section 1.2, the objective of this research is to develop EPIs for the fish canning industry, in particular for tuna fish and sardine canning plants in Spain and Portugal. Therefore, sections 4.1 and 4.2 provide a description of the canning process as it is done in these countries. The descriptions have been based on five main sources of information: (a) a study prepared by the Basque Country Public Society of Environmental Management (IHOBE); (b) a technical manual on fish canning prepared by FAO; (c) personal notes made from the visits to canneries in Spain and Portugal; (d) a book on fish processing technology48; and (e) a report on Spanish canneries prepared by the Danish consulting firm Matcon49.

4.1 Tuna fish canning process The tuna fish canning process can be divided into twelve different phases, covering the reception of the tuna until final storage of the cans. Next, a description for each phase is presented. Also, a section on fish handling prior to reception in the processing plant (section 4.1.1) and a process flow diagram have been included (section 4.1.14). 4.1.1 Fish handling previous to reception in the processing plant The main raw material required in the process is the tuna itself. There are seven types of tuna in the genus Thunnus: T. thynnus (bluefin), T. alalunga (albacore), T. albacores (yellowfin), T. accoyii (southern bluefin), T. obesus (bigeye), T. atlanticus (blackfin) and T. tonggol (longtail). Each one provides a different quality level for the final canned product. There are also tuna-like species such as the bonito with three species (Scombridae sarda, Scombridae orientalis, Scombridae chilensis) and the skipjack with two main species (Katsuwonus pelamis and Euthynnus pelamis). Some other species may be included within the term tuna. In the USA for example, regulations allow more than twenty related species to be labeled and sold as “tuna”50. However, the ones mentioned above are considered the most common. The canneries usually purchase the frozen tuna caught in the tropical zones of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, caught by purse seines in big factory vessels. However, in some cases, fresh fish can also be purchased during certain periods of the year (e.g., Spanish canneries purchase Thunnus alalunga caught in the Cantabrian sea from July-September). The quality of the fish directly influences the final characteristics of the product. For this reason, proper handling of the fish onboard the vessel until its delivery to the plant is the key. This will not only affect the final product’s quality, but also the raw material’s performance during the process, and consequently, the environmental aspects generated. The best recommendation in a perishable product such as fish is to 48

Hall, G.M et al. Fish processing technology. 1997. Blackie Academic and Professional editorial. Matcon is a daughter company of the COWI Consult firm in Denmark (URL: http://www.cowi.dk). 50 URL: Labspec company website http://www.labspec.co.za/l_fish.htm (08.03.99) 49

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

maintain the “cold chain”. In this way, the possibilities for spoilage microorganisms to reproduce are minimized. During the freezing and storage period, unsaturated fatty acids in the fish meat are oxidized, which causes the tuna to become rancid. The rancidity can be removed later by cooking. This is why the temperature at which the fish is kept is essential, all the way from its capture to the final processing in the plant. When the fish are fresh, they are stored on board the vessels in refrigerated cabins, placed in containers in an ordered way surrounded by ice. When the fish are frozen, they have usually been immersed and frozen in the ships in containers filled with brine51. The adequate temperature that will be needed until the fish is processed will depend on the freezing system employed. Frozen fish should be kept at a temperature less than -18°C, except for the whole fish which are frozen in brine (such as the tuna) where the maximum tolerated temperature can be -9°C. Upon arrival to the docks, a classification of each fish by size/weight is made; they are placed in bins and a quality control and weighing are performed and then ice is added. They are stored in chambers and finally sold. The fish are kept at a temperature of 0°C and during transport to the processing plant, this temperature should be maintained (however, a maximum increase of 3°C is sometimes permitted). 4.1.2 Fish reception and initial storage Once the fish are brought to the processing plant, a quality control inspection is performed. It can be either a visual evaluation or a more detailed test in which analytical techniques are applied. The tuna that is not going to be processed immediately is stored in freezing storage rooms. 4.1.3 Thawing The fish that are going to be processed are thawed until they reach an optimum temperature for cutting. This temperature is usually set by each company, but it is generally kept below 0°C. In this way, the fish will present an adequate consistency, facilitating the cut and reducing the probabilities of fish meat losses during this stage. Also, a quality control inspection by sensorial methods (visual inspection and odor analysis). The thawing is considered very important in the maintenance of the fish quality. The thawing system should avoid52: (a) localized overheating of the fish; (b) excessive drip losses; (c) dehydration and (d) bacterial growth. When the fish are thawed in air, the temperature should not be allowed to rise above 20°C. Thawing in water is another simple alternative but it may cause the fish to lose quality in terms of flavor or appearance. 51

Salt water, particularly a highly concentrated water solution of common salt (sodium chloride). Encyclopedia Britannica Online, term brine URL: http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=16707andsctn=1 (99.08.08). 52 Hall, G.M et al. Fish processing technology. 1997. Blackie Academic and Professional editorial (116).

page 50

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Thawing can also be done in airtight chambers where the fish are loaded using trolleys. A vacuum is drawn and water in a tray on the base is heated generating steam. The vapor condenses on the fish’s cold surface where the latent heat of vaporization is absorbed by the fish. Water usage is low, and the defrosting rate is similar to forced-circulation air defrosters. Thawing can also be done by the use of microwave, dielectric or electrical resistance heating. Microwave heating is considered expensive, and as the energy is absorbed at the surface, localized overheating could occur and a risk of cooking the fish encountered. Dielectric thawing is more expensive but takes only 20% of the time for air or vacuum thawing. Electrical resistance thawing requires the fish be taken to a temperature of approximately about -10°C by conventional means (e.g., water immersion). Above this temperature, the fish is turned into an electrical conductor by placing it between two metal plates, forming the electrical contacts, and applying an alternating current at low voltage. The electrical frequency will cause dipoles in the water to oscillate and the frictional energy produced will cause the fish to warm. The electrical methods are considered expensive and require good control procedures, yet if correctly applied, they can result in good quality thawed fish. In Spain, the thawing is done by air exposure in combination with occasional hosing or a water spray system. The other thawing methods are not used. 4.1.4 Cutting, eviscerating There are three forms in which the cutting can be performed, and the selection of the method depends on the size and conservation state of the fish (fresh or frozen), as well as the type of can which will be packed (large or small cans). Therefore, the tuna can be cut in slices, loins (refer to Figure 4.1) or left untouched (i.e., it is cooked whole). Figure 4.1 Types of tuna fish cutting performed53

C u t in s lic e s

C u t in lo in s

53

IHOBE. “Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado” (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

page 51

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Cutting in slices is used for medium sized tuna, and when the tuna is going to be packed in round shaped cans. The abdominal part may be separated too and processed as a higher quality product. As can be seen in Figure 4.1, the head and tail are removed while the rest is sliced and the abdomen separated. Cutting in loins is employed for the larger tuna mainly. Once the head and tail are removed, the trunk is cut lengthwise in two or four sections (the loins). When the tuna is small (usually weighing less than 5 kg) it is not cut. The cutting is performed using band saws for the biggest tuna or buzz saws for the medium sized ones, which are supplied with water. An important consideration when performing the cut is the temperature of the fish. If the temperature is too low then the cutting could generate a lot of “saw dust” as the cutting blades encounter more friction with the fish. If the temperature is too high, then a lot of fish meat could be wasted. Therefore, an ideal temperature must be set for this operation. Usually, the companies in Spain cut between -7°C and -4°C. 4.1.5 Meat cleaning and placing in metal baskets Once the fish has been cut, it is cleaned in water. The main objective is to (a) remove the blood from the meat’s surface, (b) help avoid the meat’s blackening during cooking, (c) remove smaller particles which could accumulate in the brine solution used for the next step. The fish can either be immersed in a water tank or tub, placed in baskets and then hosed or passed through a washing tunnel with spraying water. After the tuna is cleaned, it is placed in metal baskets (if it hasn’t been already) and is set for the next step. 4.1.6 Meat cooking54 Cooking consists of submitting the fish to a thermal treatment at atmospheric pressure in order to: eliminate part of the water in the meat, so that it is not liberated inside the can during the sterilization; eliminate part of the oils/grease, which may provide strong flavors to the final product; coagulate the fish proteins, facilitating the later removal of the skin, spine; and provide certain characteristics to the product such as color, texture and flavor. The cooking is most commonly done in steel tanks where the metal baskets containing the tuna are placed. These tanks are filled with a brine solution, which is pumped into the tanks directly. The tanks have coils underneath where saturated steam is passed and heat is transferred to the brine solution, which then cooks the tuna. The salt content of the brine solution that is used for the cooking will depend on the characteristics of the fish to be processed, as well as the preferences of the final consumers. Usually, more brine is required when cooking fresh tuna in comparison to

54

The FAO Manual refers to this stage as pre-cooking instead of cooking.

page 52

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

the frozen tuna, as the latter is usually frozen in brine and thus already has a high salt content. The cooking itself is performed at an approximate temperature of 100°C (although, this temperature will depend on the salt content of the brine—the higher the salt content the less temperature required). The cooking time is established according to the type of tuna, but it could vary from one company to another. The period of time could go from forty-five to sixty minutes for sliced tuna meat up to three to four hours for a whole fish that has not been cut. During this process, the brine concentration, temperature and cooking time are carefully monitored by most companies. However, these three parameters are not always well documented in the companies, and variations could occur from one batch to another (especially time). Another cooking method besides the cooking tanks with brine solution—which is the most common in Spain—is the use of cookers similar to autoclaves, where the cooking is done with steam under pressure at 106°C55. The cooling is done in a partial vacuum and with air. As salt is not added to the tuna, it must be added later. This type of system can reduce the cooking time, and improve fish meat yields. However, the investments can be high (according to IHOBE study, the cost of one of these units could be over 70,000 euros, annual running costs of 6,500 euros and annual savings in reduced cooking brine of 3,750 euros). 4.1.7 Cleaning and cooling After cooking, the meat is cleaned to remove oil and solids in suspension from the brine solution and then cooled. The cleaning also helps to avoid excessive drying of the upper meat layer which can produce a dark crust and it allows the fish meat to reach an adequate temperature for the following process step in which the workers directly touch the fish meat. Also, after cooling, the flesh becomes more firm, which makes the subsequent cleaning operations easier. The tuna is cooled either by exposing it to air in the metal baskets, water hosing, immersion in water tanks or placing the metal baskets with the tuna meat inside cooling chambers. If the fish is to be processed on the same day, it is stored in refrigerated chambers. 4.1.8 Peeling and packing Once the tuna has been cooled, it is unloaded from the metal baskets and placed in smaller plastic containers, which are then set on merry-go-round cleaning tables, which have circulating belts where the plastic containers are continuously moved. This process step is usually very labor intensive, and many workers are placed around these cleaning tables. Each worker, takes the cooled tuna from the basket and then removes, with a knife, the skin, bones and other bad meat (e.g., damaged parts). Next to each worker’s station or place, there is usually a container where this rejected meat is collected and taken later for further processing (in order to produce fish meal or fish oil). 55

This cooking method was not observed during the visit to Spanish companies, neither was it described in the Danish study which also included a visit to eight processing plants.

page 53

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Afterwards, the tuna meat that has been separated is ready to be packed in cans. The packing operation is performed either in two forms: manually or automatically in can packing machines. Usually, the large sized cans and the fish’s abdominal section are packed manually by the workers in the merry-go-round tables, where the can’s weight is also adjusted. When small cans are being produced, the tuna meat is taken to the packing machines where tuna is firstly molded into the correct shape and then fed into the machine. Then a conveyor system feeds the empty cans to the machine and the tuna is packed in the can automatically. The leftover tuna chunks and flakes are collected carefully for later packing as lower quality product. There are machines available for packing (or filling) chunk and grated tuna, and they operate at speeds between 80 and 350 cans per minute. There are many manufacturers with multiple operating procedures. The FAO manual describes one in which the fish is discharged into filler bowls from where it is transferred into a series of piston pockets positioned around the machine’s circumference, and “as the filling machine completes a revolution, the fish is compressed into a cylindrically shaped slug in the pocket, in which form it is pushed out the bottom of the piston and then trimmed to the correct length so that the weight of the pack in each can is controlled”56. There are many options available for packing fishery products (e.g., metal, glass, plastic laminates or composites of plastic and metal laminates). However, the predominant type for tuna are metal cans, specifically the tinplate cans which may consists of two or three pieces. Table 4.1 presents some characteristics for these and aluminum cans used in tuna and also sardine packing. Table 4.1 Characteristics of cans used in the tuna/sardine packing Type of Can

Material

Capacity ml

Length mm

Width mm

Height mm

Product

2 piece ¼ Dingley

Aluminum or Tin plate Aluminum or Tin plate Tin plate Tin plate Tin plate Tin plate Tin plate

112

105

76

21

sardines

125

105

60

29

106 212 400 4,250 8,500

-

66 84 99 218 218

40 46 60 123 245

sardines, small tuna tuna tuna tuna tuna tuna

2 piece ¼ Club 3 piece round 3 piece round 3 piece round 3 piece round 3 piece round

Net weight grams 106

Drained weight grams 85

125

95

100 200 377 4,000 8,000

78 155 292 3,100 6,200

Note: The width refers to the diameter of the cans. Source: FAO. Manual on Fish Canning. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 285. 1988.

56

FAO. Manual on Fish Canning. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 285. 1988.

page 54

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

4.1.9 Adding the filling media and can seaming Once the tuna packing has been performed, the cans containing the tuna are placed in automatic lines where the filling media are added and the weight checked. These media are usually olive oil, vegetable oil, brine or marinade. In the case of brine and marinade, they are usually prepared separately. Small and medium sized cans are closed automatically in can seaming machines. This operation can generate some filling media spills/splashes, which, in the case of oil, is usually recovered. However, this recovered oil can get dirty during the seaming operation (paint residues falling off, rust from the sealer), so it is not always possible to reuse. The large cans are also set on the automatic filling media line and then are later seamed. An airtight seal has to be achieved between the lid and the rim of the can since the anaerobic conditions inside the can are intended to prevent the growth of oxygenrequiring microorganisms. In addition, many of the spores of anaerobic microorganisms are less resistant to heat and are easily destroyed during the thermal treatment57. Failure in this process phase can compromise the product’s safety and shelf stability. There are many types of can seamers. The simples ones are for packing speeds of 8 to 25 cans per minute and they are usually hand operated or semi-automatic single-head equipment. Fully automatic in-line single-head steam flow machines, which operate in the range of 70-90 cans per minute, can also be found. However, as in the case of the Spanish canneries, which are operating at higher speeds, there are a variety of multiple head machines from which to choose. The most common are three, four, and six spindle machines which can operate at speeds between 200 to 600 cans per minute, depending on the can size. 4.1.10 Can washing After the seaming, cans must be washed with hot water in a washing machine or by immersion in a water tank. The washing machines may have systems for separating the oil and/or recirculation of the water for cleaning. The objective of this phase is to eliminate particles accumulated in the surface of the cans (filling media and tuna flakes) and avoid their adherence to the cans during the sterilization, worsening the product’s appearance. Finally, the cans are placed in sterilization baskets before being introduced into the cooking retorts. 4.1.11 Sterilization Sterilization can be defined as the complete destruction of all microorganisms by a suitable chemical agent or by heat, either wet steam under pressure at 120°C or more 57

"food preservation" Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120847andsctn=14 (99.08.08).

page 55

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

for at least 15 minutes, or dry heat at 160°C to 180°C for three hours58. It is the basis of the canning process and consists of submitting the canned fish to a thermal treatment for a period of time long enough to destroy or inactivate any microorganism (bacteria, molds, yeast) that could survive, independent from the temperature at which the can will be stored. The time and temperature required for the sterilization of different foods are influenced by factors such as the type of microorganisms found on the food, the size of the container, the acidity or pH of the food, and the method of heating59. In the case of tuna, the thermal process is designed to destroy the spores of the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. This microorganism can easily grow under anaerobic conditions, producing a deadly toxin that causes botulism. From an industrial point of view, a total sterilization of the canned tuna is not reached. Instead, commercial or technical sterilization is attained whereby there is a destruction or inactivation of all the microorganisms which might be able to produce alterations in the product under normal storage conditions (allowing in this way, for the organoleptic characteristics and nutritional value of the raw materials in the final product to be kept). A proper sterilization does not have a detrimental effect on the high-quality protein of the tuna. Furthermore, during the sterilization process of food products such as canned tuna, the proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are unaffected, as well as vitamins A, C, D, and B2. Moreover, in other types of canned fish, some nutritional characteristics improve (e.g., available calcium levels increase in some canned fish as their bones become soft and edible inside the can). As mentioned previously, sterilization requires heating to temperatures greater than 100°C. C. botulinum is not viable in acidic foods that have a pH less than 4.6 and these can be processed by immersion in water at temperatures just below 100°C. However, in the case of canned tuna fish, the pH is greater than 4.6 and the sterilization is performed in retorts at temperatures ranging from 115°C to 129°C. There are five main types of retorts (or autoclaves) used in the manufacture of lowacid canned foods. A brief explanation of each is provided below. 1. Batch steam retorts. This is the most common medium for heat processing canned foods to commercial sterility and use saturated steam under pressure. The greater the pressure inside the retort, the greater will be the temperature at which steam condenses on the external walls of the can. For example, the condensation temperature at a pressure of 1.5 bar is 111.4°C, 115.2 °C at 1.7 bar, 120.2 °C at 2 bar. They may be either vertical or horizontal. The horizontal one has an advantage that it can be loaded with containers on trolleys, whereas vertical retorts are mounted in wells, which can pose a hygiene hazard. However, one advantage that the vertical retort possesses is that it tends to favor a more uniform internal 58

"anti microbial agent" Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=7944andsctn=2 (99.08.08). 59 "food preservation" Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120847andsctn=15 (99.08.08).

page 56

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

steam distribution. The uniform steam distribution in horizontal retorts is favored by introducing the steam through multiorifice pipes along the length of the retort floor. 2. Batch retorts heated with water. These retorts are heated with water under pressure and they can also be vertical or horizontal and are most frequently used for processing glass containers which can not be processed in pure steam because of the risks of thermal shock breakage. They can also be used for sterilization of products packed in aluminum cans with score-line easy open ends. Water is introduced and mixed with the steam as it enters through spreaders, at the base of the retort and counterbalancing air is then needed to transmit sufficient pressure through the water to ensure that there is always a greater pressure in the retort than in the container. 3. Continuous retorts. In these retorts the containers are passed through a mechanical inlet port into a pressurized chamber containing steam where they are processed before passing through an outlet port and, depending on the make of the retort, into either another pressurized shell or an open water reservoir for cooling. 4. Hydrostatic retorts: they save factory floor space by carrying the cans along vertically ascending and descending pathways enclosed in a tower several stories high. These models are essentially continuous static retorts, and the cans are not agitated but conveyed through heating, holding and cooling limbs of the tower. The steam in a central dome is held under constant pressure; therefore, the temperature by a head of water in the outer heating and cooling limbs. The process time is controlled by the speed of the conveyor and can be adjusted for different cans sizes and products. 5. Retorts heated by a mixture of steam and air. The containers are processed under pressure in a system which relies on forced circulation (by a fan or a blower) for the continuous mixing of steam with the air. Inadequate mixing can cause the formation of cold spots, which could lead to under-processing spoilage. The batch retorts heated with saturated steam are the most frequently employed in the tuna canneries. Within the Spanish canneries, the most common format observed was the horizontal type with batch/load capacities ranging from two to six sterilization baskets. The operation of these machines is usually done with an automatic control. Detailed records of the time and temperature treatments for each lot of processed cans are kept. The thermal treatment to the cans performed in these retorts has three phases with temperature variations occur (refer to Graph 4.1):

page 57

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 4.1 Temperature variations during the product sterilization

Temperature (° C)

120 90 60 30 0 0

20

35

55

75

95

Time (minutes)

1. Preheating starts when the retort is set on, and the objective is to reach the sterilization temperature inside the unit. Either saturated steam is injected, vapor mixed with air/water or hot pulverized water at high pressure. 2. Sterilization. This phase starts when the sterilization temperature has been reached inside the retort, keeping this temperature constant during the time necessary to assure the destruction or inactivation of microbes. 3. Cooling. Once, the sterilization takes place, the temperature is reduced inside the retort by water spraying or water baths. The cans are cooled to approximately 38°C. In order to measure the lethal effect from the thermal treatment on the microorganisms there is a value called Fo. It is defined as the necessary treating time (t) in order to reach in a defined temperature (T) the same lethal effect obtained at 121.1°C in one minute, considering it as a reference the latest heating point of the product during the thermal treatment. This Fo value depends on the microorganism considered, which in this case is C. Botulinum with an Fo value of 2.52. According to the types of products being treated, different Fo values must be reached, and to avoid risks, these values are increased by one or two units. The Fo values are usually estimated according to a formula with different time/temperature combinations assessed by each company. Table 4.2 presents these values for certain types of products (applied in canneries in Spain). On the other hand, Table 4.3 presents typical retorting conditions for tuna processed at 115.6°C and 121.1°C in a variety of can sizes. Table 4.2 Sterilization Fo values for different final product contents Filling media Oil, Brine Oil, Brine Water, Sauce Water, Sauce

Type of canning Whole fish Flakes, chunks Whole fish Flakes, chunks

pH ≥ 5.2 Fo ≥ 3 Fo ≥ 5 Fo ≥ 5 Fo ≥ 7

pH 4.5 – 5.2 Fo ≥ 5 Fo ≥ 3 Fo ≥ 3 Fo ≥ 5

page 58

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 4.3 Retorting conditions for tuna processed at 115.6°C and 121.1°C Can Diameter (mm) 66 84 99 154

Dimensions Height (mm) 40 46.5 68.5 118.5

Retorting time (min) 115.6°C 121.1°C 65 40 75 55 100 85 230 190

4.1.12 Final operation Once the sterilization has been performed, a final cleaning of the cans is done. For this operation, washing tunnels are employed and hot water and detergents are used, then the rinsing and drying are performed. These tunnels can have a recirculating system for water used during the first two phases. The final drying can also be done by simply leaving the cans to dry and making use of their waste heat. Small cans are put in cases before their placement in the cardboard boxes, while the large cans are placed directly in the boxes. Then they are labeled, palletized and covered with a retractile plastic. The automation degree of this operation depends on the production level in each plant. 4.1.13 Final storage The pallets with the finished product are placed in a warehouse, where they are kept at an ambient temperature, away from excessive temperature and humidity, in order to avoid the risk of the can’s alteration or the quality of the final product. The expiration date of the cans is established as five years, and the storage time in the warehouse depends on each producer and the final client. During storage, the product starts to settle, and the fish meat starts absorbing the filling media and acquiring it’s own organoleptic properties. Also during this period, a visual inspection of the cans is done in order to see if they start to convex, which would be a signal of incorrect sterilization, and thus to avoid bad quality products reaching the customers and final consumers. 4.1.14 Process flow diagram Figure 4.2 on the following pages presents a summarized process flow diagram. The process steps are presented in a graphic form (as per standards set by the International Labor Organization).

page 59

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 4.2 Process flow diagram for tuna canning Figure 4.2 Initial inspection

Process Processdiagram diagram Tuna TunaFish Fish Delay or temporary storage

No

Is it processed immediately ?

Yes

Combined operation and inspection Transportation Inspection

Freezing & storage

Operation Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Thawing

No

Is the fish large ?

Yes

Cutting & Eviscerating

Cleaning & Basket placing

1

page 60

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 4.2

1

Process Processdiagram diagram Tuna Fish Tuna Fish Delay or temporary storage Combined operation and inspection

Cooking

Transportation Inspection Operation

Cooling & cleaning

Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Yes

Is the fish going to be peeled that day?

No

Cooling chamber

Peeling

Yes

Are large cans packed?

Manual Packing

No

Automatic Packing

2

page 61

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

2

Filling media addition & seaming

Figure 4.2 Process Processdiagram diagram Tuna TunaFish Fish Delay or temporary storage Combined operation and inspection

Can washing

Transportation Inspection Operation

Cans in retort

Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Sterilization

Final cleaning, drying, labelling

Final inspection

Final storage

4.2 Sardine canning process Sardines can be canned usually using two different methods: raw pack method (also known as the Traditional Mediterranean method) and another in which a hot smoking step is incorporated rather than pre-cooking in the can (the Norwegian method). Within the raw pack method, the sequence following the initial reception and storage of fish varies from one processing plant to another. Usually, the sequence is thawing, brining, grading, heading/eviscerating and canning. Yet, it can also be thawing, heading/eviscerating, brining and canning.

page 62

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Being the raw pack method the one used in Portugal, it will be described next. Also, as some of the descriptions already made in the tuna fish processing section fit the sardine processing, only a reference will be made to them whenever these process phases coincide. 4.2.1 Fish handling previous to reception in the plant The main raw material required in the process are sardines, which belong to one of the three genera Sardina, Sardinops, or Sardinella. These fish are mainly caught by purse seiners60. After being caught, they are submerged in brine until they are transported to shore. The rest of fish handling considerations explained in section 4.1.1 are applicable to sardines. However, it is important to indicate that the term sardine can also include the common herring (Clupea harengus) and other small herrings or herring-like fishes when canned in oil61. In the United States for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)62 allows the term sardines to be used in the labeling of the canned products prepared from small-sized clupeid fish. This means that common herring, European pilchards (Sardina pilchardus) and brisling or sprat (Sprattus sprattus) when packed in small-size cans can be labeled as sardines. Also, the terms "brisling sardines" and "sild sardines" can be used for labeling small brisling and herring (but not large herrings). 4.2.2 Fish reception and Initial storage The description of this phase is the same for tuna as for sardines (refer to section 4.1.2). However, a variation is presented when some plants perform a glazing of the sardines, which simply consists of taking the frozen sardines and spraying them with water. Like in the case of tuna, the sardines are frozen in a brine solution onboard vessels. 4.2.3 Thawing The description of this stage is the same for the sardines as for the tuna (refer to section 4.1.3).

60

Boats which employ a catching apparatus consisting of an encircling net.

61

"Fish processing" Encyclopedia Britannica Online. URL: http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120855andsctn=9> (99.07.29). 62 US Food and Drug Administration: URL: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/smallbusiness/blubook.htm#cndfish.html (99.08.01).

page 63

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Brining After thawing, the sardines are usually brined (although, as mentioned before, another process sequence can take place). During the brining, the sardines can be submerged in a saturated solution for up to fifteen to twenty minutes (depending on the size and fat content). If the other process sequence is used “brining after the nobbing”, the brining is performed in batches or continuously in screw conveyors to a final salt content between 1 and 2%. 4.2.4 Grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning There is a variation in the way this process is done between tuna and sardines. This is justified by the fact that sardines on average are much smaller than tuna. Although, all these phases can be done entirely manually (e.g., head and tails cut manually with scissors and viscera pulled) nowadays many plants employ automatic machines instead. In the grading machines or graders, fish fed from a conveyor go onto a sorting table and start to move between the dividers on the board, falling into sorting compartments according to size. These compartments are emptied through hatches, completing the sorting process. In the heading/eviscerating units, the fish are placed in molded pockets (according to the pack style) in which they are conveyed in can lots under rotating blades for the removal of the head and fins. The fish bodies are eviscerated by a vacuum suction process. The cuts are performed to standard lengths or into cross out pieces so that a pack uniformity can be reached. These machines can automatically pack the fish into cans; however, manual canning is also practiced. 4.2.5 Washing In case the heading/eviscerating is done manually, the headed and gutted sardines are washed to remove small solid particles before they are placed in the cans and sent to the continuous cooker. Yet, as explained in the previous section, this phase can be performed automatically in the machines. 4.2.6 Meat cooking Once packed in cans, the next step consists of the meat cooking. Here, the open cans are fed into automatic continuous steam cookers. The first stage is a steamer operating at approximately 95°C, through which the cans pass while being held inverted on perforated conveyors to allow simultaneous entry of the steam and drainage of the condensate and oil exuded from the flesh. Some precookers can have the cans steamed in an upright position but inverted and drained before passing to the second stage. The final phase of the precooking is a drying process taking place at approximately 130°C.

page 64

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

4.2.7 Cooling/filling media addition/can seaming The cans with the cooked fish pass to a liquid filling station where one of either brine, water, oil, (tomato63) sauce or marinade are added manually or automatically. For those products, which have not been brined, salt is added in solid form prior to the addition of the liquid medium or it is blended with the liquid. Usually, the filling media is pumped continuously and there is a recovery of the spilled media. The cans are then transferred to can sealing machines where the closing is done automatically. 4.2.8 Can washing Coming from the can seaming machines, the cans usually have oil or sauce remnants which have to be removed from the cans prior to the sterilisation. Thus, they are set on conveyor belts that pass through washing tunnels that use (chlorinated) water, steam and detergent. In some cases, a falling tank can be placed at the end of the washing station where the cans are immersed in chlorinated water. 4.2.9 Sterilisation The description of this stage is the same as in the tuna (refer to section 4.1.11). 4.2.10 Final operations The description of this stage is the same as in the tuna (refer to section 4.1.12). 4.2.11 Final storage The description of this stage is the same as in tuna (refer to section 4.1.13). 4.2.12 Process flow diagram Figure 4.3 presents a summarized process flow diagram.

63

In the case of Portuguese canned sardines, the preferred media is tomato sauce.

page 65

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 4.3 Process flow diagram for sardine canning Figure 4.3 Initial inspection

No

Process Processdiagram diagram Sardines Sardines Yes

Is it processed immediately ?

Delay or temporary storage Combined operation and inspection Transportation

Freezing & storage

Inspection Operation Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Glazing

Thawing

Brining

No

Is the process automatic ?

Yes

Grading Grading, heading, eviscerating,washing

Heading, eviscerating Washing

1

page 66

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

1

Placing in cans

Figure 4.3 Process Processdiagram diagram Sardines Sardines Delay or temporary storage Combined operation and inspection

Cooking

Transportation Inspection

Cooling, media filling, seaming

Operation Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Can washing

Cans in retort

Sterilization

Final cleaning, drying, labelling

Final inspection

Final storage

page 67

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

4.3 Auxiliary process stages Apart from the normal process phases for the tuna fish or sardine processing, there are other common auxiliary process stages, such as: cleaning and washing of equipment and facilities, brine preparation, filling media preparation, water chlorinating, steam from the boiler and machine/equipment maintenance. Some additional operations may also be done, such as filling media recovery. A brief explanation of these stages is presented next. Unless otherwise indicated, the description of the auxiliary process stage covers both tuna fish and sardines. 4.3.1 Cleaning and washing of equipment and facilities Because canned fish is a product destined for the retail market for human consumption, special care is taken to ensure that the most suitable conditions are present in the processing facilities for the preparation of this product. In this sense, a typical fish processing plant should perform intensive cleanings in all the production areas and equipment daily. Besides this, floors and equipment should also be rinsed frequently during the production. Generally speaking, requirements on cleaning will vary from one place to another. However, a study performed by the Nordic Council of Ministers64 indicates some general principles that should be considered in each plant: 1. Working rooms onboard and ashore which are used for storage or processing of fish and fish products must be clean and well maintained. 2. All areas and equipment that have been in contact with the fish should be cleaned regularly and according to need. Disinfecting should be performed according to need. 3. The need for cleaning and disinfecting is laid down in the program for the factory’s own control system. 4. Belt conveyors, filleting machines and tables are rinsed continuously with water and disinfected regularly. 5. Cleaning equipment for use in production and packing rooms should be made of plastics. Cleaning equipment and chemicals should be locked away. Only disposable cloths should be used. If nondisposable cloths are used, they must be boiled once daily. After use, brushes and brooms must be cleaned, disinfected and stored in a suitable place/room. Cleaning includes an initial hosing of the area, which usually consumes a large amount of water. Prior to this, a collection of solid particles can be done by scraping or sweeping. After hosing, detergents are applied. In the Spanish and Portuguese industry, normal alkaline detergents and sodium hydroxide are used. The spreading of detergents neutralizes fatty acids, decreases surface tension of the water and loosens dirt, fat, oil, etc. After applying the detergents, washing and scrubbing follow and then hosing to remove the soap and fish particles. Once this has been performed, disinfectants can be used to remove bacteria from the cleaning process. Rooms and equipment are usually cleaned before disinfecting and the areas are left to ventilate. 64

Nordic Council of Ministers. Best Available Technology in the Fishing industry. 1997

page 68

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

4.3.2 Brine preparation Brine constitutes an important raw material during the canning of fish. As stated before, it is used in different stages including the cooking of the tuna fish meat, for sardine glazing and brining, as a filling media, etc. Most of the companies prepare the brine in-house and its production is very simple. To prepare it, salt is simply added to tanks filled with water, whereby the salt concentration of the brine solution is adjusted to the specific needs of the product being processed. 4.3.3 Filling media preparation As already mentioned, different filling media can be employed whereby the most common are brine, water, marinade, olive oil, tomato sauce or vegetable oil. Of all these, there are two which require special preparation in the canneries and usually are done according to “secret” formulae which distinguish one company from another. In the case of the tomato sauce, minced tomato is used as the main raw material. This tomato is mixed with other ingredients selected according to customer requirements (e.g., brine, olive oil, water). In the case of the marinade, different vegetables are cooked (e.g., peas, carrots) and later other ingredients such as oil and/or vinegar are added. 4.3.4 Water chlorinating When chlorine or chlorine compounds are added to drinking water the result is water chlorination. Chlorine compounds may be applied in liquid and solid forms, for example, liquid sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or calcium hypochlorite (CaOCl) in tablet or granular form. In the case of the canneries, chlorination is performed in order to clean the cans after they have been sterilized. The water is chlorinated by diluting NaOCl in water. In this way, pathogenic bacteria that could persist on the can’s surface are killed. 4.3.5 Filling media recovery Although, this auxiliary phase is not encountered in common literature explaining fish canning operations, it is commonly practiced, particularly in Spain. The process consists of the olive/vegetable oil used as filling media for the cans being recovered, centrifuged, filtered and reused. Figure 4.4 (next page) presents the sequence of this auxiliary process in the overall sequence of the canning process. 4.3.6 Boiler house The main energy source used during the cooking and sterilization phases is saturated steam, which is normally produced in a boiler house. There are different types of fuel sources which could be employed, being “fuel-oil” the type normally used in the canneries in Spain and Portugal. Some canneries have started shifting to natural gas,

page 69

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

but it is still not a common practice as gas distribution lines are not close to all of the processing facilities. Figure 4.4 Recovery of oil Figure 4.4 Oil OilRecovery Recovery Delay or temporary storage Combined operation and inspection Transportation Inspection Operation Decision Permanent or controlled storage

Filtering

Cooking

Centrifuging Cooling, media filling, seaming

Oil recovery

Can washing

4.3.7 Tools and equipment maintenance Various types of tools are employed in the fish canning process. They include: cutting saws, pumps, media fillers, graders, nobbing equipment, etc. Each one requires continuous preventive/corrective maintenance, and as result, components and parts are replaced as well as lubricating oils.

4.4 Product safety and HACCP Fish canning plants have a responsibility to provide consumers with safe wholesome and quality food. In this sense, safety can not be seen as an option, but an as essential and integral part of the planning, preparation and production of food products. Consequently, during the recent years many efforts at international level (e.g., Canada, USA) have been directed to incorporate this aspect into everyday practices of food processing companies.

page 70

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Within the EU, the requirement for a food processing company to implement effective safety systems has been recognized within product-specific EU legislation and also within broader horizontal directives. To this effect, the emphasis within the General Directive on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs (93/43/EEC) has “moved from prescriptive structural and hygiene issues to the development of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)”65. HACCP is a food safety management system which concentrates preventive strategies on known hazards and the risk of their occurrence at specific points in the food chain. These specific points are referred to as critical control points (CCPs). In fact, any company involved in the design and implementation of such a system should address a series of principles66: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Conduct an analysis, identify hazards and specify preventive measures Identify CCPs (a list of these in fish processing is provided in Table 4.4) Establish target levels and critical limits for specified control measures Establish a monitoring system Establish corrective action procedures Establish verification procedures Establish documentation for relevant system areas Table 4.4 Potential CCPs in fish processing

Items 1. Fish

2. Other ingredients

3. Packaging material

4. Labels

Hazards Health and safety risks

Contamination of products with unapproved, unsafe compounds Use of compounds not meeting specifications; misapplication Use of unapproved, damaged or unclean containers Information not consistent with regulations

Critical Control Points Prior to processing Unloading dock Receiving room - cool room Prior to use When received Before application or use Application area

Prior to use Packing area When received Immediately before use Prior to use Before application When received

65

Hall, G.M et al. Fish processing technology. 1997. Blackie Academic and Professional editorial. Page 224. 66 Ibid.

page 71

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 4.4 (continuation) Potential CCPs in fish processing Items 5. Cleaning agents, sanitizers, lubricants

Hazards Contamination of product with unapproved, unsafe chemicals; misapplication

6. Construction/main tenance of production facilities/processin g equipment 7. Operation and sanitation

Contamination of product due to faulty construction of plant or equipment Insufficient processing of product Contamination of product due to poor operation and sanitation practices

8. Process control

Production of product that does not comply with safety, quality, wholesomeness and /or fair trade requirements

9. Storage

Decomposition or contamination of product due to poor storage conditions Production of product that does not comply with safety, quality, wholesomeness and /or fair trade requirements Inability to trace product to customer Production of product posing health and safety risks

10. Final product

11. Recall procedures 12. Employee qualifications

Critical Control Points Prior to use When received Before application During application at application area Prior to start up/during operation Twice per operating season Weekly evaluations at CCPs Prior to start up/during operation Once per 3 months of operation Daily sanitation checks During operation Fish washing, can seaming, retort process, can cooling Cooling Freezing Fish washing and freezing During operation of cold store

Prior to packaging Online inspection Before packaging During storage During coding prior to shipping Prior to start up Retort operators

Source: Hall, G.M. Fish Processing Technology. Blackie Academic and Professional. 1997, 2nd edition.

page 72

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

FAO’s fish canning manual67 has also defined elements for an HACCP approach aiming at in-process control: a) Assessment of the hazards associated with the manufacture of the product. In the case of canned fish preserved by heat alone, the hazards are due the possible survival of, or recontamination by Clostridium botulinum or its spores. Risks of botulism arise because the environment within the can is suitable for toxin formation and it is conceivable that under some circumstances the finished product is not likely to be treated (e.g., heated before it is consumed) in a manner which can be relied upon to render harmless any toxin that may be present. b) Identification of CCPs to control the hazards. Specifically, the FAO manual includes a checklist of CCPs for manufacture of canned fishery products, which includes: raw and packaging material quality, product temperature and delay during preparation, container washing, filling temperature, filling weight (liquid to solid ratio if applicable), container size and adequacy of the hermetic seal, retorting (venting; process time, temperature and Fo value; cooling technique), plant sanitation and cooling water chlorination, line damage, transport and storage conditions. c) Implementation of standard procedures to monitor the manufacturing process at CCPs. There is a need to establish performance guidelines against which the production at each of the CCPs can be evaluated. Within these guidelines are the quality criteria which determine the process specifications. Furthermore, there should be formal procedures to record the results of all the in-process steps that are used to monitor performance and there must be provision for in line corrective actions and follow up mechanisms.

67

FAO. Manual on Fish Canning. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, pg. 285.

page 73

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

CHAPTER 5 Wf=37

CH. 9

page 74

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5. FISH CANNING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Before proceeding with the description of the specific environmental aspects and impacts that can come about when canning fish such as tuna or sardines, it is convenient to look into more detail at some definitions for terms already introduced earlier in Chapters 1 and 2 as they are used in this chapter: Environment: surroundings in which an organization operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans and their interrelation (EPE Standard). Environmental aspect: element of an organization’s activities, products or services that can interact with the environment (EPE Standard). Input-output analysis: detail of material and energy flows required for a specific process as well as detail of resulting material and energy flows.

With these definitions in mind, the following chapter presents first an input-output analysis of the tuna/sardine canning process. The analysis was performed for tuna (section 5.1.1) and sardine processing separately (section 5.1.2), followed by another analysis for other auxiliary processes which normally take place in the plants (section 5.2). After the input-output analysis, an assessment of the environmental aspects will be made (section 5.3). Finally, an analysis of the aspects and environmental legislation in Spain and Portugal is included (5.4). Different information sources have been employed in this chapter, mainly studies from: the Environmental Management Public Society of the Basque Country68 (IHOBE), United Nations Industrial Development Organization69 (UNIDO), study from Thailand70, Nordic Council of Ministers71, FAO72, ECOMAN73, United Nations’ Environmental Program (UNEP)74, Matcon-COWI Consult75 and the Danish Institute for Fisheries Technology and Aquaculture (DIFTA).

68

IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997. 69 UNIDO. Environmental Assessment and Management of the Fish Processing Industry. Sector Studies No. 28. 1986. 70 Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121. 71 Nordic Council of Ministers. Best available technology in the fishing industry. Temanord 1997: 579. 72 FAO. Manual on fish canning. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 285. 1988. 73 VTT-ECOMAN. New environmentally friendly work procedures to reduce waste emissions in the European fish transforming industry (draft report). FAIR CT 97 3016, July 1998. 74 Interview to Kristina Elvebakken (99.07.15). UNEP Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics. 75 Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

Page 75

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.1 Inputs-outputs per process phase The following input-output analysis is presented as per the process phase descriptions described in sections 4.1 and 4.2. A table format has been used to summarize the major material/energy flows per process phase. The analysis is intended to reflect the common practices in Spanish and Portuguese canneries; yet, it could still be regarded as representative for tuna/sardine canning industries in general, as the inputs and outputs included are common to most canning plants. Other specific inputs (and thus outputs) could occur, but these would most likely be reflecting the specific situation of company “X” or company “Y” and thus they have been excluded from this analysis. 5.1.1 Tuna fish Based on the process description from Chapter 4, the following general observations can be made for the most important process inputs-outputs: •

•

• •

• •

•

Water (excluding the tuna) constitutes one of the most important inputs in the process. Specifically, it is used for “thawing”, “cutting and eviscerating”, “meat cleaning and basket placing” (before cooking), “meat cleaning and cooling” (after cooking), “can washing”, “sterilization” and “final operations”. It is either treated in some phases (chlorinated water) or mixed to form a brine solution. As a consequence of this water use in each process stage, there is also an associated wastewater output. Energy in the form of electricity is another important input in many phases, including: “fish reception and storage”, “peeling and packing”, “filling media addition”, “can washing”, “sterilization”, “final operations”. Also, it is used for conveying, heating and lighting of the facilities. Energy in the form of thermal energy (steam) from the boiler house is employed mainly in two key phases: “cooking” and “sterilization”. It can also be used during washing of cans. Solid waste from the fish meat is generated mainly from three main phases: “cutting and eviscerating”, “cooking” and “meat cleaning”. During the “final operations”, rejected canned tuna meat could occur, yet it is taken back to filling station if it is in good condition. Packaging materials (e.g., cans, lids, boxes, cases, plastic film) are important inputs in two process phases: “filling media addition and can seaming” and “final operations”. Other material inputs used for product handling in different phases, include: plastic containers (during “fish reception and storage” and “peeling and packing”) and metal baskets (during “meat cleaning and basket placing” and “sterilization”). These “materials” are washed after being used; thus, they can be considered as material outputs from the process. Damaged plastic containers are either disposed of as municipal solid waste (MSW) or collected for later delivery to recycling companies. Other material inputs including refrigerants (during “meat cleaning and basket placing”), filling media/marinades for the cans and detergents. As outputs

Page 76

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

resulting from the process there are also odors (e.g., during “cooking”), liquid media spills and noise (e.g., during “sterilization” and “final operations”). Table 5.1 summarizes these major inputs-outputs. The flow of the main raw material (tuna) has been highlighted in the table.

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Table 5.1 Input-output analysis of tuna fish canning Main Inputs Process phase Main Outputs Fish reception and Tuna (fresh/frozen) ⇒ Tuna (frozen) storage Refrigerants ⇒ Used refrigerants Plastic containers ⇒ Dirty plastic containers Electricity for equipment ⇓ ⇒ Odors Thawing Tuna (frozen) ⇒ Tuna (unfrozen) Water ⇓ ⇒ Wastewater (drip losses) Tuna (unfrozen) ⇒ Tuna meat Cutting, eviscerating ⇒ Tuna heads, tails, Water viscera Electricity for equipment ⇒ Wastewater (with blood) Tuna meat ⇒ Tuna meat in metal baskets Meat cleaning and Water ⇒ Wastewater basket placing Metal baskets ⇒ Small meat particles Electricity for equipment ⇓ Tuna meat in metal baskets ⇒ Cooked tuna meat in metal baskets Cooking Brine solution ⇒ Used brine (with small meat particles, oils and greases) Steam ⇒ Odors ⇓ ⇒ Small fish particles Meat cleaning and Cooked tuna meat in metal ⇒ Cooked tuna meat in cooling baskets metal baskets Water ⇒ Wastewater (with grease and oils) Cooked tuna meat in metal ⇒ Clean tuna meat in baskets plastic containers Peeling and packing ⇒ Fish waste (skin, meat Plastic containers and bones) Electricity for operating ⇒ Noise equipment ⇒ Metal baskets ⇓ ⇒ Fish waste

Page 77

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.1 (continuation) Input-output analysis of tuna fish canning Main Inputs ⇒ Clean tuna meat in plastic containers ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Cans and lids ⇒ Filling media/marinade ⇒ Canned tuna meat ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Water ⇒ Chlorinated water ⇒ Canned tuna meat ⇒ Metal basket ⇒ Water ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Steam ⇒ Canned tuna meat in metal baskets ⇒ Water ⇒ Detergent ⇒ Labels ⇒ Boxes and plastic film

Process phase

Filling media/marinade addition and can seaming

⇓

Can washing

⇓

Sterilization

⇓

Final operations (cleaning, drying, labeling, final inspection)

⇒ Cases (for smaller cans) ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Packed cans in boxes (with/without cases)

Main Outputs ⇒ Canned tuna meat ⇒ Noise

⇒ Plastic containers ⇒ Damaged cans and lids ⇒ Spills of filling media/marinade ⇒ Canned tuna meat ⇒ Wastewater

⇒ Canned tuna meat in metal baskets ⇒ Wastewater ⇒ Noise ⇒ Metal baskets ⇒ Waste heat ⇒ Damaged cans ⇒ Packed cans in boxes (with/without cases) ⇒ Rejected packed cans ⇒ Wastewater ⇒ Damaged labels ⇒ Damaged boxes and plastic film ⇒ Damaged cases ⇒ Baskets

⇓ Final Storage

⇒ Noise ⇒ Final product to the customer

Page 78

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.1.2 Sardines Based on the process description in section 4.2, the following general observations can be made for the most important inputs-outputs: •

•

• • •

•

Water (excluding sardines) constitutes one of the most important inputs in the whole process. Specifically, it is used for “fish reception and storing”, “thawing”, “grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning”, “washing”, “sterilization”, “can washing” and “final operations”. As in the case of tuna processing, each of these phases has an associated output of wastewater. Although, during “meat cooking” (performed in continuous cookers) there is a small amount of wastewater coming from the condensation of steam used for the cooking. In sardine processing, water is also used directly in the process to form a brine solution used during “fish reception and storing” and “brining”. Energy in the form of electricity for operating equipment is another important input in many phases, including “grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and “canning”, “washing”, “meat cooking”, “filling media addition/ can seaming”, “can washing”, “sterilization and cooling” and “final operations”. Also, it is used for conveying, lighting, heating. Likewise the case of tuna, energy in the form of steam from a boiler is employed in two key phases: “cooking” and “sterilization”. It can also be employed during washing of cans. Solid waste in the form of inedible fish sardine meat is generated from the “grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning” phase. During the “final operations”, rejected canned sardines could occur. Packaging materials (e.g., cans, lids, boxes, cases, plastic film) are important inputs in different process stages, including “grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning”, “filling media addition/can seaming” and “final operations”. Other inputs in the process including refrigerants, filling media for the cans and detergents. Also, other outputs resulting from the process include odors (e.g., during “cooking”) and noise (e.g., during “final operations” and “sterilization”).

Table 5.2 summarizes these major inputs-outputs for sardine canning.

Page 79

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.2 Input-output analysis for sardine canning Main Inputs ⇒ Sardines in containers

Process phase Fish reception and initial storage

⇒ Refrigerants ⇒ Brine solution ⇒ Water (for glazing) ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Sardines (frozen) Water Sardines Brine solution Sardine

⇒ Can ⇒ Water ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Water ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Steam ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Sardine meat in open can

⇓ Thawing ⇓ Brining ⇓

Grading, heading, eviscerating, cleaning and canning ⇓

Washing (confirmed use of automatic machine) ⇓

Meat cooking ⇓ Cooling ⇓

Main Outputs ⇒ Sardines (frozen) ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Used refrigerants Used brine solution Wastewater Odors Containers Sardines Wastewater (with drip) Sardines Used brine solution Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Sardine heads, tails, viscera ⇒ Wastewater ⇒ Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Wastewater

⇒ Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Condensate ⇒ Odors ⇒ Sardine meat in open can ⇒ Condensate

Page 80

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.2 (continuation) Input - output analysis for sardine canning Main Inputs ⇒ Canned sardine meat ⇒ Filling media/marinade ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Lids ⇒ Canned sardine meat ⇒ Detergents ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Steam ⇒ Chlorinated water ⇒ Canned sardine meat ⇒ Steam

Process phase Filling media addition/can seaming

⇒ ⇓

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Detergent Labels Boxes Plastic film Cases (for smaller cans) Labeled cans in boxes (with/without cases)

⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Can washing

⇓

Sterilization and cooling

⇒ Metal baskets ⇒ Chlorinated water ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Canned sardine meat in metal baskets ⇒ Electricity for operating equipment ⇒ Water

⇒ ⇒

Main Outputs Canned sardine meat Spills filling media/marinade Damaged cans with sardine meat Damaged lids Canned sardine meat Wastewater

⇓

⇒ Canned sardine meat in metal baskets ⇒ Wastewater ⇒ Damaged canned sardine meat ⇒ Noise ⇒ Labeled cans in boxes (with/without cases) ⇒ Noise

Final operations (can cleaning, drying, labeling)

⇓ Final Storage

⇒ Wastewater ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Damaged labels Damaged boxes Damaged plastic film Damaged cases Metal baskets Final product to the customer

Page 81

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.2 Inputs-outputs per auxiliary process phases An input-output analysis was also made for auxiliary process phases described in section 4.3. Table 5.3 summarizes the analysis for each one. Among them, “cleaning and washing of equipment and facilities” is considered critical due to the amount of water consumed and the respective wastewater generated. Additional important phases are “steam generation” and “tools and equipment maintenance”. Table 5.3 Input-output analysis for auxiliary process phases Inputs ⇒ Water ⇒ Sodium hydroxide

Process phase Cleaning and washing of equipment and facilities

⇒ Alkaline detergents ⇒ Dirty baskets, containers ⇒ Electricity ⇒ Antifoaming ⇒ Steam ⇒ Water ⇒ Electricity ⇒ Dirty clothes ⇒ Sodium hydroxide ⇒ Sodium hypochlorite ⇒ Water ⇒ Salt in sacks ⇒ Brine ⇒ Chopped vegetables ⇒ Vinegar ⇒ Minced tomato ⇒ Brine ⇒ Vegetable oil ⇒ Steam ⇒ Water ⇒ Water ⇒ Sodium hypochlorite ⇒ Dirty (olive/vegetable) oil

Outputs ⇒ Wastewater ⇒ Clean floor ⇒ Clean baskets/containers ⇒ Waste bottles and boxes

Washing of worker’s clothes

Brine preparation Filling media preparation (marinade) Filling media preparation (tomato sauce)

Water chlorinating Filling media recovery

⇒ Wastewater ⇒ ⇒ Clean clothes ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Brine solution Sacks Marinade Marinade spills

⇒ Tomato sauce ⇒ Tomato sauce spills ⇒ Condensate ⇒ Chlorinated water ⇒ Clean (olive/vegetable) oil ⇒ Impurities

Page 82

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.3 (continuation) Input-output analysis for auxiliary process phases Inputs ⇒ Fuel (gas/oil) ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Chemicals (for water) Electricity Condensate recovered Water Filters Spare components

⇒ Other tools (e.g., scissors, knives) ⇒ Equipment oil

Process phase Steam generation (in boiler)

Tools and equipment maintenance

Outputs ⇒ Air emissions (e.g., NOx, SOx, CO2, CO) ⇒ Steam ⇒ Soot ⇒ Used filters ⇒ Used components ⇒ Used tools (e.g., scissors, knives) ⇒ Used equipment oil

The previous input-output analysis can help identify the environmental aspects occurring from tuna and sardine canning. Next, a description of these aspects will be presented. Since there are many similarities between both processes, the aspects have not been subdivided according to tuna or sardine processing.

5.3 Environmental aspects from tuna/sardine processing The environmental aspects which will be discussed next include: water consumption, wastewater (including waste brine), solid waste (divided into fish waste and packaging material), spills of filling liquid media, energy consumption (divided into thermal energy and electrical energy), air emissions, odors, noise and hazardous/toxic substances. 5.3.1 Water consumption In general, water is used in industries for various activities: processing, cleaning, and administrative areas. A flowchart can be used to illustrate these different uses (refer to Figure 5.1). In the canning industry, water is used in four different activities with different quality requirements per activity: (a) process water (that which contacts the product and other raw materials in the process); (b) cooling water (for process operation); (c) steam production (for process use) and; (d) cleaning (of floors, equipment and drains)76. Estimates on the amount of water that a typical fish processor uses per ton of final product vary tremendously. In fact, water usage is regarded to be more dependent on the amount of water available than on the amount of water needed for any particular 76

Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121.

Page 83

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

operation77. Another difficulty encountered in estimating of water consumption is that most companies in the business don’t have meters in place to monitor the specific consumption in each activity78. Figure 5.1 Flowchart for water use F re sh w a te r su p p ly

C a n te e n /c h a n g in g ro o m

C le a n in g

R a w m a te ria l su p p ly

P ro c e ssin g F in a l p ro d u c t

W a ste w a te r

W a ste w a te r P rim a ry tre a tm e n t

S o lid w a ste , o il S o lid w a ste tre a tm e n t p la n t

W a ste w a te r trea tm e n t p la n t T re a te d w a ste w a te r S ew age sy ste m

D istrib u tio n a s p ro d u c t o r o ffa l

S lu d g e D istrib u tio n a s p ro d u c t o r o ffa l

Source: DIFTA. Implementing Clean Technology and Wastewater Treatment: procedures in how to fulfill requirements wastewater treatment in the fishing industry. November 1998.

However, some consumption estimates can be found. For example, UNEP79 has recently made some research on the amount of water consumed during some production phases in finfish canning (tuna and sardines included). A summary of these figures is provided in Table 5.4

77

UNIDO. Environmental Assessment and Management of the Fish Processing Industry. Sector Studies No. 28. 1986. 78 Interview to Maria Teresa Saenz from AZTI (99.06.21), Gonzálo Taboada from ANFACO (99.06.24), Ana Claudia Proenca from IPIMAR (99.06.29). 79 Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

Page 84

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.4 Water consumption estimates in fish canning (UNEP) Process phase Grading Nobbing and can filling Washing of cans Sterilization Subtotal*

Volume 0.2 m per ton of whole fish 0.2–0.09 m3 per ton of graded fish 0.04 m3 per ton of sealed cans 3 to 7 m3 per ton of sterilized cans 3.44–7.33 m3 3

Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

Another study carried out in Thailand80 with canneries processing tuna and sardines estimated that total water use was between 10 m3 and 20 m3 per ton of tuna processed, whereby the most consuming phase was thawing (i.e., 30 to 40%). IHOBE also included estimates of water consumption in its tuna processing study. Here, the average consumption of process water in the processing plants was estimated between 9 m3 and 11 m3 per processed ton. The process phases consuming the most water are: thawing, cutting, meat cleaning, cooking, can washing, sterilization and facilities cleaning (the last two account for approximately 50% of the total volume consumed). Moreover, the study includes two cases of typical tuna canneries and their water consumption. These figures are presented in Table 5.5 (in this table, a distinction is made between water for processing, and administrative areas and cleaning). Table 5.5 Water consumption estimates in tuna canning (IHOBE) Parameter Water for administrative offices Water for cleaning Water for process*

Company 1 (1997) 69.4 m3 184 m3 5.04 m3/MT PRM**

Company 2 (1997) 310 m3 879 m3 4.34 m3/MT PRM**

* Includes water for thawing, cutting and cleaning, can washing, sterilization and cooling. ** MT PRM: Metric ton of processed raw material Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997

The figures in the table indicate that Company 2 is more efficient than Company 1 with respect to water used in the process. One of the reasons for this difference relies in the fact that Company 1 does not use water for cleaning of the fish after cooking, but an air circulation system instead. Also, Company 2 separates fats and oil during the cooking phase in the cookers and therefore does not have to change the water as frequently as Company 1, which does not separate the fats and oils and changes the water every two batches. 80

Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121.

Page 85

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Lastly, estimates can also be found from the ECOMAN studies for a Spanish tuna canning plant (processing 7,500 metric tons/year of tuna only). The figures are presented in Table 5.6 and Graph 5.1: Table 5.6 Water consumption in Spanish canning plant (ECOMAN) Phase Thawing and cleaning Cutting Cleaning tunnels (for tuna) Cooking (hosing) Cooking brines Baskets washing Sterilization Can washing Facilities cleaning Condensed and purges of steam Sanitary water Others

m3/ton 0.2 0.06 1.2 0.56 1.04 0.11 2.93 0.15 3.35 0.88 0.33 0.15

m3/day 6.8 2.1 41.0 19.1 35.6 3.8 100.1 5.5 114.5 30.0 11.4 5.1

Source: VTT-ECOMAN. New environmentally friendly work procedures to reduce waste emissions in the European fish transforming industry (draft report). FAIR CT 97 3016, July 1998.

Graph 5.1 Water consumption in Spanish canning plant (ECOMAN) 35

Percentage

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Thawing and cleaning

Sanitary water

Rest of phases

Cooking (hosing)

Condensed and purges of steam

Cooking brines

Cleaning tunnels (for tuna)

Sterilization

Facilities cleaning

Source: VTT-ECOMAN. New environmentally friendly work procedures to reduce waste emissions in the European fish transforming industry (draft report). FAIR CT 97 3016, July 1998.

Page 86

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

From these sources providing water consumption estimates (UNEP, Thailand study, IHOBE, ECOMAN) two important comments can be made: •

For the UNEP assessment in finfish canning plants, sterilization is perceived to be the highest water consumption phase. However, UNEP’s assessment does not include the phase thawing, which in the case of the Thailand study is considered as the highest water consumption phase. On the other hand, IHOBE coincides with both studies by considering sterilization and thawing as high water consumption phases, but it also includes meat cleaning, cooking, can washing and facilities cleaning. Finally, the ECOMAN case points out four major phases: sterilization, facilities cleaning, meat cleaning, cooking (the first two being the most important).

•

None of these studies provide a detailed analysis for differences in water consumption per processed ton from one plant to another. Thus, it is not clear if they obey operational practices, technology levels, types of fish processed, etc.

However, a valid assumption could be made in order to help partially explain such differences. The assumption has to do with the use and incorporation of cleaner production (CP) practices within the companies. For this, it is safe to assume that the companies with these CP practices in place have lower water consumption per processed ton than those who do not. Therefore, a list of these CP practices could be made to help understand some of the reasons for the higher/lower water consumption rates. The interview held with UNEP helped to identify some of these measures, and they are presented in Box 5.1 according to the analysis made for finfish canning plants. Similarly, some CP opportunities included in the IHOBE study are presented in Box 5.2, as well as those from another study performed by DIFTA81 in Box 5.3 and the COWI consult82 interview in Box 5.4.

81

DIFTA. Implementing Clean Technology and Wastewater Treatment: procedures in how to fulfill requirements of urban wastewater treatment in the fishing industry. Nov. 1998. 82 Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

Page 87

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Box 5.1 CP opportunities for reducing water consumption in canning (UNEP) Process phase: grading, eviscerating, can filling Water is used for the cleaning of the knives and equipment and in some machinery to align fish. The consumption can be reduced by 50% simply by installing valves, solenoids and nozzles. Also, when filling the cans manually, precautions should be taken to avoid contaminating the outer surface of the cans unnecessarily. The less contaminated they are, the less water—and chemical substances employed—will be necessary to wash them. Process phase: cooking Water is used directly for filling the cooking tanks and sometimes it is also added to large cans to assist in later draining of the expelled liquid. As an alternative, some companies use microwave cooking whereby water consumption is almost eliminated, especially for fish in high cans. Also, the cooking water can be reused for a long time if the oil generated is skimmed off. This oil can be sold for fish oil production and the investments are low. Process phase: sauce filling, sealing and can washing Water is used for washing the cans. Here, the water that is used could come from the retort or from the flotation plant. Expected water savings could then be 0.4 m3 per ton of raw material. Process phase: sterilization Water is used for the production of steam and the cooling of cans. Instead of discharging it to the drain, it can be directed to a cooling tower and reused for cooling. The number of times it can be reused will depend on how clean it can be kept since it becomes contaminated with broken cans and dirt on the surface of the cans. When this water can no longer be recirculated, it can be used for cleaning of sealed cans or general cleaning. Approximately 85% of water could be reused. Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

Page 88

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Box 5.2 CP possibilities related to water in tuna canning (IHOBE) •

During refrigeration, water savings can be achieved by recovering defrosting water.

•

Water from the condensers can be recovered.

•

The cooking tanks should not be emptied with fewer uses than they can tolerate.

•

Washing tunnel machines with water recirculation systems should be used.

•

Cooling water from the sterilization process should be recovered.

•

Sterilization should be performed with the retort at maximum load.

•

Condensate during cooking, sterilization and can washing should be recovered.

•

Cleaning should be done with pressurized systems.

•

Nozzles and pistol guns in the hoses should be employed.

•

Hoses with smaller diameters should be used when possible.

•

Cleaning should be done when the dirt/material is still damp.

•

Washing with spray should be used instead of tub.

•

Floors and walls should be flat so that they can be easy to clean.

•

Employ water sinks and outlets with automatic opening and closing valves (e.g., pedal).

•

Flows should be adjusted to optimum levels in water consuming equipment.

•

Water consuming equipment should be shut off during long stops.

•

A maintenance program should be in place (immediate repair of leaks in valves, pipes, etc.)

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997

Page 89

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Box 5.3 CP options for reducing water in (fin)fish canning (DIFTA) •

Aspect The fish can be delivered to the • processing plant in different ways such as in bulk in insulated containers with water and ice, pumped directly from the seiner (harvesting ship) to the factory or delivered in plastic boxes. The cleaning of containers and boxes is normally done with high/low pressure cleaner, and pipelines cleaned by a CIP system.

•

From the bulk feeder or tank, fish are • flushed forward to the nobbing and eviscerating machines or transported with a conveyor. These machines operate with a constant flow of fresh water.

•

Most products for canning are cooked before filleting in continuous cookers or cooking vessels. During this phase, oil and proteins are released from the fish. Filleting of the cooked product is usually done at tables and no water is used except for cleaning knives and hand wash, the wastes from the lines are transported by conveyers or in boxes. The packing lines are fitted with the same water taps as the filleting line. The washing of seamed cans can be carried out in different ways. Retorts use a large amount of water during the cooking and cooling cycles.

•

• • •

•

•

• • •

Options The use of high/low pressure cleaners for cleaning plastic boxes is acceptable but consumes a large amount of water. Therefore, it is recommended to introduce a stationary box washing machine divided into 2 sections, where the first one washes with detergent, and the second is used for final washing. This type of equipment uses the same water through the day, but there is an automatic water refill, approximately 10% pr. hour. The fluming techniques demand a lot of water and also proteins are washed into the water. Therefore, it is better to use a dry transport conveyer from the bulk feeder to the nobbing and gutting machine. The water in the bulk feeder is not changed during the production/day, which means that the only water changed in the bulk feeder will come from the melted ice in the fish boxes or insulated containers. It is possible to recover the oil from the top of the water and then pass it through a centrifuge for separating solids, water and oil. The water in the tanks can thus be used longer. Water taps can be controlled for dripping regularly. The conveyors for waste should be checked for damage to avoid product falling on the floor. Water taps can be controlled for dripping regularly. It is recommendable to use a washing machine with a water recycling system. Retorts should have a recycling system for the processed water, storing the hot water in an insulated tank during the cooling down period, ready to be used on the next cook. The cold water from the cooling down should be recycled through heat exchangers to recover the heat and then used for heating, thawing, washing and cleaning. If it is still warm, it can be passed through an air heat exchanger. Water used for recirculation in the retort cooling system has to be continuously chlorinated (or other disinfectant procedures) during the process. Implementation of a recycling system would enable energy and water savings.

Source: DIFTA. Implementing Clean Technology and Wastewater Treatment: procedures in how to fulfill requirements of urban wastewater treatment in the fishing industry. Nov. 1998.

Page 90

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Box 5.4 CP possibilities related to water in tuna canning (COWI) Process phase: cooking Water consumption in cooking tanks with brine can be reduced by changing the method of cooking to steam cooking or microwave cooking. Establish a purification system that will enable the cooking brine to be reused. Process phase: cutting Dry collection of a major part of the “saw dust” before it ends on the floor will reduce need for water to clean up. Adjusting the water supply to the cutters can reduce the water consumption. By having more suitable circular knives and saw blades, and regularly sharpening and adjusting them, the cuts can be performed faster and with less water consumption. Process phase: meat cleaning Using proper equipment, which enables a uniform and controlled washing with reduced water consumption and initial separation of oil and other organic components from the washing water. Use basic water saving measures like spray guns on hoses, electric control of water supply to washing machines, establishing well defined washing procedures, training of foremen and operators on “how to wash”. Process phase: sterilization Recirculation of the water in the autoclaves instead of leading the cooling water into the drains. Source: Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

Page 91

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Considering the previous estimates, significant variations in total water consumption can be seen. One of the lowest consumption seems to be 9 m3 per processed ton and there are figures that are even double this amount. To provide an idea of where these estimates stand, water consumption figures for canning of different fish (e.g., mackerel, sprat) can be used. For example, a study83 performed by DIFTA in a Latvian company where fifty percent of the production was canned sprat (smoked or in tomato sauce) indicated that the company’s total water consumption in 1997 had been 90,000 m3 and total fish purchases 2,400 metric tons. Consequently, the amount of water used per ton of raw material was estimated to be 37.5 m3/ton raw material. Assuming a processing yield of 55% for the fish purchased, the amount of water used per processed ton could rise to 68 m3/ processed ton in this case. Another example is provided in the study by the Nordic Council of Ministers. It is about a leading Danish mackerel canning company. In 1990, the company had an estimated consumption of 16 m3 per ton of finished goods (canned mackerel with/without sauce). Yet in 1995, it had achieved a reduction down to 12 m3 per ton of finished good by implementing various measures (e.g., gathering the waste in connection with nobbing, single freezing of nobbed mackerel, skinning without use of lye and acid, boiling by microwaves and steam, systematic elimination of waste on floors and machines and reuse/heat recirculation during sterilization). 5.3.2 Wastewater In general, most of the water used in a cannery will end up as wastewater as it is being used in the process since it comes in contact with various materials. In some cases, total wastewater flows have been estimated to be 90% of total water usage84. Consequently, and due to the large water consumption, wastewater is also regarded as another important environmental aspect resulting from tuna/sardine canning. Yet, this wastewater is considered to be “amenable to treatment using standard physical, chemical and biological systems”85. The dimension of the problem with wastewater can be assessed through the use of parameters measuring the quality of the water going out from the processing plant. The lower the values of these parameters the better quality of the wastewater and consequently the less problems for the company. In this sense, a study by UNIDO determined eight general parameters of primary concern for finfish processing. These include: volume of wastewater, biological oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), oils and grease, bacteria, temperature, nitrogen, and the combined effects from all the above. These parameters can be used for characterizing the wastewater from tuna and sardine processing. However, two other parameters such as chemical oxygen demand (COD) and chlorides are usually employed by Spanish and Portuguese plants to characterize their wastewater. 83

DIFTA. Environmental Report Unda. January 1998. Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121. 85 Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121 84

Page 92

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

In the case of tuna fish processing, the IHOBE study emphasizes two important characteristics of wastewater from tuna processing which differentiate it from wastewater originated in other typical food processing industries: 1. A great variability among flows and organic content, which vary from one process phase to another and also according to seasonal processing of the canned species. 2. The high salt content in some waters, especially during the meat cooking where brine is employed. This complicates the biological treatment of these waters with other domestic wastewater due to the inhibition caused by the high salinity. For example, in a specific parameter such as BOD5, values found in wastewater of other fish processing plants are usually between 500 to 1,000 mg/l. Yet, in the case of fish used for canning—such as tuna—the BOD5 load is much higher (3,000 to 5,000 mg/l) due to “cooking” phase86. In general, the characteristics of wastewater from sardine/tuna fish canning industries present significant variations from one company to another. To illustrate this, results from different studies at industry level are presented in Tables 5.7 (IHOBE and Thailand study) 5.8 (UNIDO study) and 5.9 (UNEP). Table 5.7 Wastewater characteristics in tuna/sardine processing* Source/Parameter • COD (mg/l) • BOD5 (mg/l) • SS (mg/l) • TSS (mg/l) • Grease and oils (mg/l) • Cl (mg/l) • Total Nitrogen (mg/l) • Phosphorous • pH

IHOBE study 26-28,000 8-24,000 30-3,700 Not available 10-4,200 3,500-35,000 Not available Not available Not available

Thailand Study 4,800-6,800 3,000-4,000 750-1400 4,500-6,100 400-1,800 Not available 150-300 50-80 6.5-6.8

* Ranges result from different parameter values according to various industries. The IHOBE study is for tuna processing plants; the Thailand study presents results for a combined tuna/sardine plant. Sources: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997. Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121

86

Ibid.

Page 93

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.8 Typical values of wastewater parameters (UNIDO) Parameter*/Source** • Volume (m3/metric ton) • BOD5 (kg/metric ton • SS (kg/metric ton) • Grease and oils (kg/Metric ton

Tuna 22.3 15 11 5.6

Sardine 8.69 9.22 5,41 1.74

Source: UNIDO. Environmental assessment and management of the fish processing industry. Sector studies No. 28, 1986.

Table 5.9 Typical values of wastewater parameters (UNEP) Parameter*

Tuna

• Volume (m3 per ton final product) • BOD5 (kg per ton final product) • SS (kg per ton final product) • Oil and fat (kg per ton final product)

22 15 11 6

Sardin e 9 9 5 2

Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

Not only the characteristic values of these parameters are interesting to analyze, but also the specific phases in the process where the wastewater originates. In this sense, the Thailand study presents a study case of a canning company processing tuna (100 tons/day), sardines (40 tons/day) and shellfish (3 tons/day). Here, “cutting”, “thawing” and “sterilization” account for 72% of the total wastewater volume (refer to Graph 5.2). Graph 5.2 Contribution of process phases to wastewater volume (Thailand) Storage/Thawin g 29% Cutting 29%

Washdown 7%

Sterilization 14%

Cooking 5% Can washing Filling media 7% addition/seamin g 4%

Cooling meat 5%

Source: Nair, Chandran. Pollution Control through water conservation and wastewater reuse in the fish processing industry. 1990. Water Science Technology. Vol. 22 No. 9 p 113-121

Page 94

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

The IHOBE study also presents a more detailed source characterization of the wastewater in Spain, but only for tuna. For this purpose, wastewater is divided in four major groups: cooking, sterilization, thawing, cutting, meat cleaning and rest of wastewaters. The contribution of the different processes to the wastewater expressed as a percentage of the total wastewater volume can be seen in Graph 5.3. Graph 5.3 Contribution of tuna process phases to total wastewater (IHOBE) 30% 25%

30%

15%

Cooking Sterilization Thawing, cutting & meat cleaning Others (facilities cleaning, metal basket cleaning, can washing, etc.) Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

Cooking Fifteen percent of the wastewater volume is generated in this phase. It originates from the emptying of the cooking tanks. In this phase, levels of BOD5 can be as high as 3,300 parts per million (ppm), COD 6,270 ppm and chlorides up to 213,000 ppm. Usually the tanks’ emptying takes place at the end of day. Furthermore, not all companies separate the grease and oils during this phase. The IHOBE study includes some information on this phase for two companies (refer to Table 5.10). Table 5.10 Detail of cooking wastewater in study cases from IHOBE Parameter/ Case Company 1 Company 2

N° cooking tanks 7

Capacity of tanks* 1.5 m3

Input water

Output wastewater

0.46 m3/MT PRM

0.55 m3/MT PRM

4

1.5 m3

0.41 m3/MT PRM

0.52 m3/MT PRM

* In average, each tank can hold 0.7 metric tons of fish. MT PRM = metric ton processed raw material. Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

Page 95

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Thawing, cutting and meat cleaning According to IHOBE, water from thawing, cutting and meat cleaning represents 30% of total wastewater volume. Usually, this wastewater flow is continuous during the mornings. In general, the volume will vary significantly from one company to another. It is characterized for having a high content of blood and small particles (average COD 1,463 ppm and TSS 2,800 ppm). Normally, companies employ filters or settling tanks in the flumes to separate the largest particles. Sterilization Wastewater from the “sterilization” or autoclaving comes from the internal cooling of the cans done in the autoclave (refer to section 4.1.11). The volume in this case can be approximate to 3 m3 per processed ton. It usually has a low organic content and a high final temperature. The emptying is done in the afternoon. Others Wastewater from other operations such as equipment and facilities cleaning, metal basket cleaning, can washing, as well as freezing waters and blow-down water (for the boiler) are included in this category. They represent 30% of the total wastewater volume. Within this percentage, water from cleanings has the largest share and presents high variations in its composition, with COD values of 2,000-4,000 ppm and TSS from 1,000-5,000 ppm during initial rinsing. 5.3.3 Solid waste The input-output analysis already provided an idea of the solid waste generated during the processing of tuna and sardines. Basically, the waste is constituted by fish waste (i.e., discarded/rejected/lost fish meat and bones during the process) and damaged packaging material. A description of both is presented next. 5.3.3.1 Fish waste In general terms, processing plants know from the moment they purchase their raw material that an “unavoidable” amount of fish waste will be generated. This is because certain parts of the fish are not appropriate for canning (e.g., heads, viscera, tails). General estimates for finfish processing, indicate that the “unavoidable fish waste” constitutes between 55% and 75% of the fish’s raw weight87, where the percentage will vary according to the finfish being processed. However, there are also “unwanted” losses of fish meat, which are of more concern for these companies. Thus, final fish waste volumes will be constituted by the “unavoidable” and “unwanted” fish waste. 87

UNIDO. Environmental Assessment and Management of the Fish Processing Industry. Sector Studies No. 28. 1986. p. 31.

Page 96

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

The “unavoidable” waste is not that bad for the processing plants. It can be used for producing other byproducts (it has high concentrations of proteins which are specially valuable from a human nutritional point of view because of the amino acids) and for this reason it is usually collected and sold to other plants which will produce fish meal, fish oil or pet food (refer to Figure 5.2). Control records of volumes/income generated for most of this “unavoidable” fish waste are kept by most canneries (i.e., records of head, tails, waste from peeling). Figure 5.2 Uses of finfish “unavoidable” fish waste (UNIDO)

Oil

Skin

Æ Vitamins

Æ Glue

Æ Margarine Æ Cooking

oil

Æ Paints Æ Protective

coverings culture

Æ Mushroom

Scales

Flesh and/or organs

Æ Mince

Æ Pearl

Æ Pet

Æ Flocculant

foods Æ Mink feed Æ Insulin Æ Isinglass

essence

W hole or any part of fish Æ Fish

protein concentrate meal Æ Fish silage Æ Fish pellets or flakes Æ Bait Æ Fertilizer Æ Fish

Source: UNIDO. Environmental assessment and management of the fish processing industry. Sector studies No. 28, 1986.

According to the IHOBE study, during tuna processing fish waste is generated basically in three phases: “cutting and eviscerating”, “cooking” and “meat cleaning and basket placing”. Losses in these phases account approximately for 60% of the fish’s weight (refer to detail in Graph 5.4) while as losses from other phases (e.g., fish reception and storage) are regarded as negligible. Small chunks that are usually generated during the “packing” are collected and used to make canned products of inferior quality. As an example of fish waste volumes, this study indicates that in 1996 Spanish canneries in the Basque Country generated a total of 8,400 metric tons. UNEP indicated that apart from those source-phases pointed out by IHOBE, “sterilization” and “final operations” could also generate fish waste (content of the cans) as quality checks take place. However, the volumes generated in these two phases are usually very low in comparison to the ones mentioned previously.

Page 97

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 5.4 Tuna meat losses based on initial weight during processing (IHOBE)

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

In the case of sardine processing, the fish waste is generated mainly in one operation: “grading, heading, eviscerating, washing and canning”. However, cooking can also be considered as another “solid waste” by considering the weight losses during this phase as oils/greases from the meat are liberated. The waste generated in the rest of phases is regarded as negligible. UNEP also provided some estimates on the amount of fish waste generated during the canning process but for finfish in general. Here, the most critical phases in order of importance are considered to be “nobbing and can filling”, “cooking”, “draining of cans”, “sterilization” and “grading”. “Nobbing and can filling” generates the most waste followed by “cooking”. Estimates for all phases are presented in Table 5.11.

Page 98

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.11 Fish waste estimates (UNEP Interview) Process phase Grading

Nobbing filling

and

Input Whole fish 1,000 kg

can Graded fish

1,000 kg

Cooking Draining of cans

Raw fish Cans w/fish

1,000 kg 1,000 kg

Sterilization

Washed cans w/fish

1,000 kg

Output Graded fish Waste COD Nobbed and canned fish

970 - 1,000 kg 0 - 30 kg 0.35 – 1.7 kg 750 - 760 kg

Waste: heads/tails Waste: bones/meat COD Cooked fish Drained off cans w/fish COD Sterile cans w/fish

150 kg 100 - 150 kg 240 - 250 kg 850 kg 800-900 kg 3-10 kg 920-990 kg

Waste: damaged cans

10-80 kg

Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

It is important to emphasize again that, just as in water consumption, no specific analyses explaining the relation between operational practices/technological levels and fish waste generation were found. Yet, once again the differences in fish waste volumes generated among companies could be partially explained through CP practices. In this sense, the IHOBE study points out some CP opportunities (refer to Box 5.5) which can help reduce the waste in tuna processing. Box 5.5 CP possibilities related to fish waste generation (IHOBE) •

Perform cutting above -4°C to facilitate this operation and avoid waste.

•

Employ adequate, properly sharpened cutting bands, and replace old ones.

•

Employ specific slicing/cutting machines for frozen fish.

•

Adjust the cooking temperature and timing to optimum level. Use thermostats.

•

Implement a Production Control System for peeling and automatic packing.

•

Separate the white meat during peeling to pack as “small chunks”.

•

Recover in a clean way, small meat pieces generated by the packing machine for reutilization.

•

Reuse the rejects during storage as long as they are in good condition.

•

Improve the control of inventories to avoid product deterioration or expiring of shelf life.

•

Train adequately each worker on how to perform his/her job.

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

Page 99

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.3.3.2 Packaging material As mentioned in the beginning of this section, there is also generation of another type of solid waste: damaged packaging material (e.g., cans, lids, labels, boxes, cases). Detailed information on volumes of this type of waste is difficult to find and only some estimates for cans are available. UNEP has some estimates of yields obtained from the “sterilization”. Here, from a 1,000 kg of cans that are washed, 920-990 kg come out as sterile cans and 10-80 kg as damaged cans. Consequently, the amount of wasted cans in this operation alone can be estimated in 1% and 8% of the cans purchased. However, in companies this amount could be higher as cans may also be damaged during operations such as packing, seaming, placing in cases and setting inside boxes. Yet, no total figures seem to be available. The rest of packaging waste (e.g., labels, boxes, cases) can also be generated during the final processing stages, with inappropriate storage conditions, malfunctioning packing and seaming machines, excessive packaging or acquisition of nonconformance material (although it is also usually returned to the supplier if possible). IHOBE study also makes reference to the waste generated by the processing coming though from the purchases of their own packaging materials. That is, cans for example are bought from the supplier in stacked packages which cardboard separations between the cans as well as a plastic film. This cardboard is usually given back to the can supplier while the plastic film is disposed of as municipal solid waste. From a CP point of view, there are also recommendations that can help to understand the differences in volumes of this waste generated within companies. Box 5.6 provides some recommendations included in the IHOBE study. Box 5.6 CP possibilities related to packaging waste generation (IHOBE) •

Avoid purchases of raw materials with excessive packaging material.

•

Apply inspection controls for raw materials before purchasing or accepting them (supplier audits).

•

Maintain the seamers, box sealers, etc. in good shape.

•

Eliminate unnecessary packages and packaging in the product.

•

Sort packaging material and return if possible to suppliers.

•

Use first in - first out (FIFO) inventory control systems.

•

Maintain appropriate storage conditions in the warehouses (including humidity, temperature, eliminating rodents).

•

Substitute wooden boxes for folding boxes and plastic recyclable boxes.

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

Page 100

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.3.4 Spills of filling liquid media Other environmental aspects, which can be observed from the input-output analysis, are spills generated from the filling of cans with liquid media and also during the can seaming. The spills constitute a problem from two points of view: first, they are a waste of resources (also translated directly into monetary losses) and second they “leave” the plant in the water used for daily cleanings of equipment and working stations. Consequently, parameters in the wastewater such as BOD, COD and greases and oils are increased with the spills. The IHOBE study estimates that the losses of filling media constitute approximately 2% of total filling media consumption. In some cases, the filling media is collected before cleaning of filling machines and seamers. Furthermore, some companies also use can washing machines with oil recovery units, which can help recover at least part of the media (as explained in section 4.3.5). 5.3.5 Energy consumption During the processing of sardines and tuna important amounts of energy are consumed. How much energy is consumed depends on various factors, including: the number of hours worked during the day, the level of automation in the processing plant, type of equipment employed, the type of fish being processed, the operational practices employed, etc. However, as a common denominator, energy in these plants comes in the form of thermal and electrical energy (bought from a local utility company). Therefore, there is an associated environmental aspect due to: (a) the use of nonrenewable sources such as fossil fuels for generating the thermal energy required; (b) when the fuels are burnt, air emissions containing atmospheric pollutants also originate (as it also occurs when the electrical energy is produced by the local utility company). 5.3.5.1 Thermal energy (steam) Usually, the thermal energy (steam) is generated with small boilers (capacity of less than 10 tons of steam per hour) using fuel oil (furnace oil). However, in areas where there are installed pipelines, natural gas can also be employed. As an example of the boiler’s dimension, one company in the IHOBE study processing 775 metric tons of tuna in 1997 employed a boiler with a capacity of 1 ton/hour with fuel-oil as its energy source. Another example (from ECOMAN), is a sardine plant processing close to 1,500 metric tons with a boiler of 2.2 ton/hour with fuel-oil as its energy source. The steam in sardine/tuna fish processing is usually used for three main process phases: “cooking”, “sterilization” and “washing of cans” after they have been sterilized. However, it can also be used for producing the tomato sauce and using it to heat the minced tomato solution. Estimates of average steam consumption for the processing of sardine and tuna are difficult to find in the literature. However, from the

Page 101

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

interview held with UNEP, some figures for finfish canning (in general) were provided. For example, steam consumption in “cooking” is usually between 35 and 560 kg per ton of raw fish. The 35 kg value (~28 kWh) is for cooking low cans without water and in a closed cooker. The high figure of 560 kg (~440 kWh) is for fish cooked in high cans with water and in an exhaust box. Also, estimates for “sterilization” indicate that the average steam consumption is 290 kg (~230 kWh) per ton of washed cans. The different values between companies can also be partially explained through the use and adoption of CP measures. A list of such measures recommended by UNEP is presented in Box 5.7. Box 5.7 CP measures to reduce thermal energy consumption (UNEP) Process phase: cooking •

Cookers are recommended to be covered and insulated in order to reduce energy consumption. Although these investments can be high, they have short payback periods.

•

Exhaust boxes should be insulated and designed so steam only escapes in the ends.

•

A damper in the chimney combined with automatic or manual regulation can be efficient, as it reduces steam losses through the chimney Process phase: sterilization

•

Water filled retorts without a water storage tank use 75% more energy than other methods, thus tanks should be installed. Compared with low investments, savings are high, approximately 173 kWh and 5 to 6 cubic meters of water per ton of raw material.

•

Retorts should be insulated and this can produce savings of 1.4 kg fuel (12 kWh) per ton of canned product. Investments can be high though.

Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

Also, from the interview held with COWI, additional information was provided on the thermal energy consumption for the autoclaves (or retorts). The information was provided for different types of autoclaves, including those found in fish canning plants: water filled, free flow or steam (type used in Spain and Portuguese plants) autoclaves.

Page 102

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.12 Common food industry autoclaves Type 1. Water-filled over pressure Autoclave 2. Water-filled with upper tank 3. Steam autoclave

Use Whole or cooled canning Whole or cooled canning

4. Over pressure autoclave 5. Rotary autoclave

All forms of whole canning (over 100°C) All forms of whole canning Whole or cooled canning

6. Free- flow Autoclave

Whole or cooled canning

7. Cooker

Cooled canning

8. Cooking Cabinet

Cooled canning

Energy Consumption 403 kWh/ton whole meat canning 24.3 Oil/ton cooled canning 231 kWh/ton whole meat canning 208 kWh/ton cooled canning 241 kWh/ton whole meat canning 196 kWh/ton whole meat canning 232 kWh/ton whole meat canning 121 kWh/ton cooled canning 147 kWh/ton whole meat canning 121 kWh/ton cooled canning 122 kWh/ton cooled canning (+121 kWh/ton with the cooking) 122 kWh/ton cooled canning (+121 kWh/ton with the cooking)

Source: Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

One way of obtaining possible savings with these systems is by insulation. The typical energy usage shown in table 5.12 can by reduced by the amounts indicated in Table 5.13, resulting in heat conservation. Table 5.13 Energy savings in common food industry autoclaves by insulating Type 1. Water-filled over pressure autoclave 2. Water-filled with upper tank

Measure Insulation

3. Steam autoclave 4. Rotary autoclave

Insulation Insulation

5. 6. 7. 8.

Over pressure autoclave Free flow autoclave Cooker Cooking Cabinet

Insulation

None

Savings* 16.6 kWh/ton whole meat canning 24,9 kWh/ton cooled canning 16.6 kWh/ton whole meat canning 24,9 kWh/ton cooled canning 16.6 kWh/ton whole meat canning 16.6 kWh/ton whole meat canning 24.9 kWh/ton cooled canning These are built with insulation

* 1kg of oil contains 11.9kWh. Source: Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

Page 103

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Besides using insulation for reducing the thermal energy consumption, it is possible to introduce other measures in the autoclaves, which would require additional components to be installed into the system (refer to Box 5.8). Box 5.8 Measures for improving performance during sterilization • •

•

Re-circulate the cooling water: this results in water savings (up to 90%) by using a cooling tower instead of directly draining all the water. However, this does not make use of the available heat in the water. Reuse the heat from the autoclave: re-circulation could be combined with reuse of heat; this can be possible with the use of a heat exchanger. In this case, the water from the upper tank, which is hot, is stored temporarily while the autoclave is in operation (energy savings referred in Table 5.13). Reuse the heat from the cooling water: When the upper tank is used, further energy savings can be achieved by reusing the heat from the cooling water. Large amounts of energy are lost in connecting with the cooling water; although, this usually occurs at low temperature. The range temperature is a very important indicator if the re-use of heat possibilities is to be evaluated. A solution to this is to install temperature valves in the outflow of the autoclave to ensure that only high temperature water is led to the re-use system while relatively cold water is disposed of.

Source: Personal interview to Erik Andersen and Claus Mosby Jespersen (99.08.27). Matcon-COWI Consult (Danish consulting firm).

5.3.5.2 Electrical energy Electricity is used in order to operate different equipment inside the plant, including: freezers, cold rooms, cutting band saws, automatic packing machines, dryers, grading and heading machines, liquid media filling machines, seamers, can washing machines, retorts, packaging machines, conveyor belts, lighting, air compressors and pumps. UNEP also provided some estimates of electrical energy consumption for different process phases (refer to Table 5.14) in general finfish canning.

Page 104

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.14 Electricity consumption estimates (UNEP) Process phase Grading Nobbing and filling Cooking Draining of cans Seaming Washing of cans Subtotal

Input

Avg. Consumption 0.15 kWh 0.40-1.50 kWh

1,000 kg whole fish can 1,000 kg graded fish

1,000 kg raw fish 0.30-1.10 kWh 1,000 kg cans w/fish 0.30 kWh 1,000 kg cans w/fish and 5.00-6.00 kWh sauce 1,000 kg seamed cans 7.00 kWh 13.15-16.05 kWh

Source: Interview to Kristina Elvebakken from UNEP’s Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics (99.07.15).

On the other hand, the IHOBE study estimates the total electricity consumption of canneries processing tuna to be between 100 and 250 kWh/ton processed. A list of typical equipment used in the processing is also included using a company which had processed 775 metric tons of tuna in 1997 as an example. The horsepower (HP) of the different equipment is presented in Table 5.15. Table 5.15 Examples of electricity operated equipment Equipment Band saws Buzz saws Pulley tackle (hoist) Automatic tuna packing machine Automatic tuna packing machine Seamer Filling media (volume) Filling media (linear) Box making machine Banding machine Pump Compressor

# 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1

HP 5.00 3.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 3.00 1.50 0.33 0.25 3.00 0.30 10.00

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997.

The previous figures on steam and electricity consumption can be compared with plants canning other types of fish. For example, in the study by the Nordic Council of Ministers some data are provided for mackerel canning. In this case, “sterilization” by itself has a typical consumption of 200-240 kWh per ton of canned goods when the

Page 105

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

retort employed has an upper storage tank and a sprinkling system. However, retorts filled with water without storage tanks consume approximately 76% more energy. This study also indicates that insulation can help to reduce energy consumption by 16 to 17 kWh per ton of canned good. Another example is the Latvian company canning sprat included in the study by DIFTA. Here data from the report indicates that electricity consumption was 1,607 kWh in 1997 when 2,400 metric tons were processed. Thus, electricity consumption was estimated to be 0.67 kWh per ton of raw material processed (the boiler in this company used fuel-oil and also wood chips as energy sources). 5.3.6 Air emissions Air emissions from tuna and sardine processing plants originate mainly from the use of fossil fuels in the boilers when generating steam88. Typical air emissions generated from the combustion of these fuels are present (e.g., NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, fly-ash, H2O). Consequently, steam generation constitutes another environmental aspect to be considered in this industry. Air emissions are responsible for various environmental impacts including: global warming due to CO2 and H2O; acid rain due to SO2, tropospheric ozone due to NOx and fly-ash from a health hazard point of view. The IHOBE study indicates that usually plants processing less than 600 metric tons of fish use gasoil as their energy source, and those above this limit employ fuel oil. These emissions are said to be simply liberated to the atmosphere. Although, according to the study, the only parameters exceeding national legal limits are usually SO2, opacity and ash content. Besides the emissions from the boiler, water vapor also is generated most during the cooking of the fish. Therefore, these could be another air emission to be included. However, the amounts generated are considered moderate. Finally, it is important to also consider that these canning plants use refrigerants for cold/freezing rooms; therefore, leakage of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) to the atmosphere are another possible source of air pollution, as these substances are ozone depleting substances and contribute to global warming also. 5.3.7 Odors Due to possible complaints from neighboring houses and establishments, plants processing tuna or sardines should also consider odors as another environmental aspect. Normally, plants are situated close to the coastline and in some cases, towns have grown around them, and consequently the importance of controlling this aspect is more critical. Odors originate mainly from the storage of fish waste outside the plant, dirty boxes that are in contact with the fish upon arrival to the plant, vapors from the cooking phase and wastewater ponding. The processing plants should employ tight-sealed 88

Prokop, William. Fish processing. Air pollution engineering manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.

Page 106

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

containers, have daily cleanings and refrigerated storage of the fish waste if it stays more than 24 hours in the plant, in case it is collected by a fish-meal processing plant. 5.3.8 Noise The intensity of sound is measured in logarithmic units known as decibels, whereby a change from 10 to 20 decibels represents a 100-fold increase in the sound level. Sound at 80 decibels is annoying, but a constant exposure to noise in excess of 90 decibels can cause permanent loss of hearing. In addition to hearing losses, noise can also produce other deleterious effects on human health and on work performance89. In the case of canneries, noise levels should be kept in mind not only because of the neighbors, but more importantly, because of employee’s health and safety. The operation of diverse equipment (such as those mentioned in section 5.3.5) and use of automatic machines conveying hundreds of tin cans per minute should be adjusted to achieve acceptable sound levels. An operation such as “final packing” (refer to inputoutput analysis is sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2) is perhaps one of the main sources of noise pollution inside these plants. Estimates of sound levels in fish canning plants were provided by UNEP, and they indicate levels from 85 to 95 dB. 5.3.9 Hazardous/toxic substances The processing of tuna and sardines does not generate hazardous or toxic substances itself. However, due to the various types of equipment employed in the processing plants, there is presence of chemical substances that are hazardous/toxic inside these plants. Some of them have already been included in the input-output analysis from sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Usually, there is relevant legislation covering the use, storage, transport and handling of these different substances that the processing plants should be following. Among, the most relevant chemical substances are the refrigerating agents (e.g., CFCs) used in the freezing rooms; oil used for equipment (as well as the filters); and, in case the companies have old electric transformers or obsolete condensers, there is a possibility of having polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs). Apart from these substances related to the equipment, some other chemicals such as sodium hypochlorite or sodium hydroxide are used for “cleaning and washing” and “water chlorinating”. In general, the use, storage, handling of all these substances should be appropriate. Estimates on average use of these substances per ton processed are not available in the literature.

89

"pollution" Encyclopedia Britannica Online. (99.08.02).

Page 107

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.3.10 Summary of environmental aspects With the intention of presenting a summary of the environmental aspects previously described, three tables are presented next. Tables 5.16 and 5.17 indicate the relation of each aspect and process phase for tuna and sardines respectively. Table 5.18 presents the relation of the aspects but with the auxiliary processes.

Page 108

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.16 Environmental aspect per process phase in Tuna Processing Environmental Aspect

Fish reception and storage

Thawing

Cutting and eviscerating

Meat cleaning and basket placing

Cooking

Cleaning and cooling

Water consumption Wastewater Fish waste Packaging material Liquid media spills Energy Air emissions Odors Noise Refrigerant agents Other chemicals Detergents Oil for equipment

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

Peeling and packing

Filling media addition and can seaming

Can Washing

Sterilization

Final operations

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

Final storage

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

Page 109

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.17 Environmental aspect per process phase in Sardine Processing Environmental Aspect Water consumption Wastewater Fish waste Packaging material Liquid media spills Energy Air emissions Odors Noise Refrigerant agents Other chemicals Detergents Oil for equipment

Fish reception /initial storage

Thawing

Brining

Grading, heading, eviscerating, canning

Washing

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X

X

Meat cooking

Cooling, Filling media addition/ can seaming

Can Washing

Sterilization

Final operations

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

Page 110

Final storage

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.18 Environmental aspect per auxiliary process phase in Tuna/Sardine Processing Environmental Aspect Water consumption Wastewater Fish waste Packaging material Liquid media spills Energy Air emissions Odors Noise Refrigerant agents Other Chemicals Detergents Oil for equipment

Cleaning and washing equipment

Washing of clothes

Brine preparation

X X

X X

X

X

X

Filling media preparation

Water chlorinating

Filling media recovery

X

X X

Boiler

Tool/equipment maintenance

X

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

Page 111

5.3.11 A final material balance In order to provide an integrated but summarized picture of the aspects previously explained, a final material balance for canning can be used. For this purpose, one previously done by UNEP for general finfish canning summary is presented in Figure 5.3 and it represents values for companies using average technology. Most of the typical values for tuna and sardine processing have already been mentioned in the previous sections. UNEP also provided some information on the relation between environmental aspects and best available technologies (BAT). Through BAT available today, water consumption (consequently, wastewater) in finfish canning can be reduced 53%. Also, organic mater content (COD and BOD) can be reduced 77%. Nitrogen can be reduced 77% per ton of raw material and phosphate 75%. Furthermore, BATs would also help reduce energy consumption, increase productivity and reduce solid waste. Figure 5.3 Material balance for the canning industry (based on UNEP interview) Noise: 85-95 dBA

Water: 15 m3

Fresh or frozen fish:

Emissions to air:

1000 kg

?

Wastewater: Energy:

Canning

150-190 kWh

15 m3 BOD 52 kg COD 116 kg Nitrogen 3 kg Phosphate 0.4 kg

Chemicals: NaOH (8%)

Canned product: 420-430 kg Solid waste: 250 kg heads/tails 100-150 kg bones, meat

5.4 Environmental aspects and applicable legislation The definition of relevant EPIs covering the environmental aspects previously mentioned is a key step towards the development of an EPE process within the companies. However, before proceeding with this definition, it is also important to make a general review of applicable legislation. Through this review, two helpful things could come about: firstly, it would serve as a criterion to assess which environmental aspects interest companies the most (from a legal perspective);

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

secondly, it could help identify compulsory reporting practices for some environmental aspects. Another situation to consider is that both countries surveyed in this study belong to the European Union, and therefore, EU legislation should be included in the analysis. However, as this is very difficult due to amount of environmental legislation the EU has developed over the last thirty years (approximately three hundred legal acts, including: directives, regulations, decisions and recommendations90), only a mention of the key directives concerning the canning plants will be made. 5.4.1 Wastewater As Spain and Portugal belong to the EU, there are a series of directives on water and wastewater91 (refer to Figure 5.4) that should be enforced by the local authorities. Among these, the directive on Urban Wastewater Treatment (91/271/EEC) is one of the most important, as there are expectations at EU level that it could bring significant reductions of the pollutant loads in EU’s water supplies92.

This directive is intended to protect the environment from the adverse effects of discharges of urban wastewater and that originating from industrial sectors of the agofood industry. Consequently, plants operating in Spain and Portugal should function under the frame set in this guide. A list of obligations for member countries under this directive is presented in Appendix 7. In the case of the Spanish processing plants, a series of specific laws on wastewater are already in place. A detail is provided in the IHOBE study93 and a summary is included here. Three levels of legislation can be applicable to wastewater and the one that will correspond to a specific company will depend on where it is channeling its wastewater (public sewerage, treatment plant or the coast): 1. Wastewater to the public sewerage: in this case the company should obtain a permit from the autonomous government or corresponding geoGraphical river confederation (i.e., authorized water authority in Spain). Also, treatment equipment should be installed and there must be compliance with quantitative and qualitative limits. The company should make a report each trimester, and a yearly declaration of the incidences of the treatment system. Also, a tax must be paid. 2. Wastewater to a treatment plant: in this case, a permit is the first thing required. Limits set by the treatment plant (belong to the municipality usually) should be followed. A surveillance and control program should be in place. Also, sanitary fees should be paid.

90

European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/preface.htm (99.08.12). European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/part2d.htm (99.08.12). 92 DIFTA. Implementing Clean Technology and Wastewater Treatment: procedures in how to fulfill requirements of urban wastewater treatment in the fishing industry. Nov. 1998. 93 IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997 91

Page 113

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

3. Wastewater to the coasts: the company should have an occupation and use of servitude concessions. It should obtain an administrative authorization by the competent body (established by each autonomous community). Also, treatment and monitoring equipment should be installed as well those elements necessary for monitoring. A surveillance and control program should be in place. There must be compliance to authorized limits, quantitative and qualitatively. Also, there must be an evaluation of the effects in the receiving body and the payment of a respective tax. Figure 5.4 EU Legislation on Water E U W ate r Q u a lity S ta n d ard s

P ro p o s ed W a ter F ram e w ork D ire c tive (C O M 9 7 /4 9 )

W a ter Q u alit y S tan d a rd s from D ire c tive s of S u rfac e W a ter (7 5 / 4 4 0 /E E C ); F is h W ate r (7 8 /6 5 9 /E E C ) S h e llfis h W a ter (7 9 /8 6 9 /E E C ); G ro u n d w at er (8 0 /6 8 /E E C ) a n d D an g ero u s S u b s tan c e s D ire c tive (7 6 / 4 6 4 /E E C ) a n d its 7 D a u g h ter D irec tives *

B ath in g W ate r D irec tive (7 6 / 1 6 0 /E E C )

D rin k in g W ate r D irec tive (8 0 / 7 7 8 /E E C )

In teg ra ted W a ter Q u ality M a n a g e m e n t

E U E m is s io n L im it V a lu es

O th e r L eg is latio n a n d M eas u re s

U rb an W as te w ate r D irec tive (9 1 / 2 7 1 /E E C ) IP P C (9 6 / 6 1 /E E C ) D an g ero u s S u b s tan c e s D ire c tive (7 6 / 4 6 4 /E E C ) lim it va lu es to b e in te g rate d in to IP P C D ire c tive N itrate s D irec tive (9 1 / 6 7 6 /E E C ) P es tic id e s L eg is latio n : P lan t P ro tec tion P ro d u c ts D irec tive (9 1 / 4 1 4 /E E C )

H ab ita ts D irec t ive (9 2 / 4 3 /E E C ) B ird s D irec t ive (7 4 / 4 0 9 /E C ) S ew a g e S lu d g e D ire c tive (8 6 / 2 7 8 /E E C ) S eve s o D irec tive (8 2 / 5 0 1 /E E C ) E n v iron m en tal Im p ac t A s s e s s m en t D ire c tive (8 5 /3 7 /E E C ) O th e r releva n t c om m u n ity, n ation al or re g io n al leg is lation a n d /or m eas u res

Source: European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/contents.htm (99.08.12).

The IHOBE study also provides a detail of the wastewater parameter limits according to the receiving body (refer to Table 5.19).

Page 114

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5.19 Wastewater parameter limits for Spanish fish canning plants Parameter (mg/l)/Water to pH BOD5 COD TSS Chlorides Nitric Nitrogen Ammonium Total Nitrogen Kjedhal Sulfates Total phosphorous Grease and oils Temperature (°C)

Treatment plant 6-10 1,500 500 2,000 20 50 505 500 50 100 40

Public sewerage 5.5-9.5 40 160 80 2,000 10 15 2,000 10 20 ∆T < 36

Coast 5.5-9.5 50-200 100-400 100 20-80 5-20 10-50 ∆T < 37

Source: IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book on Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). 1997 page 72.

In the case of Portugal, specific legislation on wastewater is also available. National water quality standards (Law 74/90 March 7th), applicable discharges for all human activity sectors (Law 624/90 August 7th) and limit values for wastewater discharges in the environment and soil (Law 895/94) have been defined. Processing plants must look out for these parameters when discharging into public sewerage. However, if discharges are made to water treatment plants, specific limits set by each municipality are applicable, some of which are presented in Table 5.20.

Table 5.20 Wastewater parameter limits in Portugal Parameter pH BOD5 (mg/l O2) COD (mg/l O2) TSS (mg/l) Chlorides Total (mg/l Cl2) Nitrates (mg/l NO3) Ammonium (mg/l NH4) Total nitrogen (mg/l N) Sulfates (mg/l SO4) Total phosphorous (mg/l P) Grease and oils (mg/l) Temperature (°C)

Public Sewerage 6-9 40 150 60 1 50 10 15 2,000 10 15 Increase of 3°C

Municipality (of Peniche) 6-9 500 2,000 1,000 1 10 15 Less than 30°C

Source: (Portugal) Diario da República - I Série - A, N° 176 - 1/8/1998 Annexes XVIII and XIX and Diario da República - III Serie - N° 262 - 12/11/1996.

Page 115

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.4.2 Solid waste The EU has also established various directives concerning solid waste94 (refer to Figure 5.5). However, for tuna/sardine processing plants, the General Waste Framework Directive and the Packaging Waste Directive 94/62 are of most concern. In general, different types of wastes generated in these processing plants fall in the municipal solid waste (MSW) category, including: fish waste, cardboard, wood, solids and fat from separated fish, solids and fat, etc. The collection, transport and handling normally corresponds to the local municipalities, although, some waste is collected by third parties because of its recycling value. Basically, and considering the frame set by EU directives as well as the national legislation, the processing plants should worry about (a) having appropriate facilities for the storage of the municipal solid waste until its pickup; (b) participating in packaging material recycling scheme or covering a deposit for their package which should be refunded to the client when the package is returned. Figure 5.5 EU Legislation on Waste W a ste F ra m e w o rk

W a s te F ra m e w o rk D ire c tive (7 5 /4 4 2 /E E C ) H a z a rd o u s W a s te D ire c t ive (9 1 /6 8 9 /E E C )

P ro c e s s in g a n d D is p o s a l F a c ilitie s M u n ic ip a l W a s te In c in e ra tio n (8 4 /4 2 9 /E E C & 8 9 /3 6 9 /E E C ) H a z a rd o u s W a s te In c in e ra t io n (9 4 /6 7 / E E C ) P ro p o s a l o n L a n d fill (C O M / 9 7 /1 0 5

T ra n s p o rt, Im p o rt & E xp o rt S h ip m e n t o f W a s t e (9 3 /2 5 9 /E E C )

S p e c ia l W a s te s T it a n iu m D io xid e W a s te (7 8 /1 7 8 /E E C ) P a c k a g in g W a s te (9 4 /6 2 / E C ) W a s te o ils (7 5 /4 3 9 /E E C ) P C B s & P C Ts (9 6 /5 9 / E C B a tte rie s (9 1 /8 6 / E E C ) S e w a g e S lu d g e (8 6 /2 7 8 /E E C )

Source: European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/contents.htm (99.08.12).

5.4.3 Air emissions Within EU, a series of directives cover air quality issues. In particular, fish canning plants should be concerned with those regarding air quality standards set for SO2, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (refer to Figure 5.6) as well the directive on ozone depleting substances (for the refrigerants used).

94

URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/part2c.htm (99.08.12)

Page 116

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 5.6 EU Legislation on air emissions Air Quality Fram ew ork

A ir Q u ality F ram ework (9 6 /6 2 /E C )

E m issions from S tationary S ou rces L arg e C om b u stion P lan ts (8 6 /6 0 9 /E E C ) W aste In cin eration (8 9 /4 2 9 /E E C & 8 9 /36 9/E E C ) H azard ou s W aste Incineration (9 4 /6 7 /E E C ) PPC (9 6 /6 1 /E C ) P rop osed V O C S olven ts D irective (C O M 9 6/5 3 8 )

M obile S ou rces L ead C on tent of P etrol (8 5 /2 1 0 /E E C ) D iesel E ng ines (7 2 /3 0 6 /E E C & 8 8 /72 /E E C ) M otor V ehicles (7 0 /2 2 0 /E E C ) P rop osed M ob ile M ach in ery E n g in es D irective (C O M 95 /3 50 )

A ir Q u ality S tand ard s S O 2 and P articulates (8 0 /7 7 9 /E E C ) L ead * (8 2 /8 8 4 /E E C ) N itrog en O xid es* (8 5 /2 0 3 /E E C )

P rod u ct C on trols O zon e D ep letin g su b stan ces (9 4 /3 0 9 3 /E C ) M arketin g & U se of D an g erou s C hem icals (7 6/76 9/E E C ) A sb estos (8 7 /2 1 7 /E E C ) L ead C on tent of P etrol (8 5 /2 1 0 /E E C ) S u lp h u r C onten t of Liq u id F u els (93 /1 2/E E C ) V O C em issions from storag e an d tran sport of p etrol (9 4 /6 3 /E E C ) P rop osed Q uality of P etrols an d Fu els D irective (C O M 9 6 /01 64 )

* To be replaced by new standards under the Air Framework Directive which also introduces standards for ozone, CO, benzene and other atmospheric pollutants.

Source: European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/contents.htm (99.08.12).

According to Spanish law, tuna/sardine processing plants belong to Group B of atmosphere contaminating industries (Royal Decree 833/6th February 1975). However, their pollution source belongs to group C since emissions come from steam generators. In practice, this means that the companies should provide a study to the government of the autonomous community explaining the characteristics of their steam generator; also they must posses a certificate indicating they belong to Group B and certify that the installation can be adjusted to Group C; they must have an inspection by the Inspection-Certification-Register every five years and keep a book-record on emissions, incidents. The record book should be sealed by the competent authority in the autonomous community. Last, and certainly not least, they should comply with emission limits. In Portugal, maximum emission values have been defined at national level for fixed point sources (e.g., boilers) and it is understood that processing plants should be in compliance with these standards. For example, particulate matter should be under 300 mg/m3N, SO2 emissions under 2,700 mg/m3N (after the year 2000), H2S emissions under 50 mg/m3N, NOx (expressed as NO2) emissions under 1,500 mg/m3N and CO emissions under 1,000 mg/m3N.

Page 117

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5.4.4 Hazardous/Toxic waste Within EU environmental legislation, toxic waste is included in the Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC (refer to Figure 5.5). This act constitutes a supporting framework for authorities in Spain and Portugal to monitor these substances in different industrial facilities, including fish canning plants. However, hazardous or toxic waste present in these plants is regarded as low when compared to others. In fact, in Spain, plants processing less than 100 metric tons per year can register in a Directorate of Small Producers of Toxic Waste and be exempt from an authorization as “toxic waste producer”, and annual declaration of toxic waste. If the plant processes more than 100 metric tons, it should request a “hazardous waste acceptance document” to the entity/organization in charge of toxic waste in the autonomous government (this document should be kept for five years). Then, the waste should be given only to dealers and collectors authorized by the autonomous government. Spanish legislation also requires that within four years time, all “toxic waste producers” should prepare a minimization plan planning to reduce these substances as much as possible. Records of toxic waste generated should be kept and appropriate packing, labelling and storage standards should be followed at all times for these materials. There is another substance that, although not toxic, should also be considered by tuna/sardine processing plants. It is the fuel employed for the boilers. In Spain, if the fuel is liquid, the storage is subject to applicable legislation defined by each government in each autonomous community (in general related to possible leakage and underground contamination). For this reason, the companies should request an authorization from their autonomous community and register. Periodic revisions by accredited entities to check the fuel storage would then take place. 5.4.5 Noise As with water/waste/air, the EU has also defined relevant legislation on noise (refer to Figure 5.7). However, mainly the Directive 84/533 is of concern for canneries and more specifically its ruling on the use of compressors. Here it states that compressors “must be labeled with a mark indicating the noise levels guaranteed by the manufacturer, and contain annexes which define a method of measuring airborne noise and a spot check procedure for checking the conformity of production models with the type examined”. In general terms, noise levels in the plants should not exceed pre-established limits set forth in each municipality. Spain requires that within each plant, there should be an evaluation of the noise level to which workers are exposed. Training and information must also be provided to the workers, as well as periodical medical controls and protective hearing equipment. Finally, Spain requires a register of evaluations performed in the plant, which should be stored for thirty years.

Page 118

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 5.7 EU Legislation on noise N oise C on trol

V eh ic les M otor V eh icles (7 0 /1 5 7 /E E C ) M otorcyc les (7 8 /1 0 1 5 /E E C )

M a ch in es H ou s eh old A p p lia n c e F ram ew o rk (8 8 /5 9 4 /E E C )

A erop lan es S u b son ic A erop lan es (8 0 /5 1 /E E C ) Jet A erop lan es (8 9 /6 2 9 /E E C ) L im itation of A erop lan e O p era tion s (9 2 /1 4 /E E C )

C on stru c tion s E E C Typ e E xam in a tion F ram ew ork (8 4 /5 3 2 /E E C ) C om p re sso rs (8 4 /5 32 /E E C ) Tow e r C ran es (8 4 /5 3 3 /E E C ) W eld in g G en erators (8 4 /5 3 5 /E E C ) P o w er G en erators (8 5 /5 3 6 /E E C ) C on c rete B reak ers (8 5 /5 3 7 /E E C ) L aw n m ow ers (8 5 /5 3 8 /E E C ) H yd rau lic E xc avators (9 6 /6 6 2 /E E C )

Source: European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/contents.htm (99.08.12).

5.4.6 Other legislation in the EU Further to the existing legislation on specific aspects such as water, air emissions and solid waste, the EU has also established a series of directives and regulations which cover three areas (refer to Figure 5.8): 1. Control of industrial emissions: includes directives that establish requirements for permits for the operation of certain industrial facilities so as to control releases to air and water and wastes. The directives include the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), the Emissions from Large Combustion Plants Directive and the Air Pollution from Industrial Plants Directive (will be replaced by IPPC Directive in 2007). 2. Control of major accident hazards: the Seveso Directive 96/82/EC which requires industrial plant operators to identify major accident hazards and take steps to control them and to limit their effects (replaced the previous Directive 82/501/EEC this year). 3. Environmental audits and eco-labeling: covers the regulations on Ecomanagement and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and on eco-label. EMAS Regulation encourages the voluntary participation of industrial plants in the development of internal EMS and audit programs as a means to improve their environmental performance. The eco-label Regulation establishes an EU eco-label award scheme, intended to promote the design, production, marketing and use of products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle (the eco-label gives consumers information about the environmental impacts of products).

Page 119

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 5.8 EU Legislation Industrial emissions, products, industrial risk C on trols on In d u strial E m ission s an d W astes

C on trol on P rod u cts

E colab el Integrated Pollution (9 2 /8 8 0 /E E C ) Preve ntion and Control IPPC (96 /61/E E C) L arg e C om b u stion P lan ts (8 6 /6 0 9 /E E C ) E co M an ag em en t & A u d it S ch em e - E M A S (9 3 /1 8 3 6 /E E C ) A sb estos (8 7 /2 1 7 /E E C ) W aste F ram ew ork (7 5 /4 4 2 /E E C ) H azard ou s W aste (9 4 /6 7 /E E C ) H azard ou s W aste In cin eration (9 4 /6 7 /E E C ) U rb an W astew ater Treatm en t (9 1 /2 7 /E E C ) P rop osed L an d fill D irective (C O M (9 7 ) 1 0 5 ) P rop osed D irective on In d u strial E m ission s of V O C 's (C O M (9 6 )5 3 8 )

C on trol on In d u strial R isk S eveso D irectives (9 6 /8 2 /E E C ) E co M an ag em en t & A u d it S ch em e - E M A S (9 3 /1 8 3 6 /E E C )

Source: European Union DG XII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/contents.htm (99.08.12).

From these directives, of special concern for large Spanish and Portuguese canning plants—that is, those processing over 75 metric tons of fish per day—is the IPPC Directive which will become effective as of October this year and will require these large plants to have permits for polluting. Figure 5.9 presents the different industrial sectors which will be affected by this directive.

Page 120

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Figure 5.9 Industry sectors affected by the IPPC Directive IP P C

E n erg y in d u strie s

P rod u ction an d p ro ces s in g of m etals

M in eral in d u stry

C h em ic al in d u s try

W aste m an a g em en t

O th er activitie s

p u lp from tim b er o r oth er fib rou s m aterials, p ap er an d b oard P lan ts for th e p re-treatm en t or d yein g of fib ers or textiles P lan ts for th e tan n in g of h id es an d skin s

F ood p roc ess in g

S lau g h terh ou se s

Treatm en t an d p ro ces s in g in ten d e d for th e p rod u ctio n of food p rod u cts

a n im a l ra w m a te ria ls (o th e r th a n m ilk ) p ro d u c t p ro d u c tion + 7 5 to n s /da y veg etab le raw m ateria ls

Treatm en t an d p roces sin g of m ilk

In stallation s for th e d is p os al or rec yclin g of a n im al carc ass es an d an im al w as te In stallation s for th e in ten s ive rea rin g of p ou ltry or p ig s In stallation s for su rfac e treatm e n t u s in g org an ic so lven ts In stallation s for th e p rod u ction of carb on

Source: European Environmental Agency. URL: http://www.eea.eu.int/ (99.08.12).

The goal of the directive is to “achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from a wide range of activities by means of measures to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions from industrial facilities to air, water and land, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment as a whole”95.

95

European Environmental Agency. URL: http://www.eea.eu.int (99.08.12).

Page 121

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

All activities covered by the Directive will require a permit. This means, that the Spanish and Portuguese authorities could issue single permits for releases to air, water and waste from an industrial facility, or issue multiple permits which are integrated through a cooperation procedure involving several permitting authorities. Furthermore, the Spanish and Portuguese authorities should also impose the emission limits for these environmental permits. This directive requires that Spain and Portugal ensure that the permits contain measures that will allow the following basic requirements to be met: 1. All appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular though the application BATs 2. No significant pollution is caused 3. Waste production is avoided; where waste is produced it should be recovered or, where it is technically and economically impossible, disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment 4. Energy is used efficiently 5. The necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences 6. The necessary measures are taken upon definite cessation of activities to avoid any pollution risk and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state.

Page 122

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

CHAPTER 6 Wf=37

CH. 9

Page 123

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

6. DEFINING THE EPIs 6.1 Preliminary definition of the EPIs After having performed the process input-output analysis (sections 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the identification of the related environmental aspects in the processing, the next step taken was a preliminary definition of the environmental performance indicators for the process. For this purpose, the conditions already explained in section 2.2 (i.e., setting up an environmental performance evaluation process and types and uses of EPIs) were taken into consideration. Particular attention was placed on the results of the analysis performed in section 2.3, whereby the preferred indicators were the operational performance indicators emphasizing quantity and not costs. However, the preference towards absolute indicators was disregarded since this type of indicators are not as helpful as relative indicators in measuring the efficiency of the process (relative indicators allow comparisons of environmental performance among companies irrespective of sizes, places and technology used provided the product remains the same)96. Furthermore, as the spirit of this research is to help Spanish and Portuguese firms start up a process of systematic EPE, the use of relative indicators is regarded as a better instrument for these companies than the indicators expressed in absolute terms. Thus, the preliminary list of EPIs considers the environmental aspects described in section 5.3. As a general remark, the term “fish” could include both finfish and other processed seafood provided that the share of these products constitutes a small volume of total production (less than 10%). If the share of the “other seafood product” is considerable in the final production by the company, the EPIs should not be used to compare the environmental performance of different companies. In this case, there would be a need then to use separate EPIs for finfish and the other products. Table 6.1 presents the preliminary EPIs for each aspect. The indicators are mostly OPIs (81%) yet there are also MPIs. Also, from the total indicators, half address specifically an environmental aspect within a process phase, while the rest cover an aspect considering all the phases. The detailed explanation of the EPIs is presented in Tables 6.2 to 6.11.

96

Notes from the course Introduction to Cleaner Production, IIIEE. Lecture on “Performance Indicators” by Shisher Kumra (98.09.15).

Page 124

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.1 Preliminary set of EPIs Type

Number

OPIs

30

Environmental Aspect Water consumption

Wastewater

Fish waste Packaging Waste Liquid media spills Energy

Air emissions Odors Noise

Refrigerant Coolants Chemicals Detergents Oil for equipment MPIs

7

Management

Total

Level General Specific

Number of EPIs 1 5

General

5

Specific

3

General Specific General Specific General Specific General

1 1 1 2

Specific General Specific General Specific General Specific

1 3 1 1

General Specific General Specific General Specific General Specific General

1 2 1 1 4

Specific

3

General Specific

18 19

Comment Focus on total volume Focus on: thawing, tuna cooking, sterilization, cleaning, can washing Focus on characterization of final wastewater (BOD, COD, grease and oils, SS, total volume) Focus on thawing (SS) and cooking (chlorides and grease and oils) Focus on general fish waste

Focus on all packaging waste Focus on olive/vegetable oil Focus on total electricity consumption Focus on sterilization Focus on CO2, NOx, SO2 emissions Focus on waste containers used

Focus on tuna packing and can seaming Focus on total CFC consumption

Focus on NaOH and NaOCl Focus on total consumption Focus on total consumption Focus on general training, environmental goals and initiatives. Focus on water and wastewater, training for peeling tuna

Page 125

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.2 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Water consumption

1.

Proposed EPI total water per total tons of whole fish purchased or final canned fish.

Unit m3/kg

•

•

2.

water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed.

m3/kg

• • • • •

97

Explanation/Considerations As the processing plants consume large volumes of water for various purposes (especially in tuna), this indicator would help relate the total water consumption with respect to the amount of whole fish purchased by the company for canning. The term “fish purchased” refers to both the fish which is caught by the company’s own vessels (if applicable) and that purchased to suppliers. Alternatively, the amount of final canned fish could be used as the reference. The indicator could be helpful in comparing the performance of companies processing whole fish, since those who process loins use less water since they don’t have to cut the head and tail. Also, it could help identify those companies that are reusing water in the process and thus saving input water (e.g., in the cooking tanks or sterilization). UNEP estimates that the consumption for sardines could be half of that used in tuna. As thawing consumes an important amount of water (e.g., 30-40% of total volume for tuna in the Thailand Study) it is important to monitor this specific consumption and relate it to the amount of the fish being thawed (weight in metric tons) and specify the obtained quality level. Differences in water consumption for Spanish and Portuguese companies in this phase come about as some thaw using occasional hosing or water sprays combined also with exposure to ambient temperature. Related to this water consumption is also the “quality”. Thawing should avoid a localized overheating of the fish (as the protein in the flesh may denature); excessive drip losses; dehydration and bacterial growth97. Therefore, the indicator should also specify the quality level obtained for the thawed fish. Other thawing methods (e.g., microwave) can be used but as they were not observed in the Spanish or Portuguese companies, this indicator is based on the use of water for this phase. When looking at this indicator, it is also very important to bear in mind the final temperature to which the companies are thawing the fish, as this could be a reason for different values of the EPI. Therefore, it should be mentioned along with the indicator.

G.M. Hall. Fish Processing Technology. Pg. 116.

Page 126

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.3 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Water consumption

3.

Proposed EPI water used for cooking per ton of tuna cooked (excludes sardines as the cooking is done in steam cookers and not cooking tanks)

Unit m3/kg

•

•

•

•

98

Explanation/Considerations As the cooking phase is critical in the process due to the high water consumption and consequent wastewater generated, its consumption could be monitored by relating it to the amount of tuna cooked. A consideration which must be made is that cooking affects the yield and sensory quality98 of the tuna meat. An excessive treat could reduce the yield, whereas inadequate treatments could not allow the desired characteristics for this phase (refer to section 4.1.6). Therefore, again this EPI should be linked to quality levels obtained for the cooked tuna and should be specified within the indicator on water used. Other important considerations that must be made when using this indicator for comparisons among companies, are the fish type and final product destinations (market). The first affects the directly process phase with respect to the possible amount of oil and grease that can be released. The second affects indirectly (i.e., there could be more or less salinity level of the brine solution which could also affect together with the fish type, the need for cleaning more or less the solution). Therefore, the indicator should be accompanied with a specification of the type of fish processed and the concentration of the brine solution. Another process variable, which could have an effect on the EPI, is the period of time used for the cooking. Therefore, it is important that the EPI also has an indication of the cooking time. In Spanish companies, one of the main differences in water consumption in this phase were due to the separation of oil and greases. This is because as the fish is being cooked inside the tanks -which are filled with a brine solution- oil and greases from the flesh are released. Some companies then remove or skim off this layer and therefore the cooking brine solution does not get as “dirty” and it can last for more cooking batches. Some other companies do not skim off this layer, and instead change the brine solution more frequently. In an interview with Danish consultants, it was also mentioned how the cooking brine becomes a sort of “fish soup” which gives special flavor characteristics to the fish when cooked; therefore, a better quality could be obtained if the brine solution is not emptied frequently and the greases and oils removed. In spite that another cooking method can be used for tuna -as suggested by IHOBE- similar to an autoclave, it was not considered, as it is not commonly use.

FAO. Manual on Fish Canning. 1988 (pg. 32).

Page 127

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.4 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Water consumption

Proposed EPI water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish.

Unit m3/kg

•

5.

water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall.

m3/m2

•

6.

water used for washing per can of specific size (after the seaming and prior to sterilization)

m3/can

•

4.

•

Explanation/Considerations As sterilization is a critical phase in the process due to the high water consumption and consequent wastewater generated, it is important to monitor this specific consumption by relating it to the amount of canned fish. As it is possible to recycle the water input in the retorts and some companies are not doing, the indicator would help identify those who are and encourage the others. UNEP estimates that the 85% of the water can be saved by discharging it to a cooling tower and reusing it for cooling. As general facility’s cleaning is a critical phase due to the high water consumption and consequent wastewater generated, it could be helpful to monitor this specific consumption by relating it to the area being cleaned. As there are different cleaning practices implemented by each company (e.g., the collection of solid particles by scraping or sweeping before the initial hosing, the use of high pressure hosing, hot water, nozzles and pistols) the indicator would help relate the amount of water needed to clean a specific area and allow for inter-company comparisons. The indicator reflects the amount of water used per can in the process phase between the can seaming and sterilization. This phase consumes a lot of water and consequently there is an important volume of wastewater generated which could be monitored using as a reference the amount of cans washed. However, when comparing different indicator values among companies, a series of considerations must be specified: ∗ Firstly, the size of the cans. Companies producing large cans (for institutional markets for example) might use more water per can than companies producing smaller cans (for consumer market). Therefore, the EPI has to be used firstly on a “fair size” basis; secondly, the type of material used for the can (e.g., aluminum/tinplate) could also affect the water consumed as different materials have different properties which make the removal of particles more or less easy; thirdly, the type of filling media must be considered, as there are certain filling media which may be harder to remove and therefore more water would have to be used; fourthly, the use of steam or water at a high temperature since this can reduce the amount water required since the cleaning becomes easier. The major differences in water consumption in this phase are due to the type of washing method used. This means, that the cans can be washed in special washing machines -which can reuse rinsing water- or simply by immersion in tanks with detergents. Another reason for the difference is that more water is consumed when the cans “get more dirty” during filling of liquid media. Therefore, lower values in the indicator could also help reflect those companies who are getting their cans less dirty and performing better in media filling.

Page 128

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.5 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Wastewater

7.

Proposed EPI total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product.

Unit m3/kg

• •

•

• 8.

discharged biological oxygen demand (BOD5) in final wastewater stream.

mg/l

•

• •

99

Explanation/Considerations In a certain way, this is a complementary indicator to the one about total water consumption. This is because, most of the water consumed in the processing ends up as wastewater (between 90% and 95%). A very important consideration that must be made when comparing the value of this indicator for different companies is the quality -not just quantity- of the wastewater. The final effects on the receiving body will be influenced not only by the quantity but also by the quality. Therefore, the indicator should not be used by itself to avoid “misinterpretations” and be accompanied with other EPIs reflecting wastewater quality. Among, the Spanish and Portuguese plants, this indicator could be very helpful to compare the final volumes. This is because, wastewater is a major source of pollution to rivers, beaches or ports and “originates problems, complaints and alarm in the population”99 and also because in the next couple of months/years, all Spanish/Portuguese companies will start paying discharge fees for wastewater as municipal treatment plants are being built and start operating in their localities due to enforcement of EU environmental directives (if they haven’t already that is). UNEP estimates the volume of wastewater for sardines to be half of tuna (or less) per metric ton of final product. BOD5 is a very common wastewater variable used for characterization and it indicates how much dissolved oxygen will be consumed by microorganisms for the aerobic biochemical oxidation of organic and inorganic matter. If the amount of such material that can be decomposed is high, the dissolved oxygen use may reach a level that not enough oxygen will be left in the water for other aquatic organisms to survive. The indicator would help reflect practices of companies in phases such as cooking, thawing and general cleaning. The unit that could be used to express the EPI is the concentration. According to the UNEP and UNIDO, the typical value is higher for tuna processing than sardine processing. A condition which should be specified with the EPI when used for comparisons is the type of tuna or sardine being processed as there are variations among species which could affect the final value. The indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that it can be related with the species being processed.

IHOBE Study.

Page 129

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.6 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Wastewater

9.

Proposed EPI discharged chemical oxygen demand (COD) in final wastewater stream.

Unit mg/l

•

• •

10. discharged grease and oils in final wastewater stream.

mg/l

• •

11. discharged suspended solids (SS) in final wastewater stream.

mg/l

•

•

100

Explanation COD is also another common wastewater parameter used for characterization. It stands for the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize organic matter completely to CO2, water and ammonia. Since BOD5 does not provide information about the quantities of materials in the wastewater that can resist bacterial degradation COD will provide an indication of all oxidizable material content (some of which may not be pollutants)100. The indicator would help reflect practices of companies in phases such as cooking, thawing and general cleaning. The unit that could be used to express the EPI is the concentration. UNEP and UNIDO indicate that the COD value is higher for tuna than sardines. A condition that should also be specified along with this EPI is the type of tuna or sardine being processed as there are variations among species that could affect the indicator’s value. The indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that it can be related with the species being processed. Grease and oils are present in fish processing, especially in the wastewater from process phases such as cooking, liquid media filling and can washing. Therefore, the EPI would reflect indirectly the practices adopted in these phases. The unit that could be used to express the EPI is the concentration. UNEP and UNIDO indicate that the average value for tuna processing is three times that of sardines (reflected in the fact that tuna has more oil and grease in its meat than sardines). A condition that should also be specified along with this EPI is the type of tuna or sardine being processed, as there are variations among species that could affect the indicator’s value. The indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that it can be related with the species being processed. SS is also another common wastewater parameter used for characterization and it helps to provide an idea of all the particles in the wastewater stream that can be removed by standard filtration procedures (or sedimentation). It would help reflect practices of companies in high SS phases such as cleaning of facilities and thawing. The unit that could be used to express the EPI is the concentration. UNIDO and UNEP indicate that the average value for tuna processing is twice that of sardines (tuna processing generates more fish waste than sardine processing). A condition that should be specified when comparing this EPI is the type of tuna or sardine being processed due to variations among species. The indicator could be compared considering monthly values to relate it with the species being processed

IIIEE, Environmental Technology course. Condensed Course Material. September 1998.

Page 130

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.7 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Wastewater

Proposed EPI 12. avg. discharged SS in thawing wastewater per ton of fish cut (i.e., with no head, viscera or tail).

Unit mg/kg

• •

•

13. avg. discharged chlorides in cooking wastewater per ton of fish cooked.

mg/kg

•

• •

14. amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of fish cooked.

g/kg

•

• •

Explanation Thawing is a critical wastewater process phase since this wastewater has high contents of SS and blood. Its specific monitoring would help reduce the SS content in the final wastewater. To calculate the EPI, there would be a need to (a) calculate the average concentration of SS in this phase; (b) multiply this amount by the avg. volume of wastewater for this phase and (c) divide this result by the total amount of fish “X” cut. The use of this EPI could be done in combination with the one on “water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed”. An important condition, just as in the other wastewater parameters, is that the type of fish being thawed should be specified and the indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that the indicator can be related with the species being processed. Finally, a reference to thawing temperature should accompany the use of this EPI since temperature could have an effect on the amount of SS from this phase. Chloride content in cooking water is among the highest in all the process because of the brine solution used for cooking the fish. Therefore, by relating the amount of chlorides with the tons of fish cooked in this phase, companies could compare their performance in this phase (helping to reduce also the final amount of chlorides entering the final wastewater stream). To calculate the EPI, there would be a need to (a) calculate the average concentration of chlorides in this phase; (b) multiply this amount by the avg. volume of wastewater for this phase and (c) divide this result by the total amount of fish “X” cooked. An important condition, just as in the other wastewater parameters, is that the type of fish being thawed should be specified and the indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that the indicator can be related with the species being processed. Grease and oils are an important parameter to monitor the wastewater from cooking. Some companies are recovering it and then selling it to others that produce other by-products. The indicator would relate the amount of grease and oils with the tons of fish cooked, and companies could compare their practices in this phase (helping to reduce also the final amount of grease and oils entering the final wastewater stream). To calculate the EPI, there would be a need to (a) keep track of the amount of grease and oil recovered and (b) divide this result by the total amount of fish “X” cooked. An important condition, just as in the other wastewater parameters, is that the type of fish being thawed should be specified and the indicator could be compared considering monthly values so that it can be related with the species being processed.

Page 131

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.8 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Fish waste

Proposed EPI 15. kg of waste fish meat per kg of total fish purchased.

Unit kg/kg

•

• Packaging material

16. total packaging material sorted and sent for recycling/total packaging material purchased.

kg/kg

•

•

• Liquid media spills

Energy

17. amount of (olive/vegetable) oil recovered in relation to initial input (olive/vegetable) oil. 18. total electricity per ton of final canned product.

l/l

•

kWh/ kg

•

19. fuel per ton of final canned product.

kWh/ kg

•

Explanation As already explained in section 5.3.3.1, fish waste is generated during processing in different phases. The yields obtained for canning will vary according to the size of the fish as well as other raw material handling considerations (e.g., cutting of the fish at an appropriate temperature). Many companies already have the major the data for the main phases generating the waste (i.e., cutting and peeling), so this could become the starting point and then data should be collected from the rest of process phases generating the waste. Another consideration in order to use the EPIs is that fish species would have to be linked to the EPI since it is known beforehand that some species have different processing yields. As there are many packaging materials used during the processing (e.g., boxes, cans, lids, cardboard), individual indicators could be set to monitor the recycling percentage for each one, yet an aggregated indicator could be used as well in order to reflect the total recycling efforts of the company and not just the efforts for one material. Therefore, the indicator would require companies to keep track of all packaging material used for the final product, and the other packaging that comes along with material they buy (e.g., cardboard which separates the cans when they are brought to the plant). Also, the companies would have to keep track of the material which is collected and given back to suppliers or collected by other external recycling companies. The unit would be the total amount of recycled material in kg per total amount of packaging material entering the processing plant in kilograms (a recycling percentage). As there are liquid media spills, the indicator would help provide an idea of how much liquid filling media is being recovered during the processing. Some companies use centrifuges -refer to section 4.3.5- in order to recover the oil. Thus, the indicator would help identify those that are recovering.

As there is a lot of equipment in the processing plant using electricity, the energy consumed in the plant associated to the final output, that is, tons of canned product, would serve to compare the performance in this aspect. Relates the use of fuel in the boiler directly to the production in the plant. Therefore, relating this consumption of the (fossil) fuel to the amount of processed tons. The indicator will help identify those having the less consumption of fuel per ton of final product.

Page 132

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.9 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Energy

Proposed EPI

Unit

Explanation

kWh/ton

•

As it was explained in section 5.3.5.1, there are a series of measures which can help reduce the energy content in this phase (e.g., insulation). Therefore, the indicator would help reflect the specific performance of this phase in each company.

21. kg of CO2 per ton of final canned product.

kg/kg

•

22. kg of SO2 per ton of final canned product.

kg/kg

•

23. kg of NOx per ton of final canned product.

kg/kg

•

Odors

24. type of waste containers used for solid waste (fish and municipal).

Description

•

Noise

25. noise levels in the tuna packing and seaming area of the processing plant.

DB

•

As fossil fuels are used in the boiler, there are consequent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions originating. The amount of emissions per ton of final canned product would provide an idea of the company either (1) using more environmentally friendly fuels; (2) operating an efficient boiler or (3) having flue-gas cleaning. As fossil fuels are used in the boiler, there are consequent sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions originating. The amount of emissions per ton of final canned product would provide an idea of the company either (1) using more environmentally friendly fuels; (2) operating an efficient boiler or (3) having flue-gas cleaning. As fossil fuels are used in the boiler, there are consequent nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions originating. The amount of emissions per ton of final canned product would provide an idea of the company either (1) using more environmentally friendly fuels; (2) operating an efficient boiler or (3) having flue-gas cleaning. Most of the indicators so far have been quantitative; however, also qualitative indicators like the type of waste containers used. In this case it is considered appropriate as companies would not feel uncomfortable in reporting things as “complaints” but instead this indicator would reveal indirectly the possible problems with odors. It could be assumed that the companies using the best types of containers (e.g., sealed and placed in a separate area) would have less problems with odors than those who use inappropriate storage means. Indicator to monitor the noise level in the tuna “packing” area of the processing plant. As hundreds of cans per minute are conveyed to the automatic machine for packing, there are considerable noise levels that could go beyond 80 decibels. Therefore, periodic measurements of the noise level during “packing” time should be used to indicate if companies are considering this factor, mostly from the shop floor employee’s point of view.

Air emissions

20. energy used for sterilization

Page 133

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.10 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect Refrigerant agents

Proposed EPI 26. tons of CFC used per ton of final canned product.

Unit kg/kg

•

NaOCl

27. kg of NaOCl used per ton of final canned product. 28. kg of NaOH used per ton of final canned product.

kg/kg

•

kg/kg

•

Detergents

29. detergents used for cleaning in process area.

kg/m2

•

Oil for equipment

30. total amount of equipment oil used per ton of final canned product. 31. # environmental goals set/ # of environmental goals met per year.

m3/kg

•

goals set/ goals met

•

NaOH

All aspects

Explanation As there is need for freezing rooms and cold storage, there are refrigerating agents used in these plants (such as chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) which are Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and also have Global Warming Potential (GWP). Consequently, the companies should monitor the use of these substances and look for more environmentally friendly substitutes. The indicator would reflect the amount of CFCs used per ton of final canned product. Sodium hypochlorite is used for chlorinating the water used for washing the cans after the seaming and prior to the sterilization. The indicator would help set a relation between the consumption in kg of this chemical used per kg of final canned product. Sodium hydroxide is used in this industry as a cleaning agent for baskets containing fish meat before “peeling and packing” and also for other cleaning operations. The indicator would help set a relation between the consumption in kg of this chemical used per kg of final canned product. In Spain, the discharge of wastewater containing the chemical dissolved is regulated by Law. As the facility’s cleaning is a critical phase in fish canning, and consequently cleaning is performed daily with the use of a lot detergent, the EPI can be used to compare the consumption of these cleaning agents per surface area being cleaned. The indicator could focus on processing areas mainly, but also administrative areas could be used. Whichever, the case it is important to specify which area is being considered so that the comparisons are made on “equal grounds” among the companies. As different equipment is operating, there is a need for lubrication and oil is used for this purpose. The problem being with this, that the oil may leave in the wastewater or even fish waste. Thus, the indicator will help compare the consumption of oil per final ton of canned product and identify which companies are using more per final ton of canned product. EPE and EPIs are useful as long they help each company reach the different environmental goals set. Thus, this indicator would provide an idea of the number of goals met and would reflect the degree of involvement and commitment of the company’s management level towards environmental improvements in the company.

Page 134

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 6.11 Preliminary set of proposed EPIs Environmental Aspect All aspects

Fish waste

All aspects

All aspects

Wastewater

Water consumption

Proposed EPI 32. annual budget for environmental initiatives as a percentage of total budget. 33. avg. hours spent on training new personnel for peeling. 34. # of staff hours spent on environmental projects per staff employee. 35. # of environmental initiatives for the local community per year. 36. percentage of (monthly) samples meeting authorized discharge criteria. 37. savings achieved by reduced water consumption treatment per year.

Unit monetary unit/ monetary unit

•

Explanation A company that is able to plan its projects effectively on environmental work is most likely one that will succeed in achieving an improved environmental performance year after year. Therefore, monitoring the “economic resources” allocated for these environmental projects is key as it will point out which company is making efforts to improve its performance and is prepared to face the economic investments required for the improvements. As the processing for the tuna is seasonal, and thus there is a need to hire new employees for the most labor intensive operations (i.e., peeling), it is appropriate to keep track of the amount of time that this new personnel is trained so that the highest processing yields—and less waste—can be achieved.

hours/ employee

•

hours/ employee

•

number

•

Percentage

•

The level of success in achieving the necessary wastewater parameters such as BOD, COD or SS can be easily measured with an indicator such as this, whereby the company keeps track of the number of wastewater samples that met the regulatory requirements.

monetary unit

•

Usually, managers prefer indicators that are simply expressed in monetary value, especially if they emphasize savings achieved with a determined measure. Therefore, this indicator would help translate the company’s water improvements in a form that is easier to understand by top management and where some of the economic benefits from the environmental improvements in the company can be reflected.

Not only the training in environmental issues is relevant, but also the possibility of putting in practice the knowledge acquired by participating directly in projects related to environmental improvements. Therefore, an indicators such as this one, would allow the company’s management monitor how much time is spent by their staff on projects that would lead to an overall improvement of the company’s performance. One of the benefits from EPE is the improvement of relations with external stakeholders. An EPI such as the number of initiatives could monitor these relations. The EPI could be said to reflect the confidence level that the company would have in the community where it operates.

Page 135

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

CHAPTER 7 Wf=37

CH. 9

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

7. Information gathered through site visits An important step in the process of selecting the most relevant EPIs for the fish canning plants was constituted by on-site visits. Indeed, this was very important as it helped to form an idea of the status of environmental awareness, problems, priorities and performance evaluation in the Spanish and Portuguese companies. The analysis of these industries performed in sections 3.5 and 3.6 proved to be helpful in obtaining an initial impression of the situation in these countries, as well as for selecting the type of plants to visit. In this sense, the analysis highlighted the importance of tuna in Spain101 and sardines in Portugal. Consequently, visits were prepared accordingly and meetings set with the help of different counterparts: Technological Institute of Fisheries and Food (AZTI) in the Basque Country, National Canneries Association (ANFACO) in Galicia and the Sea and Fisheries Research Institute (IPIMAR) in Lisbon. In total, eight visits were arranged to companies, five of which were in Spain (distributed in the Basque Country and Galicia) and three in Portugal. An interview guide was prepared beforehand in order to gather the most information possible considering the time and availability of the interviewees (refer to Appendix 7). A condition set by most of the companies for having access to data was that their names would remain anonymous. This was not considered a problem as the intention sought with the visits was to learn about the general “environmental situation” of the companies and not the specific situation of “company X” or “company Y”. Another situation encountered was that in some cases, the data provided by the companies were too specific, too general, unknown or confidential. In spite of this, the results are presented next. Table 7.1 is a summarized characterization of the companies; Table 7.2 includes the findings on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste; Table 7.3 presents the findings on energy, air emissions and noise and Table 7.4 presents findings on environmental plans and priorities, as well as “other findings”.

101

Specifically in the autonomous communities of Basque Country and Galicia which were identified as the most important “canning” areas in Spain.

Page 137

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.1 General information Company (founded) A (1990)

Country

Employees

Spain

214 (1997)

B (1923)

Spain

Not provided.

C (1917)

Spain

Not provided.

D (1894)

Spain

E (1873)

Products

Fish Purchases Metric Tons 7,500 (1997)

Packing media

Tuna Anchovies Mackerel Tuna Anchovies Mussels Tuna

Olive oil, vegetable oil, brine, water

598 (1997) 158 (1997) 3 (1997) 5,550 (1997)

Olive oil, vegetable oil, Catalan sauce (type of marinade) Olive oil, vegetable oil, marinade, brine

168 (1998)

Tuna

13,000 (1998)

Olive oil, vegetable oil, marinade

Spain

130 (1997)

Tuna

≈ 6,600 (1997)

F (1997)

Portugal

500 (1997)

Sardines

≈ 4,500 (1997)

G (1959)

Portugal

60 (1998)

Sardines, tuna, squid, mackerel, octopus

Not provided.

H (1969)

Portugal

80 (1998)

Sardines Tuna

70% of production 30% of production No more details.

Olive oil, vegetable oil, marinade Tomato sauce, vegetable oil, olive oil, brine, hot pepper sauce Sardines: tomato sauce, hot pepper sauce. Tuna, mackerel: vegetable oil, olive oil, water. Octopus/squid: secret sauce Sardines: tomato sauce, olive oil Tuna: not specified.

Additional comments ISO-9002 since a few years (?). The company is located in an area close to a small town near the sea. Operates 220 days a year, high season in summer (extra employees reaching 362). ISO-9002 in 1999. 30% of the production is exported. The company is in the middle of a town near the sea. Operates 160 days a year. The company is a part of a larger corporation. It accounts for 20% of total corporate production. Only 10% production is fresh fish. 30% of the production is exported. 70% of the fish is from own vessels. Operates 220 days a year, high season in summer (extra employees). ISO-9002 in 1996. The company is a part of a larger corporation. Other sites process mussels, anchovies, etc. All production in this plant is based on frozen fish. 100% of fish from other suppliers. Operates 220 days a year, high season in summer (extra employees). ISO-9002 in 1997. 30% production comes from fresh fish. Operates 220 days a year, high season in summer (extra employees). 100% production is exported to USA mainly. Operates 220 days a year, high season (extra employees). The company is part of a corporation, which has another facility processing sardines as well. 75% of the production is exported. The tuna is imported in frozen loins from South America. Operates 220 days a year, high season (extra employees, reaching 140). Operates 220 days a year, high season (extra employees, reaching 200). 80% of the production is exported. Production is seasonal and always dependent on availability of raw material.

Page 138

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.2 Information on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste Company A

Water consumption Water in 1997 was provided from municipal network (66,000 m3 @ 126 pesetas/m3) and a well (16,500 m3 @ 3 pesetas/m3). Most critical phases in water consumption are: cooking, meat cleaning, sterilization, cleaning of facilities. Before, water came from a well.

B

100% of its water from municipal aqueduct. In 1997, they used 4,430 m3 in total. They have estimated a consumption of 17.5 m3/ton of processed tuna (6.75 m3/ton purchased) and 3.5 m3/ton processed anchovies (2.5 m3/ton purchased). Costs were 126 pesetas/m3 in 1997. They have a detail of water consumption for tuna: 1,162 m3 in cutting and meat cleaning, 250 m3 in brine solution, 413 m3 in cooling, 55 m3 in can washing, 825 m3 in sterilization, 143 m3 in basket cleaning, 1,189 m3 for general cleaning. For anchovies, they have: pre-salting brine 97 m3, washing in brine 105 m3, ripening brine 90 m3, peeling brine 9 m3, can washing 12 m3 and general leaning 80 m3.

Wastewater Estimated 11 m3 per processed ton. Total of 80,000 m3 in 1997 (97% water consumed). Company has wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 400 m3 per day but only solids separation is taking place. Characteristics of final waste stream: pH 6.8-7.2; conductivity 2-5.6; TSS 170-470; BOD5 240-510; COD 600-1400; Chlorides 1.4-3.1; Ammonium 1-2; Nitrogen Keldahl 70-360; Greases and oils 180-1900. Most critical phases: cleaning of facilities, sterilization, cooking, meat cleaning (these account for 82% of volume). There is currently no municipal wastewater treatment plant but it will start in 2001 and the company will then have to pay a canon according to quality and quantity. Detailed information was available: cooking contributing with 2.35 m3/day (COD: 13,780; SS: 18; Cl 78,880; Oil and Grease 0.27), can washing contributing with 0.35 m3/day (COD: 1,280; SS: 136; Cl 72.5; Oil and Grease 0.25), sterilization contributing with 5.9 m3/day, hall cleaning with 8.5 m3/day (COD: 4,640; SS: 117; Cl 580; Oil and Grease 0.30), head cutting and cleaning with 8.3 m3/day (COD: 6,310; SS: 90; Cl 6,960; Oil and Grease 0.35); basket cleaning with 1 m3/day; final emission (COD: 28,400; SS: 407; Cl 24,360; Oil and Grease 0.19). All parameter values in mg/l.

Fish waste The company had purchased 7,500 metric tons of tuna, and 3,000 tons went to final product; thus, 4,500 tons were waste, of which 2,700 were sold to fish meal and 1,800 went out in wastewater and municipal solid waste. The average processing yield is 40% (i.e., waste is 60%); although, this figure varies from 34% to 45% depending on tuna species.

With respect to fish meat, they bought 598 tons of tuna in 1997, 156 tons of anchovies, 3 tons of mussels. Among the tuna, 46% was white tuna, 28% common tuna, 26% yellow fin. The avg. price per kilogram for tuna fish was 284.5 pesetas/kilogram, and 495 pesetas/kilo for anchovies. The yields for the 1997 purchases were 231 tons of tuna (i.e., 61% waste), 114 tons of anchovies (i.e., 27% waste) and 2.4 tons of mussels (i.e., 20% waste).

Page 139

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.2 (continuation) Information on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste Company C

Water consumption Water is obtained from their own well and also from a municipal aqueduct. They consume approximately 160 m3 per day (35,200 m3 last year). Water from the well is decalcified.

Wastewater With respect to information on wastewater, this company only mentioned that the COD was 60,000 mg/l for the pre-cooking. They did not provide more information.

D

The company obtains its water from two sources: wells and municipal aqueduct. They have four wells but only use two. In 1998, they used 55,000 m3 from the municipal aqueduct and 1,500 m3 from the well (according to the Quality control director, since the maintenance director stated that 20% of total water consumption came from well). The details of water consumption are the following: cutting 4-5 m3 per day (total of 5 hours per day); cooking 30-36 m3 per day (total of 16 hours per day); sterilization 140-160 m3 per day (total of 12 hours per day); cleaning 6 m3 per hour (total of 1 hour per day). These phases add up to 42,597 m3 per year, that is, 75% of total consumption.

The wastewater volume was said to be approximately close to that of the consumption figure. They have no water recycling or recuperation. Everything goes to the municipal drainage. They don’t have condensate recovery. No further information on characterization was provided, although an analysis has been done by the company.

Fish waste Overall fish meat yield is 40% approximately (i.e., fish waste is 60%). In the case of the smaller fish (e.g., common tuna between 1.5 kg and 6 kg) the yields are lower (37%) since it is more difficult to “work with them”. In fish such as the yellow fin (weights between 20-25 kg) the yields can be up to 42% (i.e., fish waste is 58%). The company did not provide specific information on solid waste from the process. It only stated that this waste is collected and sold to a fish meal company. Information on fish yields were not provided; although they agreed that yields from the fish meat were close to the 40% and varied ± 5% according to fish type. They also indicated that this would be a good indicator. Furthermore, they considered specific meat yields per phase would be ideal for the sector: yield in the initial cut phase, cooking phase, cleaning phase and can filling phase.

Page 140

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.2 (continuation) Information on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste Company E

F

Water consumption They have two sources: their own well and the municipal aqueduct. In the “old days” all the water came from the well but the building of surrounding houses near the company started to “interfere” with the water provisioning, forcing them to buy it from the municipality. They pre treat all the water used in the process. No information on water consumption per process phase is available. There are plans to start monitoring consumption in retorts, cooking and cleaning. With respect to water reuse or recovery in the process, they are recovering condensate from the boiler. The company obtains 100% of the water from its own well. It has a complete reverse osmosis unit to extract the salt from seawater. The total volume of water treated is 168 m3/day (of which 43 m3/day are for the boiler and 24m3/day for refrigeration, both costing an extra 32 escudos per m3 while the other is just 40 escudos per m3). There are no water meters placed in the company, thus they only have an idea of total water consumption. For cleaning, the water pressure used is 150 bar, coming from a central system with 6 terminal hoses using pistol and detergent (no antifoaming substances).

Wastewater They have random tests of wastewater quality. They did not provide information on results and only stated that they monitored BOD and COD.

Fish waste Fish waste is sold to a fish meal company (approximately 17 tons per day). The production yields vary from one fish type to the other, which is from 35% to 49% (i.e., waste from 51% to 65%). Specific information per fish type was not provided.

The company has a wastewater treatment plant (more details were not provided). The wastewater volume must be similar to that of the consumption. Information on wastewater analysis was provided: pH is 9.3; conductivity is 2,310 µs/cm; BOD5 is 380; COD is 770; TSS are 150; oil and greases are 48 mg/l. The company has legal troubles with the pH and the fats and oil contents. Water from the sterilization in the autoclaves is reused to clean the floors and wash the cans.

70% of the sardine meat can be used for the final product, and the rest 30% is sold to a fish meal processing plant. In this case, the company had 1,380 tons of waste last year. The yield depends on the quality of the fish as well as the size (ideally, it should weigh 17 to 20 grams).

Page 141

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.2 (continuation) Information on water consumption, wastewater and fish waste Company G

Water consumption Water is obtained from their own well (85%) and from the municipal aqueduct (15%). The well-water is softened with a decalcification system. No estimates on water consumption were provided. They do not have meters in the plant, but they now how much is used for the autoclaves and the boiler since this water has to be pre-treated before being used. In terms of water for cleaning, there are no figures available.

H

The company uses water from an underground deposit and from the municipal aqueduct. Estimates of consumption were not provided. They have no water metering yet, and only handle a total figure of total water consumed.

Wastewater They presently don’t have any results of wastewater. They are only a little concerned about the fats and oils, but they will only have some pre-treatment and are not planning a wastewater treatment facility. The municipality is soon going to have a wastewater treatment plant and they consider that with the fat separation they will be able to channel the water to the municipal plant. Currently, the wastewater goes to the sea and large solid particles are collected in open tanks outside and are picked up by the fish flour company. Currently, no water is reused/recycled. They have information on wastewater but did not provide it. They have analyzed COD, BOD, Total Suspended Solids and Fats and Oils. Water from the sterilization is recycled.

Fish waste The solid fish waste is collected in a endless screw system where the large particles are separated from the wastewater. With respect to tons of fish processed, information was not provided. However, approximate yields were mentioned: tuna 68% (loins), sardine 70%, mackerel 50%. However, they do have this information in detail.

Information on production and processing yields was not provided, although there are records kept by the company. The waste from evisceration is collected in the internal water system and collected in the end to an endless screw (worm gear) where solids particles are separated from water. The waste is collected in bins outside which are picked up everyday by the fish meal company

Page 142

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.3 Information on energy, air emissions and noise Company A

B

C

D

Energy Boilers (steam for cooking and sterilization). They used 690 tons of fuel oil N° 1 together with 9,660 tons of air in 1997. Boilers have a combined capacity of 47 tons steam/day. They are building an electric co-generation plant. Electricity consumption is estimated in 104 kW per processed ton. Approximately 92 kg of fuel-oil per processed ton are used. Sterilization temperature reaches 115°C during 120 minutes, then cooled to 45°C. The company has a boiler from which the steam produced is used for sterilization, cooking and can washing machine. No information on capacity was provided. No energy efficiency studies have been done. They have one electricity bill (70,110 kWh in 1997, that is, 201 kWh per processed ton @ 83.4 pesetas/kWh) which includes administrative areas. The cooking tanks are perceived as the major energy consumers. They have a boiler with a capacity of 6 tons steam/hour. They employed fuel oil but have recently shifted to natural gas as a new pipeline enabled them. No information on electricity provided. The sterilization is performed at 115°C. They have two boilers from which they obtain steam. They have different capacities: 3 ton/h and 2.5 ton/h. The use fuel oil (800 tons per year approximately). They have no condensate recovery and have a yearly control of efficiency. Electricity detail not provided.

Air emissions It considers its emissions as “insignificant”. That is, 10350 tons of fuel gases with typical SO2, NOx, etc. It burns fuel oil but will change to natural gas in the year 2000. Flue gases are not treated. Though, there is a regular maintenance of the boilers. Flue gases characterization was available for large boiler (opaqueness = 0; smoke temperature = 223°C; CO2 = 14%; O2 = 2.7%) and small boiler (opaqueness = 1; smoke temperature = 234°C; CO2 = 12%; O2 = 5%). No studies to characterize the air emissions have been done.

Noise The company has annual measurements, and the sources are identified. Corrective actions are planned.

The company is soon going to establish a Health and Safety committee. Perhaps here, this issue will be addressed.

No studies previously on air emissions. Their “worries” have been reduced with this aspect as they are now using natural gas.

There have not been any systematic studies of noise levels. Externally, they have not had any complaints.

With respect to air emissions from this process, they have yearly measurement and reports that they submit to the autonomous government agency. The measurements include among others: NOx, SOx, CO2, CO, opacity, flue gases speed, temperature. Details not provided.

Some employees have been complaining, yet they “are not willing to wear any type of protective equipment”.

Page 143

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.3 (continuation) Information on energy, air emissions and noise Company E

Energy They use a boiler that generates 2.5 tons of steam per hour. They have not done any energy efficiency studies for any equipment. Information on electricity was not provided.

Air emissions They have some measurements of emissions (did not mention what is measured) every six months. The cost of these measurements is 40,000 pesetas. They only file this information.

F

There was no detailed information provided for the boiler. Since the equipment is rather new, there have not been energy efficiency studies recently. The autoclaves sterilize with hot steam during 30 minutes at 119°C. They have one boiler. No more data provided. They have not performed any energy efficiency studies. For the boiler, they have a technician who comes in twice per year and gives recommendations. Within one year, they plan to shift from fuel oil to natural gas when the distribution pipeline reaches the facilities. The sterilization in retorts is done at 119° during 45’. No information on electricity provided. No information on the boiler’s capacity was provided. They have not executed energy efficiency studies. Fuel oil is employed today

No information on this aspect was provided.

G

H

Noise There have been some studies done on Health and Safety issues, and there is a detailed study showing areas of intense noise. The company admits that this is a situation with which they have some problems inside, but not outside. No further details provided. No information provided.

No information on this aspect was provided.

In noise, the company admitted it had problems, but that people did not want to wear the protective gear. However, during the walkthrough, the conditions present in the processing hall were very noisy and hot.

Emissions from the boiler have not been measured yet.

In noise, they haven’t performed any specific studies.

Page 144

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.4 Information on environmental plans and concerns and other findings Company A

Major environmental concern The company considers that the water consumption and wastewater is the main problem it has now. Also, energy is a concern (refer to future environmental plans) since it wants to obtain greener energy.

B

The company is concerned presently with their wastewater. Soon, a municipal treatment plant will start working and they will have to channel their water there. For this reason, they are worried for the grease and oils an chlorides mainly (currently, they are not complying with legal limits). The company representative only indicated “environmental problems are minimum”.

C

Future Environmental Plans Obtain ISO-14001 in the year 2000. Also, the company currently has a Quality Management System (ISO-9002) and will monitor 30 parameters related to quality. Additionally, will include five on environment: wastewater (BOD, COD, TSS, Oils and Fats, Chlorides), flue gases from boiler (they plan to shift to natural gas instead of fuel oil), amount of cardboard recycled, noise levels, total water consumption. The communication of their environmental performance will not go beyond some occasional reports to their main clients (no other stakeholders). From an environmental point, “tuna is only a concern for customers because of the dolphin-safe issue, and not as much for how it is processed”. Finally, the interest in EPIs would be more in OPIs than MPIs. They have identified “water saving opportunities” which they will start to consider soon. No idea of establishing an EMS ISO type, since they just got the ISO-9000.

There are no corporate plans for the time being. Therefore this site has not future environmental work programed and would wait for headquarters to dictate future actions.

Other findings It has an HACCP system in place. Company is taking part in an EU sponsored project for minimization of waste. Also, the company had current plans of expanding its production by 250%. Also, rates of consumption for certain raw materials per ton processed were available (e.g., 153 liters olive and vegetable oil/processed ton; 378 liters brine/processed ton; 49 liters vinegar/processed ton. Also, as refrigerants R-12 and R-502 are used, but soon will be replaced with R22. They used 200 liters of oil for their equipment in 1997.

It has an HACCP system in place. The company has participated in a demonstration project for environmental problem identification and cleaner production within the Basque Country. This helped them collect important information on their current performance. Wastewater is their main concern.

It has an HACCP system in place. They are using caustic soda for cleaning of baskets. No figures on raw material consumption provided. Thawing is done with a continuous spray system while the fish are simply laid down on top of each other on the floor. Brine is not prepared, it’s bought and stored for later use.

Page 145

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.4 (continued) Information on environmental plans and concerns and other findings Company D

E

Major environmental concern Water and wastewater.

Future Environmental Plans The company will move in the next year or two to new facilities. A place has been found already. Thus, they will not make any major investments in these facilities. Top management is currently analyzing the implementation of an EMS and it seems the Quality Control manager would be in charge of leading this process. An eco-audit was made but not with the intention of developing an EMS; instead, it obeyed to another reason (not explained).

They will prepare and initial environmental review and start to think about objectives, targets or action plan for improving their environmental performance. Aspects they will consider specially include optimization of raw materials’ usage and energy efficiency.

The corporation wants soon an ISO-14001 certification (EMAS was discarded - no details provided). They plan to certify facility processing other seafood products but not the tuna processing. Furthermore, the administrative office will also be certified and the final product delivery included in the scope.

Other findings It has an HACCP system in place. In the cold storage rooms they use Freon 22. With respect to cleaning operations, they subcontract all cleaning to an external company (which employs alkaline detergents) who then submits a report to them. In the fish cleaning section, each tray with tuna has a card with information from the worker cutting. The tray is weighed prior and after the cleaning. Thus, the company is monitoring the percentage of fish meat or production yield from this operation and the worker. The worker is then paid a fixed salary and commissions according to higher yields. ANFACO commented this was a common practice in the industry. The process flow is not linear and there is currently a lot of material handling which also increases the possibility of product losses. With respect to chemical substances, rat poison is stored and also caustic soda for cleaning the baskets. Although, the use of the soda has been reduced since its waste is considered hazardous and can not be disposed of in the municipal drainage without treatment. In terms of equipment, the general comment made was that most of the equipment was rather old (+ 30 years) and thus a problem. Fish cutting is performed at -7°C. Fish thawing is done without water, only ambient temperature exposition. It has an HACCP system in place. Regarding the need for EPE and EPIs, the company stated that currently they felt no pressure to improve their environmental performance (fish canning is not a “contaminating industry”). In their case, no one (customers, suppliers, retailers, etc.) is putting pressure on them to set an EMS, but instead this is seen as a possibility to strengthen their competitive advantage with major clients. No report on environmental performance will be made public, and they would only submit information to some of their large clients. Thawing is done at ambient temperature (no water).

Page 146

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7.4 (continued) Information on environmental plans and concerns and other findings Company F

Major environmental concern No aspect was considered as a major concern. However, they have to improve the “quality” of their wastewater.

G

The company will use an initial environmental review as a tool to select the major environmental concerns. The other site, identified wastewater as a concern, since the local municipal where the other site is located will start charging a fee according to volume and quality with a new treatment plant soon to start. This could also be the case in this site’s municipality though. Water and wastewater.

H

Future Environmental Plans The production manager was not familiar with ISO-9000 or 14000. In fact, from an environmental point of view the company considers that “this industry is really not contaminating”. Basically, they’re satisfied with the current practices they have and consider that with their wastewater treatment plant their major environmental impact is minimized. This site will follow the same plans as the other corporate site. That is, they will prepare an initial environmental review and go all the way to an EMS. The corporation has started -as an internal policy- to improve its performance, but this is going to be done first in the other site than in this one.

Other findings It has an HACCP system in place. The plant is located just a few meters away from the sea. The most modern of all the eight visited. The company has records of consumption of oil/salt/tomato/fish per can. Also, there is a register of rejected cans. Records of other packaging material resulting from the purchases of raw materials are not kept. On, chemical substances, they store alkaline detergents, chlorine, and other chemicals for the reversed osmosis process (not detailed). It has an HACCP system in place. Sardine heading is done with scissors and no machine is used. The company stated that is was aware of the existence of new equipment that could do the heading with vacuum aspiration for the viscera. However, they did not employ it because the fish was very delicate and they preferred to do it manually and more carefully in order to meet their customer’s requirements. Also, they are using R-22 as refrigerant in their cold storage rooms. They use chemicals such as chlorine, detergents (not alkaline) and caustic soda.

The company states its concern for water consumption and wastewater basically. They will start concentrating their efforts on these issues. So far, product quality is of more concern than the environment. They have not had any pressures yet from any third party, except for the municipality that will build a wastewater treatment plant soon.

It has an HACCP system in place. This company was not too keen to disclosure of quantitative information on its environmental aspects. Information on raw/auxiliary materials was not provided. The following chemical substances are employed: alkaline detergents, “quatrinarium”(?) detergents; caustic soda, chlorine, decalcification agent, disinfectant (NaOCl). The company does keep estimates on the use of raw materials in relation to a process phase/finished product. This includes consumption of oil and sauce per can. They don’t have data for water or detergent per can.

Page 147

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

7.1 Analysis of information available in the companies From the findings obtained from the eight companies, some general remarks can be made. These address the major issues discussed in the previous tables. 7.1.1 General information • •

•

•

• •

• •

102

(Considering the eight companies) 25% were operating in relatively “new facilities” (from 1990 onwards) while the rest were operating in old facilities (dating from 1873 to 1969). With respect to employees, all companies have a permanent number per year and additional personnel are hired (sometimes almost equaling the amount of permanent personnel) during high season. This season occurs mainly during summertime and it is due to the increased harvesting from the fishing vessels. The smallest plant interviewed had 60 employees (considering only permanents) and the largest 500 (considering permanent and extra). Thus, five out of the six that indicated their number of employees classify as small or medium sized companies by EU Standards102. Considering the final product sold, 50% were “exclusive producers”, that is, only processing tuna or sardine. The other 50% processed either sardines and tuna or other canned finfish (e.g., mackerel, anchovies) or other seafood (e.g., octopus, squid, mussels). The filling media employed were: olive oil, vegetable oil, brine, water, marinade, tomato sauce (only for sardines) and hot pepper sauce (only for sardines). In Spain, 80% of the companies had a Quality Management System in place based on the international ISO-9000 Quality Standard. In Portugal, no companies had such a system. However, all the plants mentioned they did have a Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system in place (compulsory by law in both countries). All of the plants were located close to the coastline (less than 20 km) and all but one processed fish during the whole year. Fish purchases vary significantly from one plant to another. The lowest figure was 760 metric tons and the highest 13,000 metric tons (two companies did not provide this information). Most of the companies purchase the fish and only a few are self-provisioning (even in these cases, purchases from other vessels are also made). Companies process more frozen fish than fresh. All plants, except one that imported frozen loins, process whole fish. Spanish companies export a less percentage of their production in comparison to Portuguese firms. Some of the companies have expanded their production; therefore there seems to be no problem in obtaining the supply of fish required in most cases.

European Union DG XXIII-URL: http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg23/guide_en/definit.htm#REF1 (99.08.20).

Page 148

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

7.1.2 Level of technology • •

•

•

•

As a general remark, increased levels of automation in the last process phases versus the initial phases were observed in all the companies in which a walkthrough was possible (five of eight companies visited). In the case of the tuna plants, there were variations in the method used for thawing. For example, one company had a sprinkling system in a cooling room where the fish were all laid down on the floor and the water fell on top. Other companies had the fish simply thawing in an open room combined with occasional hosing. No other equipment, besides the simple sprinkling system and the hoses were observed for this operation. The cutting of the head and tail was performed with buzz and band saws with water; in some cases, newer saw models were observed but in principle they were all the same. The cooking in all the tuna plants was done in cooking tanks filled with brine heated with steam. In one case, a collection pipe connected to a decantation deposit for oil and grease was observed. No other cooking systems such as microwave cooking were observed. Meat cleaning was performed manually with a knife by skilled women, who would pick the fish from the plastic containers going around in the moving belts of the merry-go-round tables. They removed the skin and other inedible parts from the tuna and usually deposited in plastic boxes set next to their work station, with the help of a funnel, which were collected frequently. Also, fluming channels underneath these areas with running water would collect the rest of fish waste and usually be collected at an outlet outside the factory (sometimes with an endless screw system separating the water and the large particles). In some plants, this section was on a different level than the ground floor in order to facilitate the cleaning process. After the “dirty zone” as it was usually referred to, the rest of the process was usually completely automated. This means, that the tuna meat was fed manually to the tuna filling machines that would press the tuna inside the cans. These cans came to the filling machines through conveyor lines (usually the cans were fed manually). Once the packing was performed, the cans were transported in these conveyor lines to the media filling stations and then to the can seamers. In a few companies, there was manual tuna filling and liquid media addition (however, this practice was more common for the large cans which didn’t fit in the automatic conveyor lines. This last equipment presented variations in age and manufacturers. Some of the automatic fillers were from the 1970s and some as recent as 1998. Also, the same situation applied for the conveyor lines, although these were older in average over fifteen years, filling liquid media stations, and can seamers. Once the cans were seamed with these automatic machines (operating at speeds of 100200 cans per minute) the cans would be collected in simple steel-tanks filled with water prior to the sterilization. Then most of the companies had crates to transport the metal basket filled with cans to the autoclaves. The autoclaves observed in all cases were steam autoclaves, and the number of them varied according to each plant’s capacity, usually going from 2 to 5 autoclaves. Lastly, most of the companies had automatic machines performing the final packing of the boxes. In the case of small cases, they could also be manually placed in small cases and then packed manually in the boxes. The case of sardine plants was similar to the one encountered in tuna, and the main variations were in

Page 149

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

the initial phase of the process where some of the companies were heading manually using scissors and some of the companies had automatic heading machines with vacuum systems pulling the viscera, cutting the head and tails. Also, the cooking was performed in large continuous steam cookers where the cans were fed in. As a major difference to tuna, the sardines were placed first inside the cans in the merry go round tables prior to the cooking, since they were cooked inside the cans. 7.1.3 Water consumption •

•

•

•

•

Total water consumption levels also varied significantly from one company to another, as well as the ratio “total water/fish purchases”. The lowest consumption figure provided was 4,430 m3 for the plant operating 160 days a year. This plant had purchased 756 metric tons of finfish (ratio: 5.85 m3 per metric ton purchased). The highest figure was 82,500 for the company operating 220 days per year. This plant had purchases of 7,500 metric tons (ratio: 11 m3 per metric ton purchased). Fifty percent of the companies did not provide this figure. In Spain, 80% of the companies indicated they obtained their water from the municipal aqueduct (most of it) and private wells, and only one depended entirely on the local aqueduct. Furthermore, 60% indicated that the share of water from the well had decreased significantly during the last two decades. It seems as if in the future there will be a higher dependability of the companies from the water provided by the municipal grid. In Portugal, companies also used water from their wells and municipal aqueduct. However, the share of water from the well was higher than in Spain. One of the sardine plants (built in 1997) had a modern water treatment plant with a reverse osmosis process. In Spain, 60% of the companies had estimates/measurements of water consumption per process phase. The most critical phases varied from one company to another. However, there were some common critical water-consuming phases: “cleaning of facilities”, “sterilization”, “cooking”, “cutting and meat cleaning”. No company had estimates on water used for thawing. The rest of the Spanish companies did not have measurements, but at lest expressed that “efforts were on the way” for making these measurements. In Portugal, none of the companies had estimates of water consumption per process phase. Only one out of three companies provided the information on total consumption.

7.1.4 Wastewater •

The information obtained in wastewater, in general terms, indicated that this aspect is of more concern for the companies since they all had something to say about it. Only 25% of the plants had water treatment plants and these were the newest ones (1990 and 1997). The rest did not have treatment plants and in some cases the explanation given was that there was no space available in the existing facilities. All of the plants are letting their final effluent out to the sea. However, in some cases they mentioned that within 1 or 2 years, when water treatment

Page 150

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

•

•

•

•

plants in their municipality start to work, they would channel their water through these plants (most likely with associated charges according to quality and quantity of the wastewater). In general terms also, many of the companies stated that the amount of wastewater was close to 95% or more of the total water consumed. Seen from another point of view, this situation reflects practically no reuse or recycling of the water in the process in most of the companies. Again, the amount of wastewater per metric ton of fish purchased of processed presented significant variations from one company to another. For example, company A had a wastewater volume of 11 m3 per ton of raw material purchased. That means, 97% of the water consumed went out of the plant as wastewater. On the other hand, company B had a volume of 5.56 m3 per ton of raw material purchased, which represents 95% of the water consumed. With respect to the characterization of the wastewater, all companies are using basic parameters such as BOD5, COD, Grease and Oils, TSS. However, only 25% are using other parameters such as pH, Chlorides, Ammonium, Total Nitrogen Keldahl and conductivity. The companies did not have any detailed information on the amount of detergents ending up in the wastewater or estimates on consumption of sodium hydroxide.

7.1.5 Fish waste •

•

•

•

•

This information was more difficult to obtain from the companies as some were a bit more suspicious of disclosing their processing efficiency perhaps. They all had some estimates but were reluctant to give precise figures. The figures they had included all the waste but a detailed composition was not provided (i.e., which amount came from “cutting and eviscerating”, “cooking” or “meat cleaning and basket placing”). The companies kept updated records mainly from “cutting and eviscerating” and “meat cleaning” since this waste was collected and sold to fish meal processing plants. Consequently, it had an important (economic) value for them. The rest of fish waste generated was said to be disposed of along with the municipal solid waste. A general finding was that the amount of fish waste with tuna decreases as the fish size increases. In other words, the larger tuna generate lower waste percentages. However, in sardines (and sardine-like species) the fish waste percentages are more constant.

In general for tuna, the average total waste is close to 60% of the fish weight. The common values found were 64% for the large fish and the 58% for smaller fish. One company indicated waste values between 51% and 65%. Another company processing loins (not whole fish) had 32% losses from the original loin weight. In the case of sardines, the estimates provided by the companies were that close to 70% of this fish weight can be used and the rest is waste.

Page 151

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

7.1.6 Energy • • •

• •

• •

The general conclusion that can be drawn from this section is that companies are employing two types of energy: thermal energy generated with a boiler and electricity from the local grid. Boilers’ capacity vary from one plant to another (e.g., from 2.5 ton/hour; 3 ton/hour; 6 ton/hour). 50% did not provide information on the boiler’s capacity. The thermal energy is mainly used in two operations: cooking of the fish meat and sterilization. In some cases, it is also used for washing cans. None of the companies mentioned that they had any heat recovery, except for the Spanish plant which was installing a co-generation plant. Information on electricity consumption was only provided for 25% of the companies. In these cases, the total amount of kWh per processed ton varied from 104-201 kWh per processed ton. The type of fuels used in the boilers was mainly fuel-oil. From all the companies that provided the information, only one Spanish firm mentioned that it was using natural gas. However, another one stated it had intentions of changing but that it had to wait for the autonomous government to install the pipeline and that perhaps by next year they could change. None of the companies, except one (the one with the co-generation unit), had performed energy efficiency studies. Usually, boilers were checked twice a year by technical experts from outside the plant.

7.1.7 Air emissions •

•

•

The general finding here was that this aspect constituted a “blind spot” for the majority of the companies in terms of the flue gases from the boiler. Of the companies, 75% had no information on this aspect and only 25% had a characterization available (of these two only one provided some figures). In general, the air emissions were not subject to any treatment and were simply released. The company using natural gas stated that it had “stopped” worrying about its air emissions with the shift from fossil fuel. The other company that was waiting for the natural gas pipeline to be installed stated that it expected to reduce its air emissions significantly with the replacement of the fuel oil. No further information on the relation of flue gases and boilers used was provided. The companies had no data on other emissions such as odorous steam exhausts.

7.1.8 Noise •

In this aspect, different answers were provided. Two companies admitted they had problems with this aspect, three stated that it was a problem and that future corrective actions would be taking place (no more details), two stated that they had problems but that in spite of providing protective equipment the employees did not wear them, and finally one company did not comment on this aspect. Specific data

Page 152

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

•

on noise levels or sources were not provided by any company. This aspect seems to be covered in Health and Safety legislation in both countries and it seems as a “delicate” issue for the companies. In general, during the walk-through performed in some of the companies (not possible in all the plants), the areas where the final processing takes place, that is, packing of tuna in can and can seaming (for both sardines and tuna), it was difficult to speak using a normal voice tone due to noise levels.

7.1.9 Major environmental concern •

Different answers were obtained, for example, 25% of the companies stated simply that fish canning does not originate any real “environmental problem”. Another 25% indicated that they would proceed in coming months with an initial environmental review to prioritize their environmental aspects, so they were not in a position to answer. The other 50% of the companies indicated water consumption and wastewater, and one of these also mentioned energy. A general feeling perceived from the companies when asked about this was that the environmental concern of the tuna processing lies in the harvesting and more specifically on the “dolphin-safe” issue. The processing of the fish once landed seems not to be a problem or an interest for the consumers. None of the companies stated that they had received any particular complaints from external groups, with the exception, in some cases, of the local authorities, which were starting to demand controls on the quality of the wastewater.

7.1.10 Future plans on environmental management systems •

•

•

Again, different answers were obtained. Thirty seven percent of the companies stated that they had plans for implementing an environmental management system (EMS) in the near future (all of them located in Spain). Another 25% stated that they had no future environmental plans. The other 37% had different answers including: (a) they had recently acquired ISO-9000 and would see how the system worked before engaging in environmental work; (b) the company will wait until the main site decides if it wants to go or not for an EMS; (c) they would only work on water saving opportunities and wastewater issues. From the companies thinking of obtaining an EMS, they were all thinking of an ISO-14001 certification (not EMAS). In one case, the plant had even thought about five aspects in was interested in monitoring: water consumption, wastewater, flue gases from the boiler, cardboard recycled and noise. Another one of the companies interested in EMS, said that it belonged to a corporation where there were 3 sites: two processing plants and one administrative office/warehouse. From the two sites, one was going to obtain an EMS and also the administrative office.

Page 153

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

CHAPTER 8 Wf=37

CH. 9

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

8. FINAL SET OF EPIs 8.1 Screening of the preliminary set of EPIs As the intention of this research is mainly to help tuna/sardine processing plants to initiate an EPE process through the use of EPIs, their limited resource availability should be considered as most of them are small and medium sized enterprises. In other words, it might not be realistic to assume that all of the EPIs suggested earlier in Chapter 6 could be used simultaneously. This is further reinforced by the research and analysis performed in sections 2.2 and 2.3 in which various examples of companies using EPIs were studied. Therefore, a prioritization of the environmental aspects was made in order to select the most appropriate EPIs that would help monitor the most critical aspects. This prioritization was done through the use of different criteria as well as the opinions and results from sources already described in previous chapters. This means that the findings from the literature review (studies by FAO, UNIDO, DIFTA, IHOBE, ECOMAN), interviews with experts (UNEP, AZTI, IPIMAR, ANFACO, COWI Consult103) and companies visited in Spain and Portugal were used as input criteria. In order to perform the prioritization, five criteria in total were used for assessing each aspect. The first criterion was subdivided in three: “how frequently the aspect is generated”; “how much of the aspect is generated” and “how toxic/hazard is the aspect generated”. The other four criteria included: • • • •

Expert opinion: throughout the research, different experts from various research and development centers as well as consultants were questioned on what they considered were the most relevant environmental aspects from fish canning. Analysis and conclusions from other studies: as different studies were used, the analysis and conclusions on the main aspects were also considered as another input. Findings from company visits: during the visits to sites, representatives from the companies were asked about which were the aspects they considered most relevant and a priority for the company. Applicable legislation: this refers to the fact if there is legislation covering the aspect (already described in section 5.4). The highest importance was given to those aspects for which there was existing legislation.

The results of the evaluation of each aspect versus these criteria are presented in Table 8.1. The final prioritization is included in Table 8.2 (a detailed explanation of the procedure is provided at the bottom of Table 8.1).

103

Danish international consulting firm. A daughter company -Matcon- has performed many studies on environmental impacts of fish canning in Europe and other countries.

Page 155

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.1 Prioritization of Environmental Aspects* Environmental aspect

A1 Frequency

A2 Amount

A3 Toxicity/ Hazard

6 8 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1

HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH

HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW LOW

4 1 1 1

HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH

HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH

LOW LOW LOW LOW

# of preliminary EPIs

B Reference Literature

C Experts Criteria

D Companies’ Priorities

E Applicable Legislation

OPIs

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Water consumption Wastewater Fish waste Packaging material (waste) Liquid media spills Energy Air emissions Odors Noise Refrigerant agents Other chemicals Detergents Oil for equipment

1. 2. 3. 4.

All aspects Training for peeling Water consumption Wastewater

MPIs

∗

The interpretation of the table should be as follows. There are five criteria (“A” through “E”) in total. Criterion “A” is subdivided into three sub-categories (A1-A3). The results of three “HIGH” results will provide a final value of one for criteria “A”; in case there is only two “HIGH”, the value will be 0.5, and in case of none the value is 0. The rest of the criteria, that is, from “B” to “E”, all have a value of either 0 or 1. If the corresponding entry in Table 8.1 is highlighted than the aspect has a value is 1, otherwise it will be 0. The final prioritization is obtained by adding the scores for each aspect and comparing the final sum. It is important to mention that this prioritization procedure is still “subjective” and based more on qualitative assessments; yet, the purpose of the matrix is to simply provide a systematic approach to what could be considered a “subjective evaluation”. The final results are presented in Table 8.2. As companies stated mostly their interest in OPIs, the MPIs for “All Aspects” were not considered. These could be used later after the OPIs have been implemented, along with the rest of EPIs for the other aspects.

Page 156

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.2 Final results of the aspect’s prioritization Environmental Aspect/Criteria 1. Wastewater* 2. Water consumption** 3. Energy 4. Fish waste 5. Air emissions 6. Liquid media spills 7. Noise 8. Refrigerant agents 9. Other chemicals 10. Detergents 11. Oil for equipment 12. MPI (peeling) 13. MPI (all aspects) 14. Packaging material (waste) 15. Odors

ΣA 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0

B 1 1 1 1

C 1 1 1

D 1 1 1

E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

Score 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0

* Pondering of MPI on wastewater included already in this category. ** Pondering of MPI on water savings included already in this category.

8.2 The Final EPIs As a result of the prioritization, the aspects that were considered the most critical in tuna/sardine were: wastewater, water consumption, fish waste, energy and air emissions. This prioritization does not imply that the rest of EPIs should/could not be used by companies in their environmental performance evaluation, but rather that these were selected as the “five” aspects from which an EPE/EPI process could start. Eventually, as the monitoring of the aspects is incorporated in the daily work, the rest of EPIs could be used to monitor environmental performance in all aspects. The search for improvement opportunities, related to the top five aspects, could also benefit other aspects when corrective measures are taken to improve the aspect monitored. For instance, if an EPI related to wastewater were to be used, companies would be encouraged to take measures to reduce the pollutant levels. Thus, they would most likely improve another aspect such as ‘liquid media spills’, since a reduction in the amount of spills would result in lower pollutant levels for the final wastewater. The distribution of the resulting EPIs from Chapter 6 according to the prioritized aspects is presented in Graph 8.1. As can be observed, wastewater has the largest share of EPIs (9), followed by water consumption (7), energy (3), air emissions (3) and fish waste (1).

Page 157

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Graph 8.1 Distribution of final EPIs on prioritized environmental aspects

Air emissions 13%

Water consumption 30%

Energy 13%

Fish waste 4% Wastewater 40%

8.3 Screening of the final EPIs A final screening was performed for some of the EPIs addressing water (which accounted for seventy percent of the final EPIs) considering that they were interrelated or addressed similar process phases and/or environmental aspects. This screening also helped to reduce the number of EPIs and obtain a final set easier to handle for an SME. The rest of the EPIs covering the other aspects (i.e., energy, fish waste and air emissions) were not further screened. The arguments used to screen the ‘water related’ EPIs are presented in Table 8.3 and the final set of EPIs chosen is included in Table 8.4. Also, Table 8.4 presents a list of possible reference values of the EPIs which have been estimated to the best extent possible considering the different information sources used in this research. In some EPIs, there was no data available for estimating a value, nor could it be inferred from the sources used. Therefore, in these cases, these possible values for the EPI have not been assigned.

Page 158

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.3 Final EPIs related to water Focus total water input/output

Proposed EPI 1. total water per total tons of whole fish purchased or final canned fish. 2. total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product. 3. savings achieved by reduced water consumption/treatment per year

II. characteristic of total water output

4. discharged biological oxygen demand (BOD5) in final wastewater stream 5. discharged chemical oxygen demand (COD) in final wastewater stream 6. discharged grease and oils in final wastewater stream 7. discharged suspended solids (SS) in final wastewater stream 8. percentage of (monthly) wastewater effluent samples meeting authorized discharge criteria 9. water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed 10.avg. discharged SS in thawing wastewater per ton of fish cut

I.

III. thawing

IV. cooking

11.water used for cooking per ton of tuna cooked 12.avg. discharged chlorides in cooking wastewater per ton of fish cooked 13.amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of fish cooked

V. can washing

14.water used for washing per can of specific size 15.water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish 16.water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall

VI. sterilization VII. cleaning

EPI selected Of these indicators, the first and second are interrelated as water output is almost the same as water input. In a way, the third indicator constitutes simply another form to express any of the first two indicators. Therefore, the final indicator selected was the “total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product”. These EPIs focus on four wastewater parameters commonly used by government authorities to monitor the quality of industrial wastewater. The last EPI can act as a “control” for these four parameters as it indicates how many samples met BOD, COD, SS and Grease and Oils. Therefore, this indicator was selected. If the water used for thawing can be decreased, the SS load in a period of time will also be decreased. Therefore, the most relevant EPI is related to total water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed. Cooking wastewater is a problem mainly because of the chlorides content as well as grease and oils. The latter being considered among the most critical, since they can be collected and sold for producing other byproducts. Therefore, the emphasis for this process phase should be put on the amount of grease and oils collected. The screening was not made; thus, the EPI was kept. The screening was not made; thus, the EPI was kept. The screening was not made; thus, the EPI was kept.

Page 159

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.4 Final selected EPIs 1.

EPI total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product

2.

water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed

3.

water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish

4.

water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall

5.

water used for washing per can of specific size (after seaming and prior to sterilization)

6.

percentage of (monthly) wastewater final effluent samples meeting authorized discharge criteria

104

Value • Assuming an average consumption of 15 m3 of water per ton of processed fish for tuna (average of IHOBE and UNEP, UNIDO studies), the wastewater volume is very close this amount, estimated at least in 90-95%. Therefore, a final volume of 14 m3 of water per ton of final canned product could be an average value104. • For sardines, the total volume estimated by UNEP and UNIDO is 9 m3 per ton of final canned product. • Using as a basis the volume of 14m3 per ton of processed tuna, the wastewater contribution of thawing could be estimated in 30% of the total share (using the Thailand study as a reference). Therefore, the EPI value for tuna could be estimated in 4m3 per ton of fish thawed. • In the case of sardines, as no specific data for wastewater was found, an average value of 1 m3 per ton of thawed fish could be used as a reference, using the 30% relation for tuna. • According to studies made by UNEP, this wastewater volume has a range value between 3 and 7 m3 per ton of sterilized cans (i.e., 1% to 3% of the total wastewater volume as per UNEP’s estimates). • ECOMAN results indicate that the value could be 3.8 m3 per ton of processed fish and IHOBE estimates 3, m3 per ton of processed fish. • Thus, the value of 3 m3 per ton of canned fish could be used as a reference for tuna, and 2.3 m3 per ton of canned fish for sardines. • Two case studies in the IHOBE document have an average value between 4 and 5 m3 per ton of process fish that could be used as a reference value. The case of a tuna processing plant in the ECOMAN project also estimates that 30% of the wastewater volume comes from cleaning (i.e., the final volume is 4 m3 per ton of process fish). Therefore, the EPI value for tuna could be assumed in 4 m3 per ton of process fish. • Assuming this average percentage for tuna (30%), the value for sardines could also be estimated in 3 m3 per ton of processed fish. • The Thailand study estimates that 7% of the wastewater comes from this operation. ECOMAN results that it was 1,5% of total wastewater. IHOBE has this percentage within a larger fraction of wastewater and the detail is not provided. • Therefore, an average 4% could be used. This means, that for tuna the value could be 0.5 m3 per ton of ton of canned tuna and 0.3 m3 per ton of ton of canned sardines. • As no estimates on a “per can” basis were found, it is not possible to give an EPI value using this reference. • As this EPI is not currently in place in the companies, it is not possible to give a reference value. Although, ideally the percentage should be a full compliance, that is one hundred percent.

The study by IHOBE has results which are double of UNEP/UNIDO; therefore, lower wastewater volumes (e.g. 10 m3 per ton) could be expected for tuna processing plants.

Page 160

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.4 (continuation) Final selected EPIs 7.

EPI amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of (tuna) fish cooked

8.

kg of fish waste meat per kg of total fish purchased

9.

total electricity per ton of final canned product

10. fuel per ton of final canned product

11. energy consumption during sterilization 12. kg of CO2 per ton of final canned product 13. kg of SO2 per ton of final canned product

Value • Although, some companies are separating the grease and oils, no specific data exists. IHOBE estimates that fish weight losses in this phase are equal to twelve percent in the case of tuna. Therefore, the amount of grease and oils collected could be close to this percentage, and thus be used as a initial reference value for the potential amount of grease and oils that could be recovered. The value for sardines was not possible to infer from existing studies. • Processing yields will differ from one species, as in this case, the fish’s size matters. For tuna, weight losses from processing could be an average sixty percent of the original weight and in the case of sardines thirty percent. These percentages could be used as an initial reference value. However, the specific values per tuna species would value since these fish come in different sizes and the waste generated is dependent on the size. • IHOBE’s estimates that the consumption is between 100 and 250 kWh per ton processed in tuna processing plants. Assuming an average for these figures, the reference value could be assumed as 175 kWh per ton of final canned product. In sardines, the value could be similar or perhaps higher as the initial phases of the process (e.g., grading, heading) take place in automatic equipment. Therefore, a reference value could also be 175 kWh per ton of final canned product. • The ECOMAN results provides the figures for one tuna processing plant, which were 0.09 tons of fuel oil per processed ton. The IHOBE study presents two values for two study cases of 0.05 tons per processed ton and 0.01 tons per processed ton. Assuming an average of these three estimates, the amount of fuel per ton of final canned product could be assumed as 0.05 tons per processed ton. • The average value for this consumption provided in the COWI meeting for a steam autoclave was 241kWh/ton. If the autoclave is insulated, the average savings would be 16.6kWh/ton. Therefore, as steam autoclaves are the standard in the industry, these values could be considered for the EPI.

• As these EPIs are currently not in place in the companies nor specific information was obtained from any of the sources used for this study, it is not possible to give reference values for Spanish and Portuguese processing plants.

14. kg of NOx per ton of final canned product

Page 161

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

8.4 Limitations for using the final EPIs in Spanish and Portuguese firms The definition of the relevant EPIs is an important step towards helping companies evaluate their environmental performance. However, from theory to practice, there are some current limitations that companies in Spain and Portugal face for assessing most of the proposed final EPIs (as seen in Chapter 7). These are presented next in Table 8.5. Table 8.5 Limitations in companies for using the final EPIs 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

EPI total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish

water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall water used for washing per can of specific size percentage of (monthly) wastewater final effluent samples meeting authorized discharge criteria amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of (tuna) fish cooked

Limitations

⇒ The basic problem with these five EPIs is that not all companies (especially in Portugal) have in place water meters to monitor the consumption in each process phase or auxiliary operation (e.g., cleaning). The absolute values are known for all the companies, but most of them don’t have an idea of how much they are consuming per process phase nor which are the most critical water phases. Therefore, in order for the EPIs to achieve the effect sought (i.e., reduce water consumption to the maximum extent possible) there is need for the companies to measure or estimate their consumption in each phase. Once the measurements are available, the companies with the highest EPI values could start exploring opportunities for reducing their levels and achieving the levels obtained by the “best performing plants”.

⇒ As of today, most of the companies have a characterization of their wastewater. However, the parameters used for this characterization vary from one plant to another. Therefore, to start using such an EPI it would be necessary to standardize at least 5 parameters used, and ideally to use a similar amount of samples per each company in order to compare one company’s performance with respect to another. ⇒ First of all, not all companies are recovering grease and oils from the cooking brines, and thus there would be a need to make some initial investments in each company to collect it. An investment calculation provided in the IHOBE study indicated that the investment required was 175,000 pesetas (≈ 1,050 euros) plus 67,250 pesetas (≈ 405 euros) for annual operating costs. Savings per year could be 43,410 pesetas (≈ 260 euros).

Page 162

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 8.5 (continuation) Limitations in companies for using the final EPIs 8.

EPI kg of fish waste meat per kg of total fish purchased

9.

total electricity per ton of final canned product 10. fuel per ton of final canned product 11. energy consumption during sterilization

12. kg of CO2 per ton of final canned product 13. kg of SO2 per ton of final canned product

Limitations ⇒ The companies have an exact idea of what amount of fish waste is being sold to the fish meal plants, which represents most of the total fish waste generated. However, data from other phases (e.g., sterilization, cooking) should be collected in order to provide a more approximate value for this EPI. ⇒ Although, the EPI as such is not used today in companies, with the information generated in the company’s information the data could be extracted and the EPI estimated. ⇒ Although, the EPI as such is not used today in companies, with the information generated in the company’s information the data could be extracted and the EPI estimated. ⇒ Not all the companies today have their equipment insulated or have performed studies on the energy consumption and possibility of recovering heat in this phase. Therefore, there would be a need for the companies to study in detail the consumption in this phase.

⇒ As of today, none of the companies have a characterization of the flue gases from the boiler. Consequently, they are not able to estimate the amounts of CO2, SO2, NOx generated per ton of final canned product. Thus, there would be a need to start with this characterization in order to use the EPI.

14. kg of NOx per ton of final canned product

Page 163

CH.1

CH. 2

CH. 3

CH. 4

CH. 5

31 33 34 35

CH. 6

CH. 7

CH. 8

CH. 8

Final Conclusions and Recommendations for EPE/EPIs

Selection of Final Environmental Performance Indicators

CH. 5

Screening Process of Preliminary EPIs (literature, experts, findings)

29

Visits to Companies in Spain (tuna) and Portugal (sardines)

27

Definition of Preliminary Environmental Performance Indicators

26

Analysis of Environmental Aspects Based on Inputs/Outputs

Input and Output Analysis for Tuna and Sardine Processing

24

Analysis of the Canning Process for Tuna and Sardines

23

Analysis of the Sector : Worldwide, Europe, Spain & Portugal

Wo=22

Analysis of EPE and EPI (e.g. ISO Std., German Document, OECD)

Research Purpose, Limitations, Foreseen Outcome, Literature Search

CHAPTER 9 Wf=37

CH. 9

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Conclusions As the research process was conducted following a defined methodology (as indicated in Figure 1.2), the findings obtained in each step were relevant and linked to the successive step. Therefore, the following conclusions are presented in an order that reflects this sequence. 1. EPE, as a tool for “responsible businesses” wanting to monitor the environmental effects of their activities, is becoming more important today. Some of the benefits from using it include: an improvement of the company’s operational efficiency and profitability; a proper allocation of resources, and determining if environmental performance criteria are being met. A general methodology for conducting EPE is subject to international standardization efforts by ISO and, as can be seen in the latest EPE ISO drafts (i.e., ISO-14031 and ISO-14032), there are no limitations to the size, type and location of businesses which can use EPE. 2. The “backbone” of any EPE process is constituted by ECIs and EPIs (which are divided into OPIs and MPIs). However, the EPE ISO standards do not provide specific guidelines as to “how an EPI should be set” or “which EPI should be used for ‘X’ or ‘Y’ company”. Yet, they include general guidelines that, together with those set in other publications (e.g., the German Document, OECD report), can be used for starting an EPE process and defining specific EPIs for an industry such as tuna/sardine processing. 3. EPE in companies today is more focused on EPIs rather than ECIs. Furthermore, the preference within the EPIs is towards OPIs (not MPIs) and also for those reflecting absolute and not relative values, as well as those expressing quantities of materials/energy and not costs directly. These conditions were considered in the definition of the EPIs for the tuna/sardine plants, with the exception of the one related to absolute. This was discarded, as absolute indicators are not helpful in assessing the efficiency of the companies like the relative indicators. Therefore, the desired characteristics sought for the tuna/sardine EPIs were that they should be oriented towards operational and not management issues, and that they should be expressed in a relative form, preferably reflecting quantities and not costs. 4. When considering the situation of many of the world’s fish-stocks today, there is a need for improving the environmental performance and efficiency of all fish processing plants. In most cases, there are already dangerous levels of exploitation of the resources, and with the future increasing demands for fish products, it will be necessary to process the (future) catches in a more efficient way generating less waste.

5. In the international fish production context, the EU’s role seems to be not very important, since its contribution to the global production accounted for less than

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

8% between the period 1990-1997. However, when looking at the specific case of global canning production, EU’s contribution becomes very relevant, as it accounted for 22% of the global production, 14% of total global exports and 45% of total global imports during the 1990-1997 period. 6. Consequently, the introduction of EPE and EPIs for fish canning plants at an EU level could have a positive impact in the international canning market. Also, a situation that should not be overlooked is that the environmental improvements (which could be achieved through EPE and EPIs) should not only be encouraged in processing plants in the EU, but also EU’s strategic importance in the international fish canning market could be used to indirectly promote environmental improvements in non-EU processing plants by, for example, creating a market in the EU for eco-labeled canned fish. 7. The situation of tuna/sardine processing plants in Spain and Portugal has been very dynamic during the last decades. A general trend which was noticed when analyzing the sector’s evolution over the last few years was that the situation has gone from one in which “many plants were processing small volumes” to one where “fewer plants are processing large volumes”. To a certain extent, this condition could be considered advantageous for introducing EPE and EPIs, since through the involvement of a relatively small amount of players in the market, the environmental impact of the canning sector could be significantly reduced by developing specific projects in these companies (which account for most of the production). However, another issue to consider is that these “larger plants” still have limited resources which they can allocate to environmental projects (as most of them still classify as medium sized enterprises). 8. Tuna and sardine processing have many similarities. The general process sequence begins with the cold-storage of the fish brought to the plant in case it is processed later, or with the immediate processing of the fresh product. The processing continues with the cutting (or nobbing) and removal of meat parts which are not suitable for canning (i.e., heads, tails, viscera) but which are collected separately by the processing plants and later sold for production of other byproducts (e.g., fish meal and oil). With sardines, the cutting is performed automatically in machines and the fish meat is then usually placed manually in cans and passed onto a cooker where it is cooked with steam. In the case of tuna, the cutting is done with saws and due to fish’s larger size, it is firstly cooked in tanks filled with a brine solution heated with steam. Afterwards, the bones are removed from the meat and the resulting meat placed in cans. From this phase onward, the process sequence is practically the same for both fish (or any other canned finfish). This includes adding the filling media to the can (e.g., oil or marinade), seaming the cans in automatic machines, washing the cans afterwards, placing them in autoclaves (or retorts) for the sterilization, cooling them down, and finally labeling and packing of all cans for final storage. 9. The main auxiliary process phases used today by the canning plants, for both sardines and tuna, are: steam generation—usually done by burning fossil fuels in small boilers, preparation of liquid filling media (including tomato sauce and

Page 166

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

marinades), water chlorination, maintenance of tools and equipment, and general cleaning and washing of all equipment and facilities. 10. There are a series of environmental aspects which result from the production of the canned tuna and sardines, including: water consumption, wastewater, solid waste from the fish meat and packaging material, liquid media spills, (thermal and electric) energy consumption, air emissions, noise, odors and hazardous substances. Some of the most critical process phases responsible for these aspects are: thawing (mainly for tuna), cooking, sterilization, can washing, facility cleaning, final packing of the cans, and steam generation. 11. From an environmental legislation point of view, Spanish and Portuguese plants should be complying with a series of laws at national and EU level covering almost all the aspects (except for water and energy consumption). Therefore, enough legal arguments already exist today for these plants to adopt measures for reducing/minimizing their environmental impacts. However, the real situation— perceived through site visits to these plants—provides a different picture as the adoption of measures to comply with the existing legislation was not fully in place (at least yet). Also, a situation mentioned by some of the people interviewed on “low levels” of enforcement by the local authorities does not favor the adoption of environmental improvements in the companies. 12. The results from a series of studies were used to obtain a detailed characterization of the environmental aspects and process steps causing them. In this way, thirty seven EPIs were defined for the canning plants covering key issues related to all the aspects. Half of these EPIs were defined to target specific phases and environmental aspects, while the other half was defined to target more general issues, covering various process phases and aspects. Thirty of the defined EPIs were OPIs and the rest MPIs. The EPIs that were defined could also prove to be helpful in other finfish canning processes, and only some adjustments would have to be made depending on the species. 13. An important consideration to have in mind when looking at these EPIs is that, in an industry such as fish canning, quality and/or product safety are priorities (e.g., HACCP systems). Therefore, if the EPIs are to be used for comparisons, a reference to quality and safety issues should be made. Also, other aspects influencing these EPIs (e.g., fish being processed, the time of the year when the processing takes place, specific process variables such as time, pressure and temperature) should be included when analyzing the EPIs. 14. As the number of EPIs that was defined seemed to be “in contradiction” with current EPE practices (as observed in the analysis of the EPE Examples Standard), and considering the limited resources for environmental initiatives within these companies, an initial screening was performed and the final amount reduced. The mechanism employed for this first screening consisted of prioritizing the environmental aspects with the help of different input criteria (including: findings from other studies, companies’ priorities, expert’s criteria and applicable legislation). Therefore, as a result of the first screening, the five most critical aspects for tuna/sardine processing were identified (water consumption,

Page 167

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

wastewater, energy consumption, air emissions and fish waste), and thus, the EPIs related to these aspects were chosen as the most relevant. However, a second screening was performed for the final EPIs related to water (i.e., water consumption and wastewater) as some were addressing similar issues. Consequently, there were 14 final EPIs, covering the five most critical environmental aspects. 15. From the resulting fourteen EPIs, 50% cover water related aspects, 20% are for energy consumption, 20% for air emissions and 10% target fish waste. Also, thirteen of the EPIs were OPIs, and six address specific process phases (e.g., cooking, thawing, sterilization) while the rest cover different phases related to an aspect (refer to Table 9.1). Table 9.1 Final selected EPIs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

EPI total amount of wastewater per ton of final canned product water used for thawing per ton of fish thawed water used for sterilization per ton of canned fish water used for cleaning per surface area in the processing hall water used for washing per can of specific size percentage of final wastewater samples meeting authorized discharge criteria amount of grease and oils collected from the cooking wastewater per ton of tuna cooked kg of fish waste meat per kg of total fish purchased total electricity per ton of final canned product fuel per ton of final canned product energy used for sterilization kg of CO2 per ton of final canned product kg of SO2 per ton of final canned product kg of NOx per ton of final canned product

16. The final selection of the EPIs does not imply that the remainder of the EPIs defined for the other environmental aspects should or could not be used by a company to start its EPE process. The selection was simply performed to reduce the number of parameters that a typical SME would most likely be capable of handling (using the EPIs targeting the most critical environmental aspects). Another consideration which should be made is that some of the final set of EPIs may not be relevant for a specific plant, as they were defined at a general level for all canning plants and are not intended to be adjusted to the situation of company “X” or “Y”. 17. Also, almost all of the EPIs have been designed as indicators which can be quantified in order to facilitate comparisons among companies. This coincided with the analysis performed in Chapter 2 where it was seen how companies are more attracted to “quantitative” and not “qualitative” indicators. However, this condition does not mean that a certain processing plant should not use qualitative indicators, but rather that the final selection of EPIs performed in this research was intended to reflect to the best extent possible the preferences of most of the companies using EPE and EPIs.

Page 168

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

18. In fact, some qualitative indicators that could be used just as well in order to establish comparisons among companies include: the degree of automation of the initial processing steps (e.g., how the cutting of the sardines is performed, manually or with heading machines), the type of retort employed (e.g., free-flow autoclaves, water-filled autoclaves, steam autoclave), the final quality of the product, type of conveyor systems used for raw material and work in process handling, the type of cooking system employed (with/without grease recovery unit), percentage of equipment insulated, type of cleaning program implemented, type of thawing method employed, physical layout in the processing plant for the tuna fish peeling, etc. 19. Specific values were estimated for most of these indicators when it was possible to extract information (either from the reference literature used in the research or the data gathered during interviews). These values have been included in Table 8.4. As the UNEP and Matcon interviews indicated, the average fish canning company implementing best available technologies could reduce water consumption by half per ton of raw material, and consequently also their wastewater volume. Also, organic matter (i.e., BOD and COD) could be reduced by a factor of four and “significant” energy savings achieved, as well as reduced solid waste. It is also important to consider that the differences in values for the EPI from one plant to another will obey the operational practices and technological level. In the case of the operational practices, this study has included for some aspects, references to CP practices. The assumption in this case, is that the companies with good operational practices—included those adopting CP measures—and the latest technology will have the best results for the EPIs. 20. The eight visits to processing plants operating in Spain and Portugal were very important for defining the EPIs, for different reasons: ∗ ∗

∗

Firstly, they helped to obtain an idea on how the actual processing of the fish was performed (this was used to complement the description of the process performed in Chapter 4). Secondly, they provided an understanding of the current operational practices, as well as the type of equipment employed in each plant. In most of the cases, the first process steps for both types of fish were very labor intensive (from fish reception to meat cleaning) and the last steps automated. It seemed as if most of the companies have been investing more on the final process phases as the newest equipment was usually found in this section of the plant. Also, another situation found was that many of the plants are operating in very old facilities; consequently, they have limitations for improving their environmental performance (e.g., lack of space for setting up wastewater treatment plants). Another characteristic observed was that all the companies had an HACCP system in place (currently a requirement for processing plants in the EU, USA and Canada) which does not seem to be helpful for dealing with environmental issues as it concentrates on product safety/quality only. Thirdly, they helped to obtain an impression on the level of environmental awareness and the possible interest for introducing environmental improvements and/or EPE/EPIs (none of the companies were performing EPE Page 169

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

or using EPIs). In this sense, only a few companies had intentions of starting up environmental work in the mid term through an EMS. A difference was observed between the two countries, whereby the Spanish plants seemed to be more aware of the need for improving their environmental performance (most of them had an ISO-9002 quality assurance system in place which they mentioned could be used for developing the EMS). On the other hand, the Portuguese plants did not mention formal plans for developing an EMS. Finally, most of the interviewees in both countries stated that the demands from local and central authorities to improve the environmental performance— specifically regarding wastewater—had been increasing during the last months. 21. A common attitude found in the companies visited with regards to environmental work in the sector was that tuna/sardine processing was not an environmentally critical processes and that the “effects generated were minimum”. Furthermore, some companies stated that from a market and consumer’s point of view, the main environmental interest today regarding tuna processing was that the fish used in the plant should be that which was caught with “dolphin-safe” methods. In other words, there was really no other concern in relation to processing. This situation should be considered carefully when introducing the EPIs, as it is evidence that companies today would be more interested in using EPIs as instruments to identify savings, since apparently, there are no strong market or final customer pressures requiring them to improve the environmental performance. Therefore, EPIs would probably be more acceptable to the companies if they could be linked to the product’s cost structure (e.g., percentage of cost related to energy, raw materials, direct and indirect labor), and thus, not only monitor for the sake of improving a determined environmental aspect, but also for improving the aspects that will help to reduce the product’s cost. 22. A reality faced in the visits to companies was that many of them lacked precise data (or did not want to disclose it) on total and relative consumption of materials and energy per process phase. Only a few, which had been involved in some external environmental project (e.g., ECOMAN, IHOBE), had detailed and precise data on issues such as water consumption and wastewater per process phase. Thus, the scarce data constitutes a limitation which should be considered if the EPE/EPI process is to be initiated. 23. A general conclusion related to the development of the performance indicators in this particular sector—but which could also be extended to fish processing plants in general—is that, today there are three key areas that these companies should start dealing with in order to stay competitive in the market: product quality, environmental performance and production technology. Thus, a combined set of indicators—EPIs included—which could monitor these key areas would be very welcome by these processing plants since they could monitor their competitiveness level. ∗

On one hand, quality assurance of the product could be achieved through the use of management systems such as those set under the ISO-9000 series or the HACCP system. As most likely in the future, “large companies and customers will demand that every batch of fish be marked

Page 170

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

∗

∗

with an information label indicating harvest area, time, temperature, strain, size and weight; such a label would help guarantee the quality and could become the sales argument for the fish in the future”105. Important conclusion here was that the ISO-9000 or HACCP system were targeting product quality and safety and not environmental performance. Thus, expectations should not be placed solely on these systems for improving environmental performance. The environmental performance should also be improved as there is a growing concern that the traditional practices in fish processing should be modified in order to guarantee not only better quality products but also products which are produced in an environmentally responsible (and sustainable) way. Eco-labeling is starting to spread in fisheries, specially with the creation of the Marine Stewardship Council by World Wide Fund for Nature and the company Unilever. Large retail chains in the EU and USA are starting to back these initiatives, and so it seems that fish ecolabeling could be very close to being a reality soon. Last, but not least, these levels of improvement on quality and environment will only be reached as long as companies start engaging in an optimized production in which minimum waste is generated, and the use of automation could prove to be a very useful tool to achieve this optimization. A classic example can be seen in prawn processing, “In the 1960s, the first prawn-peeling machine was developed, but the prawns still had to be checked and any remaining shell removed manually. Nowadays, the entire process has been automated and the prawns remain untouched by human hand. Today, the price of automatically peeled prawns is one tenth that of hand peeled prawns”106.

105

McAloone, Anne Mette and Abrahamsen, Soren. The future technology of food processing. Paper presented in the Asia-Pacific Fishing ’99 Conference. 106 Ibid.

Page 171

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

9.2 Recommendations 9.2.1 General 1. Although, the EPI process used in this research, was helpful in obtaining a list of possible EPIs which can be used by tuna/sardine processing plants, it is important to consider that the companies will have the “last word” on which EPIs they are going to use. Therefore, the set of EPIs provided in this research should be considered as an initial input for Spanish/Portuguese plants wanting to start and EPE process. However, through specific eco-audits and stakeholders analysis, these plants could also obtain additional input for staring up the EPE process. 2. If a common set of indicators were to be promoted and used in various processing plants at the same time, a win-win situation could be achieved, since the companies would not only monitor and compare their performance internally, but also they could start comparing their performance externally with other companies. Thus, it would be helpful to obtain a consensus with a group of companies, on a common set of indicators that could allow for these intra/inter company comparisons. For this reason, and as it has been done in this study, the EPIs should be expressed in relative and not absolute terms. And, also the use of quantity (and cost) based indicators, could enable comparisons with companies from different countries due to differences in economic-cost structures. 3. Sardine and tuna processing plants are still in a very early stage of environmental awareness, and this situation highlights the initial need for “simple EPIs” that the companies could be able to generate without having to incur expensive investments for setting up complex data collection systems. Also, the amount of EPIs that should be promoted within these companies should be moderate, as they have limited resources to allocate to “environmental projects” and could not be expected to handle many EPIs at the same time. Once they have had time and experience with the more “simple” EPIs, then “more demanding” EPIs could be introduced. 4. In countries such as Portugal and Spain, there is a need to strengthen efforts such as those undertaken by IHOBE, AZTI and IPIMAR in the awareness building of the companies towards environmental issues. The levels of enforcement of the existing environmental legislation are considered weak, and apparently, the companies have no market pressures from their customers for more “environmentally friendly produced canned fish”. Thus, these companies should be approached emphasizing all of the (economic) benefits they could obtain with environmental improvements (e.g., raw material/energy savings generated, increased productivity, company image). This means that the EPIs should be preferably used as facilitators in this environmental awareness process, and not only be seen as an instrument to monitor environmental performance. They should be able to convince the companies that “going green pays”.

Page 172

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

5. A general impression perceived in many of the interviews done in both countries was that there were many “environmental low-hanging fruits” which could be picked and could easily help improve the environmental performance of the companies. Therefore, along with the EPE/EPI process, other environmental promotion instruments such as Cleaner Production could be used parallel to the EPE/EPIs process and start “picking these fruits”. 9.2.2 Specific (for Spain and Portugal) A series of initiatives could arise in Spain and Portugal with the introduction of a program in canneries aimed at monitoring and improving their environmental performance, including: 1. Creation of a sector-network in Spain with autonomous communities such as the Basque Country, Galicia and Cataluña where the main canning activities are concentrated. The network should ideally involve relevant parties (e.g., ANFACOAZTI-IHOBE-Autonomous Governments-Ministry of Environment-companies) to start a pilot EPE/EPI project in the largest companies (e.g., those in Table 3.3). In fact, during the visit to Spain, ANFACO mentioned its interest in starting up an environmental performance project with canning plants in Galicia. The sector network would help identify the most critical aspects for the companies and select a “common set of indicators”. The network could also support the companies in finding solutions to the environmental problems they might face (e.g., providing information about programs in the country and EU financing environmental improvements, providing information on experts in environmental management for the sector, providing information about the best available technologies and other developments required by the companies to improve their performance). 2. Creation of a sector-network in Portugal involving companies in regions such as Matosinhos, Peniche and Portimao/Lagos where the main canning activities are concentrated. The network should ideally involve relevant parties (e.g., IPIMAR, Support Cabinet to the Fish Canning Program or GAPIC, General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture from the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Ministry of Environment, local municipalities, companies) to start a pilot EPE/EPI project in the largest companies (e.g., those in Table 3.5). The network’s role should be the same as in Spain. 3. Simultaneous to the sector network’s creation, specific workshops with the main canning plants in these countries for “picking the environmental low-hanging fruits” could be established. 4. Promote the interaction between the Portuguese and Spanish network and also extend the links with other major EU fish canning countries (e.g., Italy, France, Denmark) or other important canning countries (e.g., USA, Japan, Thailand). 5. Creation of an “environmentally friendly fish canning” website with different information on environmental issues of fish canning (e.g., EPIs, eco-labeling, latest technological developments). Potential sponsors for this website could be

Page 173

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

the equipment suppliers in the sector, whereby they could even be given the chance to inform the canning companies about the “environmental benefits of their equipment”. 6. Organization of a study visit of Spanish/Portuguese network representatives to the top three Danish fish canning plants. From the meeting with fish canning experts there was reference to the Danish plants as being among the “most environmentally pro-active” where many of the “environmental low-hanging fruits” had already been picked. Now these plants are in a more advanced stage of environmental improvement. Thus, by setting up a visit, Spanish and Portuguese representatives could obtain a clearer idea on the experiences of these plants and also how they have been able to improve their environmental performance.

Page 174

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. (Portuguese) Diario da República. N° 176 - 1-8-1998 Anexo XVIII Valores limite de emissão (VLE) na descarga de águas residuals. August 1998. 2. (Portuguese) Diario da República. N° 60 - 12-3-1993 Anexo IV Valores limite de emissão de aplicaçao geral. March 1993. 3. Albisu, Luis et al. “Consumo de Alimentos en la UE” (Food Consumption in the EU). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 58-72. 4. Andersen, Erik. “Robots in the Foodstuffs Industry” COWI Group News. Denmark: COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners. November (1997). 5. Andersen, Erik; Jespersen Claus. “More Food, Less Waste in Seafood Processing”. UNEP Industry and the Environment 1 (1995): 18, 19-22. 6. Budesca, Artur. “Denominaciones de Calidad en el Sector Pesquero” (Quality Denominations in the Fishing Sector). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 131-132. 7. Chevalier, D. et al. “High Pressure Thawing of Fish (whiting): Influence of the Process Parameters on Drip Losses”. Food Science and Technology. 32 (1999): 1, 25-31. 8. DIFTA. Environmental Report Unda. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Fisheries and Technology, January 1998. 9. DIFTA. Implementing Clean Technology and Wastewater Treatment: Procedures how to fulfill requirements of Urban Wastewater Treatment in the Fishing Industry. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Fisheries and Technology, November 1998. 10. Draft ISO TR 14032. Environmental Management: Examples of Environmental Performance Evaluation (draft circulated for comment and approval) Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1999. 11. European Environmental Agency. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Report by Edith Smeets and Rob Weterings of the TNO Centre for Strategy, Technology and Policy (Netherlands). August 1997. 12. Fair CT 97 3016 (second progress report). ECOMAN: New Environmentally Friendly Work Procedures to Reduce Waste Emissions in the European Fish Transforming Industry. Helsinki, July 1998. 13. Federal Environment Ministry - Bonn et Federal Environmental Agency - Berlin. A guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators. December 1997. 14. Felipe, Cruz; Ferreira, João. Evoluςão da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe (Evolution of the Portuguese Fish Canning Industry). Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha, March 1999, Matosinhos: GAPIC. 15. Ferreira, João et al. Diagnóstico Estretégico da Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Peixe: Conclusões (Strategic Diagnose of the Portuguese Fish Canning Industry: Conclusions). Paper presented in the Seminar “A Indústria Portuguesa de Conservas de Sardinha, March 1999, Matosinhos: GAPIC. 16. Fish Processing Technology. Edited by G.M. Hall: Blackie Academic and Professional, 1997. 17. Håkanson, Lars et al. Basic Concepts Concerning Assessments of Environmental Effects of Marine Fish Farms. Copenhaguen: Nordic Council of Ministers (TemaNord 1988:90), 1988.

Page 175

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

18. IHOBE. Libro Blanco para la Minimización de Residuos y Emisiones: Conserveras de Pescado (White Book for the Minimization of Waste and Emissions: Fish Canneries). País Vasco: IHOBE, S.A, 1999. 19. IIIEE Cleaner Technology Course 1998. Cleaner Technology Principles and Approaches for Energy, Water and Resource Conservation (draft of condensed course material). January 1999. 20. IIIEE Corporate Environmental Management Course. Notes from lecture by Ulrika Wenberg. Environmental Accounting and Environmental Performance Indicators. February 1999. 21. IIIEE Corporate Environmental Management Course. Notes from lecture by Ulrika Wenberg. Environmental Performance Evaluation and Environmental Communication. February 1999. 22. IIIEE Corporate Environmental Management Course. Summary by Thomas Parket. An Overview and Guide to the Literature of Environmental Accounting, Issues, Methods and Models. August 1996. 23. IIIEE Introduction to Cleaner Production Course. Notes from lecture by Shisher Kumra. Performance Indicators. September 1998. 24. ISO/CD 14031.2. Environmental Management: Environmental Performance Evaluation, Guidelines (draft circulated for comment and approval) New York: International Organization for Standardization, 1997. 25. Juarez, Samuel. “El Sector Pesquero en España: Fortalezas y Debilidades” (Fishing Sector in Spain: Strengths and Weaknesses). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 73-76. 26. Kennedy, C. J.; Archer, G.P. Maximizing Quality and Stability of Frozen Foods: A producers Guide to the State of the Art. Report 2 of EU Sponsored Project FAIR program (CT96-1180), 1999. 27. Kuhre, Lee W. ISO 14031 Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE). New Jersey: Prentice Hall PTR, 1998. 28. Langreo, Alicia. “Producción, Industria, Distribución y Consumo de Productos Pesqueros” (Production, Industry, Distribution and Consumption of Fishery Products). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 77-104. 29. Mette, Anne; Abrahamsen, Søren. “The Future Technology of Food Processing”. Asia-Pacific Fishing ’99 Papers, July 1999. 30. Nair, Chandran. “Pollution Control Through Water Conservation and Wastewater Reuse in the Fish Processing Industry”. Water Science Tech 22 (1990):9, 113-121. 31. Nordic Council of Ministers. BAT Best Available Technology in the Fishing Industry. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, (TemaNord 1997:59) 1997. 32. Ny, Henrik (1998) Sustainable Development Indicators for the Fishery Sector. Lund. (IIIEE Masters's Theses 98:22). 33. Ocaña, Gabriel. “¿Qué está pasando con el consumo de pescado?” (What’s Happening with Fish Consumption?). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 105-111. 34. OECD. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. OECD, Paris 1993. 35. Prokop, William. “Fish Processing”. In Air Pollution Engineering Manual. ed. By Anthony J. Buonicore et Wayne Davis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992. 36. Ramaswamy, H.S.; Grabowski, S. “Thermal Processing of Pacific Salmon in Steam/Air and Water Immersion Still Retorts: Influence of Container Type/Shape on Heating Behavior”. Food Science Technology 32 (1999): 1, 12-18.

Page 176

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

37. Salter, Ian (1998) At the cutting edge: Environmental Performance Indicators for the Hospitality Industry. Lund. (IIIEE Masters's Theses 98:28. 38. Suarez, J. A. “Presente y Futuro del Sector Pesquero” (Present and Future of the Fishing Sector). Magazine Distribución y Consumo 9 (1999):43, 122-123. 39. Thorslund, Anders. Pollution Control of Fish Processing Industries in Sweden: Seminar in the Field of Water Protection Measures of the Fish Industry. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, May 1982, Tallin. Sweden, 1982. 40. UNIDO. Environmental Assessment and Management of the Fish Processing Industry. Sectoral Branch Studies and Research Division (Series No. 28), 1986. 41. US National Research Council. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. 42. Warne, D. Manual on Fish Canning. Rome: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, (285), 1988. Electronic Sources 43. Alimarket. URL: http://www.alimarket.es (99.07.29). 44. Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “brine” URL:http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=16707andsctn=1 (99.08.08). 45. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "anti microbial agent". URL:http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=7944andsctn=2 (99.08.08). 46. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "fish processing" URL:http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120855andsctn=9 (99.07.29). 47. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "food preservation". URL:http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=120864andsctn=5 (99.07.30). 48. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. "pollution" URL:http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=117742andsctn=8 (99.08.02). 49. Europa Azul. URL: http://www.europa-azul.com/datosde.htm (99.06.17). 50. European Environmental Agency. URL: http://www.eea.eu.int (99.08.12). 51. European Union DG XI. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/preface.htm (99.08.12). 52. European Union DG XI. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/part2d.htm (99.08.12). 53. European Union DG XI. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/guide/part2c.htm (99.08.12) 54. European Union DG XXIII. URL: http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg23/guide_en/definit.htm#REF1 (99.08.20). 55. FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9900e/w9900e02.htm#P0_0 (99.07.28). 56. FAO. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS. HTM (99.05.28). 57. Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division/Office of Science and Technology/US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/commercial/ld-dfs.pdf (99.08.02). 58. Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division/Office of Science and Technology/US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/process/p-can.pdf (99.08.02).

Page 177

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

59. Fisheries Statistics and Economic Division/Office of Science and Technology/US National Marine Fisheries Service. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/fus/fus98/trade/i-prod.pdf (99.08.02). 60. IIIEE, Lund University. URL: http://www.lu.se/IIIEE/projects/ctpi/main.htm/ (99.07.29). 61. Labspec. URL http://www.labspec.co.za/l_fish.htm (99.08.03). 62. Lugares Divinos. URL: http://www.lugaresdivinos.com/map.htm (99.08.25). 63. MacLennan, David. “Technology in the capture fisheries”. Paper presented by the FAO fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/agreem/kyoto/H6F.HTM (99.06.28). 64. Muir J.F. et Nugent C.G. “Aquaculture production trends: perspectives for food security”. Paper presented by the FAO fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/agreem/kyoto/H9F.HTM (99.06.28). 65. US Food and Drug Administration: URL: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/smallbusiness/blubook.htm#cndfish.htm l (99.08.01). 66. Westlund, Lena. “Apparent historical consumption and future demand for fish and fishery products - exploratory calculations”. Paper presented by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) fisheries department under the Kyoto Conference. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/ agreem/kyoto/H13F.HTM (99.06.28). Interviews 67. ANFACO - CECOPESCA (National Association of Canneries - Ntl. Technical Center of Fishery Products’ canning). Personal interview to Gonzálo Taboada (assistant in metrology and environmental issues). 99.06.24. 68. ANFACO - CECOPESCA (National Association of Canneries - Ntl. Technical Center of Fishery Products’ canning). Personal interview to Luis Burgos Delgado (assistant in metrology and environmental issues). 99.06.25. 69. AZTI (Fisheries and Food Technology Institute). Personal interview to Maria Teresa Saenz (dpt. food technology). 99.06.21. 70. Bernardo Alfageme (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to Juan Ignacio Ramírez (maintenance manager). 99.06.25. 71. Bernardo Alfageme (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to Lucrecia Ma. García (quality control director). 99.06.25. 72. Bilbao Chamber of Commerce. Personal interview to José de la Rosa (head of environmental issues). 99.06.23. 73. Conservas Antonio Alonso S.A. (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to José Antonio Méndez (quality control manager). 99.06.28. 74. Entente S.A. (sardine canning plant). Personal interview to Damaso do Nascimento (production manager). 99.06.30. 75. Entente S.A. (sardine canning plant). Personal interview to Patricia Brito (maintenance engineer). 99.06.30. 76. Garavilla/Isabel (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to J.M. Urquidi (production manager). 99.06.23.

Page 178

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

77. IHOBE (Basque Country Environmental Public Society). Personal interview to Ander Elgorriaga (head of the waste minimization office). 99.06.22. 78. IPIMAR. Personal interview to Ana Claudia Proenca (ECOMAN coordinator). 99.06.29. 79. Matcon - COWI Consult. Personal interview to Claus Mosby Jespersen (project manager). 99.08.27. 80. Matcon - COWI Consult. Personal interview to Erik Andersen (senior project manager). 99.08.27. 81. Ormaza (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to Idure Zarazúa (production department). 99.06.22. 82. Ormaza (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to Josebe Erkaide (head of quality department). 99.06.22. 83. Portuguese Ministry Environment, General Directorate of Environment. Personal interview to Julieta Macedo (in charge of EIA). 99.07.01. 84. Ramirez (sardine cannning plant). Personal interview to Nelson Rodrigues (site manager). 99.07.02. 85. Salica (tuna canning plant). Personal interview to Javier Arbaiza (production manager). 99.06.21. 86. Sardinal (sardine canning plant). Personal interview to Ing. Brito (production manager). 99.07.02. 87. Sardinal (sardine canning plant). Personal interview to Teresa Maria Lemos (quality manager).99.07.02. 88. United Nation’s Environment Program - Telephone interview to Kristina Elvebakken (office at the Cleaner Production Program Technology, Industry and Economics). 99.07.15.

Page 179

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Appendixes

Page 180

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Appendix 1

Page 181

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 1.Germany, Cabinetry/ 2.furniture making company

3.Germany, Brewery,

Indicator OPIs 1. kW hours of electricity used 2. m3 of water consumed 3. % of solid wood used 4. kg paint and primers used 5. % surfaces treated with natural waxes or oils 6. Liters of solvents or paint thinner used 7. Kg of waste for disposal OPIs (absolute values) 1. electricity used in kilowatt hours per year 2. diesel fuel used in liters per year 3. heating oil consumed in liters per year 4. water consumed in m3 per year OPIs (relative values) 1. liters of heating oil consumed per hectoliter of beer 2. kW hours of electricity used per hectoliter of beer 3. megajoules of natural gas consumed per hectoliter of beer 4. liters of diesel fuel consumed per hectoliter of total beer and other drink products 5. total water consumed in liters per hectoliter of beer produced 6. potable water used for brewing in liters per hectoliter of beer produced 7. non potable water used for cleaning and other purposes in liters per hectoliter of beer produced 8. hectoliters of beer produced per m3

Page 182

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 3.Denmark, Industrial laundry,

Indicator MPIs 1. # days lost per week due to sickness 2. # environmental instruction hours per employee 3. # environmentally related complaints from neighbors regarding noise, smell and other issues 4. # hours spent on environmental projects using LCA 5. # implemented environmental objectives and targets and # being implemented on time 6. # meetings having work place assessment (H and S) on the agenda 7. # new customers mentioning environment 8. # newspaper articles referring to the company’s environmental management and/or performance 9. # of corrective actions per function/unit 10.# of deviations from procedures and instructions per month for functions/units where it’s found relevant 11.# of injunctions 12.# of regulatory non compliance 13.# of requests from external interested parties concerning the company’s environmental performance 14.# of staffing hours spent on environmental projects/action programs per group of staff 15.# or % of environmentally assessed acquisitions and important rebuildings out of the total number of acquisitions and important rebuildings 16.# or % of environmentally critical products for which the company has specified environmental requirements 17.# or % of products environmentally assessed by the company out of a selected number of existing and newly purchased environmentally critical products 18.# questions answered on a questionnaire concerning environmental conditions sent to selected environmentally critical suppliers 19.# reports of industrial injuries 20.% of staffing hours used for environmental instruction and training 21.Annual duty for sewage discharge 22.Cost of chemicals consumed per kg of laundered clothes 23.Cost of fuel per vehicle 24.Cost of maintenance and repairs per vehicle 25.score from a questionnaire concerning the degree of staff satisfaction 26.Value (monetary) of raw material and resources saved compared to consumption per quarter

Page 183

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 3.Denmark, Industrial laundry,

Indicator OPIs 1. chemicals used per kg of laundered textiles 2. quantity of water used per kg of laundered textiles 3. number of auxiliary products containing PVC 4. number of products, equipment, machinery containing CFCs 5. Re-washing as a percentage of total amount of laundry 6. % reduction in use of chlorine per kg of washed clothes compared with the previous year’s use 7. % of re-circulated water used during the textiles washing process 8. Consumption of electricity and oil/gas per kg of washed clothes 9. % energy consumption used as process energy and for space heating 10.Estimated steam boiler efficiency as a percentage 11.# of discarded pieces of textile per type of textile 12.% of purchased textiles with eco-labels 13.Consumption of fuel per km per vehicle 14.Amount of waste by type in m3 15.Cost of waste by type 16.Waste per kg of washed clothes 17.# and % of the different types of hazardous waste for which reduction plans have been made 18.Amount of wastewater per kg washed clothes 19.Nitrification inhibition as a percentage 20.Discharged BOD and COD in wastewater (annual concentration, absolute amount, amount per kg washed clothes)

Page 184

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 4.Malaysia, Rubber glove manufacturing company,

Indicator MPIs 1. Annual cost of implementing environmental programs 2. # environmentally related complaints per year 3. # effluent samples analyzed monthly not complying with regulatory standards OPIs 1. Number pieces of gloves rejected in relation to the total number of pieces of gloves produced monthly 2. Extractable protein level of glove measured in mg of extractable protein per gram of rubber 3. Quantity of zinc in kg discharged to the received watercourse per month 4. COD load in kg discharged to the receiving watercourse per month 5. Quantity of dried sludge in kilograms produced per month

5.Japan, Food processing company (pickles),

6.Argentina, Manufacturer of flexible laminated packaging,

ECIs 1. Incidence of protein allergy associated with the use of rubber gloves by sensitized individuals 2. Changes in the quality of surface water up/down stream of the factory’s effluent discharge point MPIs 1. % monthly samples meeting voluntary discharge criterion 2. # employees who received environmental education OPIs 1. Total BOD of discharges 2. Output of carbon dioxide (within the plant) 3. Output of carbon dioxide in conveyance of products 4. Total output of wastes (within the plant) 5. Combustibles (office) 6. Combustible (production) 7. Garbage 8. Sludge of wastewater treatment 9. Total confined for treatment by contractors 10.Packaging wastes after product consumption 11.Usage of water resources (m3) 12.Usage of paper for packaging materials 13.Usage of plastics for packaging materials OPI 1. Ratio of the amount of recycled solvent consumed to the total amount of inked solvent generated MPI 1. Annual cost savings achieved by recycling solvents ECI 1. Quality of the air in the incineration plant’s surroundings measured through the concentration in the air of PM and VOCs.

Page 185

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 7.Argentina, Chemical Processing company

Indicator MPIs 1. Investments for 14001 certification (US dollars) 2. Savings achieved through EMS implementation (US dollars) 3. # Resolved and unresolved corrective actions 4. # Environmental complaints 5. Hours of environmental training of personnel and contractors OPIs 1. Liters of diesel oil consumed per ton of polypropylene 2. Annual tons of CFC R22 consumed per year 3. Cumulative inventory of hazardous wastes in m3 4. Generation of hazardous wastes in m3 per year 5. Consumption of underground water per ton of polypropylene 6. # of recycled pallets per year 7. Tons of steam consumed per ton of polypropylene 8. kW hours of electricity consumed per ton of polypropylene 9. m3 of gas consumed per ton of polypropylene 10.tons of propylene consumed per ton of polypropylene 11.m3 of wastewater discharged from the site 12.kg of chemical products consumed per ton of polypropylene ECIs 1. Hectare of tree plantation area irrigated with wastewater 2. Meters of the water table (depth) 3. Soil conductivity (unit is deci-siemen per meter) Groundwater quality (unit is ppm)

Page 186

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country

Indicator

8.Germany, Hospital

MPIs 1. # measures implemented from the agreed 2 year resource and cost savings program 2. Cost savings realized by the reduced use of resources, waste recycling, and pollution prevention 3. Extent of compliance with applicable regulations OPIs 1. Amount of medical oxygen used per nursing day or planned bed 2. Amount of gas emissions (e.g., CO2, SOx, NOx) per nursing day or planned bed 3. Amount of energy consumed per nursing day or planned bed.

9.Argentina, refinery

Oil

ECIs 1. Amount of heat emitted into the groundwater and/or change of temperature caused by this emission 2. Concentration of gas emissions in the vicinity of the hospital MPIs 1. Man hours for environmental training as a percentage of total training man hours 2. Annual budget for environmental care as a percentage of the total annual budget 3. # of environmental initiatives for the local community per year 4. Man hours per year for emergency simulations 5. Total annual man hours in environmental training of contractors and suppliers 6. Annual expenses in tank maintenance/repair 7. Cost for chemical products for wastewater treatment per m3 of wastewater 8. # of environmental incidents per year with a cost higher than 5,000 US dollars 9. Annual expenses for water OPIs 1. kW hours per 1,000 m3 of oil processed 2. Water intake in m3 per m3 of oil processed 3. Equivalent low pressure steam in metric tons per m3 of oil processed 4. Relation between the mass of crude oil and the sum of masses or products with commercial value produced during the same period of time 5. m3 of effluent water per m3 of oil processed 6. Waste generation (by type) per month 7. Annual consumption of potentially hazardous products 8. Total stock of CFCs at the site 9. Operational availability index ECIs (incomplete list) 1. Hydrocarbon content in groundwater 2. Sulfur dioxide in air (ppm at 6 site locations) 3. Forested park area as a percentage of total site area 4. Productivity by hectare 5. Head count index on poverty 6. Unemployment rate 7. Population attending school (3 levels) 8. Primary school enrollment ratio 9. Access to safe drinking water 10.Access to natural gas/electrical service 11.Access to adequate sewage disposal facilities 12.Salinity in surface water 13.Salinity in groundwater

Page 187

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country

Indicator

10.Germany, Food processing company (baby food main)

MPIs 1. Amount of operating material in kg 2. Cost of operating material per ton of production 3. Amount of packaging in kg 4. Cost of packaging per ton of production 5. Use of water in m3 6. Cost of water usage per ton of production 7. % of total production using organically farmed raw materials 8. % of mineral water in the total amount of drinking water used OPIs 1. % of organic share 2. Operating materials in kg per ton of product 3. Cleaning agents in kg per ton of product 4. Water in m3 per ton of product 5. Packaging in kg per ton of product 6. Energy in kW hours per ton of product 7. CO2 in kg per ton of product 8. SO2 in gram per ton of product 9. NOx in gram per ton of product 10.Wastewater in m3 per ton of product 11.Total waste in kg per ton of product 12.Volume of non recyclable waste in kg per ton of product 13.Organic waste in kg per ton of product MPIs 1. # of new products developed using an LCA approach 2. # of improved environmental aspects in products 3. # of products and the amount of toxic content in the products replaced by the nontoxic agent 4. % of cost spent on employee training 5. # of incidents per year caused by human error 6. # of feedback ideas received per year from employees via an environmental suggestion box 7. # of activities per year developed and organized for the city community 8. # of complaints per year from the community

11.Czech Republic, Chemical company

OPIs 1. Sulfur trioxide emissions in kg per ton of produced acid 2. Dust in milligrams per m3 of air 3. Mercury emissions to air in grams per ton of product 4. Hydrofluoric acid in milligrams per m3 of air OPIs/ECIs 1. Sulfur oxides in tons per year 2. Chlorinated hydrocarbon in tons per year in wastewater 3. Tons of mercury per year 4. Tons of freon emitted to air per year

Page 188

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 12.Denmark, Railway infrastructure company

Indicator MPIs 1. % of invitations to tender and contracts in which the procedure for environmental evaluation is used 2. Progress made in the project for the formulation of aesthetics policy in connection with time-tabling 3. % of product groups which are prioritized on the basis of environmental evaluation 4. # of residential areas offered noise reduction measures relative to the overall levels of noise pollution 5. % of energy suppliers with whom dialogue has been entered into a “greener” energy OPIs 1. km of sound barriers erected 2. % of greener energy used in comparison with total energy used

13.Norway, Silicon metal production plant

ECIs 1. Extent to which aesthetic objectives are met 2. Railway sector’s contribution to climate change, acidification, eutrophication, smog and depletion of natural resources MPIs 1. Deviation from discharge permission 2. Deviation from internal performance goals 3. Plans and actions 4. Improvements 5. Energy consumption (total/specific) OPIs 1. Tons of SO2 emitted per year 2. Tons of CO2 emitted per year 3. Tons of NOx emitted per year 4. Tons of dust emitted per year 5. Energy consumption (total/specific) 6. Acute discharge 7. Hazardous waste ECIs 1. Noise emitted in decibels 2. Grams of dust per m3 of ambient air 3. Grams of SO2 per m3 of ambient air 4. Grams of NO2 per m3 of ambient air

Page 189

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Country 14.United Kingdom, Multinational chemical company

Indicator MPIs 1. Total number of complaints received in a defined reporting period 2. % of tests vs. # of consents to emit water that are totally in compliance 3. % of tests vs. # of consents to emit air that are totally in compliance 4. # prosecutions and cost of penalties 5. List of plants completed and under construction in a defined reporting period 6. # and geoGraphical location of spills which could have or did cause public concern or damage to the environment 7. Estimated annual environmental expenditure OPIs 1.Total waste, in millions of tons, emitted to air, sent to landfill, or discharged to water per year 2.Amount of hazardous waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year 3.Amount of nonhazardous waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year 4.Amount of particulate in thousands of tons emitted to air per year 5.Amount of non process waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year 6.Energy used per ton of production as a % of 1995 usage per ton of production OPIs (Environmental Burden) 1.Tons per year of copper/formaldehyde equivalent emitted 2.Tons per year of oxygen emitted 3.Tons per year of hydrogen ions emitted 4.Tons per year of benzene equivalent emitted 5.Tons per year of CO2 equivalent emitted 6.Tons per year of CFC-11 equivalent emitted 7.Tons per year of ethylene equivalent emitted

Page 190

Appendix 2

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Detailed analysis of EPIs in 14 Cases Studies from ISO-14032 ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator RELATIVE COST Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

1 2 3 4

Classified as OPIs combined with ECIs Chlorinated hydrocarbon in tons per year in wastewater Sulfur oxides in tons per year Tons of freon emitted to air per year Tons of mercury per year

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator OPIs RELATIVE COST Relative Quantity 1 # and % of the different types of hazardous waste for which reduction plans have been made Absolute Quantity 2 # of discarded pieces of textile per type of textile Absolute Quantity 3 # of recycled pallets per year Relative Quantity 4 % of purchased textiles with eco-labels Relative Quantity 5 % energy consumption used as process energy and for space heating Relative Quantity 6 % of greener energy used in comparison with total energy used Relative Quantity 7 % of organic share Relative Quantity 8 % of re-circulated water used during the textiles washing process Relative Quantity 9 % of solid wood used Relative Quantity 10 % reduction in use of chlorine per kg of washed clothes compared with the previous year’s use Relative Quantity 11 % surfaces treated with natural waxes or oils Absolute Quantity 12 Acute discharge Relative Quantity 13 Amount of energy consumed per nursing day or planned bed. Relative Quantity 14 Amount of gas emissions (e.g., CO2, SOx, NOx) per nursing day or planned bed Absolute Quantity 15 Amount of hazardous waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year Relative Quantity 16 Amount of medical oxygen used per nursing day or planned bed Absolute Quantity 17 Amount of nonhazardous waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year Absolute Quantity 18 Amount of non process waste in thousands of tons sent to landfill per year Absolute Quantity 19 Amount of particulate in thousands of tons emitted to air per year Relative Quantity 20 Amount of waste by type in m3 Absolute Quantity 21 Amount of wastewater per kg washed clothes Absolute Quantity 22 Annual consumption of potentially hazardous products Absolute Quantity 23 Annual tons of CFC R22 consumed per year Relative Quantity 24 Chemicals used per kg of laundered textiles Relative Quantity 25 Cleaning agents in kg per ton of product Relative Quantity 26 CO2 in kg per ton of product Relative Quantity 27 COD load in kg discharged to the receiving watercourse per month Absolute Quantity 28 Combustible (production) Absolute Quantity 29 Combustibles (office) Relative Quantity 30 Consumption of electricity and oil/gas per kg of washed clothes Relative Quantity 31 Consumption of fuel per km per vehicle Relative Quantity 32 Consumption of underground water per ton of polypropylene Absolute Cost 33 Cost of waste by type Absolute Quantity 34 Cumulative inventory of hazardous wastes in m3 Relative Quantity 35 Diesel fuel used in liters per year

Page 192

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator OPIs RELATIVE COST Absolute Quantity 36 Discharged BOD and COD in wastewater (annual concentration, absolute amount, amount per kg washed clothes) Relative Quantity 37 Dust in milligrams per m3 of air Relative Quantity 38 Electricity used in kilowatt hours per year Absolute Quantity 39 Energy consumption (total/specific) Relative Quantity 40 Energy in kW hours per ton of product Relative Quantity 41 Energy used per ton of production as a % of 1995 usage per ton of production Relative 42 Equivalent low pressure steam in metric tons per m3 of oil processed Relative Quantity 43 Estimated steam boiler efficiency as a percentage Absolute Quantity 44 Extractable protein level of glove measured in mg of extractable protein per gram of rubber Absolute Quantity 45 Garbage Relative Quantity 46 Generation of hazardous wastes in m3 per year Absolute Quantity 47 Hazardous waste Relative Quantity 48 Heating oil consumed in liters per year Relative Quantity 49 Hectoliters of beer produced per m3 Relative Quantity 50 Hydrofluoric acid in milligrams per m3 of air Relative Quantity 51 kg of chemical products consumed per ton of polypropylene Absolute Quantity 52 kg of waste for disposal Absolute Quantity 53 kg paint and primers used Absolute Quantity 54 km of sound barriers erected Relative Quantity 55 kW hours of electricity consumed per ton of polypropylene Absolute Quantity 56 kW hours of electricity used Relative Quantity 57 kW hours of electricity used per hectoliter of beer Absolute Quantity 58 kW hours per 1000 m3 of oil processed Relative Quantity 59 Liters of diesel fuel consumed per hectoliter of total beer and other drink products Relative Quantity 60 Liters of diesel oil consumed per ton of polypropylene Relative Quantity 61 Liters of heating oil consumed per hectoliter of beer Absolute Quantity 62 Liters of solvents or paint thinner used Relative Quantity 63 m3 of effluent water per m3 of oil processed Relative Quantity 64 m3 of gas consumed per ton of polypropylene Absolute Quantity 65 m3 of wastewater discharged from the site Absolute Quantity 66 m3 of water consumed Relative Quantity 67 Megajoules of natural gas consumed per hectoliter of beer Relative Quantity 68 Mercury emissions to air in grams per ton of product Relative Quantity 69 Nitrification inhibition as a percentage Absolute Quantity 70 Non potable water used for cleaning and other purposes in liters per hectoliter of beer produced Relative Quantity 71 NOx in gram per ton of product Absolute Quantity 72 Number of auxiliary products containing PVC Absolute Quantity 73 Number of products, equipment, machinery containing CFCs Absolute Quantity 74 Number pieces of gloves rejected in relation to the total number of pieces of gloves produced monthly Relative Quantity 75 Operating materials in kg per ton of product Absolute Quantity 76 Operational availability index Relative Quantity 77 Organic waste in kg per ton of product Absolute Quantity 78 Output of carbon dioxide (within the plant) Absolute Quantity 79 Output of carbon dioxide in conveyance of products Relative Quantity 80 Packaging in kg per ton of product Absolute Quantity 81 Packaging wastes after product consumption

Page 193

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator RELATIVE COST Relative Quantity 82 Absolute Quantity 83 Relative Quantity 84 Absolute Quantity 85 Relative Quantity 86 Absolute Relative

Quantity Quantity

87 88

Absolute Relative Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Relative Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Relative Absolute Relative

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

OPIs Potable water used for brewing in liters per hectoliter of beer produced Quantity of dried sludge in kilograms produced per month Quantity of water used per kg of laundered textiles Quantity of zinc in kg discharged to the received watercourse per month Ratio of the amount of recycled solvent consumed to the total amount of inked solvent generated Re-washing as a percentage of total amount of laundry Relation between the mass of crude oil and the sum of masses or products with commercial value produced during the same period of time Sludge of wastewater treatment SO2 in gram per ton of product Sulfur trioxide emissions in kg per ton of produced acid Tons of CO2 emitted per year Tons of dust emitted per year Tons of NOx emitted per year Tons of propylene consumed per ton of polypropylene Tons of SO2 emitted per year Tons of steam consumed per ton of polypropylene Tons per year of benzene equivalent emitted Tons per year of CFC-11 equivalent emitted Tons per year of CO2 equivalent emitted Tons per year of copper/formaldehyde equivalent emitted Tons per year of ethylene equivalent emitted Tons per year of hydrogen ions emitted Tons per year of oxygen emitted Total BOD of discharges Total confined for treatment by contractors Total output of wastes (within the plant) Total stock of CFCs at the site Total waste in kg per ton of product Total waste, in millions of tons, emitted to air, sent to landfill, or discharged to water per year Total water consumed in liters per hectoliter of beer produced Usage of paper for packaging materials Usage of plastics for packaging materials Usage of water resources (m3) Volume of non recyclable waste in kg per ton of product Waste generation (by type) per month Waste per kg of washed clothes Wastewater in m3 per ton of product Water consumed in m3 per year Water in m3 per ton of product

Page 194

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator RELATIVE COST Absolute Quantity 1 Absolute Quantity 2 Absolute Quantity 3 Absolute Quantity 4 Absolute

Quantity

5

Absolute Absolute Absolute Relative Relative Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

17 18 19 20 21 22

Absolute

Quantity

23

Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

24 25 26 27 28

ECIs Access to adequate sewage disposal facilities Access to natural gas/electrical service Access to safe drinking water Amount of heat emitted into the groundwater and/or change of temperature caused by this emission Changes in the quality of surface water up/down stream of the factory’s effluent discharge point Concentration of gas emissions in the vicinity of the hospital Extent to which aesthetic objectives are met Forested park area as a percentage of total site area Grams of dust per m3 of ambient air Grams of NO2 per m3 of ambient air Grams of SO2 per m3 of ambient air Groundwater quality (unit is ppm) Head count index on poverty Hectare of tree plantation area irrigated with wastewater Hydrocarbon content in groundwater Incidence of protein allergy associated with the use of rubber gloves by sensitized individuals Meters of the water table (depth) Noise emitted in decibels Population attending school (3 levels) Primary school enrollment ratio Productivity by hectare Quality of the air in the incineration plant’s surroundings measured through the concentration in the air of PM and VOCs. Railway sector’s contribution to climate change, acidification, eutrophication, smog and depletion of natural resources Salinity in groundwater Salinity in surface water Soil conductivity (unit is deci-siemen per meter) Sulfur dioxide in air (ppm at 6 site locations) Unemployment rate

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator MPIs RELATIVE COST Absolute Quantity 1 % of invitations to tender and contracts in which the procedure for environmental evaluation is used Absolute Quantity 2 # and geoGraphical location of spills which could have or did cause public concern or damage to the environment Relative Quantity 3 # days lost per week due to sickness Absolute Quantity 4 # effluent samples analyzed monthly not complying with regulatory standards Absolute Quantity 5 # employees who received environmental education Absolute Quantity 6 # environmental complaints Absolute Quantity 7 # environmental instruction hours per employee Absolute Quantity 8 # environmentally related complaints from neighbors regarding noise, smell and other issues Absolute Quantity 9 # environmentally related complaints per year Absolute Quantity 10 # hours spent on environmental projects using LCA Absolute Quantity 11 # implemented environmental objectives and targets and # being implemented on time

Page 195

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator MPIs RELATIVE COST Absolute Quantity 12 # measures implemented from the agreed 2 year resource and cost savings program Absolute Quantity 13 # meetings having work place assessment (H and S) on the agenda Absolute Quantity 14 # new customers mentioning environment Absolute Quantity 15 # newspaper articles referring to the company’s environmental management and/or performance Absolute Quantity 16 # of activities per year developed and organized for the city community Absolute Quantity 17 # of complaints per year from the community Relative Quantity 18 # of corrective actions per function/unit Absolute Quantity 19 # of deviations from procedures and instructions per month for functions/units where it’s found relevant Absolute Quantity 20 # of environmental incidents per year with a cost higher than 5000 US dollars Absolute Quantity 21 # of environmental initiatives for the local community per year Absolute Quantity 22 # of feedback ideas received per year from employees via an environmental suggestion box Absolute Quantity 23 # of improved environmental aspects in products Absolute Quantity 24 # of incidents per year caused by human error Absolute Quantity 25 # of injunctions Absolute Quantity 26 # of new products developed using an LCA approach Absolute Quantity 27 # of products and the amount of toxic content in the products replaced by the nontoxic agent Absolute Quantity 28 # of regulatory non compliance Absolute Quantity 29 # of requests from external interested parties concerning the company’s environmental performance Absolute Quantity 30 # of residential areas offered noise reduction measures relative to the overall levels of noise pollution Relative Quantity 31 # of staffing hours spent on environmental projects/action programs per group of staff Relative Quantity 32 # or % of environmentally assessed acquisitions and important rebuilding out of the total number of acquisitions and important rebuilding Relative Quantity 33 # or % of environmentally critical products for which the company has specified environmental requirements Relative Quantity 34 # or % of products environmentally assessed by the company out of a selected number of existing and newly purchased environmentally critical products Absolute Cost 35 # prosecutions and cost of penalties Absolute Quantity 36 # questions answered on a questionnaire concerning environmental conditions sent to selected environmentally critical suppliers Absolute Quantity 37 # reports of industrial injuries Absolute Quantity 38 # resolved and unresolved corrective actions Relative Quantity 39 % monthly samples meeting voluntary discharge criterion Relative Cost 40 % of cost spent on employee training Relative Quantity 41 % of energy suppliers with whom dialogue has been entered into a "greener" energy Relative Quantity 42 % of mineral water in the total amount of drinking water used Relative Quantity 43 % of product groups which are prioritized on the basis of environmental evaluation Relative Quantity 44 % of staffing hours used for environmental instruction and training Relative Quantity 45 % of tests vs. # of consents to emit air that are totally in compliance Relative Quantity 46 % of tests vs. # of consents to emit water that are totally in compliance Relative Quantity 47 % of total production using organically farmed raw materials Absolute Quantity 48 Amount of operating material in kg Absolute Quantity 49 Amount of packaging in kg

Page 196

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

ABSOLUTE/ QUANTITY/ # Indicator RELATIVE COST Relative Cost 50 Absolute Cost 51 Absolute Cost 52 Absolute Cost 53 Absolute Cost 54 Absolute Cost 55 Relative Cost 56 Relative Cost 57 Relative Cost 58 Relative Cost 59 Relative Cost 60 Relative Cost 61 Relative Cost 62 Absolute Cost 63 Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Relative Relative Absolute Absolute

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Cost Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Cost Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Cost

77 78 79 80 81 82

MPIs Annual budget for environmental care as a percentage of the total annual budget Annual cost of implementing environmental programs Annual cost savings achieved by recycling solvents Annual duty for sewage discharge Annual expenses for water Annual expenses in tank maintenance/repair Cost for chemical products for wastewater treatment per m3 of wastewater Cost of chemicals consumed per kg of laundered clothes Cost of fuel per vehicle Cost of maintenance and repairs per vehicle Cost of operating material per ton of production Cost of packaging per ton of production Cost of water usage per ton of production Cost savings realized by the reduced use of resources, waste recycling, and pollution prevention Deviation from discharge permission Deviation from internal performance goals Energy consumption (total/specific) Estimated annual environmental expenditure Extent of compliance with applicable regulations Hours of environmental training of personnel and contractors Improvements Investments for 14001 certification (US dollars) List of plants completed and under construction in a defined reporting period Man hours for environmental training as a percentage of total training man hours Man hours per year for emergency simulations Plans and actions Progress made in the project for the formulation of aesthetics policy in connection with time-tabling Savings achieved through EMS implementation (US dollars) Score from a questionnaire concerning the degree of staff satisfaction Total annual man hours in environmental training of contractors and suppliers Total number of complaints received in a defined reporting period Use of water in m3 Value (monetary) of raw material and resources saved compared to consumption per quarter

Page 197

Appendix 3

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 1 Top 20 countries based on fish production* in 1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country China Peru Japan Chile United States of America India Russian Federation Indonesia Thailand Norway Korea, Republic of Philippines Iceland Denmark Mexico Vietnam Argentina Spain Bangladesh Taiwan Province of China

Production (metric tons) 39,936,927 7,877,416 7,363,776 6,365,519 5,519,116 5,473,059 4,748,500 4,577,310 3,488,104 3,414,651 3,267,551 2,767,165 2,229,112 1,865,760 1,571,898 1,558,000 1,352,948 1,349,220 1,342,730 1,308,302

* Figures include aquaculture production. Source: FAO database program and global statistics: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28).

Table 2 Top 20 countries in fish production* considering 1990-1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country China Japan Peru Chile United States of America Russian Federation India Indonesia Thailand Korea, Republic of Norway Philippines Denmark Iceland Korea, Dem, People's Rep Mexico Taiwan Province of China Spain Canada Vietnam

Accumulated production (metric tons) 211,929,026 69,710,136 68,646,169 53,916,951 45,985,908 42,722,010 37,590,340 31,274,656 26,491,261 26,347,106 22,119,679 21,406,548 14,514,218 13,407,877 12,215,783 11,103,889 10,618,462 10,507,812 9,945,502 9,492,942

* Figures include aquaculture production. Source: FAO database program and global statistics: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28).

Page 199

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 3 EU countries’ fish production* in 1997 **Ranking 14 18 23 25 32 33 44 45 48 52 54 56 101 164 232

Country Denmark Spain United Kingdom France Italy Netherlands Ireland Sweden Germany Portugal Greece Finland Belgium Austria Luxembourg

Percentage 23.37% 16.90% 12.80% 11.34% 7.11% 6.89% 4.57% 4.56% 3.99% 2.89% 2.68% 2.46% 0.39% 0.04% 0.00% 100%

Production (metric tons) 1,865,760 1,349,220 1,022,161 905,486 567,803 550,009 364,882 364,115 318,785 230,851 214,239 196,513 31,346 3,486 7,984,656

* Figures include aquaculture production. Source: FAO database program and global statistics: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28). **Total fish producing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 244.

Table 4 EU countries’ fish production* considering accumulated production 1990-1997 Ranking** 13 18 24 25 29 33 43 44 47 48 56 59 94 163 234

Country Denmark Spain France United Kingdom Italy Netherlands Ireland Sweden Germany Portugal Greece Finland Belgium Austria Luxembourg

Percentage 23.32% 16.88% 12.06% 12.00% 7.34% 6.59% 4.47% 4.37% 4.05% 3.69% 2.44% 2.27% 0.47% 0.05% 0.00% 100.0%

Accumulated production (metric tons) 14,514,218 10,507,812 7,507,983 7,469,338 4,567,832 4,098,149 2,784,396 2,717,313 2,519,302 2,297,907 1,518,618 1,410,334 292,444 28,195 62,233,841

* Figures include aquaculture production. Source: FAO database program and global statistics: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.HTM (99.05.28). **Total fish producing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 244.

Page 200

Appendix 4

 V. 2.19 Types of canned finfish included in the analysis with Fishstat Plus

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Albacore, canned Albacore, in brine, canned Albacore, in oil, canned Albacore, solid pack, canned Anchovies, canned Anchovies, salted, semi-preserved Anchovies, semi-preserved Anchovy fillets, canned Anchovy fillets, semi-preserved Atlantic mackerel, canned Bonito (Sarda spp.), chunk pack, canned Bonito (Sarda spp.), grated, canned Bonito (Sarda spp.), solid pack, canned Bonitos, canned Chub mackerel, canned Chub mackerel, in brine, canned Chub mackerel, in oil, canned Chub mackerel, in tomato sauce, canned Clupeoids nei, canned European sardine, canned European sardine, in oil, canned European sardine, in tomato sauce, canned European sardine, smoked, canned Herrings, sardines, anchovies, etc., canned Herrings, sardines, anchovies, etc., semi-preserved, marinated, etc. Mackerels nei, canned Mackerels nei, in oil or in brine, canned Mackerels, flakes or chunks, canned Mackerels, snoeks, cutlassfishes, etc., canned Pilchards, canned Skipjack tuna, canned Skipjack tuna, in brine, canned Skipjack tuna, in oil, canned South African pilchard, canned Sprat, canned Tunas nei, canned Tunas, bonitos, billfishes, etc., canned Tunas, chunk pack, canned Tunas, chunk pack, in brine, canned Tunas, chunk pack, in oil, canned Tunas, flakes and grated, canned Tunas, flakes and grated, in brine, canned Tunas, flakes and grated, in oil, canned Tunas, solid pack, canned Tunas, solid pack, in brine, canned Tunas, solid pack, in oil, canned

Page 202

Appendix 5

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 1 Top 20 canned finfish producers in 1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country United States of America Spain Thailand Mexico Japan Peru Italy France Latvia Morocco Philippines Ecuador Côte d'Ivoire Estonia Portugal Brazil Venezuela Iran (Islamic Rep. of) Indonesia Poland

Production (metric tons) 284,430 205,327 160,996 114,837 107,644 100,619 88,500 77,603 59,965 56,938 56,720 51,779 51,000 48,870 47,914 31,224 30,878 24,430 23,000 20,568

Table 2 Top 20 canned finfish producers considering accumulated production 1990-1997 Place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country United States of America Thailand Spain Japan Italy Mexico France Morocco USSR Philippines Venezuela Portugal Côte d'Ivoire Peru Ecuador Brazil Latvia Indonesia Senegal Iran (Islamic Rep. of)

Accumulated production (metric tons) 2,257,471 2,152,966 1,382,479 1,067,422 813,982 707,141 556,356 536,652 511,005 432,289 396,215 394,540 392,574 388,938 357,331 266,838 218,456 200,226 180,002 169,573

Page 204

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 3 EU canned fish production 1997 Ranking* 2 7 8 15 25 43 45 48 52 53 57

-

Country

Production (metric tons)

Spain Italy France Portugal Denmark Greece United Kingdom Ireland Sweden Netherlands Belgium

205,327 88,500 77,603 47,914 14,570 2,603 2,000 1,270 550 450 190

Luxembourg Greece Finland Germany Austria Total

0 0 0 0 0 440,977

*Total canned fish producing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 66.

Table 4 EU canned fish production considering accumulated production 1990-1997

Ranking* 3 5 7 12 21 49 50 53 57 63 -

Country Spain Italy France Portugal Denmark United Kingdom Sweden Netherlands Ireland Belgium Luxembourg Greece Finland Germany Austria Total

Accumulated production (metric tons) 1,382,479 813,982 556,356 394,540 147,484 17,200 16,114 8,155 5,491 1,160 0 0 0 0 0 3,342,961

*Total canned fish producing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 66.

Page 205

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 5 EU countries’ canned production vs. rest of the world (1997 production and accumulated production during 1990-1997) Region

% Accumulated production 1990-1997 Rest of the World 78,4% European Union 21,6% Total 100,0%

Accumulated production 1990-1997 (metric tons) 12,137,956 3,342,961 15,480,917

% Production 1997 Production 1997 (metric tons) (metric tons) 76.6% 1,447,421 23.4% 440,977 100.0% 1,888,398

Table 6 Top 20 canned finfish exporters in 1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country Thailand Ecuador Latvia Morocco Spain Philippines Estonia Côte d'Ivoire France Portugal Indonesia Peru Seychelles Senegal Mauritius Mexico Colombia Costa Rica Netherlands Denmark

Exports (metric tons) 161,426 78,221 64,420 60,681 57,530 56,861 49,649 49,066 36,886 24,556 23,976 22,352 20,611 19,284 15,158 14,038 13,829 12,639 11,940 11,595

Page 206

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 7 Top 20 canned finfish exporters considering accumulated exports (1990-1997) Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country Thailand Morocco Philippines Côte d'Ivoire Ecuador Portugal Indonesia Spain Japan Senegal Denmark France Latvia Chile Peru United States of America Estonia Fiji Islands Norway Colombia

Accumulated exports (metric tons) 2,000,887 409,325 378,797 342,423 245,623 199,235 191,388 177,318 168,195 159,059 97,735 90,381 82,232 76,977 74,066 69,046 68,753 62,794 62,220 59,861

Table 8 EU canned fish exports considering 1997 Ranking* 5 9 10 19 20 21 25 31 44 45 46 51 60 64 -

Country Spain France Portugal Netherlands Denmark Germany Italy United Kingdom Greece Belgium Ireland Sweden Austria Finland Luxembourg Total

Exports (metric tons) 57,530 36,886 24,556 11,940 11,595 10,891 9,174 7,333 2,116 2,047 1,688 663 131 79 0 178,626

*Total canned fish exporting countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 128.

Page 207

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 9 EU canned fish exports considering accumulated exports 1990-1997

Ranking* 6 8 11 12 23 27 29 32 44 47 49 51 55 67 -

Country Portugal Spain Denmark France Italy Netherlands Germany United Kingdom Belgium Greece Ireland Sweden Austria Finland Luxembourg Total

Accumulated exports (metric tons) 199,235 177,318 97,735 90,381 59,150 48,275 42,966 41,066 18,338 9,099 7,578 7,066 3,475 378 0 802,060

*Total canned fish exporting countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 128.

Table 10 EU countries’ canned exports vs. rest of the world (1997 exports and accumulated exports during 1990-1997) Region Rest of the World European Union Total

% Accumulated exports 1990-1997 86,7% 13,3% 100,0%

Accumulated exports 1990-1997 (metric tons) 5,232,151 802,060 6,034,211

% Exports 1997 (metric tons) 81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

Exports 1997 (metric tons) 786,705 178,626 965,331

Page 208

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 11 Top 20 canned finfish importers in 1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country United States of America United Kingdom Russian Federation France Italy Germany Japan Colombia Canada Sri Lanka Spain Netherlands South Africa Belgium Australia Saudi Arabia Argentina Brazil Chile Austria

Imports (metric tons) 137,278 119,028 107,823 102,505 70,235 58,951 45,354 36,011 31,220 20,959 20,365 20,257 20,155 17,851 15,063 11,370 11,219 8,933 8,624 8,382

Table 12 Top 20 canned finfish importers considering accumulated tonnage 1990-1997 Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Country United States of America United Kingdom France Germany Italy Japan Canada Colombia Russian Federation Belgium Netherlands Australia South Africa Papua New Guinea Spain Sri Lanka Austria Sweden Malaysia Switzerland

Accumulated imports (metric tons) 1,203,587 772,644 733,783 482,192 351,074 249,957 230,988 224,054 220,127 149,277 116,199 112,039 107,652 107,425 106,228 87,642 78,250 64,506 60,954 60,664

Page 209

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Table 13 EU canned fish imports considering 1997 Ranking* 2 4 5 6 11 12 14 20 25 26 28 30 36 47 -

Country United Kingdom France Italy Germany Spain Netherlands Belgium Austria Sweden Denmark Greece Finland Portugal Ireland Luxembourg Total

Imports (metric tons) 119,028 102,505 70,235 58,951 20,365 20,257 17,851 8,382 6,801 6,394 6,038 4,125 3,467 2,684 0 447,083

*Total canned fish importing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 194.

Table 14 EU canned fish imports considering accumulated imports 1990-1997 Ranking* 2 3 4 5 10 11 15 17 18 23 25 26 36 43 -

Country United Kingdom France Germany Italy Belgium Netherlands Spain Austria Sweden Greece Finland Denmark Portugal Ireland Luxembourg Total

Accumulated imports (metric tons) 772,644 733,783 482,192 351,074 149,277 116,199 106,228 78,250 64,506 45,138 42,976 41,843 25,618 18,824 0 3,028,552

*Total canned fish importing countries in the world according to FAO statistics is 194.

Table 15 EU countries canned imports vs. rest of the world (1997 imports and accumulated imports during 1990-1997) Region Rest of the World European Union Total

% Accumulated Accumulated imports imports 1990-1997 1990-1997 ( metric tons) 55,2% 3,729,969 44,8% 3,028,552 100,0% 6,758,521

% Imports 1997 (metric tons) 58.2% 41.8% 100.0%

Imports 1997 (metric tons) 632,214 447,083 1,070,297

Page 210

Appendix 6

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Obligations for member countries for Urban Wastewater Treatment •

Provide prior regulation or specific authorization for all discharges of urban waste and industrial wastewater from the particular sectors in the directive (milk processing, fruit and vegetable manufacture, soft drinks bottling and manufacture, potato processing, meat industry, breweries, alcohol and alcoholic beverages production, animal feed manufactured from plant products, manufacture of gelatin and glue from hides, skins and bones, malt houses and fish processing) as well as for all discharges of industrial wastewater into urban wastewater systems.

•

Provide urban wastewater collection systems (sewerage) and treatment plants for all agglomerations above 2,000 population equivalent.

•

The general rule for the level of treatment is secondary treatment, that is, biological treatment. However, it must be more stringent (tertiary treatment) for discharges to the relevant harvesting areas of sensitive areas as identified by Member States and may be less stringent (primary treatment), under certain conditions of agreement, for certain discharges to coastal waters and estuaries identified as less sensitive areas. The deadline for this application is 31-12-1998, 31-12-2000 or 31-12-2005 depending on the size of the agglomeration and the sensitivity of the receiving waters

•

Ensure that by 31-12-2000 the industrial wastewater from the mentioned sectors shall respect the established conditions for all discharges from plants representing 4,000 population equivalent or more.

•

Provide before 31-12-1998 general rules or registration or authorization for a sustainable disposal of sludge originating from wastewater treatment and, by the same data, to phase out any dumping or discharge of sewage sludge into surface waters.

•

Ensure that the urban wastewater discharges and their effects are monitored. Publish situation reports every two years and establish implementation programs.

Page 212

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

Appendix 7

Page 213

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION 1.

When did the plant initiate operations? How many days a year do you operate? How many shifts/hours and employees?

2.

Have there been major physical facility expansions since it initiated operations? If so, what major changes took place? (e.g., installation of new production line, expansion of freezing storage, etc.)

3.

What is the current production/processing capacity being employed? (percentage) Is processing seasonal or is it possible to obtain a constant supply of fish?

4.

Which types of processed fish are being processed in the plant (e.g., tuna, salmon, herring, sardines)? Are there only canned products being sold or are there other products? Where are they the canned- sold: locally or exported (observe links, e.g., USA-HACCP)?

5.

Can you provide the number of units sold for the main canned products? (data from 1997/8)

Medium/ Product Unit

Olive Oil

Vegetable Oil

Tomato sauce

Brine (?)

Other

Other

1. 2. 3. 4. 6.

How does the company obtain its fish? (interest: observe raw material variations-env. performance)

Mark X A. B. C. D.

Percent NA NA

100% from its own vessels Partly own vessels and other vessels 100% from other vessels Other (specify)

Foreign/National Flag NA

NA: Not applicable

Page 214

Other

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

II. INFORMATION ABOUT PROCESS 7.

Can you indicate which option fits better the process description in your company? The degree of automation for different process stages.

Option A

(precooking method) Duration/Parameters (labor)

Option B

Freezing/Glazing/Stor age Thawing

1

Thawing and weighing

2

Washing

Removal Head, Fins, Bones and Washing Pre-cooking (retort)

3

Brining

4

Placement in cans

Cooling

5

Cooking

Cutting

6

Cooling

Placement in cans

7

Sauce addition

8

Draining of excess liquid Drying

Can seaming

9

Sealed can washing

10

Addition of oil, brine, water or salt Sealing of cans

Sterilization

11

Washing of cans

Cooling

12

Final packing

13

Can sterilization w/ steam or hot water Final packing

8.

(raw packing method) Duration/Parameters

Which auxiliary operations take place in the existing facilities? (i.e., those required for preparing inputs to a particular process phase)

Operation 1 Brine preparation

Frequency of this operation

Comments

2 Sauce or additives preparation 3 Chlorinating water

III. INFORMATION ABOUT MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9.

Can you provide a list of the main existing equipment in operation today within the company?

Detail/ Equipment type* (phase employed)

Amount: a - total in plant b - total operating

Year acquired more than 15; 14-10; 5-9; less than 5

Condition of equipment

Processing capacity Operational Parameters

a b c

Page 215

Are reports generated? (frequency)

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

* Examples: cutting saws, washing machine for loins after evisceration, pressure vessels/cookers/cooking retorts, medium fillers (oil/sauce), can sealing machines, sterilization units.

10. How many kilograms of fish (for canning) were purchased during 1997/8? And the yield (kg purchased vs. kg processed/canned?

Fish Type

Fresh/Frozen?

kg. Purchased

kg. of Fish Purchased/ kg. of Fish Canned

1. 2. 3.

SECTION IV: INFORMATION ABOUT RAW/AUXILIARY MATERIALS 11. Can you provide an estimate of total amounts of raw/auxiliary materials for the products used in 1997/8? (excluding fish) Raw/Auxiliary material* 1 Salt

Detail/ Characteristic

Year

2 Vinegar 3 Cans/lids 4 Seasoning 5 Boxes 12. With respect to the chemical substances which are purchased. How much of each type is employed per process phase or auxiliary process? (including cleaning agents and maintenance) Substance 1

2

3

Process Phase

Amount

Criteria for use (e.g., liters/kg meat)

Process Cleaning Maintenance Process Cleaning Maintenance Process Cleaning Maintenance

* E.g., Can soap, sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide (used for cleaning), anti-foaming, flocculating agents (FeSO4, AlSO4, Polymers, Chitine).

•

What conditions are present in the processing hall (cooling, ventilation etc.)?

13. Do you keep records or estimates on the use of raw materials in relation to a process phase or finished products? (e.g., amount of oil per ton of processed fish, amount of oil per can, antifoaming

Page 216

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

SECTION V: INFORMATION ABOUT SOLID WASTE 14. Please provide some information on process solid waste: Type (e.g.,) • • • • •

Amount (daily estimate)

How is it dealt with (collected and sent out) ? Charged? Paid?

Waste from Evisceration (heads, tails, viscera) Smaller solid particles after washing from evisceration Sauce Packaging (cans, lids) Other packaging wastes

SECTION VI: INFORMATION ABOUT WATER 15. Where does the company obtain its water supply from? (well or local aqueduct) How much is this amount on a daily basis? Approximate costs are welcomed.

16. With respect to your water do you have a detail/estimates of water consumption per activity (in other words, is there efficient water use metering). For example, water for the process (that which is contact with the product), cooling water (that which is used for process operation), steam production (boiler water and make up water), cleaning (of floors, equipment and drains)?

17. Do you have information available on process waster water characteristics: e.g., daily flow in m3/ day, pH, SS (mg/l), BOD (5 mg/l), COD (mg/l), Nitrogen (mg/l), Phosphorus (mg/l), oil/grease content (mg/l), Total Solids (mg/l), Suspended Solids (mg/l)? Is this water pre-treated currently?

18. Is there any water reuse taking place within the process (e.g., reuse of retort and can washing water prior to removal of residual oil/grease)?

19. Usually, fish are weighed, sorted and then sent to thawing tanks. Is the wastewater from these tanks re-circulated or is this not allowed by customers? In other words, where does it go, with the rest of water? What about possible recirculation and the washing of plastic boxes in which the fish is brought in?

20. With respect to cleaning operations within the company, could you provide a detail of the type and frequency of cleaning. Are there any data/reports generated from this? Detail Conditions Equipment (P, T) † Documented procedure? † Production Area † Daily † Equipment † Weekly † Other (floor) † Per shift † Documented procedure? † Production Area † Daily † Equipment † Weekly † Other (floor) † Per shift SECTION VII: INFORMATION ABOUT ENERGY/AIR EMISSIONS

Page 217

Development of EPIs: the case of fish canning plants

21. Which are the main energy sources employed today in the plant? (e.g., boilers, local grid, other) What are the amounts of energy used for production vs. administrative purposes? Are there any energy efficiency studies executed?

22. In the case of boilers, have there been any data/measurements on air emissions such as NOx, SOx, CO, CO2? If yes, could you please provide results.

23. Which are the major energy consumers? Are there any measurements or studies for them? (i.e., energy efficiency). If so, could you provide details. Consumer

Amount

Study results

24. In the cold storage rooms, which types of refrigerants are employed (R-12, R-502, HCFCs)? How much is employed currently. In case there have not been replacements for the CFCs, are there plans.

SECTION VIII: INFORMATION ABOUT NOISE 25. Have there been any systematic studies or measurements of noise levels within the facilities? Is there any relevant legislation specific to this aspect?

SECTION IX: INFORMATION ABOUT MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES 26. With respect to management activities, have there been any special environmental projects implemented in the company? If so, of which type (EMS, environmental report, worker training programs, environmental costs-tracing, recycling programs, green material purchasing e.g., eco detergents)

27. Is there any current compilation of environmental management data? Furthermore, have any specific EMS -related projects been implemented?

28. What are the future plans, if any, with respect to environmental initiatives within your company? And, if possible, could you elaborate on future trends (e.g., incoming legislation) and actions that could be affecting this canning sector’s performance from an environmental point of view (e.g., eco-labelling)?

Page 218

Publications in the IIIEE communications series 2000 Agathe Bolli Environmental communication and competitiveness A case study of the car industry 2000:1 Raquel Garcia Product chain management to facilitate design for recycling of post consumer plastics: Case studies of polyurethane and acrylic use in vehicles 2000:2 Daniel Johansson The influence of eco-labelling on producers of personal computers The potential for eco-labelling as part of an IPP approach for reducing chemical risks related to PCs in Sweden 2000:3 Jessica Johansson Organic farming: Possibilities to increase organic cereals production in Skåne: A comparative study of Sweden and Denmark 2000:4 Wendy Kerr Remanufacturing and ECO-efficiency A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia 2000:5 Alexandra Kielkiewicz-Young Packaging and packaging waste policy in Poland Case study of containers for beer and soft drinks 2000:6 Roberto López Chaverri Development of environmental performance indicator The case of fish canning plants 2000:7 Shuk-wai Freda Fung Handling the Municipal Solid Waste in China Case study of policies for ‘White Pollution’ in Beijing 2000:8 Antonia Simon Analysis of drivers and barriers for reducing hazardous chemical use in the computer industry 2000:9 Naoko Tojo Analysis of EPR Policies and Legislation through Comparative Study of Selected EPR Programmes for EEE-Based on the In-Depth Study of a Japanese EPR Regulation 2000:10 Alex Young Free Trade and Computers: Trade regime implications for an integrated product policy to reduce the risk of toxic substances in the computer product chain 2000:11 Christina Hansson Standardiserat miljöarbete i de minsta företagen En delrapport i projekt SMEMAS 2000:12

1999 Jens Birkenheim, Henrik Löfquist, Peter Arnfalk, Mikael Backman Miljödiplomeringar i Sverige: En delrapport i projekt SMEMAS 1999:1 Jessica Johansson Ekologiskt jordbruk: Möjligheter för ökad ekologisk spannmålsproduktion i Skåne: Jämförande studie mellan Sverige och Danmark 1999:2 Continuity, credibility and comparability Invitational Expert Seminar, Eze, France, June 13-16, 1998 1999:3 Total cost assessment: Recent developments and industrial applications Edited by Mikael Backman and Rabbe Thun 1999:4 Cleaner production: The search for new horizons Edited by Ralph Meima 1999:5 Budeanu, Adriana A tour to sustainability A discussion on tour operators' possibilities for promoting sustainable tourism 1999:6 1998 Kent Lundgren, Helena Frankel, Erik Ling Bioenergins nuvarande och framtida konkurrenskraft: föreställningar om konkurrenskraft 1998:1 1997 Ralph Meima On Account of Sustainable Industrial Development: a Proposal for Capabilities-Based Approach 1997:1 Mikael Backman et al Challenges and Approaches to Incorporating the Environment into Business Decisions Invitational expert seminar 1997:3 Lars Hansson Kostnadsansvaret för trafikens externa effekter En jämförelse mellan vägtrafik och tågtrafik 1997:4 1996 Karin Sannum Barti, Åsa Söderberg På rätt spår: benchmarkingstudie av miljörapportering inom transportsektorn 1996:1 Thomas Parker An Overview and Guide to the Literature of Environmental Accounting Issues 1996:2 (Communications 1996:3 not published) Virve Tulenheimo, Rabbe Thun, Mikael Backman Tools and Methods for Environmental DecisionMakingin Energy Production Companies; 1996:4