WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTIC3S

                        AT

              FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
     PATUXENT   RIVER   BASIN
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
                    Region III
  Division of Y/ater Supply and Pollution Control
 Chesapeake Bay-5usquehanna River Basins Project
            Charlottesville, Virginia

                   October 1964

-------
                   ^^-
Regional Center for Environmental Intormation
            US EPA Region 111
               1650 Arch St.
           Philadelphia, PA 19103

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION  .......  	  .......      1

GENERAL DESCRIPTION   ..................      2

WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES	      4

    Fort George G. Meade  ................      4

    Patuxent Wildlife Refuge  ..............      6

    Naval Academy Dairy   ................      7

    Governor Bridge Transmitter Site  ..........      8

    Davidsonville Nike Site   ..............      8

    Andrews Air Force Base  ...............      9

    Mount Calvert Housing Area .............     10

    Brandywine Housing Area   ..............     10

    Patuxent Naval Air Station .............     11

MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SHELLFISH GROWING
  AREAS  ........................     15

CONCLUSIONS   ......................     18

RECOMMENDATIONS  ....................     20

APPENDICES .......................     22

    I.  Bacteriological Survey of Cedar Point Area  of
          Chesapeake Bay by the Maryland State Department
          of Health   ...»  ..............     22

   II.  Part I of the Manual of Operations  of the
          Cooperative Program for the Certification of
          Interstate Shellfish Shippers   .....,..„     24
                                        U.S. EPA Region III
                                        Regional Center for Environmental
                                         Information
                                        1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
                                        Philadelphia, PA 19103

-------
                          INTRODUCTION





        The Maryland State Department of Health has recently



prohibited the harvesting of shellfish from waters of the Chesapeake



Bay near the mouth of the Patuxent River and in several small



tributary estuaries of the Patuxent River„  This report has been



prepared as a result of inquiries concerning the relationship of



Federal installations to the closing of these areas.  It contains



a summary of the waste disposal practices at Federal installations



in the Patuxent River Basin and adjacent shoreline areas of the



Chesapeake Bay, a discussion of the effects of the waste effluents



on water quality, and recommendations for necessary action.

-------

-------
                      GENERAL DESCRIPTION





        The Patuxent River originates in Howard and Montgomery



Counties, Maryland, and flows approximately 110 miles southeast-



erly to Chesapeake Bay.  Two topographic and geologic areas make



up the Patuxent River Basin:  the Piedmont Plateau and the Atlantic



Coastal Plain.  Streams within the Plateau area of the Basin are



confined to narrow valleys with steep banks; while Coastal Plain



streams are generally broad and meandering, traversing several



swamps and marshy areas.,  Drainage area of the Patuxent Basin



encompasses about 932 square miles, with the primary tributaries



being the Little Patuxent, Middle Patuxent, and Western Branch„



        Surface runoff in the Basin has been calculated to average



0.62 mgd (million gallons per day) per square mile, amounting to



some 578 mgd contribution from the entire Basin.  The lower portion



of the River is an estuary with tidal influence extending to



Hardesty, Maryland, almost 56 miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay.



Saline waters have been observed up to Lyons Creek, some 43 miles



from the mouth of the Patuxent.



        The Patuxent Basin lies between the metropolitan areas



of Washington, D. C., and Baltimore, Maryland,  Population within



the Basin amounts to about 138^,000 persons, primarily comprised



of military personnel and residents of areas on the fringes of



the Washington and Baltimore urban areas.

-------

-------
        Water uses in the Patuxent River Basin include water



supply, recreation^ commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting



in the estuary, limited irrigations and waste disposal.  About



per cent of all clans and about 10 per cent of the oysters



harvested within the State of Maryland presently come from beds



in or adjacent to the Patuxent Eiver Basin„

-------

-------
                    WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES





        Nine Federal installations discharge sanitary wastes to



the Patuxent River Basin and adjoining shoreline areas of the



Chesapeake Bay through 14 major waste treatment facilities and



several supplemental treatment systems „  Following are brief



summaries of the installations and their waste disposal practices,



listed from upstream to downstream0  The locations of these



installations are shown in Figure 1, inside back cover„





Fort George G. Meade



        Fort Meade, located about 70 miles above the mouth of the



Patuxent River on the north bank, is a large Army Reservation



involving varied military activities and containing the Second



Army Headquarters„  Domestic wastes from the Fort are treated in



two secondary sewage treatment plants which discharge to the



Little Patuxent River, a tributary of the Patuxent River.



        Sewage treatment Plant No. 1 has a design capacity of



2.5 mgd and receives an average flow of lo,35 mgd from an estimated



population served of 18^000 persons,,  Treatment consists of com-



minution, screening, grit removals, sedimentation, secondary treat-



ment by high rate trickling filters, final sedimentation, ehlorination



with contact tank, and sludge digestion and drying,.  Removal of



BOD (bio-chemical oxygen demand) averages B5 per cento  The outfall

-------

-------
discharges to the Little Patuxent at a point 7,0 miles xipstream



from its confluence with Patuxent River, which, is 63 miles from



the Chesapeake Bay,



        Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2 has a design capacity of 1.5



mgd and receives an average flow of 0,90 mgd, comprised of wastes



from the National Security Agencyj the Children's Center and



Cedar Knoll,, operated by the District of Colombia; and Argorme



Hills; in addition to that portion of the Fort's personnel not



served by Plant No£, 1.  Treatment, consists of grit removal, com-



minution, preehlorination, sedimentation, secondary treatment by



high rate trickling filters, final sedimentation, post chlorina-



tlon, and sludge digestion and drying.  Removal of BOD averages



about 90 per cento  Plant No0 2 is about 4»0 miles upstream from



Plant No,, 1 on the Little Patuxent.



        The high BOD removals attained at these sewage treatment



plants (85 and 90 per cent) indicate good, efficient operation,,



Semi-monthly bacteriological analyses of the Little Patuxent



River at several points within the military reservation indicate



that the MPN (most probable number per 100 milliliters} of



coliform bacteria above the sewage treatment plants ranged from



1,300 to over 240,000,  The median ceiiform MPN was 7^,900 for



the six-month period January-July, 1964,  The high bacterial



counts above the plants apparently resulted from con-federal

-------
waste-water  discharges from communities, institutions and  industry,



The counts "below the outfalls of the plants were seldom greater



thai? the  counts  above, and at times were leas; In general  the



counts were  not  changed appreciably by the effluents from  the



plants,.   The only defect in treatment observed was tfc« discharging



from the  final settling tank of some floating h»mts said t ly  Larva*5



from the  trickling filters,



        Vehicle  wash waters are discharged un.1 'rented eitber  ^>o



the Patxucerit River or the Little Patuxent River.,  These wasb. watert



totaling  about 100^000 gpd (gallons per day), have cot generally



caused pollution problems,,  The Maryland Department of Water



Resources, however,  has observed some oil OB one occasion  in 9



tributary of Little Patuxent River near one of the wash racks „



AlsOj that Department has observed diatomaceous earth in another



tributary from the back-washing of filters at a swimming pool.
        The Patuxent Wildlife Refuge of thfi Fish arid Wild., ate



Service, Department of the interior,, is located opposite fort



Meade  ir. Pri.uct George's  and Anne Aruiidfel Cour.'t.les,, Maryl.-;r.d ,



largely on the ^outh bank of the Pai'd^eat River „  The .Refuse  !«:



a sclent if'I? research  center wito p<>p"il-ition ra^glrs1 r/orr. ]f)



r-eFlaeafc5- to ?? workday staff of approximately 170 r/? •>. ;;-.'.,•/



5aratar,y wastes iTom the  Refuge are treated by septi- tatfl,

-------

-------
                                                                          7




Intermittent sand filters, and a waste stabilization lagoon before




discharging through Island Marsh to the Patuxent River at a point




?0 miles above its mouth.  Quality of the effluent is excellent,




as indicated by the fact that the lagoon, which is the final stage




of treatment, supports a fish population of bluegill, bass, and




grass pike»






Naval Academy Dairy




        The Naval Academy Dairy, located at Gambrills, Maryland,




in Anne Arundel County, supplies 1,250 gallons of milk daily from




290 cows to the Naval Academy in Annapolis during the academic




year0  (The production of 65>0 gallons per day from 230 cows during




the summer is largely converted to powdered milk,,}  Out of a staff




of 5l employees, 26 are residents along with their ?C dependents.




The domestic wastes from 13 of the families, totaling kl persons,




are treated in nine individual septic tanks and discharged to




leaching pits about 30 feet deep.  Wastes from the remaining 7k




persons and from the mxLkirg parlor and milk processing rooms are



treated in a large septic tank.  The waste flow entering the main




septic tank is estimated to total about 75,000 gpd.  This tank




discharges through a liOOO-foot outfall pipe to an open ditch over




a mile in length in which it flows to Towsers Branch at a point




3.3 miles above its confluence with the Little Patuxent River.




Active decomposition of the final waste effluent from this septic

-------

-------
                                                              8
tank was observed in the open ditch„  That confluence is 3.3



miles above the confluence of the Little Patuxent River with the



Patuxent River, which, in turn, is 63,3 miles above Chesapeake



Bay,  Manure, washed down from cattle walk-ways and stalls (other



than inside the milking parlor), is collected in a tank and is



utilized for fertilizer.  Wastes draining from the silos are



collected in a tank and are applied to land.





Governor Bridge Transmitter Site



        The Air Force transmitting station near Governor Bridge,



Maryland, in Anne Arundel County, has a component of 40 persons,



20 of whom are residents„  An estimated 2,500 gpd are treated in



a package aeration plant designed to treat up to 15,000 gpd,,  The



effluent is chlorinated, passed through a chlorine contact tank



and discharged to the antenna field where it seeps into the ground



or evaporates„





Davidsonville Nike Site



        Nike Site No0 25 is located at Davidsonville, Maryland,



and provides treatment for about 10,000 gpd of sanitary wastes,.



Approximately 5,000 gpd of the wastes receive treatment by septic



tank, intermittant sand filter, and chlorinatlon before discharge



to a tributary 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent



River, which is 57 miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay,  The remaining

-------

-------
                                                              9





5,000 gpd are treated by septic tanks, followed by seepage pits,



Occasionally the ground becomes saturated during periods of rainy



weather, and the overflow is collected and chlorinated before



being discharged to tributaries of the Patuxent River,





Andrews Mr Force. Base



        The sanitary wastes from Andrews Air Force Base are treated



in three treatment plants, only one of which (Plant Mo0 3) discharges



approximately 300^000 gpd to the Patuxent River Basin, by way of



Cabin Branch, about 60 miles above the Chesapeake Bay*  The Base is



located between the Patuxent and the Potomac River Basins, with



the remaining sanitary wastes (720,000 gpd) treated by two other



plants discharging to the Potomac River Basin,  Treatment at Plant



Noa 3 consists of comminution, settling and sludge digestion in



Imhoff tanks, secondary treatment by trickling filters, final



settling, post ehlorination, and sludge drying.  The 300,000 gpd



average flow is well within the 480,000 gpd design capacity of



the plant„  BOD removal in the plant averages about 90 per cent,



indicating good, operation.  In view of this, the bacteriological



quality of the Patuxent River is not- expected to be appreciably



affected by discharges from this plant,



        Industrial wastes, consisting' mainly of aircraft wash



waters, are diecharged to Cabin Branch of the Patuxent River.



While these wastes have not met the State's standards for oil

-------
                                                             10





and solids In the past,, a comprehensive survey of all waste dis-



charges has been completed by a private consultant and an active



program is underway to provide modifications of procedures and/or



treatment of wastes ,





Mount Calvert Housing Area



        Mount Calvert Housing Area, located at the former Nike



Site No. W-35 near Croom, Maryland,, is operated by the Army and



provides housing for approximately 45 person?, including depend-



ents o  The estimated 3. ,000 gpd of sanitary waste is treated by



septic tank, sand filtration, and chlorination.  Treatment, facilities



at this installation are well maintained and operated „  This small



quantity of wastes, effectively treated, discharging to a small



tributary at a point 6 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent



River, which, in turn, is about 44 Mies above the mouth of the



Patuxent River,, should have little effect upon the bacteriological



quality of the water.
        Brandywine Housing Area, located at former Hike Site No.



W-36 near Brandywine, Maryland, is operated by the Air Force and



provides; housing for appro*, mat el y 45 persons,, including dependents



The estimated 3,000 gpd of sanitary waste are treated by septic



tank, sand filtration^ and eMon nation.,  This -small quantity of

-------
                                                             11





efficiently treated waste, discharging to a small tributary at a



point 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent River, which,



in turn, is about 44 miles above the mouth of the Patuxent River,



should have little effect upon the bacteriological quality of the



water.






Patuxent Naval Air Station



        The Patujtent Naval Air Station,, located at the mouth of



the Patuxent River in St. Mary's County, Maryland, carries out



the normal functions of a Navy air station and also contains the



Patuxent Maval Air Test Center,  An Annex of the Station, located



across the River in Galvert County, houses a component of the



Naval Ordnance Laboratory„  Personnel and residents at the main



station total about 14,000 and at the Annex, about 900



        Sanitary wastes at the main station are treated in two



plants:  a primary sewage treatment plant, a secondary sewage



treatment plant at the Officers' Club; and individual septic tanks



in areas a great distance from the main treatment plant.  Sanitary



wastes at the Annex are treated in a. secondary sewage treatment



pi ant „



        The primary sewage treatment plant serves an estimated



population of 17,500, including Patuxent Park, Lexington Park,



Carver Heights, Center Gardens, and the Great Mills Road area,



which are all located outside the Air Station,,  The plant receives

-------
                                                             12





an average flow of 1.37 mgd with treatment consisting of grit removal,



eommtnation, pre-aeration, pre-chlorinatiorij, vacuation, sedimentation,



post chlorination, and sludge digestion and drying.  Reduction of



bio-chemical oxygen demand averages about 50 per cent.  While no



chlorine contact unit is provided, it has been calculated that a



chlorine contact time in excess of 15 minutes is provided by the



2,500-foot outfall pipe,



        The plant is designed for 1.5 mgd with present flow



approaching and, at times, exceeding this design capacity.  Effluent



from the plant is discharged to Pine Hill Run at a point about a



mile above Chesapeake Bay,



        The secondary sewage treatment plant at the Officers'



Club serves an estimated 150 persons who are present only a part of



each day; and the average flow is estimated to be about 2,500 gpd



six days a week and almost zero on Mondays.  Treatment consists of



screening, sedimentation and digestion of sludge in an open septic



tank, trickling filter, final sedimentation, chlorination with



contact chamber, and sludge drying.  Because of limited and inter-



mittant flows,, difficulties are being experienced in obtaining proper



biological reduction by the trickling filters„  Discharge from the



plant is directly to the Patuxent River near its confluence with



Chesapeake Bay.,  Due to a previaus oversight, a shellfish harvesting



area adjacent to this discharge was not declared prohibited.  There-



fore, even if this plant were operating satisfactorily, it would be

-------

-------
                                                             13





necessary to establish a prohibited area adjacent to the outfall.



        Twenty septic tanks with tile fields serve houses or



buildings a great distance from the main sewage treatment plant.



Only one of these tile fields was observed to have any seepage to



the ground surface; that one serving the hydraulic catapult area,



Four additional septic tanks discharge directly to the Patuxent



River.  One septic tank discharges through gravel-filled drums



before discharge to the Patacem. River.,  The wastes from one boat-



house,, which serves as the operating base for water transportation



of personnel and emergency crash, boats, discharge directly to the



Patuxent River with no treatment„  It is estimated that approximately



300 gpd of untreated wastes are generated at this facility.



        The secondary treatment plant at the Annex receives an



average of 24*000 gpd.  Treatment consists of screening sedimentation,



secondary treatment by high rate trickling filter, final sedimenta-



tion, sludge digestion and drying, and chlorination with contact tanku



Discharge is to the Patuxent River at a point about 2,5 miles from



the Chesapeake Bay and where the depth of the River- descends rapidly



to about 90 feet (the great depth precluding any shellfish harvesting).



Good treatment is to be expected, since average flows to the plant



are much below capacity.  Eecirculation of treated waste to the trickling



filter maintain adequate biological treatment.



        Industrial, wastes at the main station consist of wash



waters from the washing of about 50 aircraft, and 50 vehicles per

-------
                                                             14





month.  Aireraft washing wastes from three locations discharge to



the Patiucent River> from four locations to the Chesapeake Bay, and



from two locations to a pond with no discharge.  The principal vehicle



washing area drains to the Patuxent River,,  No detailed survey has



been made to determine whether these wastes meet the State regulations.

-------
                                                             15
             MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PBQGRAM FOR
                     SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
        Part I of the Manual of Operations of the Cooperative

        fop* foie Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers

(Appendix II) stipulates that shellfish growing areas are categorized

according to four classifications:  "approved," "conditionally

approved," "restricted," and "prohibited„"

        The Maryland State Department of Health, as a participant

in the cooperative State-Public Health Service-industry program for

the certification of interstate shellfish shippers, currently uses

two classifications for all shellfish production waters.  All shell-

fish areas are designated as either "approved" or "prohibited."

        This method of classification meets the requirements of

the cooperative program as Maryland's classifications are more

stringent than required by the cooperative program.  While "approved"

areas must comply at all times with the standards established, the

size of "prohibited" areas is established on the basis of a possi-

bility of dangerous numbers of pathogenic micro-organisms reaching

the area.

        The Maryland State Department of Health has divided the

Patuxent River estuary into five sections for classification purposes,

as shown in Figure 2 following page 17.  Based on bacteriological

sampling and sanitary surveys, the following classifications have

-------
                                                             16





been assigned to the sections.  Sections I and II in their entirety



are classified as "approved„"  The main portion of Section III is



classified as "approved,," while the Guckhold-Nat-Mill Creeks portion



is classified as "prohibited."  In Section IV the Town-Lewis Creeks



area and the Back-Mill -St., John Creeks area out to a line between



Sandy Point and Drum Point are classified as "prohibited."  The main



portion of Section IY is classified as "approved!11 however, because



of several high bacteriological counts obtained during the summer of



1964, sampling is being continued,,  Section ¥ is classified as



"approved;" however^ the shellfish bed area in the immediate vicinity



of the Patuxent Naval Air Station Officers'  Club previously unknown



to State authorities, is now under consideration for reclassification



based upon bacteriological data now being obtained„



        Effective September 1, 1964, the Maryland State Department



of Health classified as "prohibited" a shellfish producing area of



approximately 15 square miles in the Chesapeake Bay south of the



above mentioned Section V, near the mouth of the Patuxent River„



The area was classified "prohibited" because of the lack of sufficient



bacteriological data to assure absence of sewage pollution and



because of potential pollution from the sewage treatment plant in



the event of plant failure necessitating the discharge of raw sewage.



These beds are adjacent to Pine Hill Run (shown on Figure 2} which



receives the effluent from the main sewage treatment plant of the

-------

-------
                                                             17





Patuxent Naval Air Station,,  The Maryland State Department of Health



contracted with the Chesapeake Bay Institute to perform dye studies



of the dispersion of the main sewage treatment plant effluent at the



Air Station,,  The latter study was necessary to determine the time



required for the treatment plant effluent to penetrate the shellfish



bed area«  As a result of the above study and recent bacteriological



sampling, effective October 26,, 1964, the area was reduced in size



to less than, a quarter of a square mile.  The present ''prohibited"



area extends 200 yards off-shore and along the shoreline from about



one mile north to about one mile south of Pine Hill Sun»  The



bacteriological data collected at the sampling points shown on



Figure 2 are presented in Appendix I.



        Under Maryland's system of classification, the ertent of



the "prohibited" area is not related to the quality of the treated



effluent, but is related to the quality of the receiving water as a



result of the discharge of raw sewage following plant failure.



Criteria for a "conditionally approved" classification were -used



in establishing the present ertent of the "prohibited" area, making



possible a reduction in size of the area reflecting the degree and



effectiveness of sewage treatment processes and the surveillance



measures taken to prevent shellfish harvesting in waters affected



in case of a possible plant failure.

-------
                                                             18





                          CONCLUSIONS





        1.  Seven of the nine Federal installations in the



Patuxent River Basin provide a satisfactory degree of treatment



for sanitary wastes.  These installations are:  Fort George G.



Meade, Patuxent Wildlife Refuge^ Governor Bridge Transmitter Site,



Davidsonville Nike Site, Andrews Air Force Base, Mount Calvert



Housing Area, and Brandywlne Housing Area.  All of these provide



chlorination of effluents, except for the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge



where this treatment step is impractical and is not considered



essential, because of the extensive treatment provided.



        20  The septic tank serving 74 persons, the milking parlor,



and milk processing rooms at the Naval Academy Dairy does not



provide adequate treatment for these wastes,



        3.  At the Patuxent Naval Air Station,, the primary sewage



treatment plant serving the main base and privately owned housing



developments (Patuxent Park, Lexington Park, Carver Heights, Center



Gardens, and Great Mills Road area) is at or beyond its design capacity.



        4.  Because of low and intermittant flows, the secondary



sewage treatment plant serving the Patuxent- Naval Air Station



Officers'  Club is experiencing difficulties in obtaining maximum



efficiency.



        5.  At Fort George G. Meade, bamas and fly larvae from



the trickling filters have been observed discharging from the final



settling tanks,,

-------
                                                             19





        6,  At Fort George G. Meade, oil from a vehicle wash



rack and diatomaceous earth from a swimming pool have been observed



in tributaries of Little Patuxent- River,.



        7.  At the Patuxent Naval Air Station^ five septic tanks



serving individual buildings discharge to the Patuxent River without



adequate additional treatment, and the wastes from one building



discharge with no treatment„



        8.  The shellfish producing area ir, the vicinity of the



mouth of the Patuxent River wa&; classified as "prohibited" on



September 1, 1964,, by the Maryland State Department of Health because



of the lack of sufficient bacteriological data to assure absen.ee of



sewage pollution and because of potential pollution from the sewage



treatment plant in the event of plant failure necessitating discharge



©f raw sewage„  The classification of these beds was reviewed when



results of recent studies of the bacteriological conditions and



flow-dispersion pattern of waste effluents became available<,  The



Maryland State Department of Health made a significant redaction in



the size of the "prohibited" area on October 26, 1964, based upon



criteria for a "conditionally approved" classification which reflects



the degree and effectiveness of sewage treatment processes and



surveillance measures taken to prevent shellfish harvestuig in water-



affected in case of a possible plant failure,

-------
                                                             20
        1.  Units of the primary sewage treatment plant at the



Patuxent Naval Air Station should be supplemented to increase the



present plant capacity,,



        20  The Patuxent Naval Air Station should initiate as



soon as possible an action program leading to the design and con-



struction of an adequate secondary sewage treatment plant „  This



recommendation is made not because of the prohibiting of shellfish



harvesting,, but from a point of view that an installation of this



size located in an area with such a high recreational potential



should provide the highest degree of treatment required to preserve



and protect all beneficial water uses.,



        3.  Operation of the secondary sewage treatment plant at



the Patuxent Naval Air Station Officers' Club should be improved



and recirculation provided to maintain adequate biological reduction



by the trickling filter, or, if economically feasible, the Club



should be connected to the main sewerage system,,



        4o  An engineering study, leading to an action program



designed to provide adequate treatment of domestic and industrial



wastes generated by the major portion of the operations at the



Naval Academy Dairy , should be initiated as soon as possible,,



        5.  The final settling tanks at Fort George Q. Meade



should be provided with skimmers to collect floating solids .

-------
                                                             21





        6.  Wastes generated by aircraft and vehicle washing



operations at both the Patuxent Naval Air Station and Fort George



G. Jfeade should receive adequate treatment for oil and grease removal.



        7.  Where not presently provided, subsurface tile fields



should be constructed to receive the effluents from septic tanks



serving individual buildings at the Patuxent Naval Air Station, if



connection of these facilities to the Station's main sewerage system



is not feasible.



        8.  Wastes generated by operations of the boathouse at



the Patuxent Naval Air Station should receive adequate treatment.



        9.  Chlorination of all effluents discharged to surface



waters from sanitary waste treatment facilities should be continued.

-------
                                                                  22
                                APPENDIX I

              BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CEDAR POINT AREA OF
                   CHESAPEAKE BAT BY THE MARYLAND STATE
                           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
             Flood Tide
Ebb Tide
Flood Tide
Ebb Tide
Station*
1-B
1-S
1A-B
1A-S
1B-B
1B-S
1C-B
IC^S
13 -B
13 -S
13A-B
13A-S
Coliform
Bacteria
September 2. 1964
3.6
3.6
3.6
_3#*
-3
-3
-3
-3
9.1
7.3
-3
o
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml
September 3.
-3
9.1
0
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
Coliform
Bacteria
1 (MPN/100 ml)
1964 September
15
93
15
3.6
75
9.1
15
3.6
150
9.1
14
9.1
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
8. 1964
3.6
43
9.1
93
23
23
23
36
9.1
3.6
43
9.1
 *  S s Surface; B » Bottom;  Station locations  shown on Figure  2.

**  Minus sign (-) denotes "less than0"

-------
                            APPENDIX I (Can't)

              BACTERIOLOGICAL SUHVEY OF CEDAE POINT AREA OF
                   CHESAPEAKE BAY BY THE MARYLAND STATE
                           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
                                                                  23
Station*
 Flood Tide

  Coliform
  Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
  Ebb Tide

  Coliform
  Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
 Flood Tide

  Coliform
  Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
  Ebb Tide

  Coliform
  Bacteria
(MFN/100 ml)

1-B
1-S
1A-B
1A-S
1B-B
1B-S
1C-B
1C-S
13 -B
13 -S
13A-B
13A-5
September 15.
9.1
3.6
23
.3**
23
-3
-3
-3
15
-3
-3
-3
1964
-3
15
3.6
3.6
-3
9.1
3.6
3.6
93
9.1
-3
.3
September 24,
3.6
3.6
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
93
3.6
_3
1964
-3
-3
-3
-3
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
 *  S = Surface; B « Bottom;  Station locations shown  on Figure 2,

**  Minus sign (-) denotes  "less  than."

-------

-------
APPENDIX II

-------
Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers

                             Parti

                     Sanitation  of
                         Shellfish

                   Growing  Areas
                          7962 Revision
                       Compiled and edited by
                Eugene T. Jensen, Sanitary Engineer Director
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
                        Public Health Service
              Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
                       Shellfish Sanitation Branch
                         Washington 25, D.C.

-------
           This is Part I of two companion volumes published by the Public
         Health Service with titles and publication numbers as follows:
           Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish
                                     Shippers

                    Public Health Service Publication No. 33
                    (Revised 1962) Part I—Sanitation of
                    Shellfish Growing Areas
                    Public Health Service Publication No. 33
                    (Revised 1962)  Part  II—Sanitation  of the
                    Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
           This is a revised edition published previously under the title: Sani-
         tary Control of the Shellfish Industry.  1959 Manual of Recommended
         Practice.
                  PUBLIC HEALTH  SERVICE PUBLICATION  NO.  33
                                Part I — Revised 1962
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 45 cents

-------
LIST OF PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF MANUAL OF RECOMMENDED
    PRACTICE  FOR  COOPERATIVE   PROGRAM  FOR  CERTI-
    FICATION OF  INTERSTATE SHELLFISH  SHIPPERS—NOW
    SUPERSEDED
1925.  Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports November 6, 1925 "Re-
        port of Committee on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry
        in the United States".

1937.  U.S. Public Health Service Minimum Requirements for Approval of
        State Shellfish Control Measures and Certification for Shippers in
        Interstate Commerce  (Revised October 1937).

1946.  Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
        fish  Industry Recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service
        (Public Health Bulletin No. 295).

1957.  Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
        fish Industry (Part II: Sanitation of the Harvesting and Process-
        ing of Shellfish).  Printed as Part of Public Health Service Publi-
        cation No. 33.

1959.  Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
        fish  Industry  (Part  I:  Sanitation  of  Shellfish Growing  Area).
        Printed as Part  I of Public Health Service  Publication No. 33.
                                                                         111

-------

-------
                            Contents
                                                                Page
INTRODUCTION	     1
DEFINITIONS	     3
    SECTION A—General Administrative Procedures	     4
         1. State Laws and Regulations	     4
         2. Administrative Procedures To Be Used by States	     5
         3. Intrastate Sale of Shellfish	     7
    SECTION B—Laboratory Procedures	     8
         1. Bacteriological	     8
         2. Toxicological	     8
         3. Chemical and  Physical	     8
    SECTION C—Growing Area Survey and Classification	     9
         1. Sanitary Survey of Growing Areas	     9
         2. Classification of Growing Areas	    11
         3. Approved Areas	    13
         4. Conditionally  Approved Areas	    14
         5. Restricted Areas	    17
         6. Prohibited Areas	    18
         7. Closure of Areas Due to Paralytic Shellfish Poison	    18
    SECTION D—Preparation of Shellfish for Marketing	    20
         1. Relaying	    20
         2. Controlled Purification	    21
    SECTION E—Control of Harvesting From Closed Areas	    24
         1. Identification of Closed Areas	    24
         2. Prevention of  Illegal  Harvesting From Closed Areas __    24
         3. Depletion of Closed Areas	    25
APPENDIX A.  Bacteriological Criteria of  Shellfish and  Shellfish
    Waters	   	    26
REFERENCES	    30
INDEX	    33

-------

-------
                                    Introduction
  In 1925 State and local health authorities
and representatives of the shellfish industry
requested the Public Health Service to exer-
cise supervision over the sanitary  quality of
shellfish shipped in interstate commerce.  In
accordance with this request, a cooperative
control procedure was  developed.  In carry-
ing out this cooperative control, the States,
the shellfish industry, and the Public Health
Service, each accept responsibility for certain
procedures as  follows :
  1. Procedures To Be  Followed  by  the
State.—Each shellfish-shipping State adopts
adequate  laws  and regulations for sanitary
control of the shellfish industry, makes san-
itary and bacteriological surveys of growing
areas, delineates and patrols restricted areas,
inspects  shellfish plants, and  conducts  such
additional inspections,  laboratory  investiga-
tions, and control measures as may be neces-
sary to insure that the shellfish reaching the
consumer have been grown, harvested, and
processed in a  sanitary manner.   The State
annually  issues  numbered  certificates  to
shellfish dealers who comply with the agreed-
upon sanitary standards, and forwards copies
of the interstate  certificates  to the  Public
Health Service.
  2. Procedures To Be Followed by the Pub-
lic Health Service.—The Public Health Serv-
ice  makes an annual review of each State's
control program including the inspection of
a representative number of shellfish-process-
ing plants.  On the basis of the  information
thus obtained, the  Public Health  Service
either endorses or withholds endorsement of
the respective State control programs.  For
the information  of  health authorities and
others concerned, the Public Health Service
publishes a semimonthly list of  all valid in-
terstate shellfish-shipper certificates issued by
the State shellfish-control authorities.
  3. Procedures To Be Followed by the In-
dustry.—The shellfish industry cooperates by
obtaining shellfish from safe sources, by pro-
viding plants  which meet the agreed-upon
sanitary standards, by maintaining sanitary
plant  conditions, by placing the proper cer-
tificate number on each package of shellfish,
and by keeping and making available to the
control  authorities  records which show the
origin and disposition of all shellfish.
  The fundamental components  of this co-
operative State-Industry-PHS shellfish certi-
fication program were first  described  in  a
Supplement to Public Health Reports,  "Re-
port of Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry  in the  United  States"
(1925).  This guide for  sanitary control of
the shellfish industry was revised and reissued
in 1937 and again in 1946.  It was separated
into  two parts  by publication  of Part II,
Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing
of Shellfish in 1957 and by publication in 1959,
of Part  I,  Sanitation  of  Shellfish Growing
Areas.  The need for a specialized program of
this nature was  reaffirmed  at the National
Conference on Shellfish  Sanitation held in
Washington,  D.C.,  in 1954  (1)  and  at the
Shellfish Sanitation Workshops held in  1956
(2), 1958 (3), and 1961 (67).
  This edition of the shellfish sanitation man-
ual has been prepared in cooperation with the
State shellfish control authorities in all coastal
States, food control authorities in the inland
States, interested Federal agencies, Canadian
Federal departments, the Oyster Institute of
North America, the Pacific  Coast  Oyster
Growers Association, and the Oyster Growers
and Dealers Association  of  North America.
  Since the growing and processing of shell-
fish are two distinct phases of operation in
the shellfish industry,  the manual has  been
prepared in two parts : I: Sanitation of Shell-
June 1962

-------
fish-Growing Areas; and II: Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shell fish.  This,
Part I of the manual, is intended as a guide
for the preparation of State shellfish sanita-
tion laws  and regulations, and for sanitary
control of the growing, relaying, and purifica-
tion of shellfish.   It is intended that States
participating in  the cooperative State-PHS-
Industry program for the certification of in-
terstate shellfish  shippers will be guided by
this manual in exercising sanitary supervi-
sion over shellfish growing, relaying, and pu-
rification,  and in the issuing of certificates to
shellfish shippers.
  The manual will also be used by the Public
Health Service in evaluating  State shellfish
sanitation programs to determine if the pro-
grams qualify for endorsement.
  The provisions  of this manual were ac-
cepted at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshop
held in Washington, November 28-30, 1961,
and unless otherwise stated  become effective
60 days after publication (67).
                  EUGENE T. JENSEN,
  Chief,  Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Divi-
  sion of Environmental Engineering and
  Food Protection, Public Health Service.
                                                                                 June 1962

-------
                                     Definitions
  And/or.—Where  this  term  is  used, and
shall apply where possible; otherwise, or shall
apply.
  Area, growing.—An area in which market
shellfish are grown.
  Coliform group.—The coliform  group in-
cludes  all of the aerobic and facultative an-
aerobic,  Gram-negative,  non-spore-forming
bacilli  which ferment lactose with gas for-
mation within 48 hours at 35° C.  Bacteria of
this group which will produce gas from E. C.
medium within 48 hours at 44.5° C. in a water
bath will be referred to as fecal coliforms.
  Controlled purification.—The process  of
removing contamination  from whole live
shellfish acquired while growing in polluted
areas.
  Cooperative  program.—The  cooperative
State-PHS-Industry program for the certifi-
cation  of interstate shellfish shippers as de-
scribed in Public Health Service Publication
Number 33, Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
Industry, Parts I and  II.
  Depletion.—The removal of all market-size
shellfish from an area.
  Most  probable  number  (abbreviated
MPN).—The MPN is  a statistical estimate of
the number of bacteria per unit volume, and
is determined from the number of  positive
results in a series of fermentation tubes.   A
complete discussion of MPN determinations
and computations, including  MPN tables, can
be found in the  American Public Health
Association  publication "Standard Methods
for the Examination  of Water, Sewage and
Industrial Wastes" (4) (5).
  Population equivalent (coliform).—A
quantity of sewage containing approximately
160 xlO9 coliform group bacteria.   This  is
approximately equal to the per capita per day
contribution of coliforms as determined in a
metropolitan sewerage system (6)  (7) (8).
  Sanitary survey.—The sanitary survey is
the evaluation of all factors having a bearing
on the sanitary quality of a shellfish growing
area including sources of pollution, the effects
of wind, tides, and currents in the distribu-
tion and dilution of the polluting materials,
and the bacteriological quality of the water.
  Shellfish.—All  edible  species  of  oysters,
clams, or mussels.  Shellfish products which
contain any material other than the meats
and/or shell liquor of oysters, clams, or mus-
sels will be regarded  as a  "processed food"
and will not be  included in the cooperative
program (1).
  Shellfish,  market.—Shellfish  which  are,
may be, or have been harvested and/or pre-
pared for sale for human consumption as a
fresh or frozen product.
  State shellfish control agency.—The State
agency or agencies having legal  authority to
classify shellfish growing areas and/or to  is-
sue permits for the interstate shipment  of
shellfish in accord with the provisions of this
manual.
  State shellfish patrol agency.—The State
agency having responsibility for the patrol of
shellfish growing areas.
  Transplanting.—The  moving of  shellfish
from one area to another area.
June 1962

-------
                                      Section  A

            GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
  1.  State  Laws  and  Regulations.—State
laws or regulations shall provide an adequate
legal basis for sanitary control of all inter-
state phases of the shellfish industry.  This
legal authority shall enable one or more de-
partments or agencies of the State to classify
all coastal waters for shellfish harvesting on
the basis of sanitary quality; effectively reg-
ulate the harvesting of shellfish; effectively
prosecute persons  apprehended harvesting
shellfish from  restricted, prohibited, or non-
approved areas; regulate and supervise  the
shipment and storage of  shell stock,  and the
shucking, packing, and repacking of shellfish;
make laboratory examinations of shellfish;
seize, condemn, or embargo shellfish; and re-
strict the harvesting of shellfish from particu-
lar areas and suspend interstate shipper cer-
tificates in public-health emergencies.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the State  has legal  authority
to—
  a.  Classify all coastal waters as to their
suitability for shellfish harvesting on the basis
of sanitary quality as defined in Section C of
this  manual.   (It is strongly recommended
that a State permit be required for  the grow-
ing or  harvesting of shellfish, and  that such
permits be revocable or subject to suspension
for just cause.   It is also recommended that
the State have authority  to regulate the dis-
charge of sewage, radioactive, and other toxic
wastes from boats in the vicinity of approved
shellfish growing areas.)
  b.  Control the harvesting of shellfish from
areas which are contaminated or which con-
tain  paralytic  shellfish poison.  To be effec-
tive this authority must allow the State to—
     (1)  Patrol growing areas.
     (2)  Apprehend persons violating the re-
  strictions.
     (3)  Effectively prosecute persons appre-
  hended harvesting shellfish from restricted
  or prohibited areas.   (Penalties for  such
  violations should be sufficient to discourage
  illegal  harvesting.)
  c.  Regulate and supervise relaying, deple-
tion, wet storage, and controlled purification
as described in this manual if these techniques
are used.
  d. Require that shell stock in storage or in
transit from the growing area to the certified
shipper be protected against contamination;
i.e., every  person, firm, or corporation  that
handles shellfish up to the certified shipper
will be subject to sanitary control by an offi-
cial agency but will  not  necessarily be re-
quired to have a State shellfish permit.
  e.  Prohibit Cooperative Program shippers
from possessing or selling shellfish from out-
of-State  sources  unless such  shellfish have
been produced in accord with  Cooperative
Program requirements.
  f.  Regulate the operations of shucker-pack-
ers, repackers,  shell stock shippers and re-
shippers  in accord with the applicable provi-
sions of part II of this manual.
  g. Restrict the harvesting of shellfish from
specific areas, and suspend interstate shipper
certificates  in  a public-health  emergency.
Administrative procedures  required in  con-
nection with such emergency actions should
not require more than one day to complete.
  h.  Prevent the sale, shipment, or possession
of shellfish which cannot be identified as  hav-
ing been produced in accord with Cooperative
Program requirements or which are other-
wise unfit for human consumption, and to con-
demn, seize, or embargo such shellfish.   This
authority need not be specific for shellfish and
may be included in  other State food laws.
                                                                                June 1962

-------
  Public-health  explanation.—The Coopera-
tive Program was developed by the 1925 Con-
ference on Shellfish Pollution to meet the spe-
cific public-health need  resulting from the
1924-25 typhoid epidemic (9).
  However, the  Cooperative Program  has
gone beyond the  original objective of insur-
ing that shellfish shipped interstate would not
be the cause of communicable disease.   Thus,
in the 1940's, paralytic  shellfish poison be-
came a matter of public-health  concern and
steps were taken to protect the public against
this hazard.  In  1957 it  was recognized that
shellfish might concentrate  certain radionu-
clides and that a radiation surveillance activ-
ity  might become a necessary adjunct to the
established procedures.
  To accomplish these  public-health objec-
tives the State must supervise all phases of
the  growing,  harvesting,   transportation,
shucking-packing and repacking of shellfish to
be shipped interstate.   It is also important
that shellfish  be properly refrigerated and
protected  against contamination during  in-
terstate shipment.  This is not easily accom-
plished by the State of origin although certi-
fied shippers are  required to pack shellfish in
containers which will  protect them against
contamination.
  If State supervision is to be effective  all
phases of the activity must be supported by
legal  authority.   This  authority  may  be
either a specific law or regulation.  The suc-
cess with  which the State is able to regulate
the several  components  of  the  shellfish  in-
dustry  provides a measure  of the adequacy
of the statutory authority.
  The unique nature of shellfish as a food also
makes it  necessary that the State shellfish
control agency have authority to take immedi-
ate emergency action to halt harvesting or
processing of shellfish  without recourse to
lengthy administrative  procedures.  As ex-
amples, a  State may find it necessary to close
a shellfish growing area within hours of a
breakdown in a sewage treatment plant or the
unexpected  finding of  paralytic  shellfish
poison.
  Periodic revisions of  State shellfish laws
or regulations may be necessary to cope with
new public-health hazards and to reflect new
knowledge.   Examples  of changes or devel-
opments which  have called  for  revision of
State laws include the wide-scale use of pleas-
ure boats with  the resulting probability of
contamination of shellfish growing areas with
fresh fecal material, the  conditionally ap-
proved area concept resulting from the con-
struction of sewage treatment works, and the
apparent ability of  shellfish to concentrate
certain radionuclides.
  Experience has  demonstrated  that  all
coastal waters of the State must be classified
as to their sanitary suitability  for shellfish
harvesting.   Harvesting should be permitted
only from those areas which have been found
by sanitary survey to meet the sanitary cri-
teria of this manual.  Harvesting should ac-
cordingly be specifically  prohibited from
areas which do not meet the criteria, or which
have not been surveyed.
  2. General Administrative Procedures  To
Be Used by States.—States shall keep  records
which will facilitate  Public Health  Service
review of their shellfish sanitation programs
and shall assist the Service in making such
reviews.  Effective September 1,1959, States
shall not certify shippers for interstate ship-
ment unless the shipper  complies substan-
tially with the construction requirements of
part II of this manual and  maintains  a sani-
tation rating of at least 80 percent  during
periods  of operation.  Shippers  not meet-
ing these requirements will not be eligible for
inclusion on the Public Health Service list of
State certified  shellfish shippers.   Coopera-
tive  Program standards shall be applied to
all growing areas, all shellfish harvesters, and
all persons handling shell  stock prior to  its
delivery to the Cooperative  Program certified
shipper.  When two or more State agencies
are involved in the  sanitary control of the
shellfish industry, a clear statement of respon-
sibility of each agency  should be developed.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
  a.  Cooperative Program requirements are
applied to all market-shellfish growing areas.
  b.  Cooperative Program requirements are
applied  to  all  commercial market shellfish
harvesters.
June 11)02
                                                                                        5

-------
  c.  Cooperative Program requirements are
applied to all persons handling the  shellfish
prior to its delivery to the interstate shipper.
  d.  Interstate shellfish shipper certificates
are issued only to those establishments sub-
tantially meeting the construction  require-
ments  of Part II of this manual and which
maintain a plant sanitation rating of at least
80 percent  during  periods  of  operations.
(The State shellfish control agency shall sus-
pend or revoke certificates if a plant sanita-
tion  rating drops below  80 percent or if any
individual sanitation item is violated repeat-
edly.)   Ratings  will  be determined on the
basis of compliance with the applicable pro-
visions of Part II of this manual as measured
by an  inspection report comparable to that
contained in appendix A of Part II.
  e.  The following records are kept of shell-
fish  sanitation activities as required in sec-
tions C, D, and E, Part I, of this manual and
when monthly summaries of State patrol and
inspection  activities  are forwarded to the
Public Health Service regional office:
     (1) Individual    growing   area   files.
   (Areas  may   be  defined  by  either geo-
  graphic or political boundaries.)
     (2) Patrol  activities, including arrests,
  prosecutions,  and the results of  prosecu-
  tions.
     (3) Plant inspections. Shucker-packers
  and  repackers shall ordinarily be inspected
  at least monthly.  Shell stock shippers and
  reshippers shall be inspected at a frequency
  which will afford  adequate  public-health
  supervision of their operations.  A central
  inspection-report file should be maintained
  by the State.
  f. The following guidelines are observed by
the State in issuing interstate shellfish certifi-
cates.
     (1) Certificate  content.  Elach certifi-
  cate should give the following information:
     Name.  (The usual business name and
  alternative names that should appear on the
  interstate shellfish shippers list, hereafter
  called "list.")
     Address.   (A business and/or mailing
  address in the State issuing the certificate.
  This address  indicates where records  are
kept and where inspection may  be ar-
ranged.)
  Certificate Number.   (A number shall
be assigned for each business unit.   Suffix
or prefix letters may not be used to differ-
entiate between two or more plants of a
given shipper.)
  Classification.   (The shipper classifica-
tion should be indicated by a symbol: i.e.,
shucker-packer, SP; repacker,  RP; shell
stock,  SS;  or  reshipper,  RS.  Only one
classification should be used.   The single
classification will cover all proposed oper-
ations which the shipper  is qualified to
perform.)
  Expiration Date.   (All certificates in a
State should expire on the same date, pref-
erably the last day of a month.  This date
will be shown on the "list".   All certificates
will be automatically withdrawn from the
"list" on the date of expiration unless new
certificates  have been  received by Public
Health Service headquarters office.   If the
date of expiration coincides with the date
of issue for  the "list" the certificates expir-
ing on the date of issue will be deleted.)
   Certifying Officer.   (Each certificate is
signed by a responsible State official.)
   (2)  Certificate changes.  A change in an
existing,  unexpired certificate  should be
made by issuing a corrected certificate.
   (3)  Interstate shipment before listing.
The shipper should be informed of the prob-
able date his name will appear on the "list"
and should  be  advised against making in-
terstate shipment prior to that date.  (If
shipments must be made before the appear-
ance of the  shipper's name on the "list",
the Public Health  Service  will notify  the
applicable receiving States if  the names
and addresses of the expected receivers are
indicated in advance by the State when the
certificate is forwarded to the Public Health
Service.)
   (4)  State cancellation,  revocation  or
suspension   of  interstate  shipper  certifi-
cates.   If a State revokes, cancels, or sus-
pends  an   interstate  shellfish   shipper
certificate,   the  Public  Health  Service
regional office should be immediately noti-
                                                                                  June 1962

-------
   fied, preferably by telephone or telegram;
   with a following confirmatory letter.
     (5)  Mailing list for interstate  shellfish
   shipper list.  Names of persons,  business
   units,  organizations, or agencies,  desiring
   copies of the "list", and requests for infor-
   mation concerning the "list" should be sent
   to the appropriate Public Health  Service
   regional office. Recipients will be circular-
   ized periodically to determine if they still
   have use for the "list".
   g. The appropriate Public Health Service
regional  office is notified by the State of any
revision  in growing area classification.  The
notification  shall so describe the area that it
may be readily located on Coast and Geodetic
Survey charts.
   h. State  shellfish  plant  inspectors  are
provided with the following inspection equip-
ment:  standardized inspection  forms,  ther-
mometer, chlorine test kit, and light meter.
   i.  Interdepartmental memoranda of under-
standing have been developed which will de-
fine the responsibilities of each  State agency
in maintaining adequate sanitary control of
the shellfish industry in the State.
   Public-health explanation.—The annual re-
view of  each participating State's  shellfish
sanitation activities is a  fundamental Public
Health Service responsibility in  the Coopera-
tive Program.  The purpose of this review is
to evaluate  the adequacy and reliability  of
each individual State program in accord with
the agreed-upon standards.  The Service will
endorse those State programs meeting the Co-
operative Program standards and will pub-
lish and distribute a list  of the names of the
State  certified  shippers.  However,  if   a
State program does not  meet the standards
the program will not be endorsed.  Names of
nonparticipating States will be omitted from
the Public Health Service list of State certi-
fied shellfish shippers.
  Minimum  plant  sanitation standards for
interstate shellfish  shippers are described in
Part  II of  this manual.  Experience has
shown that absolute compliance with  these
minimum standards is not always attainable,
particularly those items which relate to oper-
ating procedures.   The establishment of the
80 percent plant sanitation score as a prereq-
uisite for listing on the Public Health Service
list of State certified  shellfish shippers rec-
ognizes the fact that perfection is not always
obtainable and, at the same time, provides a
mechanism for excluding any plant which is
not operated in a reasonably sanitary manner.
  Cooperative  Program sanitary  require-
ments should be applied  to all growing  areas
and all shellfish harvesters to insure  that all
shellfish available  to  certified dealers  have
been produced and harvested under accept-
able sanitary conditions.   It is also important
that the shell stock be protected against con-
tamination during  the period between har-
vesting and delivery to the certified shipper.
  3. Intrastate Sale of  Market Shellfish.—
Sanitary  standards for  intrastate shellfish
shippers should be substantially equivalent to
those of the Cooperative  Program.
  Public-health explanation.—States may ac-
cept lower sanitary standards  for shellfish
sold intrastate than are  required by  the Co-
operative Program.  However, it  has been
found  that small  intrastate shippers  may at
times sell their product to interstate shippers
if demand exceeds the  supply of  shellfish
available to the latter.  Because of the possi-
bility that such substandard shellfish might
be shipped interstate, the 1954 National Con-
ference on Shellfish Sanitation recommended
that Cooperative  Program standards be ap-
plied to all shellfish production and processing
(1).   The 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop also strongly  recommended the use of
substantially equivalent standards for intra-
and inter-state shellfish shippers  (3).
June 1962

-------
                                     Section B
                       LABORATORY  PROCEDURES
  1. Bacteriological. — American  Public
Health Association Recommended Procedures
for the Examination of Sea Water and Shell-
fish shall be followed in the collection and
transportation  of  samples of shellfish and
shellfish waters for bacteriological examina-
tion  and in the laboratory examination of
such samples.1
  Satisfactory  compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when  current  American Public
Health Association Recommended Procedures
for the Examination of Sea Water and Shell-
fish are followed in the bacteriological exami-
nation of shellfish and shellfish waters.
  Public-health  explanation. — Experience
with the bacteriological examination of shell-
fish and  shellfish growing  waters has indi-
cated that minor  differences in laboratory
procedures or techniques will cause wide var-
iations in the results.  Variations in results
may  also be caused by improper handling of
the sample during collection or transportation
to the laboratory (10).  The American Pub-
lic Health Association Recommended Proce-
dures for the Examination of Sea Water and
Shellfish, which are revised periodically, offer
a reliable way of minimizing these variations.
(Cooperative Program  required  use  of a
standard procedure for the bacteriological ex-
amination  of shellfish  and  shellfish waters
should not discourage  laboratories  from
working on new methods of sample handling
or analysis.)
  2. Toxicological.—A  recognized procedure
shall be used in the assay for paralytic shell-
fish poison.
  Satisfactory  compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when current Association of Of-
 1 Material which may be useful in interpretation of results of
bacteriological examination of shellfish is contained in appen-
dix A.
ficial  Agricultural Chemists official methods
are followed in the bioassay for paralytic
shellfish poison.
  Public-health  explanation.—It  has been
demonstrated that  significant variations in
bioassay results  will  be caused  by minor
changes in procedures.  If reliable results are
to be obtained it is essential that the test pro-
cedures be standardized  and that variations
due to use of strains of mice be minimized
(11).  The official procedure for the bioassay
for paralytic shellfish poison adopted by the
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists
minimizes these variations (66). A chemical
test for  paralytic shellfish  poison has also
been developed  (12).
  3. Chemical and Physical.—Standard lab-
oratory methods shall be  used for all salinity,
radionuclide, and other chemical and physical
determinations made on  shellfish or shellfish
waters in conjunction with Cooperative Pro-
gram activities.  Results shall be reported in
standard units.
  Satisfactory  compliance.—This  item will
be satisfied when—
  a. Chemical  and physical measurements
on shellfish and shellfish  waters are made in
accord with accepted laboratory techniques.
  b. Results of all chemical and physical de-
terminations are expressed in standard units.
(For  example,  salinity should be  expressed
in parts per thousand rather than hydrometer
readings.)
  Public-health  explanation.—Standardized
laboratory procedures  are most apt to pro-
duce results in which the State shellfish con-
trol agency can have confidence, and facilitate
comparative evaluation of data.  The need for
adherence to standardized procedures should
not discourage laboratories from experimen-
tal use of nonstandard methods.
8
                                                                                June 1962

-------
                                       Section C
        GROWING  AREA  SURVEY  AND  CLASSIFICATION
  1. Sanitary Surveys of Growing Areas.—
A sanitary  survey shall be made  of  each
growing area  prior to its approval by the
State as a source  of  market shellfish or of
shellfish to be  used in a controlled purifica-
tion or relaying  operation.  The sanitary
quality of each area shall be reappraised at
least biennially and, if necessary, a resurvey
made.   Ordinarily, resurveys will be much
less  comprehensive than the original survey
since it will  only be necessary to bring- the
original information up to date.  Records of
all original surveys and resurveys of grow-
ing  areas shall be maintained  by the State
shellfish control agency, and shall be made
available  to  Public  Health Service  review
officers upon request.
  Satisfactory  compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when-—
  a. A sanitary survey has been made of
each growing area in the State prior to ini-
tial approval of interstate shipments of shell-
fish  from that area.  A comprehensive san-
itary survey  shall include an evaluation of all
sources of actual or potential pollution on the
estuary and  its tributaries, and the distance
of such sources from the growing areas; ef-
fectiveness and  reliability of sewage treat-
ment  works;  the  presence of  industrial
wastes or radionuclides which would cause a
public-health hazard to the consumer of the
shellfish; and the effect of wind, stream  flow,
and  tidal currents in distributing polluting
materials over  the  growing area.2  The thor-
oughness with which  each element must be
investigated  varies greatly  and will be de-
termined by  the specific conditions  in  each
growing area.
  b. The  factors  influencing  the sanitary
quality of  each  approved shellfish growing
area are reappraised at least biennially.3  A
complete resurvey should be  made of each
growing area in an approved category at least
once  every ten years; however, data from
original surveys can be used when it is clear
that such information is still valid.
   c. A file which contains all pertinent sani-
tary survey information, including the dates
and results of  preceding sanitary surveys is
maintained  by the  State shellfish control
agency for each classified shellfish area.
   Public-health  explanation.—The  positive
relationship  between  sewage pollution   of
shellfish growing areas and enteric disease
has been demonstrated many times (13) (14)
(15)   (16)  (17)  (18).   However, epidemi-
ological investigations of shellfish-caused dis-
ease outbreaks have  never established a  di-
rect  numerical  correlation   between  the
bacteriological quality of  water and the de-
gree of hazard to health.  Investigations made
from 1914 to 1925 by the States and the Pub-
lic Health Service—a  period  when disease
outbreaks attributable to shellfish were more
prevalent—indicated that typhoid fever or
other enteric disease would not ordinarily be
attributed to shellfish harvested from  water
in which not more than 50 percent of the one
cc. portions of  water examined were positive
for conforms,4 provided the areas were not
subject to direct  contamination  with small
amounts of fresh sewage which would  not
ordinarily be revealed by  the  bacteriological
examination.
   Following the oyster-borne typhoid out-
break  during the winter of 1924-25 in  the
United States  (19) the cooperative  shellfish
certification  program was initiated by  the
States, the Public Health  Service,  and  the
shellfish industry (9).  Water quality cri-
teria were then stated as :
 - In making the sanitary survey consideration should be given
to the hydrographic and geographic characteristics of the estuary,
the bacteriological quality of the growing area water and bot-
tom sediments, and the presence and location of small sources of
pollution, including boats, which might contribute  fresh  sewage
to the area.
 ;t The purpose of this reappraisal is to determine if there have
been changes in stream flow, sewage treatment, populations, or
other similar factors which might result in a change in the sani-
tary quality of the growing area.  The amount of field work asso-
ciated with such a reappraisal will depend  upon the area under
consideration and the magnitude of the changes which have
taken place.
 ' An MPN of approximately 70 per 100 ml.
Jarraarv 195!)

-------
  a. The area is sufficiently  removed from
major sources of pollution so that the shell-
fish would not be subjected to fecal contam-
ination in quantities which might be danger-
ous to the public health.
  b. The area is free from pollution by even
small quantities of  fresh  sewage.  The re-
port emphasized  that bacteriological exam-
ination does  not, in itself, offer conclusive
proof of the sanitary quality of an area.
  c. Bacteriological  examination  does  not
ordinarily show the  presence  of the coli-aer-
ogenes group of bacteria in 1  cc. dilutions of
growing area water.
  The reliability of this three-part standard
for evaluating the safety of shellfish produc-
ing areas  is  evidenced by the fact that no
major outbreaks  of typhoid  fever  or other
enteric disease have  been attributed to shell-
fish harvested from  waters meeting the cri-
teria  since they were adopted in  the  United
States in 1925.   Similar water  c[uality cri-
teria  have been  in  use in  Canada with like
results.  The available epidemiological  and
laboratory evidence gives little idea as to the
margin of safety, but it is probably consider-
able as indicated by the virtual absence of re-
ported shellfish caused enteric disease over a
comparatively long period of time (18)  (20)
(21).
  The purpose  of the sanitary survey  is to
identify and evaluate those factors influenc-
ing the  sanitary  quality of a growing area
and which may include sources of pollution,
potential or actual; the volume of dilution
water;  the effects  of currents, winds  and
tides  in  disseminating  pollution  over the
growing areas; the bacterial quality of water
and bottom  sediments;  die-out of polluting
bacteria in the tributaries and the estuary;
bottom configuration; and salinity  and  tur-
bidity of the water.  Sources  of pollution in-
clude municipal  sewage discharged into the
estuary or inflowing rivers; sewage brought
into the estuary by tides or currents; surface
run-off  from  polluted  areas;  industrial
wastes;  and discharges from  pleasure craft,
fishing boats, naval vessels,  and  merchant
shipping.
  Bacteriological examination of the grow-
ing waters is an important component of the
sanitary survey.  In many instances the bac-
teriological and related salinity data will also
provide valuable  information  on the hydro-
graphic  characteristics of an area.5 6
  Ideally,  a large number of water samples
for  bacteriological  examination should  be
collected at each  station.   However, in most
instances this is not practical because of time
and budget limitations, and accordingly only
a   limited  number   of   samples  can  be
collected.    Therefore,  sampling  stations
should be  chosen which will provide a max-
imum of data, and which will be representa-
tive of the bacteriological quality  of  water
in as wide an area as possible.  Sample col-
lection should be timed to represent the most
unfavorable  hydrographic   and   pollution
conditions since shellfish  respond rapidly to
an  increase in the number of bacteria in their
environment (25) (26).
  There is no specified minimum number of
sampling stations, frequency of sampling, or
total number of samples.  Sampling  results
obtained over a period of several years can
be used as a block of  data provided at least 15
samples  have been collected from each of a
representative number of  stations along the
line  separating  approved from  restricted
growing areas  and  there  have  been  no ad-
verse changes  in  hydrographic or sanitary
conditions.  Only occasional bacteriological
samples  are necessary from  areas which are
shown to be free from pollution.
  Experience with the shellfish certification
program indicates a tendency to omit or de-
emphasize some components of  the sanitary
survey unless a central State file of all shell-
 r' Bacteria in an unfavorable environment die out in such a
way that following an initial lag period there is a large per-
centage decline during the first few days. Descriptions of studies
on bacterial die-out have been published by Greenberg (22) and
Pearson (2.J). Die-off has also been investigated by the Public
Health Service Shellfish  Sanitation  Laboratory at Woods Hole,
Mass., and Pensacola, Fla. Application of this principle may be
helpful in predicting the quantity of pollution which will reach
an  area,  and in establishing objective effluent  quality cri-
teria (2().
 " In connection with the evaluation of sampling results,  it
should be noted that the MPN determination is not a precise
measure of the concentration of bacteria (.}).  Thus, in repeated
sampling from waters having a uniform density of bacteria vary-
ing MPN estimates will be obtained. The use of the tolerance
factor 3.3 (applicable only to 5 tube decimal dilution MPN's)  is
one method of recognizing  this variation.  For example,  in a
body of water in which the median concentration of coliform
bacteria is 70 per 100 ml., 95% of observed MPN's will he be-
tween 20 and 230 per 100 ml. ; i. e., 70/3.3=21 and 70X3.3=230.
10
                                 January 1959

-------
fish  sanitary surveys, reappraisals, and re-
surveys is maintained.  This is particularly
true where responsibility for shellfish sanita-
tion  is divided between two or more State
agencies.  Maintenance of a central State file
for all shellfish sanitary survey information
will  also simplify the endorsement appraisal
of State programs by the Public Health Serv-
ice and will help prevent loss of old  data
which may be useful in evaluating the sani-
tary quality of an area.
   Periodic  reappraisals  of  the  sanitary
quality of shellfish producing areas are neces-
sary to determine that  environmental condi-
tions are such  that  the original conclusions
are still valid.  A resurvey should be made if
the reappraisal shows a significant change.
  2.  Classification of  Growing Areas.—All
coastal waters  shall  be classified as to their
public health suitability for the harvesting of
market shellfish.  Classification criteria are
described in sections  C-3,  C-4, C-5,  C-6,
and  C-7 of this  manual.  Except  in emer-
gency any upward revision of an area classi-
fication shall be  preceded by a  sanitary
survey, resurvey, or  reappraisal. A written
analysis of the data  justifying the reclassifi-
cation shall be made  a part of the area file.
   Satisfactory  compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
   a.  All  costal waters  in the State  are cor-
rectly designated with  one of the following
classifications on the basis of sanitary survey
information:  Approved; conditionally  ap-
proved; restricted; or prohibited?
   b. Area  classifications are revised when-
ever warranted by survey data.
   c.  Classifications  are not revised upward
without at least a file review, and there is a
written record of such review in the area file
maintained  by  the  State shellfish  control
agency.
   d.  All  coastal areas which have  not been
subjected to sanitary surveys shall be auto-
matically classified as prohibited.
  Public-health  explanation.—The  probable
presence or absence of pathogenic organisms
in shellfish waters is of the greatest impor-
tance in deciding how shellfish obtained from
 7 Closures may also be based on presence of paralytic shellfish
poison.


June 1962
an  area may be used.  All coastal  waters
should thus be classified according to the in-
formation  developed in the sanitary survey.
Classification should not be revised upward
without  careful  consideration  of  available
data.  Areas should be reclassified whenever
warranted by existing data. A written justi-
fication  for the  reclassification  simplifies
Public  Health Service appraisal  of State
programs.
  A hypothetical use of the four recognized
area classifications is shown in figure 1.  This
idealized situation depicts an estuary receiv-
ing sewage from two cities,  "A" and  "B."
City "A" has complete sewage treatment in-
cluding chlorination of effluent.  City "B" has
no sewage  treatment.  The estuary has been
divided into five areas, designated by roman
numerals,  on the basis of sanitary  survey
information:

                 Approved

  Area  I.   The  sanitary   survey  indicates
that sewage from cities "A" ar*&  'B" (even
with the "A" sewage plant not functioning)
would not reach this area in such concentra-
tion as to constitute a public-health hazard.
The median coliform MPN of the water is
less than 70/100 ml. The sanitary quality of
the area is independent of  sewage treatment
at city "A."

         Conditionally Approved

  Area II.   This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I; however, the quality varies
with the effectiveness of sewage treatment at
city "A." This area would  probably be clas-
sified prohibited if city "A" had not provided
sewage treatment.

                Restricted

  Area, III.  Sewage from  "B" reaches this
area, and the median coliform  MPN of water
is between 70 and 700  per  100 ml.  Shellfish
may be used only  under specified conditions.

                Prohibited

  Area IV.   Direct  harvesting from  this
area is prohibited because of  raw sewage
                                        11
    647036 O - 62 - 2

-------
12
January 1959

-------
from "B."  The median coliform MPN  of
water may exceed 700/100 ml.
  Area V.  Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited  because of possible failure  of
the sewage treatment plant.  Closure is based
on need for a safety factor rather than coli-
form content of water or amount of dilution
water.
  3.  Approved Areas.—Growing  areas  may
be designated as approved when:  (a) the san-
itary survey indicates that pathogenic micro-
organisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful in-
dustrial wastes do not reach the area in dan-
gerous concentration, and (b) this is verified
by  laboratory findings  insofar as possible.
Shellfish may be taken from such areas for
direct marketing.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when the three following criteria
are met:
  a. The area is  not so contaminated  with
fecal material that consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and
  b. The area is  not so contaminated  with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous
 (see  section C, item 7, regarding paralytic
shellfish poison in shellfish growing areas),
and
  c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
than 10 per cent of the samples ordinarily ex-
ceed an MPN of 230 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
decimal dilution test (or 330 per 100 ml.,
where  the  3-tube decimal  dilution  test is
used) in those portions of the area most prob-
ably exposed  to fecal contamination  during
the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollu-
tion conditions.   (Note: This concentration
might be exceeded if less than 8 million cubic
feet of  a coliform-free  dilution  water are
available for each population equivalent (coli-
form) of sewage reaching the area.)  The
foregoing limits need not be applied if it can
be shown by detailed study that the colif orms
are not of direct fecal origin and do  not in-
dicate a public health hazard  (19)  (20) .8
  E This MPN value is based on a typical ratio of coliforms to
 pathogens and would not be applicable to any situation in which
 an abnormally large number of pathogens might be present.
 Consideration must also be given to the possible presence of in-
 dustrial or agricultural wastes in which there is an atypical coli-
 form to pathogen ratio (30).
  Public-health explanation.—A  review  of
epidemiological investigations of disease out-
breaks attributable to the consumption of raw
shellfish reveals that two general  situations
prevail '•' insofar  as  pollution of growing or
storage areas are concerned.
     (1) Gross sewage  contamination of  a
  growing or wet storage area.  (A report of
  a 1910 outbreak of typhoid fever involving
  45 persons notes that raw sewage from a
  city with a population of 30,000 was dis-
  charged only a  few  hundred  feet away
  from clam beds and floats (27)  (28).   In
  1947 a case of typhoid fever was attributed
  to clams harvested 200 yards from the out-
  let of a municipal sewage treatment plant
   (29).   In  the  latter case,  the coliform
  MPN of the harbor water exceeded 12,000
  per  100 ml.  and the area had been posted
  as closed to shellfish harvesting.)
     (2) Chance contamination of a growing
  or wet storage area by fresh fecal material
  which may not be diffused throughout the
  entire area (14) (16)  (17) (19)  and there-
  fore not readily detectable by ordinary bac-
  teriological procedures.   The possibility of
  chance contamination was  noted by  Dr.
  Gurion in his report on a 1902 typhoid out-
  break, and who is quoted in Public Health
  Bulletin No. 86, as "there is a zone of pollu-
  tion established by the mere fact of the ex-
  istence of  a populated city upon the banks
  of a stream or tidal  estuary which makes
  the  laying down of oysters and clams in
  these waters a pernicious custom if per-
  sisted in, because it renders these articles
  of  food dangerous at times,  and  always
  suspicious". The 1956 outbreak of infec-
  tious  hepatitis in Sweden  (691  cases)
  attributed to oysters which  were contami-
  nated in a wet storage area is an example
  of such  contamination (16).  Similarly in
  1939, 87 cases of typhoid were  attributed
  to fecal contamination of a storage area by
  a typhoid carrier  (14) •
  It  is well established that  shellfish from
water having a  median coliform MPN not
  0 There is a third general consideration in which shellfish may
be contaminated through mishandling.  This  is  not  related to
growing area sanitation and is considered in part  II  of this
manual.
 June 1962
                                                                                         13

-------
exceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and which is also
protected against chance contamination with
fecal  material, will  not be involved in  the
spread of disease which can be attributed to
initial contamination of the shellfish.  This is
not surprising since  a water MPN of 70/100
ml. is equivalent to a dilution ratio of about
8 million cubic feet of colif orm-f ree water per
day for the fecal material from each person
contributing  sewage to the area.  This tre-
mendous volume of water is available in shell-
fish growing areas through tidal action which
is constantly bringing unpolluted water into
the area.8
  Areas which are approved for direct mar-
ket harvesting of shellfish which  wi [1 be eaten
raw must necessarily meet one general test;
i.e., sewage reaching the growing area must
be so  treated, diluted, or aged that it will be
of negligible public-health significance. This
implies an element of time and distance to
permit the mixing of the sewage or fecal ma-
terial with the very  large volume of diluting
water and  for a major portion of the micro-
organisms  to die out.  Studies of the natural
die-off of microorganisms in an unfavorable
marine environment have been  summarized
by Greenberg (22).
  The  effectiveness  of sewage  treatment
processes must be considered in evaluating
the sanitary quality  of a growing area since
the bacterial content of the  effluent  will be
determined by the degree of treatment which
is obtained (2).  The results of bacteriolog-
ical sampling must  also be correMed with
sewage treatment plant operation, and eval-
uated in terms of the minimum  treatment
which can  be expected with a realization of
the possibility  of malfunctioning, overload-
ing, or poor operation.
  The presence of radionuclides in growing
area waters may also have public-health sig-
nificance since shellfish,  along with other
marine organisms, have the ability to concen-
trate  such  materials (31)  (32) (33) (34).
The degree to which  radioisotopes will  be
concentrated depends upon  the species  of
shellfish and the specific radioisotope.  For
example, it has been reported that the East-
  see footnote % on page 13.
ern oyster  has a  concentration  factor of
17,000 for Zn 65 whereas the concentration
factor for Sr 89 is approximately unity (31).
The distribution of the radioisotope in the
shellfish and the biological half-life are also
variable.  Sources  of  radioactive materials
include fall-out, industrial wastes, and nu-
clear  reactors.  Limiting maximum permis-
sible concentrations of radioactive materials
expressed in terms of specific radioisotopes
and unidentified mixtures in water and food
have been established  (35)  (36).  The cur-
rent standard should be consulted in evaluat-
ing the public-health significance of detected
radioactivity in market shellfish.
  The bacterial quality of active shellfish will
ordinarily be directly proportional to the bac-
terial quality of the water  in which  they
grew; however, considerable variation in in-
dividual  determinations  may  be expected.
The coliform MPN's of the shellfish usually
exceed those of the overlying water because
shellfish filter large quantities of water to ob-
tain food, thereby  concentrating  the sus-
pended  bacteria.   This  relationship   will
depend upon the shellfish species, water tem-
perature, presence of certain chemicals, and
varying capabilities  of the individual an-
imals. (See appendix A.)
  4. Conditionally  Approved  Areas.—The
suitability of some areas for harvesting shell-
fish for direct marketing is dependent upon
the attainment of an established perform-
ance  standard  by sewage treatment works
discharging effluent, directly or indirectly, to
the area.  In other cases the sanitary quality
of an  area may be affected by seasonal popu-
lation, or  sporadic use of a dock or harbor
facility.   Such areas  may  be classified as
conditionally approved.
  State shellfish control agencies shall estab-
lish conditionally approved areas only when
satisfied  that  (a)  all  necessary measures
have been taken to insure that performance
standards will be met, and (b) that precau-
tions  have been taken to assure that shellfish
will not be marketed from the areas subse-
quent to any failure to meet the performance
standards and before the shellfish can purify
themselves of polluting micro-organisms.
14
                                                                              January 1959

-------
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item  will
be satisfied when—
  a. The water quality requirements for an
approved area are met at all times while the
area is approved as a source of shellfish for
direct marketing.
  b. An operating procedure for each condi-
tionally approved area is developed jointly by
the State shellfish control agency, local agen-
cies, including those responsible for operation
of sewerage systems, and the local  shellfish
industry.  The operating procedure should be
based on an evaluation  of each of the poten-
tial sources of pollution which may affect the
area.  The procedure should establish  per-
formance standards, specify necessary safety
devices  and measures, and define  inspection
and check procedures.    (These procedures
are described  in more detail in the following
public-health explanation.)
  c. A closed safety zone is established be-
tween the  conditionally approved area  and
the source of pollution to give the State agency
time to stop shellfish  harvesting if perform-
ance standards are not met.
  d. Boundaries of conditionally approved
areas are so marked as to be readily identified
by harvesters.
  e. Critical sewerage  system  units are so
designed,  constructed, and maintained  that
the chances of failure to meet the established
performance  standards due  to mechanical
failure or overloading are minimized.
  f. There is a  complete understanding of
the  purpose  of the conditionally approved
classification by all parties concerned, includ-
ing the shellfish industry.  Successful func-
tioning  of the concept is dependent upon the
wholehearted  cooperation of all  interested
parties.  If such cooperation is not assured
the State should not approve the area for di-
rect harvesting of market shellfish.
  g. Any failure to  meet the  performance
standards  is  immediately  reported to the
State shellfish control agency by telephone or
messenger.   In some instances States  may
find it desirable to delegate the authority for
closing  a conditionally approved area  to a
representative of the agency located in the
immediate area.
  h. The State immediately closes condition-
ally approved areas to  shellfish harvesting
following a  report that  the performance
standards have not been met.  The area shall
remain closed until the  performance stand-
ards can again be met plus a length of time
sufficient for the shelfish to purify themselves
so that they will not be a hazard to the public
health.   (See section  D-l, "Relaying," for
information on  the length of time required
for self-purification of shellfish.)
  i. The State shellfish control agency makes
at least two evaluations during the shellfish
harvesting season of each conditionally ap-
proved area including inspection of each crit-
ical unit of the sewerage system to determine
the general mechanical condition of the equip-
ment, the accuracy of recording devices, and
the accuracy of reporting by the operating
agency.
  j. If it is discovered that failure to meet
performance standards  have  not been  re-
ported by the operating agency, or if the per-
formance standards are not met, the area
shall immediately revert to a restricted or
prohibited classification.
  k. All data relating to the operation of a
conditionally approved area, including  oper-
ation of sewerage systems, are maintained in
a file by the State shellfish control agency.
  Public-health explanation.—The condition-
ally approved classification is designed pri-
marily  to protect shellfish growing areas in
which the water quality  might undergo a
significant adverse change within a short pe-
riod of time.10  The change might result from
overloading or mechanical failure of a sewage
treatment plant, or bypassing of sewage at a
lift station.
  Water quality in many growing areas in
the  more densely populated sections of  the
country is, to some degree, dependent upon
the  operation of  sewage  treatment plants.
For example, the boundaries of an approved
shellfish area might be determined during a
period  when a  tributary sewage treatment
plant is operating at a satisfactory level. If
  10 A natural disaster may also cause many sewage treatment
plants to be out of service for an extended period of time. The
conditionally approred area concept is not ordinarily concerned
with such emergency situations.
 January 1959
                                         15

-------
there is  some interruption  in treatment  it
follows that there will be some degradation
in water quality in the growing area, which
may justify a relocation of the boundaries.
The degree of relocation would depend upon
such items as the distance between the pollu-
tion source  and the growing area, hydrog-
raphy, the amount of dilution water, and the
amount of pollution.
  The concept is also applicable to other sit-
uations  in  which there may be a rapid or
seasonal  change in water quality.  Examples
of such situations include—
  a. A growing area  adjacent to a  resort
community.  During the summer months the
community  might have a large  population
which might have an adverse effect on water
quality.   However, during the winter  when
there are few people in the community the
water quality might improve  sufficiently to
allow approval of  the area.  In some States
this is known as a seasonal closure.
  b. A protected harbor in a sparsely settled
area might  provide anchorage for a fishing
fleet several months a year. When the fishing
fleet is in, the harbor water would be of poor
sanitary  quality;  however,  during  the re-
mainder  of the year the quality of the harbor
water might be satisfactory. The area would
be  approved for  shellfish harvesting only
when the fishing fleet is not using the harbor.
  c. The water quality in an area fluctuates
with the discharge of a major river.  During
periods  of  high runoff the  area  is polluted
because of  decreased flow time in the  river.
However, during periods of low runoff the
area might be of satisfactory quality and thus
be approved for shellfish harvesting.
   The establishment  of  conditionally ap-
proved areas might be considered whenever
the potential  for sewage contamination  is
such  that the limiting  water quality  criteria
for an approved  area  might be exceeded  in
less than one week due to a failure of sewage
treatment,  or other situations as described
above.
   The first  step in determining whether an
area  should be placed in the  conditionally
approved classification is the evaluation  of
the potential sources of pollution in terms of
their effect on water quality in the area. Po-
tential  sources  of  pollution  include  the
following:
     (1)  Sewage treatment plants.
       (a)  By-passing of all or part of sew-
     age because of mechanical or power fail-
     ure, hydraulic overloading, or treatment
     overloading.
       (b)  Reduced degree of treatment due
     to operational difficulties or inadequate
     plant.
     (2)  Sewage lift stations.
       (a)  By-passing  during  periods  of
     maximum  flow  due  to  inadequate
     capacity.
       (6)  By-passing because of mechanical
     or power failure.
     (3)  Interceptor sewers  or underwater
  outfalls.
       (a)  Exfiltration due  to faulty con-
     struction.
       (6)  Leakage  due to damage.
     (4)  Other sources of pollution.
       (a)  Sewage from merchant or naval
     vessels.
       (b)  Sewage from  recreation  use of
     area.
  The second step in establishment of a con-
ditionally approved area is the  evaluation of
each source of pollution in terms of the water
quality standards to be maintained, and the
formulation of performance standards for
each installation having a significant effect
on the sanitary quality of the area.  Exam-
ples  of   performance   standards  might
include:
     (1)  Bacteriological quality of effluent
  from  sewage   treatment  plants.  This
  might be stated in terms of chlorine resid-
  ual if the bacteriological quality of the ef-
  fluent can be positively related to chlorine
  residual.  The following is an example of a
  performance standard   (37) : "The  me-
  dian  coliform MPN, in any one month,
  shall not exceed 500 per 100  ml, based on
  not  less than 16  composite samples per
  month, and not more than 10 percent of
  the samples shall  have an  MPN  in excess
  of 10,000 per 100  ml.  Determinations of
  the chlorine residual of the effluent should
  be made hourly and recorded  in the perma-
  nent plant records."
 16
                                                                             January 1959

-------
     (2)  Total  quantity of  sewage  which
  can be discharged from any given unit, or
  from a combination of units, without caus-
  ing the basic water quality standards to be
  exceeded.
     (3)  Amount of shipping in the area and
  the  amount  of  sewage  which can  be
  expected.
  Design  criteria which may be  useful in
formulating an opinion on the  quantity of
sewage which can be discharged into an area
without exceeding the desired water quality
standards  include:  Population  equivalent
(coliform) of sewage; predicted survival of
coliform in sea water, effectiveness of chlo-
rination, and the total quantity of clean dilu-
tion  water  in an area.  Results of many
studies on the survival of bacteria  in  sea
water  have been summarized in  An Investi-
gation of  the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Sewage and Sludge; Publication
No.  14,  California State  Water  Pollution
Control Board, 1956.
  The mechanical equipment  at critical sew-
age treatment or pumping units  should be
such that interruptions will  be minimized.
Wherever possible operations  should be auto-
matically  recorded on charts.  Examples of
the requirements which might be imposed,
depending upon the importance of the unit in
terms of water quality, include:
     (1)  Ample  capacity for storm  flows.
  (Storm water should ordinarily be excluded
  from the sanitary system.)
     (2)  Standby equipment  to  insure that
  treatment or pumping will not be inter-
  rupted because of damage to a single unit
  or to power failure.
     (3)  Instrumentation  of pumps  and
  equipment to allow the regulatory agency
  to determine that performance  standards
  have been met.  Examples  include:
       (a)  Recording scales to indicate rate
    of chlorine use.  Chlorine flow can be in-
    tegrated with hydraulic flow to establish
    a ratio.
       (b)  Liquid level recording  gauges in
    overflow channels of sewage treatment
    plants and wet wells of  lift stations to
    indicate  when  overflow takes  place.
    Charts  should be  dated  and  initialed
    by the  operator.   Gauges  should be
    calibrated  so  that  discharge  can be
    estimated.
       (c)  Automatic devices to warn of fail-
    ure or  malfunctioning at self-operated
    pumping stations or treatment plants.
     (4)  The effect of storm sewage can be
  calculated  by multiplying the total  esti-
  mated  flow by  the observed coliform con-
  tent.  The result can be expressed in terms
  of population equivalents  (coliform).
  Design and operation of equipment should
be such that closure provisions  should  not
have to be invoked  more than once per year
under ordinary circumstances.
  A closed safety area should be interposed
between the conditionally approved area and
the source of pollution. The size of such area
should be based on the  total time it would
take for the operating  agency  to detect a
failure, notify the  State   shellfish control
agency, and for the latter agency to stop shell-
fish harvesting.  It is recommended that the
area be of such size that the flow time through
the safety area be at least twice that required
for the notification process  to become  effec-
tive.  Due consideration should  be given to
the possibility that closure actions might be
necessary on holidays or at night.
  The type of marking which will be required
for conditionally approved  areas will vary
from State to State depending upon the legal
requirements for closing an area.
  The length of time a conditionally approved
area should  be closed following a temporary
closure will  depend upon several factors in-
cluding the  species of shellfish,  water tem-
perature, purification rates, presence of silt
or other chemicals that might interfere with
the physiological activity of the shellfish, and
the degree of pollution of the area.  (See sec-
tion D-l  of this manual for  additional infor-
mation  on   the   natural   purification  of
shellfish.)
  5. Restricted Areas.—An area may be clas-
sified  as restricted  when a  sanitary survey
indicates a limited degree of pollution which
would make it unsafe to harvest the shellfish
for direct  marketing.  Alternatively  the
States may classify such  areas as prohibited.
(See  section C-6, this manual.)   Shellfish
January 1950
                                        17

-------
from such areas may be marketed after puri-
fying or relaying as provided for in section D.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This  item will
be satisfied when the following water quality
ceriteria are met in areas designated by States
as restricted." 12
  a. The  area is so contaminated with fecal
materials that direct consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and/or
  b. The area is not so contaminated with
radionuclides or  industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous,
and/or
  c. The  coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 700 per 100 ml.  and not more
than  10 percent of  the  samples exceed  an
MPN of 2,300 per 100 ml. in those portions
of the areas  most probably exposed  to fecal
contamination during the  most  unfavora-
ble hydrographic and pollution  conditions.
(Note: this concentration might be exceeded
if less than 800,000 cubic feet of a coliform-
free dilution  water  are available for each
population equivalent  (coliform) of sewage
reaching the area.)
  d. Shellfish from restricted areas are not
marketed without controlled purification or
relaying.
  Public-health  explanation.—In  many  in-
stances it is  difficult to draw a clear line of
demarcation between polluted  a.nd non-pol-
luted areas.  In such instances the State may,
at  its option, classify areas of intermediate
sanitary quality  as  restricted and authorize
the use of the shellfish for relaying, or con-
trolled purification.
  6. Prohibited Areas.—An area shall be clas-
sified prohibited  if the sanitary survey indi-
cates that dangerous numbers of pathogenic
micro-organisms might reach an area.  The
taking of shellfish from such areas for direct
marketing shall  be prohibited.   Relaying or
other salvage operations shall be carefully
supervised to insure against polluted  shellfish
entering trade channels.  Coastal areas which
have not  been subjected to sanitary surveys
  11 It is not mandatory that States us this classification.  Areas
 not meeting the appro ml classification may be closed to all har-
 vesting for direct marketing.
  1L> Routine sanitary surveys and reappraisals of restricted areas
 shall be made on the same frequency as for approver! areas.  (See
 section C-l.)
shall be automatically classified as prohibited.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
  a. An area is  classified as prohibited if a
sanitary survey indicates either of the follow-
ing degrees of pollution:
     (1) The area is  so contaminated  with
  radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
  sumption of the shellfish might be hazard-
ous and/or
     (2) The median  coliform  MPN of the
  water exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than
  10 percent of the samples have a coliform
  MPN in  excess of  2,300  per  100  ml.
   (Note:  This   concentration  might  be
  reached if less than 800,000 cubic feet of a
  coliform-free dilution water are  available
  for each population equivalent (coliform)
  of sewage reaching the area.)
  b. No market shellfish are  taken from
prohibited areas except by special permit as
described in section D.
  c. Coastal areas in which sanitary surveys
have  not been made  shall be automatically
classified as prohibited.
  Public-health  explanation.—The  positive
relationship  between enteric disease and the
eating  of raw or partially  cooked shellfish
has been outlined in section C-l.  Prevention
of the  interstate transport  of  shellfish con-
taining sufficient numbers of pathogenic mi-
cro-organisms to cause  disease is a primary
objective of the Cooperative Program. There-
fore,  areas containing dangerous concentra-
tions of micro-organisms of fecal origin, or
areas  which may be  slightly contaminated
with fresh fecal discharges, should not be ap-
proved as a source of  shellfish for  direct
marketing.
  7. Closure  of  Areas  Due  to  Paralytic
Shellfish Poison.—The State shellfish control
agency shall regularly collect and assay rep-
resentative samples of shellfish from growing
areas where paralytic shellfish poison is likely
to occur.  If the poison content reaches 80
micrograms  per  100 grams of the edible por-
tions of raw shellfish meat, the area shall be
closed to the taking of the species of shellfish
in which the poison has been found.13  The
  13 This value is based on the results of epidemiological investi-
gations of outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poison in Canada in
19B4 and 1957 (38) (39).
 18
                                                                                   June 19U2

-------
harvesting of shellfish from such areas shall
be controlled in accord with the recommenda-
tions of sections E-l and E-2 of this manual.
  The quarantine shall remain in effect until
such time as the State shellfish control agency
is convinced the poison content of the shellfish
involved is below the quarantine  level.14
  Satisfactory compliance.—This  item  will
be satisfied when—
  a. The State  shellfish control  agency col-
lects and assays representative  samples  of
shellfish for the presence of paralytic shellfish
poison  from  each  suspected growing area
during the harvesting season.  (See section
B-2 for assay methods.)
  b. A quarantine  is  imposed  against the
taking of shellfish when the toxicity reaches
80 micrograms per  100 grams of the edible
portion of raw shellfish.
  Public-health explanation.—In some areas
paralytic poison is collected temporarily  by
bivalve shellfish from free-swimming,  one-
celled marine plants on which these shellfish
feed.  The  plants  flourish seasonally when
water conditions are favorable.
  1 * The provisions of this item apply only to shellfish which will
be marketed as a fresh or frozen product as properly controlled
heat processing will reduce the poison content of the shellfish.
  Cases  of  paralytic  poisoning,  including
several  fatalities, resulting  from  poisonous
shellfish  have been  reported from both  the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  The  minimum
quantity of poison which will cause intoxica-
tion in  a susceptible person is  not  known.
Epidemiological  investigations  of paralytic
shellfish poisoning in Canada have indicated
200 to 600 micrograms of poison will produce
symptoms in susceptible persons and a death
has been attributed to the ingestion of a prob-
able 480 micrograms of poison.  Investiga-
tions indicate that lesser amounts of the poi-
son  have  no deleterious effects  on humans.
Growing areas should  be  closed at a lower
toxicity level to provide an adequate margin
of safety since in many  instances toxicity
levels will change rapidly (38) (39).  It has
also been  shown  that the heat treatment af-
forded  in  ordinary  canning processes  re-
duces the  poison content of raw shellfish
considerably.
  A review of literature and research dealing
with the source of the poison, the occurrence
and distribution of poisonous shellfish, physi-
ology and  toxicology, characteristics of  the
poison, and prevention and control of poison-
ing has been prepared and  is obtainable from
the Public Health Service (40).
January 1959
                                        19

-------
                                     Section  D
       PREPARATION OF  SHELLFISH  FOR MARKETING
  1. Relaying.—State shellfish control agen-
cies  may approve  the  intra  or interstate
transplanting  of  market shellfish from  re-
stricted or prohibited areas to approved areas
subject to certain limitations.  All phases of
the operation  shall  be under the immediate
supervision of responsible State (s)  shellfish
control or patrol agency (s).  A memorandum
of understanding  shall be developed between
the agencies responsible for the control of in-
terstate relaying operations.  (Shellfish may
be transplanted from an approvei area to  an-
other like area at any time without restriction
due to sanitary reasons.)
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
  a.  Shellfish  are not relaid from restricted
or prohibited areas to approved areas without
written permission of the State shellfish con-
trol agency.
  b.  All  relaying operations are under  the
immediate supervision of the State shellfish
control or patrol  agency.  Supervision shall
be such  that no polluted shellfish are mar-
keted before the end of the approved relaying
period.   The supervising officer shall be  au-
thorized  and equipped to  enforce the State
regulations on relaying; shall actually super-
vise the harvesting, transport and relaying of
shellfish; and shall patrol the approved area
during the period that  shellfish  are under-
going the cleansing process.  However, direct
supervision will not be necessary if relaying
operations are carried out during  a  period
when shellfish may not be marketed. A con-
tinuous record of water temperature, salinity,
and any other critical variables must be main-
tained  when it is known  that the  limiting
values may be approached and when the mini-
mum relaying periods are being used.
  c.  State  permission  to  re-lay shellfish is
given only to responsible persons unless the
entire operation is under  direct supervision
by the State.  Responsibility shall, when pos-
sible, be determined by the past record of the
permit applicant. It is recommended that ap-
plicants  be required to post  performance
bonds.
  d.  Relaid shellfish are held in the approved
area for a period of time sufficient to allow
them to cleanse themselves of polluting bac-
teria.   (The  time required  for purification
will  be  determined by water  temperature,
salinity,  initial bacteriological quality and
species of shellfish.)
  e.  Relaid shellfish are not harvested with-
out written permission from the State shell-
fish control agency.
  f.  Areas designated for relaid shellfish are
so located and marked  that  they may  be
readily  identified by the harvesters and so
that  shellfish in any adjacent approved area
will not  be contaminated.   (This requirement
applies  only to relaying during the harvest-
ing season.)
  g.  Shellfish are not relayed intra or inter-
state from restricted or prohibited areas to
approved areas without  written permission
of the State (s) shellfish control agency (s).
(If shellfish are relayed interstate, a  memo-
randum  of agreement shall  be  developed
outlining the control measures to  be  used'.)
  Public-health explanation. — Shellfish
transplanted  from a polluted to a clean en-
vironment will cleanse  themselves of  the
polluting  bacteria.   This is a natural phe-
nomenon resulting from the shellfish feeding
processes.  Bacteria in the body  and  shell
cavity of the shellfish  at the time of trans-
20
                                                                                June 1962

-------
planting are either used as food or are ejected
in feces or pseudofeces.
  The length of time required for this cleans-
ing process is influenced by many factors in-
cluding original  level  of pollution, water
temperature, presence of chemicals inhibitory
to physiological activity of the shellfish, salin-
ity, and varying capabilities of the individual
animals.  Advice on limiting water tempera-
tures, either maximum or minimum, should
be obtained from local marine biologists.
  Investigations  by marine biologists  have
confirmed that the physiological activities of
the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is
reduced when the water temperature falls be-
low a certain value.  It has been found that
the pumping rate of Eastern oysters is re-
duced at water  temperatures below 50° F.,
and that  most animals stop pumping  at  a
water temperature of about 41° F.  However,
a few oysters show slight  activity at temper-
atures approaching 32° F. (41) (42).  This
phenomenon was first noted by shellfish bac-
teriologists who found that Eastern oysters
harvested from polluted  areas during cold
weather had coliform contents comparable
with those of oysters  harvested from clean
areas during warmer weather  (43)   (44)
(45).
  Gibbard, et al.  (46)  investigating temper-
ature-induced hibernation  was unable to dem-
onstrate coliforms in Eastern oysters within
a few days  after  the  water  temperatures
dropped to 32° F.  The rapidity with which
hibernating oysters  become active when the
water temperature rises above the threshold
value was discussed by Wachter (47) in  1925
and  was  demonstrated by Gibbard, et al.
(46).   The  latter  investigator found  that
contamination accompanying  a sudden two
degree increase  in  water  temperature from
41° to 43° F. was reflected in the oysters in
one day.
  Relaying operations must be carefully su-
pervised by an official State agency since the
shellfish   may  contain pathogenic  micro-
organisms.  Control must  apply to all phases
of the operation including initial harvesting,
transportation, replanting, purification pe-
riod, and final harvesting for marketing if the
relaying area is adjacent to a restricted area
or to an area containing relaid shellfish which
have not been released for harvesting.
  2. Controlled Purification.—Shellfish from
restricted or prohibited  areas may  be mar-
keted after  effective controlled  purification.
Purification shall be permitted only under the
immediate supervision of the State  shellfish
control agency.  Water used for purification
shall be of high bacteriological quality and its
physical and  chemical properties  shall be
favorable to maximum physiological activity
of the shellfish.  Stringent precautions shall
be taken by the State shellfish control agency
to insure that shellfish  harvested from re-
stricted or prohibited areas are actually sub-
mitted to an effective purification process be-
fore marketing.
  Purification of  shellfish  from prohibited
areas shall not be approved by the State un-
less relaying is  not practical for biological
reasons, and no public-health hazard will re-
sult from the use of such shellfish.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
  a. The  controlled purification system, in-
cluding water treatment,  has been demon-
strated to be consistently effective for  the
species of shellfish being purified.  Purifica-
tion may be accomplished in either a natural
body of water or in tanks.  (In  determining
the  effectiveness of the process  at  least the
following  factors  shall  be investigated:
Water temperature,  silt or turbidity, dis-
solved oxygen, presence of chemicals, and
time required for purification.)   The bacteri-
ological quality of the purified shellfish shall
be at least equal to shellfish of the same spe-
cies harvested from local  approved areas.
  b. A  purification  plant operating proce-
dure is developed and copies are supplied to
the Public Health Service.
  c.  Water  used for purification is obtained
from  an area  meeting the physical and bac-
teriological  requirements  of an approved
growing area, or in the case of treated water
the bacteriological  limits  of the Public Health
Service Drinking Water  Standards  (48)  are
met.  If water is  to  be  treated, it  shall be
obtained from an  area meeting  at  least the
sanitary requirements for  a restricted area.
  d.  Water  used for purification has chem-
.Tanuarv
                                                                                      21

-------
ical and physical characteristics conducive to
maximum physiological activity of the shell-
fish.  (Consideration shall  be given to the
following-:  Presence of chemicals, turbidity,
temperature, salinity and dissolved  oxygen,
and  to  the  adequacy  of  the facilities  of
the operating agency for measuring these
characteristics.)
  e. Shellfish are freed of contamination and
foreign  material adhering  to  shells before
purification.
  f. Shellfish are culled before and after
purification.
  g. Purification plant  operation is under
the administrative control of the State shell-
fish control agency.  Purification plants may
be operated by agencies other than the State;
however, insofar as the Cooperative Program
is concerned, the State is responsible for sat-
isfactory operation.
  h. Laboratory control is  maintained over
the purification operation.  Controls shall in-
clude at least the following: Daily or tidal-
cycle bacteriological quality of water; final
bacteriological quality for each lot of shellfish
purified; and, when they are critical factors,
hourly or continuous salinity determinations
and tidal-cycle turbidity determinations.
  i. The plant operator possesses a satisfac-
tory knowledge of the principles of water
treatment and bacteriology.
  j. Animals,  rodents,  and  unauthorized
persons are excluded from the plant.
  k. Plant employees fulfill the qualifications
for a shucker as described  in section B-28,
part II of this manual.
  1.  The State has  an effective  system for
assuring that shellfish harvested from re-
stricted areas will be submitted to purification
before marketing.  Shellfish harvesting from
prohibited areas for controlled  purification
shall be under the immediate supervision of
the State.
  m. Shellfish from prohibited areas are not
subjected  to purification  unless the State
shellfish control agency can show that relay-
ing or depletion  is not biologically feasible;
and that no  public-health hazard will result
from the use of such shellfish.
  Public-health  explanation.—The ability of
shellfish to purify themselves in  clean water
was discovered early in the 1900's.  The bio-
logical process is reasonably well understood
and is described by Arcisz and Kelly (26) as
follows:
  "Purification  is a mechanical  process ef-
fected by the physiological functioning of the
shellfish  in clean water.  When shellfish are
feeding,  the gills act as a filter to strain out
some  of the material that may be brought in
by the water which passes through them. If
this water  contains  sewage,  some  of the
micro-organisms in it are entrapped in the
mucus on the body of the shellfish and trans-
ferred to the alimentary tract. Some of these
are perhaps utilized  as food (49) and the
others discharged from the body in the form
of  feces and pseudofeces.  When shellfish
from  polluted water are placed in clean water,
the sewage bacteria are eliminated from the
shellfish, and,  since no more are ingested,
purification is accomplished."
  The purification  process has been investi-
gated extensively in England  and to a lesser
extent in the United States and Canada (50)
 (51)   (52).   The  technique  is reliable  if
proper methods are used, and insofar as is
known, is applicable to all commercial species
of shellfish.
  Many  of the earlier investigators suggested
that  purification be  accomplished in tanks
using water which had been  subjected  to a
treatment process  (52).   The analogy with
water treatment was carried  to the point of
recommending a chlorine residual in the puri-
fication  tanks.  However, fishery biologists
have  shown that  shellfish pumping  is  de-
creased or inhibited by even small quantities
of chlorine  (53)  (54).  The inhibitory effect
of  chlorinated-dechlorinated water on activ-
ity of Eastern oysters has been noted by the
Public Health  Service  Shellfish  Sanitation
Laboratory.
  Since  purification depends upon the pump-
ing rate of  the shellfish, it is  important that
the water  be free  of chemicals  or physical
characteristics  which might  interfere with
this activity.  For  example, silt or dissolved
organic  substances may influence the pump-
ing rates of shellfish  (55) (56).  The rela-
tionship of water  temperature to pumping
rates has been mentioned previously.
22
                                                                               January 1959

-------
  Shellfish purification facilities have gener-
ally been considered to include holding tanks
and  water treatment facilities  (57)  (58) ;
however, investigations in Canada and Eng-
land have demonstrated that purification can
be accomplished  with relatively simple in-
stallations if the  operation  is  supervised
properly (59) (50)  (60)  (61).  Accordingly,
any purification process of proven effective-
ness will be  accepted by  the Cooperative
Program.
  Administrative control of the purification
process is necessary to insure that shellfish
are properly washed and culled, are held for
the required length of time, and that the puri-
fication water supply is properly controlled.
January 1959
                                        23

-------
                                      Section E
       CONTROL OF HARVESTING FROM  CLOSED  AREAS
  1. Identification of Closed Areas.—Shell-
fish harvesters shall be notified by direct no-
tice and warning signs of areas closed to har-
vesting.  Closed areas shall be  so marked or
described that they may be easily recognized
by the harvesters.  The measures necessary
to accomplish delineation and notification will
vary with the structure of the  local shellfish
industry and with the legal requirements of
each State.
  Satisfactory  compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
  a. The boundaries of the closed areas are
marked by fixed  objects or landmarks  in a
manner which permits successful prosecution
of any violations  of the  closed aieas.
  b. Shellfish harvesters are notified of the
location of closed areas by publication or  di-
rect notification  (such  as registered mail)
and by warning  signs  posted  at points  of
access to each closed area.  The; method of
notification and identification should permit
the successful prosecution of persons harvest-
ing shellfish from the closed areas.  (The lim-
iting  of shellfish  harvesting permits to spe-
cific areas is an alternative to posting or  noti-
fication.  Where such a system is used, post-
ing will be required only for closed areas
which contain market shellfish.)
  Public-health- explanation.—Previous sec-
tions  of this manual  have  described  the
public-health reasons for  limiting shellfish
harvesting to areas free of contamination and
paralytic shellfish poison.  Methods have been
described  for the evaluation and classifica-
tion of such areas. However, classification is
not effective unless the State car prevent ille-
gal  harvesting of shellfish for direct market-
ing from these closed areas.
  For the most part, control of  illegal  har-
vesting depends upon the police' activities as
described in section E-2.  However, adequate
delineation of the closed areas is fundamental
to effective patrol.
  The type of area identification will be de-
termined by the structure of the local shellfish
industry.   Posting a  warning  sign  is  one
method of informing shellfish harvesters that
an area is closed to the taking of shellfish for
public-health reasons.  However, if the local
shellfish  industry  is highly organized, with
shellfish being harvested by only a few opera-
tors, identification may be accomplished by
officially  informing the harvesters  that  cer-
tain areas are closed to the taking of shellfish.
It is  recommended  that the advice  of  the
State's legal counsel be obtained to insure that
the marking of closed areas and notifications
to shellfish harvesters are such that illegal
harvesting can be  prosecuted successfully.
  2. Prevention of  Illegal  Harvesting of
Shellfish From Closed Areas.—Closed grow-
ing areas shall be patrolled  by a State agency
to prevent illegal  harvesting.  The patrol
force shall be so equipped that its officers  will
be able to apprehend persons taking shellfish
from closed areas.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item  will
be satisfied when—
  a. There is no evidence  that shellfish  are
being harvested from closed  areas except by
special permit as required  to meet local con-
ditions.
  b. Closed shellfish  growing areas are  pa-
trolled by representatives of an official agency,
due consideration being given to night, week-
end and holiday patrols.   (States may dele-
gate patrol activities to local organizations;
however,  responsibility for effective control
will remain  with  the State insofar  as  the
Cooperative Program is concerned.
  c. Patrol forces are so equipped  that per-
sons observed in closed areas may be appre-
hended.
  d. Complete records of  patrol  activities,
including violations and court  actions,  are
maintained in the  central office of the State
shellfish control or patrol agency.  It will be
24
                                                                              January 1959

-------
the responsibility of the State to include local
patrol activities in these records.   (See sec-
tion  A, subsection 2 (e) regarding monthly
summaries of patrol activities.)
  Public-health explanation.—The primary
objective of the Cooperative Program is to
insure that shellfish will be harvested only
from areas which are free of dangerous con-
centrations  of pathogenic micro-organisms,
industrial or radioactive wastes, or paralytic
shellfish poison.
  Growing areas may be classified as to their
public-health suitability for shellfish harvest-
ing on the basis of information obtained by
sanitary and toxicological  surveys.   How-
ever, if local shellfish harvesters are not con-
vinced of the need for restrictions, shellfish
may  be harvested  surreptitiously  from the
closed areas.  Thus, patrol failure may nul-
lify  the public-health safeguards  resulting
from sanitary survey activities.
  The fact that law prohibits the removal of
shellfish from certain  areas will deter most
persons  from  attempting to  harvest such
shellfish provided  they are aware of the law
and of the areas which are closed.  However,
local public opinion may not support the need
for such closures.  In such cases favorable
opinion  can  probably  be  developed only
through an educational program  or a  locally
demonstrated need such  as an epidemic or
outbreak  of  paralytic  shellfish  poisoning.
There is also  a minority element not con-
cerned  with  the welfare  of their customers
and who, through ignorance or purpose, will
attempt to circumvent the harvesting restric-
tions.
  Patrols must, therefore, be directed against
three classes of individuals; i. e., those who
are ignorant of the law, those who believe the
law is unjust or unreasonable, and those who
have no regard for the law.
  Several  mechanisms  for  improving the
effectiveness of patrols include  educational
programs  to  acquaint shellfish  harvesters
with  the public-health reasons for the clos-
ures, elimination of the "temptation element"
by  depletion, and  relaying or purification.
Apprehension, prosecution,  and punishment
of violators is a final resort.
  The type of patrol organization needed for
any particular situation cannot be specified
and is determined by the nature of areas to
be patrolled,  means  of  access, methods  of
harvesting,  and species.  Patrol equipment
should be such that the officers can apprehend
persons harvesting shellfish in a closed area.
Necessary  equipment might  include  patrol
boats capable of operating  in open  waters;
small, high-speed,  readily transportable
boats, or patrol automobiles.  In many in-
stances, two-way radio will be helpful in co-
ordinating  patrol activities.
  Organization  of the patrol activity must
take into consideration the need for  night,
weekend,   holiday,  and  surprise  patrols.
Either nuisance or continual  patrol may be
used depending  on the nature of the area to
be patrolled and the type of industry.
  The adequacy of State laws as a basis for
prosecution is an important component of this
activity.  Shellfish patrol will  probably  be
ineffective  if State laws are so written or
interpreted that violators cannot be  success-
fully prosecuted, or if penalties are so small
that they are economically unimportant. The
latter point  may  be  important in an area
where local public opinion does not  support
the need for the restriction.
  3. Depletion of  Closed  Areas.—The State
shellfish control  or patrol agency shall  super-
vise all depletion operations.  All market-size
shellfish and as  many of  the smaller size as
can be gathered by reasonable methods shall
be removed in the initial depletion operation.
Depletion of each area shall be carried out at
intervals to prevent the development of mar-
ket-sized shellfish.
  Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
  a. The  State shellfish control  or  patrol
agency exercises direct supervision over each
depletion project including patrol of the area
in which the shellfish are relaid.  (See section
D-l.)
  b. All market shellfish and as many of the
smaller size shellfish  as  can be gathered  by
reasonable  methods are removed in the deple-
tion operation.
  c. Similar supervised depletion operations
January 1959
                                                                                       25

-------
are carried  out  at intervals to prevent de-
velopment of market-sized shellfish in quanti-
ties which would make commercial  harvest-
ing economically practicable in the  depleted
areas.
  Public-health  explanation.—Complete re-
moval of shellfish from polluted to clean areas
under  appropriate  precautions is the best
safeguard  against  contaminated  shellfish
reaching the market. In some cases depletion
may be more economical and effective than
patrol of closed areas.
                                   Appendix  A

      BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA  OF  SHELLFISH  AND
                            SHELLFISH  WATERS
  The bacteriological examination of shellfish
and shellfish growing waters is important in
evaluating the sanitary quality of the aquatic
environment;  the  sanitary  quality of  the
shellfish as harvested; and, the changes in the
sanitary quality of shellfish which occur dur-
ing harvesting, shucking-packing, and mar-
keting.
  Section C of this manual outlines the pro-
cedures to be followed in evaluting the sani-
tary quality of an  area.  The objective data
obtained through bacteriological examination
of water  samples is frequently indispensable
in making  such evaluations.  However, the
statistical and biological factors which influ-
ence bacteriological  results  must be recog-
nized and understood if valid interpretation
of results is to be obtained.  The purpose of
this  appendix is to describe some of these
factors as they are understood in 1958, and
to mention  some additional sources of infor-
mation.
  Shellfish will generally reflect the bacterio-
logical quality of the water in which they have
grown.   However,  this relationship is ap-
parently not sufficiently constant to permit
development  of  a  uniform  bacteriological
standard which could be applied to all species
of shellfish.  For example, the soft shell clam
(Mya arenaria) shows a consistently higher
coliform content than do other species har-
vested from areas of like sanitary quality.
Similarly, Eastern  oysters harvested from
South Atlantic and Gulf areas have a higher
coliform content than those from the Middle
Atlantic States.1"'  Seasonal variation is also
pronounced (2).  Table 1 demonstrates some
of these variations.
 15 The geographic subdivisions used coincide with those used in
"Fishery Statistics of the United States," Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, U. S. Department of the Interior.
26
                                                                            January 1959

-------
  The bacteriological quality of Eastern oys-
ters harvested from the North and Middle
Atlantic regions has been well investigated.
Oysters as harvested from approved areas in
these two regions should not  ordinarily ex-
ceed a coliform MPN of 230 per 100 grams of
shellfish meats although a few samples may
approach or exceed 2,400 per 100 grams.  If
this latter  value is exceeded in two consecu-
tive  samples,  the  State  shellfish control
agency should investigate to  determine the
probable cause.
  Eastern  oysters  harvested from Chesa-
peake Bay, South Atlantic or  Gulf  States
cannot be expected  to  meet  routinely this
standard of 230  per 100 grams even though
harvested from water of like sanitary quality.
This  has been demonstrated in papers pre-
sented by Wilson and McClesky (62)  and in
the discussions at the 1956 and 1958 Shellfish
Sanitation Workshops (2)  (3).
  The data contained in table II shows coli-
form contents of oysters  (Crassostrea vir-
ginica)  as  harvested from  areas of  high
sanitary quality  on the Gulf coast.
  On the basis of these data, oysters as har-
vested from Gulf areas might ordinarily have
a coliform MPN of less than 2,400/100 grams.
However, if this value  is  exceeded in two
consecutive samples,  the State shellfish con-
trol agency should undertake an investigation
to determine the probable cause.
  The bacteriological quality of hard clams
(Mercenaria  mercenaries)  harvested  from
the New England and Middle Atlantic States
has also been thoroughly investigated and the
relationship  seems  well  established  (20).
The findings of many State investigations are
supported by Public Health Service Shellfish
Sanitation Laboratory findings as shown in
table  I and which indicate the limiting coli-
form  MPN's described  for  Eastern oysters
from  the New  England  and Middle Atlantic
States are also applicable to hard clams har-
vested, from similar areas. It is not known if
similar bacterial results  could be expected in
hard  clams harvested from Chesapeake Bay
or South Atlantic States.
  The bacteriology of soft shell clams  (Mya
arenaria) has  also been investigated exten-
sively in the Canadian  Maritime  Provinces
and the  New England and  Middle Atlantic
States.   Data indicate that the limit of 230
cannot always be met in the case of soft clams
harvested from approved areas and also that
they  will consistently have  higher coliform
MPN's than oysters or hard clams harvested
from  the same area  (2).   Preliminary in-
vestigations by the Maryland Department of
Health  indicate high coliform  MPN's  are
                                          TABLE I
                   Average Shellfish Coliform MPN's for Various Applied Water MPN's
Water temperature
Less than 8° C
8°-17° C
20°-23° C

Species
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters - . -
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters

Average shellfish MPN
Average water MPN's
20
380
76
26
350
120
130
375
84
37
70
930
170
64
980
320
450
833
220
190
250
2,300
370
160
2,800
840
1.600
1,900
560
960
700
4,800
710
340
6.500
1,900
4,700
3.600
1,200
3,600
1,000
6,200
890
450
8,700
2 500
6,800
4,500
1,600
5,800
   Source: Bacteriological Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market Shellfish; C. B. Kelly; Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop; Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., 1956.
   Note: This data is based on experiments conducted at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and may not be directly applicable to other regions.
January 1959
                                                                                        27
    647036 O - 62 - 3

-------
found in soft clams harvested from the rela-
tively warm water  of  Chesapeake  Bay  al-
though the water quality is high and the areas
are free of pollution  (2).  If a coliform MPN
of 2,400/100 grams of soft-clam meats is ex-
ceeded in two successive samples of clams as
harvested from approved areas  the State
shellfish  control agency should investigate to
determine the probable cause.
   Studies on the  bacteriological quality of
mussels harvested from approved areas in the
Canadian Maritime Provinces, New England,
and the  Middle  Atlantic  States  indicate
that the  water  to shellfish coliform relation-
ships are similar to  those described  for soft
shell  clams.   However, mussels may  have
somewhat higher MPN's than other  shellfish
species harvested from like areas.
   It is  emphasized  that the foregoing bac-
teriological relationships apply only  to shell-
fish at the time of removal from the  growing
areas and not to shell stock in storage for any
appreciable  period  of  time,  or to  shucked
shellfish.
   The influence of  shucking,  packing,  and
storage on the  bacteriological quality of the
shucked  product  has been  recognized for
years. One investigator has reported a posi-
tive correlation between plant sanitation or
operating practices  and the standard  plate
count of the product (63).
   The Canadian  Department  of  National
Health and Welfare  in 1950 pointed  out that
most of  the United  States shucked  Eastern
oysters  sold in Canada had high  coliform
MPN's, high standard plate counts,  or  both.
They reported that  of  77  shipments  of
shucked  Eastern  oysters from the United
States, 44.2 percent  had a coliform  MPN of
less than 230 while 41.5 percent had  coliform
MPN's  in excess of 16,000 per  100 grams.
These results,  when interpreted  in accord
with the 1946 Manual of Recommended Prac-
tice for Sanitary Control  of the Shellfish In-
dustry indicated the  oysters were from a pol-
luted source or had  been grossly mishandled
(64).
   The significance of these results  was dis-
cussed at the 1950 meeting of the Canadian
Interdepartmental Shellfish Committee.  On
the basis of limited  information on the sani-
                  TABLE II
Coliform MPN's of Oysters Sampled at Time of Harvesting
 Coliform MPN per 100 gms. meats
 Percent of
 Samples l in
Stated Group
Less than 230	
Less than 2,400...
Less than 24,000. _
Less than 160,000.
          63
          90
          97
         100
 i No. of Samples, 30.
 Source: Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop; Bacterio-
logical Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market
Shellfish, Kelly, C. B.

tary quality of similar shellfish  sold on the
American markets, it was decided to establish
an  interim  bacteriological  standard  for
shucked Eastern oysters sold in Canada. This
standard was based on the premise that an
increase in the bacteria content  of market
shellfish was unavoidable.   Adoption of this
interim standard  by Canada resulted in a
significant improvement in the sanitary qual-
ity of shucked oysters imported from the
United States (2).
  In  1950  the Public Health  Service, in co-
operation with the Government of Canada
and several State health departments, investi-
gated  the bacteriological changes occurring
during the  processing and shipment  of oys~
ters from Chesapeake Bay to selected market
areas.  The study demonstrated a marked
deterioration  in bacteriological  quality dur-
ing shucking and shipment to market (65).
  In 1954 and 1955 the Virginia Department
of Health  also investigated the changes in
bacteriological quality  which took place in
oysters during shucking and packing (2). It
was found that in the  winter months about
two-third of the samples of shell oysters had
coliform MPN's of 230 or less per 100 grams.
However,  during  the summer  months few
samples were under 230/100 grams and only
25  percent  were below 2,400.  On the "as
packed" product during the  winter months
10  percent of the samples had a coliform
MPN of 230 or less, 50 percent were 2,400 or
less, 75 percent were 9,000 or  less,  and 90
percent were  below 24,000 (2).
  The bacterial changes taking  place during
the harvesting and processing of oysters in
28
                                                                               January 1959

-------
the Gulf States has been investigated by the
Public  Health  Service Shellfish  Sanitation
Laboratory in  cooperation with  the States
 (2)   (3).  These studies have shown:  (1)
oysters as harvested in the Gulf States are of
higher  coliform content than are those har-
vested from areas of like  sanitary quality in
New  England  and  Middle Atlantic States;
 (2)  a  significant increase in  the  coliform
content may  take place in the shell oyster
prior to shucking;  and (3)  an increase in
bacteria content takes place during shucking.
These results are  shown in table III.
   Results  obtained in  these  bacteriological
studies of  shellfish  harvesting,  shucking-
packing and marketing were reviewed at the
1956  Shellfish Sanitation Workshop (2).  In
recognition of the data presented, the 1956
Workshop recommended the  temporary use
of an  "Acceptable,"  "Acceptable-on-Condi-
tion,"  and "Rejectable"  classification based
on  a  combined  coliform  MPN—standard
plate count index of quality for shucked East-
ern oysters as marketed.  The 1956 Workshop
also recommended  that  the  Public Health
Service and  the interested States undertake
a cooperative study  of  the  bacteriological
quality of shucked  Eastern oysters shipped
from  Chesapeake Bay  to  New  York  and
Canadian markets.  Such a cooperative study
was undertaken by the interested State and
Federal agencies in the fall of 1956.
  The results of this two-year  study were dis-
cussed at the 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop  (
-------
                                           References
 1. Jensen, E. T.:  The 1954 National Conference on
   Shellfish Sanitation, Public Health Reports, vol.
   70, No. 9, Sept. 1955.
 2. Proceedings—1956 Shellfish  Sanitation  Work-
   shop, mimeographed, Public Health Service, 1956.
 3. Proceedings—1958 Shellfish  Sanitation  Work-
   shop, lithographed, Public Health Service, 1958.
 4. Woodward, Richard  L.:  How Probable  Is the
   Most  Probable Number?  Journal,  American
   Water Works Association, vol. 49, No. 8; 1060-
   1068; August 1957.
 5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Sew-
   age and  Industrial  Wastes, American  Public
   Health Association.
 6. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
   of the Ohio  River, Public  Health Bulletin,  No.
   143, July 1924.
 7. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
   of the Ohio  River, Public  Health Bulletin,  No.
   204, May 1933.
 8. Phelps, Earl B.: Stream Sanitation, John Wiley
   and Sons, Inc., New York, 1944.
 9. Report on Committee on Sanitary Control of the
   Shellfish Industry in  the  United  States, Supple-
   ment No. 53, Public Health Reports, Nov. 6,1925.
10. Orlob,  Gerald   T.: Evaluating   Bacterial  Con-
   tamination in Sea Water Samples, Public  Health
   Reports, Vol. 71,  No.  12, Deceirber 1956.
11. Schantz,  E. J.:  Purified  Shellfish Poison  for
   Bioassay Standardization, Journal of the Associa-
   tion of Official  Agricultural Che-nists,  Feb. 1958.
12. McFarren, E. P., et al.: Chemical Determination
   of Paralytic Shellfish Poison in  Clams, Journal
   of the Association of  Official Agricultural Chem-
   ists, Feb. 1958.
13. Fisher, L. M., Chairman: Report of the Commit-
   tee of the Public Health Engineering  Section of
   the American Public Health Association,  Ameri-
   can Journal  of Public Health, £'7, 180-196,  Sup-
   plement, March 1937.
14. Old,  H. N.  and Gill, S, L.:  A  Typhoid Fever
   Epidemic Caused by Carrier Bootlegging Oysters,
   American Journal of  Public Health, 30: 633-640,
   June 1940.
15. Hart, J. C.: Typhoid Fever  from Clams,  Con-
   necticut Health Bulletin, December 1945.
16. Roos,  Bertil: Hepatitis Epidemic Conveyed by
   Oysters, Svenska Lakartidningen, vol.  53,  No. 16,
   989-1003, 1956.  (Translation e.vailable from the
   Public Health  Service.)
17. Lindberg-Broman, Ann Mari: Clinical Observa-
   tions in the  So-Called Oyster Hepatitis,  Svenka
   Lakartidningen, vol.  53, No. 16, 1003-9, 1956.
    (Translation available from  the Public  Health
   Service.)
18. Meyers, K. F.: Medical  Progress—Food Poison-
   ing, New England Journal of Medicine, 249: 765-
    773, 804-812 and 843-852 (Nov.  5, 12 and 19)
    1953.
19.  Lumsden, L. L., Hasseltine, H. E., Leak, J. P., and
    Veldee, M. V.: A  Typhoid Fever Epidemic Caused
    by Oyster-Borne Infection,  Public Health Re-
    ports, supp. No.  50, 1925.
20.  A Report on the  Public Health Aspects of Clam-
    ming in Raritan  Bay, Public Health Service, re-
    issued June 1954.
21.  Dack, G. M.:  Food Poisoning, third edition; the
    University of Chicago Press, 1956.
22.  Greenberg, Arnold E.: Survival of Enteric Or-
    ganisms in Sea  Water, Public Health Reports,
    vol. 71, No. 1, January 1956.
23.  An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine
    Outfall Disposal  of Sewage and Sludge, Publica-
    tion  No. 14,  California State Water Pollution
    Control  Board, 1956.
24.  Harris,  Eugene  K.: On the  Probability of Sur-
    vival of Bacteria in Sea Water, Biometrics, June
    1958.
25.  Wood, P. C.: Factors Affecting the Pollution and
    Self-Purification  of Molhiscan Shellfish, Extrait
    du Journal du Conseil International Pour 1'Ex-
    ploration de la Mer, vol. XXII, No. 2,  1957.
26.  Arcisz, William  and  Kelly, C. B.:  Self-Purifica-
    tion  of  the Soft Clam, Mya arenaria,  Public
    Health  Reports,  vol.  70, No.  6;  605-614, June
    1955.
27.  Investigation of Pollution  of Tidal Waters of
    Maryland and Virginia, Public Health  Bulletin
    No. 74,  1916.
28.  Investigation of  the Pollution of Certain  Tidal
    Waters  of New Jersey, Neiv  York and Delaware,
    Public Health  Bulletin No. 86, 1917.
29.  Mood, Eric W.: First  Typhoid Case  in Seven
    Years, Monthly Report of the New Haven, Conn.,
    Department of Health, December  1948.
30.  Bidwell, Milton H., and Kelly, C.  B.: Ducks and
    Shellfish Sanitation, American Journal of Public
    Health,  vol. 40, No. 8, August 1950.
31.  Effects  of Atomic Radiation  on  Oceanography
    and  Fisheries,  Publication  No.  551,  National
    Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
    1957.
32.  Gong, J. K., et al.: Uptake  of Fission Products
    and Neutron-Induced Radionuclides by the Clam,
    Proceedings of  the Society for  Experimental
    Biology and Medicine, vol. 95, 451-454, 1957.
33.  Radioactive Contamination of Certain Areas in
    the Pacific Ocean  From Nuclear  Tests, United
    States Atomic Energy Commission, August 1957.
34.  Weiss, H.  V., and  Shipman, W.  H.:  Biological
    Concentration by Killer Clams of  Cobalt-60 from
    Radioactive Fallout, Science, vol. 125, No. 3250,
    April 1957.
30
                                        June 1962

-------
35. Atomic  Energy, Federal Register, January  29,
    1957.
36. Maximum Permissible Amounts of Radioisotopes
    in  the Human Body and Maximum Permissible
    Concentrations in Air and Water, Handbook  52,
    National Bureau of Standards, March 1953.
37. Water Quality Survey of Hampton Roads Shell-
    fish Areas, Virginia State Department of Health
    and U. S.  Public Health Service, 1950.
38. Tennant, A. D., Naubert, J., and Corbeil, H. E.:
    An Outbreak of  Paralytic  Shellfish Poisoning,
    the Canadian Medical  Association  Journal, 72:
    436-439, 1955.
39. Proceedings—1957  Conference   on   Paralytic
    Shellfish Poison, mimeographed;  Public Health
    Service, 1958.
40. McFarren, E. P., et al: Public Health Signifi-
    cance of Paralytic Shellfish Poison—A Review of
    Literature and  Unpublished Research, Proceed-
    ing, National Shellfisheries Association, 1955.
41. Galtsoff, P. S.: Biology of the Oyster in Relation
    to Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health,
    vol. 26, 245-247, 1936.
42. Loosanoff, V. L.: Some Aspects of Behavior of
    Oysters  at  Different  Temperatures, Biological
    Bulletin, vol. 114, No. 1, 57-70, 1958.
43. Gage, S. DeM., and Gorham, P.: Self-Purification
    of  Oysters During Hibernation, American Jour-
    nal of Public Health, December 1925.
44. Gumming, Hugh S.: Investigation  of the  Pollu-
    tion and  Sanitary  Conditions  of  the Potomac
    Watershed with Special Reference to Self-Purifi-
    cation and the Sanitary Condition of Shellfish in
    the Lower Potomac River, U. S. Public Health
    Service, Hygienic  Labortory Bulletin No. 104,
    February  1916.
45. Fisher,  L. M., and Acker, J. E.:  Bacteriological
    Examinations of Oysters and Water from Narra-
    gansett  Bay During the  Winter  and Spring in
    1927-28, Public Health Reports, vol. 50, No.  42,
    October  18, 1935.
46. Gibbard, James, et al.:  Effect of Hibernation on
    Content  of Coliform Bacteria in Oysters, Ameri-
    can Journal of  Public  Health, vol. 32, 979-986,
    September 1942.
47. Wachter,  L. M.:  The Laboratory  Aspects  of
    Oyster   Pollution, American Journal of Public
    Health,  15, 1066-68, 1925.
48. Public Health Service  Drinking  Water Stand-
    ards, Public Health Reports, vol. 61,  No.  11,
    March 15, 1946.
49. ZoBell,  C. E., and Landon, W.  A.:  Bacterial
    Nutrition  of the  California Mussel,  Proc. Soc.
    Exper. Biol. and Med., 36, 113-116, 1936.
50. Wood, P.  C.: The  Cleansing of  Oysters, Public
    Health,  February, 1957.
51. Erdman, I. E., Kelly, J. M., and Tennant, A. D.:
    1954 Clam Cleansing Studies (Mya), Manuscript
    Report,  Fish Inspection Laboratories,  No.  55-1,
    Canada  Department of Fisheries.
52.  Messer,  R., and Reece, G. M.: Progress in Oyster
    Conditioning With Report of Experiments at the
    Demonstration Plant, Norfolk, Va., Public Health
    Reports, Reprint No. 1870.  1451-1460, 1937.
53.  Galtsoff, Paul S.: Reaction of Oysters to Chlorin-
    ation, Research Report  11, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, 1946.
54.  Sandholzer, L. A., and  Buckner, C. R.: Bacterio-
    logical Studies of Oyster Conditioning, Commer-
    cial Fisheries Review, 9, 7-11,  1947.
55.  Loosanoff, V. L., and Tommers, F. S.  The Effect
    of  Suspended Silt and  Other Substances on the
    Rate of Feeding of Oysters, Science, 107, 69, 1948.
56.  Collier, Albert, et al.: Effect of Dissolved Organic
    Substances on Oysters,  Fishery Bulletin 84, Fish
    and Wildlife Service, 1953.
57.  Vilela, H.: Oysters in  Consumption and in the
    National Economy,  publication  18, Council of
    Studies  of  Fisheries, Separate from Bulletin of
    Fisheries No. 43, Lisbon, Portugal, 1954. (Trans-
    lation available from the Public Health Service).
58.  Report of the Special Corn-mission  Established To
    Make an  Investigation and Study  Relative to
    Edible Shellfish and Shellfish Chlorinating Plants,
    the Commonwealth of  Massachusetts,  December
    1947.
59.  Swansburg, K. B., and Mullan, M. W.: Studies in
    the Self-Cleansing of Quahougs  (Venus merce-
    naria, L.), manuscript report 57-2.   Canada De-
    partment of Fisheries, 1957.
60.  Cole,  H. A.: Purification  of Oysters in Simple
    Pits, Fishery Investigations, series II, vol. XVIII,
    No. 5, Ministry  of Agriculture  and  Fisheries,
    London, 1954.
61.  Reynolds, Nial:  A Simplified System of Mussel
    Purification,  Fishery Investigations,  series  II,
    vol. XX, No. 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fish-
    eries, London, 1956.
62.  Wilson,  Thomas E., and McClesky, C. S.: Indices
    of Pollution in Louisiana Oysters, Food Research,
    16, 313,  1951.
63.  Kelly, C. B.: Proceeding, National Shellfisheries
    Association, 19^2.
64.  Manual  of Recommended  Practice for Sanitary
    Control of the Shellfish  Industry, publication No.
    33, Public Health Service, 1946.
65.  Kelly, C.  B. and Arcisz,  Wm.:  Bacteriological
    Control  of Oysters During Processing  and Mar-
    keting, Public Health  Reports, Vol. 69; No. 8,
    August  1954.
66.  McFarren,  Earl  F.: Report  on  Collaborative
    Studies  on the  Bioassay  for Paralytic Shellfish
    Poison,  Journal of the Association of Official
    Agricultural Chemists,  February  1959.
67.  Proceedings—1961 Shellfish Sanitation  Workshop,
    Lithographed, Public Health  Service. 1962.
June 1962
                                              31

-------

-------
                                                INDEX
                                              Page
Approved areas:
    bacteriological quality	     13
    bacteriological quality of shellfish from__  27, 28
    classification  	     11
    definition 	     13
    industrial wastes	     13
    radioactive materials	     14
    relationship to sewage treatment	     15
    sanitary survey	     11
Bacteriological:
    content of hibernating shellfish	     22
    control of purification	.—     23
    die out	10,17
    examination of growing water	     10
    frequency of water sampling	     10
    influence of shucking-packing and storage
      on bacterial quality of shellfish	     27
    most probable numbers	.	   2,10
    procedures	      8
    quality of hard clams	     27
    quality of mussels	     28
    quality of oysters	     27
    quality of shucked market oysters	     28
    quality of soft clams	     27
    relationship of sewage treatment to water
      quality 	     15
    shellfish-water relationship	     25
Certificates, shipper	      6
Classification of growing areas	11,13
Coliform group, definitions	      3
Conditionally approved areas:
    boundary marketing	  15,17
    definition	     14
    discussion	     15
    establishment of performance standards-     14
    in harbors	     16
    near resort areas	     16
    performance standards	     16
    records	     15
    relationship to river discharge	     16
    safety zones	15,17
    water  quality  requirements	     14
Controlled  purification :
    administrative control	     21
    definition 	      3
    discussion	     22
    laboratory control	     22
    use of shellfish from restricted or  pro-
      hibited areas	     21
    water  quality required	     21
Cooperative program :
    application to growing areas	      5
    application to  handlers	      5
    application to harvesters	      5
    definition  	      3
    history 	      3
Closed areas:
    depletion of	     24
    marking of boundaries	15,17, 23
    notification to harvesters	     23
    use of shellfish	20,21
Definitions	      3
Depletion of closed areas	     24
Die-out of bacteria	10,17
                                              Page
Disease from shellfish	9,13,19
Growing areas, definitions	      3
Hibernation  of shellfish	     21
Industrial wastes:
    in approved  areas	     13
    in prohibited areas	     18
    in restricted areas	     18
Infectious hepatitis from shellfish	     13
Intrastate sale of shellfish	      7
Laboratory:
    bacteriological procedures	      8
    chemical and physical procedures	      8
    control of purification	     22
    toxicological procedures	      8
Laws and regulations:
    classification of growing areas	      4
    control of  illegal harvesting	      4
    general  requirements	      4
    harvesting  permits	      4
    relationship  to patrol	23,24
Most probable number—see bacteriological.
Paralytic shellfish poison:
    closure of  areas	     18
    collection and assay of samples	     18
    discussion	     19
    in approved  areas	     12
    laboratory examination for	      8
    quarantine level	  18,19
Patrol:
    equipment  required	     24
    frequency	     23
Need:
    shellfish  for purification	     22
    records	     23
    relationship to State laws	     24
    relaying	     20
Prohibited areas :
    bacteriological quality	     18
    depletion of	.	     24
    establishment of	     18
    identification  and marking	     23
    patrol  of	23,24
    radioactive materials in__,	     18
    use of shellfish from	18,21,24
Radioactive materials:
    in growing areas	     13
    in shellfish	     14
    maximum permissible concentrations	     14
Records :
    court actions	  5,23
    operation of conditionally approved areas,     14
    patrol activities	  5,23
    plant inspection	      5
    purification plant operation	     22
    relaying	     20
    sanitary  surveys	5,9,11
Relaying:
    from restricted or prohibited areas	     20
    marking  and identification of  relaying
      areas	     20
    permission for	     20
    supervision of	     20
June 1!M>!>
                                               33

-------
                                              Page
Repackers:
    inspection	      6
    records of inspection	      6
    requirements for certification	      5
    sanitary rating	     29
Restricted areas:
    bacteriological quality of	     18
    depletion of	     24
    establishment of	     17
    fecal contamination of	     18
    patrol  of	     23
    radioactive materials in	     18
    use  of  shellfish from	18,21,24
Sanitary surveys:
    content  of	      9
    definition 	      3
    frequency required	.	,	      9
    purpose	     10
    records	    5,9
    sewage treatment evaluation	14,16,17
Self-purification of shellfish	20,22
Sewage treatment:
    instrumentation and records	     17
    performance standards for	     16
    records  of	15,17
Sewage treatment—Continued
     relationship to approved areas	
     relationship to bacteriological sampling-
Sewage treatment—Continued
     special equipment requirements	
     storm  sewers	
Shellfish shipper certificates:
     control  	
     expiration date	
     requirements  for	
Shellfish shipper list	
Shell stock shippers:
     inspection	
     records of inspection	
     requirements  for certification-
Shucker-packers:
     inspection	
     records of inspection	
     requirements  for certification-
     sanitary rating	
Transplanting	
Typhoid fever—see Disease.
Wet storage	
Page

  14
  14

  17
  17
 5,6
 1,5

   6
   6
   5

   6
   6
   6
   6
   3


  13
34
                                                                                                 June 1962

                                                                    US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962  O—647038

-------
                 j 02       01         0

                 Nisva  a3Aia
                                            01
  X3NNV NOIIVIS
TVAVN  '

-------
   2 aanou
                            3Nld
3A08V ia3SNI 33S

-------