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 (). On the basis of these discussions the Workshop recommended a two part "Ac- ceptable-Rejectable" interim market stand- ard for shucked Eastern oysters based on fecal coliform MPN's and standard plate counts. TABLE III Coliform MPN's and Standard Plate Counts of Oysters During Harvesting and Processing COLIFORM MPN RANGE Less than 230. 231-2400 2401-24,000 24,001-160,000 _ _.-. 160,000 or more _ _ __ _--.,_ Number of samples STANDARD PLATE COUNT RANGE 1-1500 1600-10,000 11,000-50,000 51,000-1,000,000 1,000,000 or more Number of samples Percent of samples in stated group or less Shell oysters Dug 63 90 97 100 30 29 79 90 100 28 0 hours ' 45 81 100 11 0 82 100 11 12 hours 2 5 15 50 85 100 20 5 15 30 100 20 Shucked oysters As shucked 3 5 5 47 79 100 19 0 5 20 90 100 20 Pots4 0 5 31 47 100 19 0 5 10 100 19 As packed 5 0 5 79 95 100 19 5 10 52 100 19 i Shell oysters as delivered to the shucking plant. ' Shell oysters after 12 hours storage at shucking plant. 3 Oysters at time of shucking. i Oysters as delivered to packing room. s Shucked oysters as packed. Source: Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop; Bacteriological Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market Shellfish, Kelly, C. B. January 1959 29 ------- 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 ------- |