WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTIC3S
AT
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
PATUXENT RIVER BASIN
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Region III
Division of Y/ater Supply and Pollution Control
Chesapeake Bay-5usquehanna River Basins Project
Charlottesville, Virginia
October 1964
-------
^^-
Regional Center for Environmental Intormation
US EPA Region 111
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....... ....... 1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION .................. 2
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 4
Fort George G. Meade ................ 4
Patuxent Wildlife Refuge .............. 6
Naval Academy Dairy ................ 7
Governor Bridge Transmitter Site .......... 8
Davidsonville Nike Site .............. 8
Andrews Air Force Base ............... 9
Mount Calvert Housing Area ............. 10
Brandywine Housing Area .............. 10
Patuxent Naval Air Station ............. 11
MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SHELLFISH GROWING
AREAS ........................ 15
CONCLUSIONS ...................... 18
RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 20
APPENDICES ....................... 22
I. Bacteriological Survey of Cedar Point Area of
Chesapeake Bay by the Maryland State Department
of Health ...» .............. 22
II. Part I of the Manual of Operations of the
Cooperative Program for the Certification of
Interstate Shellfish Shippers .....,..„ 24
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland State Department of Health has recently
prohibited the harvesting of shellfish from waters of the Chesapeake
Bay near the mouth of the Patuxent River and in several small
tributary estuaries of the Patuxent River„ This report has been
prepared as a result of inquiries concerning the relationship of
Federal installations to the closing of these areas. It contains
a summary of the waste disposal practices at Federal installations
in the Patuxent River Basin and adjacent shoreline areas of the
Chesapeake Bay, a discussion of the effects of the waste effluents
on water quality, and recommendations for necessary action.
-------
-------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Patuxent River originates in Howard and Montgomery
Counties, Maryland, and flows approximately 110 miles southeast-
erly to Chesapeake Bay. Two topographic and geologic areas make
up the Patuxent River Basin: the Piedmont Plateau and the Atlantic
Coastal Plain. Streams within the Plateau area of the Basin are
confined to narrow valleys with steep banks; while Coastal Plain
streams are generally broad and meandering, traversing several
swamps and marshy areas., Drainage area of the Patuxent Basin
encompasses about 932 square miles, with the primary tributaries
being the Little Patuxent, Middle Patuxent, and Western Branch„
Surface runoff in the Basin has been calculated to average
0.62 mgd (million gallons per day) per square mile, amounting to
some 578 mgd contribution from the entire Basin. The lower portion
of the River is an estuary with tidal influence extending to
Hardesty, Maryland, almost 56 miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay.
Saline waters have been observed up to Lyons Creek, some 43 miles
from the mouth of the Patuxent.
The Patuxent Basin lies between the metropolitan areas
of Washington, D. C., and Baltimore, Maryland, Population within
the Basin amounts to about 138^,000 persons, primarily comprised
of military personnel and residents of areas on the fringes of
the Washington and Baltimore urban areas.
-------
-------
Water uses in the Patuxent River Basin include water
supply, recreation^ commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting
in the estuary, limited irrigations and waste disposal. About
per cent of all clans and about 10 per cent of the oysters
harvested within the State of Maryland presently come from beds
in or adjacent to the Patuxent Eiver Basin„
-------
-------
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Nine Federal installations discharge sanitary wastes to
the Patuxent River Basin and adjoining shoreline areas of the
Chesapeake Bay through 14 major waste treatment facilities and
several supplemental treatment systems „ Following are brief
summaries of the installations and their waste disposal practices,
listed from upstream to downstream0 The locations of these
installations are shown in Figure 1, inside back cover„
Fort George G. Meade
Fort Meade, located about 70 miles above the mouth of the
Patuxent River on the north bank, is a large Army Reservation
involving varied military activities and containing the Second
Army Headquarters„ Domestic wastes from the Fort are treated in
two secondary sewage treatment plants which discharge to the
Little Patuxent River, a tributary of the Patuxent River.
Sewage treatment Plant No. 1 has a design capacity of
2.5 mgd and receives an average flow of lo,35 mgd from an estimated
population served of 18^000 persons,, Treatment consists of com-
minution, screening, grit removals, sedimentation, secondary treat-
ment by high rate trickling filters, final sedimentation, ehlorination
with contact tank, and sludge digestion and drying,. Removal of
BOD (bio-chemical oxygen demand) averages B5 per cento The outfall
-------
-------
discharges to the Little Patuxent at a point 7,0 miles xipstream
from its confluence with Patuxent River, which, is 63 miles from
the Chesapeake Bay,
Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2 has a design capacity of 1.5
mgd and receives an average flow of 0,90 mgd, comprised of wastes
from the National Security Agencyj the Children's Center and
Cedar Knoll,, operated by the District of Colombia; and Argorme
Hills; in addition to that portion of the Fort's personnel not
served by Plant No£, 1. Treatment, consists of grit removal, com-
minution, preehlorination, sedimentation, secondary treatment by
high rate trickling filters, final sedimentation, post chlorina-
tlon, and sludge digestion and drying. Removal of BOD averages
about 90 per cento Plant No0 2 is about 4»0 miles upstream from
Plant No,, 1 on the Little Patuxent.
The high BOD removals attained at these sewage treatment
plants (85 and 90 per cent) indicate good, efficient operation,,
Semi-monthly bacteriological analyses of the Little Patuxent
River at several points within the military reservation indicate
that the MPN (most probable number per 100 milliliters} of
coliform bacteria above the sewage treatment plants ranged from
1,300 to over 240,000, The median ceiiform MPN was 7^,900 for
the six-month period January-July, 1964, The high bacterial
counts above the plants apparently resulted from con-federal
-------
waste-water discharges from communities, institutions and industry,
The counts "below the outfalls of the plants were seldom greater
thai? the counts above, and at times were leas; In general the
counts were not changed appreciably by the effluents from the
plants,. The only defect in treatment observed was tfc« discharging
from the final settling tank of some floating h»mts said t ly Larva*5
from the trickling filters,
Vehicle wash waters are discharged un.1 'rented eitber ^>o
the Patxucerit River or the Little Patuxent River., These wasb. watert
totaling about 100^000 gpd (gallons per day), have cot generally
caused pollution problems,, The Maryland Department of Water
Resources, however, has observed some oil OB one occasion in 9
tributary of Little Patuxent River near one of the wash racks „
AlsOj that Department has observed diatomaceous earth in another
tributary from the back-washing of filters at a swimming pool.
The Patuxent Wildlife Refuge of thfi Fish arid Wild., ate
Service, Department of the interior,, is located opposite fort
Meade ir. Pri.uct George's and Anne Aruiidfel Cour.'t.les,, Maryl.-;r.d ,
largely on the ^outh bank of the Pai'd^eat River „ The .Refuse !«:
a sclent if'I? research center wito p<>p"il-ition ra^glrs1 r/orr. ]f)
r-eFlaeafc5- to ?? workday staff of approximately 170 r/? •>. ;;-.'.,•/
5aratar,y wastes iTom the Refuge are treated by septi- tatfl,
-------
-------
7
Intermittent sand filters, and a waste stabilization lagoon before
discharging through Island Marsh to the Patuxent River at a point
?0 miles above its mouth. Quality of the effluent is excellent,
as indicated by the fact that the lagoon, which is the final stage
of treatment, supports a fish population of bluegill, bass, and
grass pike»
Naval Academy Dairy
The Naval Academy Dairy, located at Gambrills, Maryland,
in Anne Arundel County, supplies 1,250 gallons of milk daily from
290 cows to the Naval Academy in Annapolis during the academic
year0 (The production of 65>0 gallons per day from 230 cows during
the summer is largely converted to powdered milk,,} Out of a staff
of 5l employees, 26 are residents along with their ?C dependents.
The domestic wastes from 13 of the families, totaling kl persons,
are treated in nine individual septic tanks and discharged to
leaching pits about 30 feet deep. Wastes from the remaining 7k
persons and from the mxLkirg parlor and milk processing rooms are
treated in a large septic tank. The waste flow entering the main
septic tank is estimated to total about 75,000 gpd. This tank
discharges through a liOOO-foot outfall pipe to an open ditch over
a mile in length in which it flows to Towsers Branch at a point
3.3 miles above its confluence with the Little Patuxent River.
Active decomposition of the final waste effluent from this septic
-------
-------
8
tank was observed in the open ditch„ That confluence is 3.3
miles above the confluence of the Little Patuxent River with the
Patuxent River, which, in turn, is 63,3 miles above Chesapeake
Bay, Manure, washed down from cattle walk-ways and stalls (other
than inside the milking parlor), is collected in a tank and is
utilized for fertilizer. Wastes draining from the silos are
collected in a tank and are applied to land.
Governor Bridge Transmitter Site
The Air Force transmitting station near Governor Bridge,
Maryland, in Anne Arundel County, has a component of 40 persons,
20 of whom are residents„ An estimated 2,500 gpd are treated in
a package aeration plant designed to treat up to 15,000 gpd,, The
effluent is chlorinated, passed through a chlorine contact tank
and discharged to the antenna field where it seeps into the ground
or evaporates„
Davidsonville Nike Site
Nike Site No0 25 is located at Davidsonville, Maryland,
and provides treatment for about 10,000 gpd of sanitary wastes,.
Approximately 5,000 gpd of the wastes receive treatment by septic
tank, intermittant sand filter, and chlorinatlon before discharge
to a tributary 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent
River, which is 57 miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay, The remaining
-------
-------
9
5,000 gpd are treated by septic tanks, followed by seepage pits,
Occasionally the ground becomes saturated during periods of rainy
weather, and the overflow is collected and chlorinated before
being discharged to tributaries of the Patuxent River,
Andrews Mr Force. Base
The sanitary wastes from Andrews Air Force Base are treated
in three treatment plants, only one of which (Plant Mo0 3) discharges
approximately 300^000 gpd to the Patuxent River Basin, by way of
Cabin Branch, about 60 miles above the Chesapeake Bay* The Base is
located between the Patuxent and the Potomac River Basins, with
the remaining sanitary wastes (720,000 gpd) treated by two other
plants discharging to the Potomac River Basin, Treatment at Plant
Noa 3 consists of comminution, settling and sludge digestion in
Imhoff tanks, secondary treatment by trickling filters, final
settling, post ehlorination, and sludge drying. The 300,000 gpd
average flow is well within the 480,000 gpd design capacity of
the plant„ BOD removal in the plant averages about 90 per cent,
indicating good, operation. In view of this, the bacteriological
quality of the Patuxent River is not- expected to be appreciably
affected by discharges from this plant,
Industrial wastes, consisting' mainly of aircraft wash
waters, are diecharged to Cabin Branch of the Patuxent River.
While these wastes have not met the State's standards for oil
-------
10
and solids In the past,, a comprehensive survey of all waste dis-
charges has been completed by a private consultant and an active
program is underway to provide modifications of procedures and/or
treatment of wastes ,
Mount Calvert Housing Area
Mount Calvert Housing Area, located at the former Nike
Site No. W-35 near Croom, Maryland,, is operated by the Army and
provides housing for approximately 45 person?, including depend-
ents o The estimated 3. ,000 gpd of sanitary waste is treated by
septic tank, sand filtration, and chlorination. Treatment, facilities
at this installation are well maintained and operated „ This small
quantity of wastes, effectively treated, discharging to a small
tributary at a point 6 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent
River, which, in turn, is about 44 Mies above the mouth of the
Patuxent River,, should have little effect upon the bacteriological
quality of the water.
Brandywine Housing Area, located at former Hike Site No.
W-36 near Brandywine, Maryland, is operated by the Air Force and
provides; housing for appro*, mat el y 45 persons,, including dependents
The estimated 3,000 gpd of sanitary waste are treated by septic
tank, sand filtration^ and eMon nation., This -small quantity of
-------
11
efficiently treated waste, discharging to a small tributary at a
point 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent River, which,
in turn, is about 44 miles above the mouth of the Patuxent River,
should have little effect upon the bacteriological quality of the
water.
Patuxent Naval Air Station
The Patujtent Naval Air Station,, located at the mouth of
the Patuxent River in St. Mary's County, Maryland, carries out
the normal functions of a Navy air station and also contains the
Patuxent Maval Air Test Center, An Annex of the Station, located
across the River in Galvert County, houses a component of the
Naval Ordnance Laboratory„ Personnel and residents at the main
station total about 14,000 and at the Annex, about 900
Sanitary wastes at the main station are treated in two
plants: a primary sewage treatment plant, a secondary sewage
treatment plant at the Officers' Club; and individual septic tanks
in areas a great distance from the main treatment plant. Sanitary
wastes at the Annex are treated in a. secondary sewage treatment
pi ant „
The primary sewage treatment plant serves an estimated
population of 17,500, including Patuxent Park, Lexington Park,
Carver Heights, Center Gardens, and the Great Mills Road area,
which are all located outside the Air Station,, The plant receives
-------
12
an average flow of 1.37 mgd with treatment consisting of grit removal,
eommtnation, pre-aeration, pre-chlorinatiorij, vacuation, sedimentation,
post chlorination, and sludge digestion and drying. Reduction of
bio-chemical oxygen demand averages about 50 per cent. While no
chlorine contact unit is provided, it has been calculated that a
chlorine contact time in excess of 15 minutes is provided by the
2,500-foot outfall pipe,
The plant is designed for 1.5 mgd with present flow
approaching and, at times, exceeding this design capacity. Effluent
from the plant is discharged to Pine Hill Run at a point about a
mile above Chesapeake Bay,
The secondary sewage treatment plant at the Officers'
Club serves an estimated 150 persons who are present only a part of
each day; and the average flow is estimated to be about 2,500 gpd
six days a week and almost zero on Mondays. Treatment consists of
screening, sedimentation and digestion of sludge in an open septic
tank, trickling filter, final sedimentation, chlorination with
contact chamber, and sludge drying. Because of limited and inter-
mittant flows,, difficulties are being experienced in obtaining proper
biological reduction by the trickling filters„ Discharge from the
plant is directly to the Patuxent River near its confluence with
Chesapeake Bay., Due to a previaus oversight, a shellfish harvesting
area adjacent to this discharge was not declared prohibited. There-
fore, even if this plant were operating satisfactorily, it would be
-------
-------
13
necessary to establish a prohibited area adjacent to the outfall.
Twenty septic tanks with tile fields serve houses or
buildings a great distance from the main sewage treatment plant.
Only one of these tile fields was observed to have any seepage to
the ground surface; that one serving the hydraulic catapult area,
Four additional septic tanks discharge directly to the Patuxent
River. One septic tank discharges through gravel-filled drums
before discharge to the Patacem. River., The wastes from one boat-
house,, which serves as the operating base for water transportation
of personnel and emergency crash, boats, discharge directly to the
Patuxent River with no treatment„ It is estimated that approximately
300 gpd of untreated wastes are generated at this facility.
The secondary treatment plant at the Annex receives an
average of 24*000 gpd. Treatment consists of screening sedimentation,
secondary treatment by high rate trickling filter, final sedimenta-
tion, sludge digestion and drying, and chlorination with contact tanku
Discharge is to the Patuxent River at a point about 2,5 miles from
the Chesapeake Bay and where the depth of the River- descends rapidly
to about 90 feet (the great depth precluding any shellfish harvesting).
Good treatment is to be expected, since average flows to the plant
are much below capacity. Eecirculation of treated waste to the trickling
filter maintain adequate biological treatment.
Industrial, wastes at the main station consist of wash
waters from the washing of about 50 aircraft, and 50 vehicles per
-------
14
month. Aireraft washing wastes from three locations discharge to
the Patiucent River> from four locations to the Chesapeake Bay, and
from two locations to a pond with no discharge. The principal vehicle
washing area drains to the Patuxent River,, No detailed survey has
been made to determine whether these wastes meet the State regulations.
-------
15
MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PBQGRAM FOR
SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
Part I of the Manual of Operations of the Cooperative
fop* foie Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers
(Appendix II) stipulates that shellfish growing areas are categorized
according to four classifications: "approved," "conditionally
approved," "restricted," and "prohibited„"
The Maryland State Department of Health, as a participant
in the cooperative State-Public Health Service-industry program for
the certification of interstate shellfish shippers, currently uses
two classifications for all shellfish production waters. All shell-
fish areas are designated as either "approved" or "prohibited."
This method of classification meets the requirements of
the cooperative program as Maryland's classifications are more
stringent than required by the cooperative program. While "approved"
areas must comply at all times with the standards established, the
size of "prohibited" areas is established on the basis of a possi-
bility of dangerous numbers of pathogenic micro-organisms reaching
the area.
The Maryland State Department of Health has divided the
Patuxent River estuary into five sections for classification purposes,
as shown in Figure 2 following page 17. Based on bacteriological
sampling and sanitary surveys, the following classifications have
-------
16
been assigned to the sections. Sections I and II in their entirety
are classified as "approved„" The main portion of Section III is
classified as "approved,," while the Guckhold-Nat-Mill Creeks portion
is classified as "prohibited." In Section IV the Town-Lewis Creeks
area and the Back-Mill -St., John Creeks area out to a line between
Sandy Point and Drum Point are classified as "prohibited." The main
portion of Section IY is classified as "approved!11 however, because
of several high bacteriological counts obtained during the summer of
1964, sampling is being continued,, Section ¥ is classified as
"approved;" however^ the shellfish bed area in the immediate vicinity
of the Patuxent Naval Air Station Officers' Club previously unknown
to State authorities, is now under consideration for reclassification
based upon bacteriological data now being obtained„
Effective September 1, 1964, the Maryland State Department
of Health classified as "prohibited" a shellfish producing area of
approximately 15 square miles in the Chesapeake Bay south of the
above mentioned Section V, near the mouth of the Patuxent River„
The area was classified "prohibited" because of the lack of sufficient
bacteriological data to assure absence of sewage pollution and
because of potential pollution from the sewage treatment plant in
the event of plant failure necessitating the discharge of raw sewage.
These beds are adjacent to Pine Hill Run (shown on Figure 2} which
receives the effluent from the main sewage treatment plant of the
-------
-------
17
Patuxent Naval Air Station,, The Maryland State Department of Health
contracted with the Chesapeake Bay Institute to perform dye studies
of the dispersion of the main sewage treatment plant effluent at the
Air Station,, The latter study was necessary to determine the time
required for the treatment plant effluent to penetrate the shellfish
bed area« As a result of the above study and recent bacteriological
sampling, effective October 26,, 1964, the area was reduced in size
to less than, a quarter of a square mile. The present ''prohibited"
area extends 200 yards off-shore and along the shoreline from about
one mile north to about one mile south of Pine Hill Sun» The
bacteriological data collected at the sampling points shown on
Figure 2 are presented in Appendix I.
Under Maryland's system of classification, the ertent of
the "prohibited" area is not related to the quality of the treated
effluent, but is related to the quality of the receiving water as a
result of the discharge of raw sewage following plant failure.
Criteria for a "conditionally approved" classification were -used
in establishing the present ertent of the "prohibited" area, making
possible a reduction in size of the area reflecting the degree and
effectiveness of sewage treatment processes and the surveillance
measures taken to prevent shellfish harvesting in waters affected
in case of a possible plant failure.
-------
18
CONCLUSIONS
1. Seven of the nine Federal installations in the
Patuxent River Basin provide a satisfactory degree of treatment
for sanitary wastes. These installations are: Fort George G.
Meade, Patuxent Wildlife Refuge^ Governor Bridge Transmitter Site,
Davidsonville Nike Site, Andrews Air Force Base, Mount Calvert
Housing Area, and Brandywlne Housing Area. All of these provide
chlorination of effluents, except for the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge
where this treatment step is impractical and is not considered
essential, because of the extensive treatment provided.
20 The septic tank serving 74 persons, the milking parlor,
and milk processing rooms at the Naval Academy Dairy does not
provide adequate treatment for these wastes,
3. At the Patuxent Naval Air Station,, the primary sewage
treatment plant serving the main base and privately owned housing
developments (Patuxent Park, Lexington Park, Carver Heights, Center
Gardens, and Great Mills Road area) is at or beyond its design capacity.
4. Because of low and intermittant flows, the secondary
sewage treatment plant serving the Patuxent- Naval Air Station
Officers' Club is experiencing difficulties in obtaining maximum
efficiency.
5. At Fort George G. Meade, bamas and fly larvae from
the trickling filters have been observed discharging from the final
settling tanks,,
-------
19
6, At Fort George G. Meade, oil from a vehicle wash
rack and diatomaceous earth from a swimming pool have been observed
in tributaries of Little Patuxent- River,.
7. At the Patuxent Naval Air Station^ five septic tanks
serving individual buildings discharge to the Patuxent River without
adequate additional treatment, and the wastes from one building
discharge with no treatment„
8. The shellfish producing area ir, the vicinity of the
mouth of the Patuxent River wa&; classified as "prohibited" on
September 1, 1964,, by the Maryland State Department of Health because
of the lack of sufficient bacteriological data to assure absen.ee of
sewage pollution and because of potential pollution from the sewage
treatment plant in the event of plant failure necessitating discharge
©f raw sewage„ The classification of these beds was reviewed when
results of recent studies of the bacteriological conditions and
flow-dispersion pattern of waste effluents became available<, The
Maryland State Department of Health made a significant redaction in
the size of the "prohibited" area on October 26, 1964, based upon
criteria for a "conditionally approved" classification which reflects
the degree and effectiveness of sewage treatment processes and
surveillance measures taken to prevent shellfish harvestuig in water-
affected in case of a possible plant failure,
-------
20
1. Units of the primary sewage treatment plant at the
Patuxent Naval Air Station should be supplemented to increase the
present plant capacity,,
20 The Patuxent Naval Air Station should initiate as
soon as possible an action program leading to the design and con-
struction of an adequate secondary sewage treatment plant „ This
recommendation is made not because of the prohibiting of shellfish
harvesting,, but from a point of view that an installation of this
size located in an area with such a high recreational potential
should provide the highest degree of treatment required to preserve
and protect all beneficial water uses.,
3. Operation of the secondary sewage treatment plant at
the Patuxent Naval Air Station Officers' Club should be improved
and recirculation provided to maintain adequate biological reduction
by the trickling filter, or, if economically feasible, the Club
should be connected to the main sewerage system,,
4o An engineering study, leading to an action program
designed to provide adequate treatment of domestic and industrial
wastes generated by the major portion of the operations at the
Naval Academy Dairy , should be initiated as soon as possible,,
5. The final settling tanks at Fort George Q. Meade
should be provided with skimmers to collect floating solids .
-------
21
6. Wastes generated by aircraft and vehicle washing
operations at both the Patuxent Naval Air Station and Fort George
G. Jfeade should receive adequate treatment for oil and grease removal.
7. Where not presently provided, subsurface tile fields
should be constructed to receive the effluents from septic tanks
serving individual buildings at the Patuxent Naval Air Station, if
connection of these facilities to the Station's main sewerage system
is not feasible.
8. Wastes generated by operations of the boathouse at
the Patuxent Naval Air Station should receive adequate treatment.
9. Chlorination of all effluents discharged to surface
waters from sanitary waste treatment facilities should be continued.
-------
22
APPENDIX I
BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CEDAR POINT AREA OF
CHESAPEAKE BAT BY THE MARYLAND STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Flood Tide
Ebb Tide
Flood Tide
Ebb Tide
Station*
1-B
1-S
1A-B
1A-S
1B-B
1B-S
1C-B
IC^S
13 -B
13 -S
13A-B
13A-S
Coliform
Bacteria
September 2. 1964
3.6
3.6
3.6
_3#*
-3
-3
-3
-3
9.1
7.3
-3
o
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml
September 3.
-3
9.1
0
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
Coliform
Bacteria
1 (MPN/100 ml)
1964 September
15
93
15
3.6
75
9.1
15
3.6
150
9.1
14
9.1
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
8. 1964
3.6
43
9.1
93
23
23
23
36
9.1
3.6
43
9.1
* S s Surface; B » Bottom; Station locations shown on Figure 2.
** Minus sign (-) denotes "less than0"
-------
APPENDIX I (Can't)
BACTERIOLOGICAL SUHVEY OF CEDAE POINT AREA OF
CHESAPEAKE BAY BY THE MARYLAND STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
23
Station*
Flood Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Flood Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MFN/100 ml)
1-B
1-S
1A-B
1A-S
1B-B
1B-S
1C-B
1C-S
13 -B
13 -S
13A-B
13A-5
September 15.
9.1
3.6
23
.3**
23
-3
-3
-3
15
-3
-3
-3
1964
-3
15
3.6
3.6
-3
9.1
3.6
3.6
93
9.1
-3
.3
September 24,
3.6
3.6
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
93
3.6
_3
1964
-3
-3
-3
-3
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
* S = Surface; B « Bottom; Station locations shown on Figure 2,
** Minus sign (-) denotes "less than."
-------
-------
APPENDIX II
-------
Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers
Parti
Sanitation of
Shellfish
Growing Areas
7962 Revision
Compiled and edited by
Eugene T. Jensen, Sanitary Engineer Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Washington 25, D.C.
-------
This is Part I of two companion volumes published by the Public
Health Service with titles and publication numbers as follows:
Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish
Shippers
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1962) Part I—Sanitation of
Shellfish Growing Areas
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1962) Part II—Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
This is a revised edition published previously under the title: Sani-
tary Control of the Shellfish Industry. 1959 Manual of Recommended
Practice.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 33
Part I — Revised 1962
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 45 cents
-------
LIST OF PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF MANUAL OF RECOMMENDED
PRACTICE FOR COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR CERTI-
FICATION OF INTERSTATE SHELLFISH SHIPPERS—NOW
SUPERSEDED
1925. Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports November 6, 1925 "Re-
port of Committee on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry
in the United States".
1937. U.S. Public Health Service Minimum Requirements for Approval of
State Shellfish Control Measures and Certification for Shippers in
Interstate Commerce (Revised October 1937).
1946. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
fish Industry Recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service
(Public Health Bulletin No. 295).
1957. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
fish Industry (Part II: Sanitation of the Harvesting and Process-
ing of Shellfish). Printed as Part of Public Health Service Publi-
cation No. 33.
1959. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shell-
fish Industry (Part I: Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Area).
Printed as Part I of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.
111
-------
-------
Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
DEFINITIONS 3
SECTION A—General Administrative Procedures 4
1. State Laws and Regulations 4
2. Administrative Procedures To Be Used by States 5
3. Intrastate Sale of Shellfish 7
SECTION B—Laboratory Procedures 8
1. Bacteriological 8
2. Toxicological 8
3. Chemical and Physical 8
SECTION C—Growing Area Survey and Classification 9
1. Sanitary Survey of Growing Areas 9
2. Classification of Growing Areas 11
3. Approved Areas 13
4. Conditionally Approved Areas 14
5. Restricted Areas 17
6. Prohibited Areas 18
7. Closure of Areas Due to Paralytic Shellfish Poison 18
SECTION D—Preparation of Shellfish for Marketing 20
1. Relaying 20
2. Controlled Purification 21
SECTION E—Control of Harvesting From Closed Areas 24
1. Identification of Closed Areas 24
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting From Closed Areas __ 24
3. Depletion of Closed Areas 25
APPENDIX A. Bacteriological Criteria of Shellfish and Shellfish
Waters 26
REFERENCES 30
INDEX 33
-------
-------
Introduction
In 1925 State and local health authorities
and representatives of the shellfish industry
requested the Public Health Service to exer-
cise supervision over the sanitary quality of
shellfish shipped in interstate commerce. In
accordance with this request, a cooperative
control procedure was developed. In carry-
ing out this cooperative control, the States,
the shellfish industry, and the Public Health
Service, each accept responsibility for certain
procedures as follows :
1. Procedures To Be Followed by the
State.—Each shellfish-shipping State adopts
adequate laws and regulations for sanitary
control of the shellfish industry, makes san-
itary and bacteriological surveys of growing
areas, delineates and patrols restricted areas,
inspects shellfish plants, and conducts such
additional inspections, laboratory investiga-
tions, and control measures as may be neces-
sary to insure that the shellfish reaching the
consumer have been grown, harvested, and
processed in a sanitary manner. The State
annually issues numbered certificates to
shellfish dealers who comply with the agreed-
upon sanitary standards, and forwards copies
of the interstate certificates to the Public
Health Service.
2. Procedures To Be Followed by the Pub-
lic Health Service.—The Public Health Serv-
ice makes an annual review of each State's
control program including the inspection of
a representative number of shellfish-process-
ing plants. On the basis of the information
thus obtained, the Public Health Service
either endorses or withholds endorsement of
the respective State control programs. For
the information of health authorities and
others concerned, the Public Health Service
publishes a semimonthly list of all valid in-
terstate shellfish-shipper certificates issued by
the State shellfish-control authorities.
3. Procedures To Be Followed by the In-
dustry.—The shellfish industry cooperates by
obtaining shellfish from safe sources, by pro-
viding plants which meet the agreed-upon
sanitary standards, by maintaining sanitary
plant conditions, by placing the proper cer-
tificate number on each package of shellfish,
and by keeping and making available to the
control authorities records which show the
origin and disposition of all shellfish.
The fundamental components of this co-
operative State-Industry-PHS shellfish certi-
fication program were first described in a
Supplement to Public Health Reports, "Re-
port of Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States"
(1925). This guide for sanitary control of
the shellfish industry was revised and reissued
in 1937 and again in 1946. It was separated
into two parts by publication of Part II,
Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing
of Shellfish in 1957 and by publication in 1959,
of Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing
Areas. The need for a specialized program of
this nature was reaffirmed at the National
Conference on Shellfish Sanitation held in
Washington, D.C., in 1954 (1) and at the
Shellfish Sanitation Workshops held in 1956
(2), 1958 (3), and 1961 (67).
This edition of the shellfish sanitation man-
ual has been prepared in cooperation with the
State shellfish control authorities in all coastal
States, food control authorities in the inland
States, interested Federal agencies, Canadian
Federal departments, the Oyster Institute of
North America, the Pacific Coast Oyster
Growers Association, and the Oyster Growers
and Dealers Association of North America.
Since the growing and processing of shell-
fish are two distinct phases of operation in
the shellfish industry, the manual has been
prepared in two parts : I: Sanitation of Shell-
June 1962
-------
fish-Growing Areas; and II: Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shell fish. This,
Part I of the manual, is intended as a guide
for the preparation of State shellfish sanita-
tion laws and regulations, and for sanitary
control of the growing, relaying, and purifica-
tion of shellfish. It is intended that States
participating in the cooperative State-PHS-
Industry program for the certification of in-
terstate shellfish shippers will be guided by
this manual in exercising sanitary supervi-
sion over shellfish growing, relaying, and pu-
rification, and in the issuing of certificates to
shellfish shippers.
The manual will also be used by the Public
Health Service in evaluating State shellfish
sanitation programs to determine if the pro-
grams qualify for endorsement.
The provisions of this manual were ac-
cepted at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshop
held in Washington, November 28-30, 1961,
and unless otherwise stated become effective
60 days after publication (67).
EUGENE T. JENSEN,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Divi-
sion of Environmental Engineering and
Food Protection, Public Health Service.
June 1962
-------
Definitions
And/or.—Where this term is used, and
shall apply where possible; otherwise, or shall
apply.
Area, growing.—An area in which market
shellfish are grown.
Coliform group.—The coliform group in-
cludes all of the aerobic and facultative an-
aerobic, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming
bacilli which ferment lactose with gas for-
mation within 48 hours at 35° C. Bacteria of
this group which will produce gas from E. C.
medium within 48 hours at 44.5° C. in a water
bath will be referred to as fecal coliforms.
Controlled purification.—The process of
removing contamination from whole live
shellfish acquired while growing in polluted
areas.
Cooperative program.—The cooperative
State-PHS-Industry program for the certifi-
cation of interstate shellfish shippers as de-
scribed in Public Health Service Publication
Number 33, Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
Industry, Parts I and II.
Depletion.—The removal of all market-size
shellfish from an area.
Most probable number (abbreviated
MPN).—The MPN is a statistical estimate of
the number of bacteria per unit volume, and
is determined from the number of positive
results in a series of fermentation tubes. A
complete discussion of MPN determinations
and computations, including MPN tables, can
be found in the American Public Health
Association publication "Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water, Sewage and
Industrial Wastes" (4) (5).
Population equivalent (coliform).—A
quantity of sewage containing approximately
160 xlO9 coliform group bacteria. This is
approximately equal to the per capita per day
contribution of coliforms as determined in a
metropolitan sewerage system (6) (7) (8).
Sanitary survey.—The sanitary survey is
the evaluation of all factors having a bearing
on the sanitary quality of a shellfish growing
area including sources of pollution, the effects
of wind, tides, and currents in the distribu-
tion and dilution of the polluting materials,
and the bacteriological quality of the water.
Shellfish.—All edible species of oysters,
clams, or mussels. Shellfish products which
contain any material other than the meats
and/or shell liquor of oysters, clams, or mus-
sels will be regarded as a "processed food"
and will not be included in the cooperative
program (1).
Shellfish, market.—Shellfish which are,
may be, or have been harvested and/or pre-
pared for sale for human consumption as a
fresh or frozen product.
State shellfish control agency.—The State
agency or agencies having legal authority to
classify shellfish growing areas and/or to is-
sue permits for the interstate shipment of
shellfish in accord with the provisions of this
manual.
State shellfish patrol agency.—The State
agency having responsibility for the patrol of
shellfish growing areas.
Transplanting.—The moving of shellfish
from one area to another area.
June 1962
-------
Section A
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. State Laws and Regulations.—State
laws or regulations shall provide an adequate
legal basis for sanitary control of all inter-
state phases of the shellfish industry. This
legal authority shall enable one or more de-
partments or agencies of the State to classify
all coastal waters for shellfish harvesting on
the basis of sanitary quality; effectively reg-
ulate the harvesting of shellfish; effectively
prosecute persons apprehended harvesting
shellfish from restricted, prohibited, or non-
approved areas; regulate and supervise the
shipment and storage of shell stock, and the
shucking, packing, and repacking of shellfish;
make laboratory examinations of shellfish;
seize, condemn, or embargo shellfish; and re-
strict the harvesting of shellfish from particu-
lar areas and suspend interstate shipper cer-
tificates in public-health emergencies.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the State has legal authority
to—
a. Classify all coastal waters as to their
suitability for shellfish harvesting on the basis
of sanitary quality as defined in Section C of
this manual. (It is strongly recommended
that a State permit be required for the grow-
ing or harvesting of shellfish, and that such
permits be revocable or subject to suspension
for just cause. It is also recommended that
the State have authority to regulate the dis-
charge of sewage, radioactive, and other toxic
wastes from boats in the vicinity of approved
shellfish growing areas.)
b. Control the harvesting of shellfish from
areas which are contaminated or which con-
tain paralytic shellfish poison. To be effec-
tive this authority must allow the State to—
(1) Patrol growing areas.
(2) Apprehend persons violating the re-
strictions.
(3) Effectively prosecute persons appre-
hended harvesting shellfish from restricted
or prohibited areas. (Penalties for such
violations should be sufficient to discourage
illegal harvesting.)
c. Regulate and supervise relaying, deple-
tion, wet storage, and controlled purification
as described in this manual if these techniques
are used.
d. Require that shell stock in storage or in
transit from the growing area to the certified
shipper be protected against contamination;
i.e., every person, firm, or corporation that
handles shellfish up to the certified shipper
will be subject to sanitary control by an offi-
cial agency but will not necessarily be re-
quired to have a State shellfish permit.
e. Prohibit Cooperative Program shippers
from possessing or selling shellfish from out-
of-State sources unless such shellfish have
been produced in accord with Cooperative
Program requirements.
f. Regulate the operations of shucker-pack-
ers, repackers, shell stock shippers and re-
shippers in accord with the applicable provi-
sions of part II of this manual.
g. Restrict the harvesting of shellfish from
specific areas, and suspend interstate shipper
certificates in a public-health emergency.
Administrative procedures required in con-
nection with such emergency actions should
not require more than one day to complete.
h. Prevent the sale, shipment, or possession
of shellfish which cannot be identified as hav-
ing been produced in accord with Cooperative
Program requirements or which are other-
wise unfit for human consumption, and to con-
demn, seize, or embargo such shellfish. This
authority need not be specific for shellfish and
may be included in other State food laws.
June 1962
-------
Public-health explanation.—The Coopera-
tive Program was developed by the 1925 Con-
ference on Shellfish Pollution to meet the spe-
cific public-health need resulting from the
1924-25 typhoid epidemic (9).
However, the Cooperative Program has
gone beyond the original objective of insur-
ing that shellfish shipped interstate would not
be the cause of communicable disease. Thus,
in the 1940's, paralytic shellfish poison be-
came a matter of public-health concern and
steps were taken to protect the public against
this hazard. In 1957 it was recognized that
shellfish might concentrate certain radionu-
clides and that a radiation surveillance activ-
ity might become a necessary adjunct to the
established procedures.
To accomplish these public-health objec-
tives the State must supervise all phases of
the growing, harvesting, transportation,
shucking-packing and repacking of shellfish to
be shipped interstate. It is also important
that shellfish be properly refrigerated and
protected against contamination during in-
terstate shipment. This is not easily accom-
plished by the State of origin although certi-
fied shippers are required to pack shellfish in
containers which will protect them against
contamination.
If State supervision is to be effective all
phases of the activity must be supported by
legal authority. This authority may be
either a specific law or regulation. The suc-
cess with which the State is able to regulate
the several components of the shellfish in-
dustry provides a measure of the adequacy
of the statutory authority.
The unique nature of shellfish as a food also
makes it necessary that the State shellfish
control agency have authority to take immedi-
ate emergency action to halt harvesting or
processing of shellfish without recourse to
lengthy administrative procedures. As ex-
amples, a State may find it necessary to close
a shellfish growing area within hours of a
breakdown in a sewage treatment plant or the
unexpected finding of paralytic shellfish
poison.
Periodic revisions of State shellfish laws
or regulations may be necessary to cope with
new public-health hazards and to reflect new
knowledge. Examples of changes or devel-
opments which have called for revision of
State laws include the wide-scale use of pleas-
ure boats with the resulting probability of
contamination of shellfish growing areas with
fresh fecal material, the conditionally ap-
proved area concept resulting from the con-
struction of sewage treatment works, and the
apparent ability of shellfish to concentrate
certain radionuclides.
Experience has demonstrated that all
coastal waters of the State must be classified
as to their sanitary suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Harvesting should be permitted
only from those areas which have been found
by sanitary survey to meet the sanitary cri-
teria of this manual. Harvesting should ac-
cordingly be specifically prohibited from
areas which do not meet the criteria, or which
have not been surveyed.
2. General Administrative Procedures To
Be Used by States.—States shall keep records
which will facilitate Public Health Service
review of their shellfish sanitation programs
and shall assist the Service in making such
reviews. Effective September 1,1959, States
shall not certify shippers for interstate ship-
ment unless the shipper complies substan-
tially with the construction requirements of
part II of this manual and maintains a sani-
tation rating of at least 80 percent during
periods of operation. Shippers not meet-
ing these requirements will not be eligible for
inclusion on the Public Health Service list of
State certified shellfish shippers. Coopera-
tive Program standards shall be applied to
all growing areas, all shellfish harvesters, and
all persons handling shell stock prior to its
delivery to the Cooperative Program certified
shipper. When two or more State agencies
are involved in the sanitary control of the
shellfish industry, a clear statement of respon-
sibility of each agency should be developed.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. Cooperative Program requirements are
applied to all market-shellfish growing areas.
b. Cooperative Program requirements are
applied to all commercial market shellfish
harvesters.
June 11)02
5
-------
c. Cooperative Program requirements are
applied to all persons handling the shellfish
prior to its delivery to the interstate shipper.
d. Interstate shellfish shipper certificates
are issued only to those establishments sub-
tantially meeting the construction require-
ments of Part II of this manual and which
maintain a plant sanitation rating of at least
80 percent during periods of operations.
(The State shellfish control agency shall sus-
pend or revoke certificates if a plant sanita-
tion rating drops below 80 percent or if any
individual sanitation item is violated repeat-
edly.) Ratings will be determined on the
basis of compliance with the applicable pro-
visions of Part II of this manual as measured
by an inspection report comparable to that
contained in appendix A of Part II.
e. The following records are kept of shell-
fish sanitation activities as required in sec-
tions C, D, and E, Part I, of this manual and
when monthly summaries of State patrol and
inspection activities are forwarded to the
Public Health Service regional office:
(1) Individual growing area files.
(Areas may be defined by either geo-
graphic or political boundaries.)
(2) Patrol activities, including arrests,
prosecutions, and the results of prosecu-
tions.
(3) Plant inspections. Shucker-packers
and repackers shall ordinarily be inspected
at least monthly. Shell stock shippers and
reshippers shall be inspected at a frequency
which will afford adequate public-health
supervision of their operations. A central
inspection-report file should be maintained
by the State.
f. The following guidelines are observed by
the State in issuing interstate shellfish certifi-
cates.
(1) Certificate content. Elach certifi-
cate should give the following information:
Name. (The usual business name and
alternative names that should appear on the
interstate shellfish shippers list, hereafter
called "list.")
Address. (A business and/or mailing
address in the State issuing the certificate.
This address indicates where records are
kept and where inspection may be ar-
ranged.)
Certificate Number. (A number shall
be assigned for each business unit. Suffix
or prefix letters may not be used to differ-
entiate between two or more plants of a
given shipper.)
Classification. (The shipper classifica-
tion should be indicated by a symbol: i.e.,
shucker-packer, SP; repacker, RP; shell
stock, SS; or reshipper, RS. Only one
classification should be used. The single
classification will cover all proposed oper-
ations which the shipper is qualified to
perform.)
Expiration Date. (All certificates in a
State should expire on the same date, pref-
erably the last day of a month. This date
will be shown on the "list". All certificates
will be automatically withdrawn from the
"list" on the date of expiration unless new
certificates have been received by Public
Health Service headquarters office. If the
date of expiration coincides with the date
of issue for the "list" the certificates expir-
ing on the date of issue will be deleted.)
Certifying Officer. (Each certificate is
signed by a responsible State official.)
(2) Certificate changes. A change in an
existing, unexpired certificate should be
made by issuing a corrected certificate.
(3) Interstate shipment before listing.
The shipper should be informed of the prob-
able date his name will appear on the "list"
and should be advised against making in-
terstate shipment prior to that date. (If
shipments must be made before the appear-
ance of the shipper's name on the "list",
the Public Health Service will notify the
applicable receiving States if the names
and addresses of the expected receivers are
indicated in advance by the State when the
certificate is forwarded to the Public Health
Service.)
(4) State cancellation, revocation or
suspension of interstate shipper certifi-
cates. If a State revokes, cancels, or sus-
pends an interstate shellfish shipper
certificate, the Public Health Service
regional office should be immediately noti-
June 1962
-------
fied, preferably by telephone or telegram;
with a following confirmatory letter.
(5) Mailing list for interstate shellfish
shipper list. Names of persons, business
units, organizations, or agencies, desiring
copies of the "list", and requests for infor-
mation concerning the "list" should be sent
to the appropriate Public Health Service
regional office. Recipients will be circular-
ized periodically to determine if they still
have use for the "list".
g. The appropriate Public Health Service
regional office is notified by the State of any
revision in growing area classification. The
notification shall so describe the area that it
may be readily located on Coast and Geodetic
Survey charts.
h. State shellfish plant inspectors are
provided with the following inspection equip-
ment: standardized inspection forms, ther-
mometer, chlorine test kit, and light meter.
i. Interdepartmental memoranda of under-
standing have been developed which will de-
fine the responsibilities of each State agency
in maintaining adequate sanitary control of
the shellfish industry in the State.
Public-health explanation.—The annual re-
view of each participating State's shellfish
sanitation activities is a fundamental Public
Health Service responsibility in the Coopera-
tive Program. The purpose of this review is
to evaluate the adequacy and reliability of
each individual State program in accord with
the agreed-upon standards. The Service will
endorse those State programs meeting the Co-
operative Program standards and will pub-
lish and distribute a list of the names of the
State certified shippers. However, if a
State program does not meet the standards
the program will not be endorsed. Names of
nonparticipating States will be omitted from
the Public Health Service list of State certi-
fied shellfish shippers.
Minimum plant sanitation standards for
interstate shellfish shippers are described in
Part II of this manual. Experience has
shown that absolute compliance with these
minimum standards is not always attainable,
particularly those items which relate to oper-
ating procedures. The establishment of the
80 percent plant sanitation score as a prereq-
uisite for listing on the Public Health Service
list of State certified shellfish shippers rec-
ognizes the fact that perfection is not always
obtainable and, at the same time, provides a
mechanism for excluding any plant which is
not operated in a reasonably sanitary manner.
Cooperative Program sanitary require-
ments should be applied to all growing areas
and all shellfish harvesters to insure that all
shellfish available to certified dealers have
been produced and harvested under accept-
able sanitary conditions. It is also important
that the shell stock be protected against con-
tamination during the period between har-
vesting and delivery to the certified shipper.
3. Intrastate Sale of Market Shellfish.—
Sanitary standards for intrastate shellfish
shippers should be substantially equivalent to
those of the Cooperative Program.
Public-health explanation.—States may ac-
cept lower sanitary standards for shellfish
sold intrastate than are required by the Co-
operative Program. However, it has been
found that small intrastate shippers may at
times sell their product to interstate shippers
if demand exceeds the supply of shellfish
available to the latter. Because of the possi-
bility that such substandard shellfish might
be shipped interstate, the 1954 National Con-
ference on Shellfish Sanitation recommended
that Cooperative Program standards be ap-
plied to all shellfish production and processing
(1). The 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop also strongly recommended the use of
substantially equivalent standards for intra-
and inter-state shellfish shippers (3).
June 1962
-------
Section B
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
1. Bacteriological. — American Public
Health Association Recommended Procedures
for the Examination of Sea Water and Shell-
fish shall be followed in the collection and
transportation of samples of shellfish and
shellfish waters for bacteriological examina-
tion and in the laboratory examination of
such samples.1
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when current American Public
Health Association Recommended Procedures
for the Examination of Sea Water and Shell-
fish are followed in the bacteriological exami-
nation of shellfish and shellfish waters.
Public-health explanation. — Experience
with the bacteriological examination of shell-
fish and shellfish growing waters has indi-
cated that minor differences in laboratory
procedures or techniques will cause wide var-
iations in the results. Variations in results
may also be caused by improper handling of
the sample during collection or transportation
to the laboratory (10). The American Pub-
lic Health Association Recommended Proce-
dures for the Examination of Sea Water and
Shellfish, which are revised periodically, offer
a reliable way of minimizing these variations.
(Cooperative Program required use of a
standard procedure for the bacteriological ex-
amination of shellfish and shellfish waters
should not discourage laboratories from
working on new methods of sample handling
or analysis.)
2. Toxicological.—A recognized procedure
shall be used in the assay for paralytic shell-
fish poison.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when current Association of Of-
1 Material which may be useful in interpretation of results of
bacteriological examination of shellfish is contained in appen-
dix A.
ficial Agricultural Chemists official methods
are followed in the bioassay for paralytic
shellfish poison.
Public-health explanation.—It has been
demonstrated that significant variations in
bioassay results will be caused by minor
changes in procedures. If reliable results are
to be obtained it is essential that the test pro-
cedures be standardized and that variations
due to use of strains of mice be minimized
(11). The official procedure for the bioassay
for paralytic shellfish poison adopted by the
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists
minimizes these variations (66). A chemical
test for paralytic shellfish poison has also
been developed (12).
3. Chemical and Physical.—Standard lab-
oratory methods shall be used for all salinity,
radionuclide, and other chemical and physical
determinations made on shellfish or shellfish
waters in conjunction with Cooperative Pro-
gram activities. Results shall be reported in
standard units.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. Chemical and physical measurements
on shellfish and shellfish waters are made in
accord with accepted laboratory techniques.
b. Results of all chemical and physical de-
terminations are expressed in standard units.
(For example, salinity should be expressed
in parts per thousand rather than hydrometer
readings.)
Public-health explanation.—Standardized
laboratory procedures are most apt to pro-
duce results in which the State shellfish con-
trol agency can have confidence, and facilitate
comparative evaluation of data. The need for
adherence to standardized procedures should
not discourage laboratories from experimen-
tal use of nonstandard methods.
8
June 1962
-------
Section C
GROWING AREA SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION
1. Sanitary Surveys of Growing Areas.—
A sanitary survey shall be made of each
growing area prior to its approval by the
State as a source of market shellfish or of
shellfish to be used in a controlled purifica-
tion or relaying operation. The sanitary
quality of each area shall be reappraised at
least biennially and, if necessary, a resurvey
made. Ordinarily, resurveys will be much
less comprehensive than the original survey
since it will only be necessary to bring- the
original information up to date. Records of
all original surveys and resurveys of grow-
ing areas shall be maintained by the State
shellfish control agency, and shall be made
available to Public Health Service review
officers upon request.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when-—
a. A sanitary survey has been made of
each growing area in the State prior to ini-
tial approval of interstate shipments of shell-
fish from that area. A comprehensive san-
itary survey shall include an evaluation of all
sources of actual or potential pollution on the
estuary and its tributaries, and the distance
of such sources from the growing areas; ef-
fectiveness and reliability of sewage treat-
ment works; the presence of industrial
wastes or radionuclides which would cause a
public-health hazard to the consumer of the
shellfish; and the effect of wind, stream flow,
and tidal currents in distributing polluting
materials over the growing area.2 The thor-
oughness with which each element must be
investigated varies greatly and will be de-
termined by the specific conditions in each
growing area.
b. The factors influencing the sanitary
quality of each approved shellfish growing
area are reappraised at least biennially.3 A
complete resurvey should be made of each
growing area in an approved category at least
once every ten years; however, data from
original surveys can be used when it is clear
that such information is still valid.
c. A file which contains all pertinent sani-
tary survey information, including the dates
and results of preceding sanitary surveys is
maintained by the State shellfish control
agency for each classified shellfish area.
Public-health explanation.—The positive
relationship between sewage pollution of
shellfish growing areas and enteric disease
has been demonstrated many times (13) (14)
(15) (16) (17) (18). However, epidemi-
ological investigations of shellfish-caused dis-
ease outbreaks have never established a di-
rect numerical correlation between the
bacteriological quality of water and the de-
gree of hazard to health. Investigations made
from 1914 to 1925 by the States and the Pub-
lic Health Service—a period when disease
outbreaks attributable to shellfish were more
prevalent—indicated that typhoid fever or
other enteric disease would not ordinarily be
attributed to shellfish harvested from water
in which not more than 50 percent of the one
cc. portions of water examined were positive
for conforms,4 provided the areas were not
subject to direct contamination with small
amounts of fresh sewage which would not
ordinarily be revealed by the bacteriological
examination.
Following the oyster-borne typhoid out-
break during the winter of 1924-25 in the
United States (19) the cooperative shellfish
certification program was initiated by the
States, the Public Health Service, and the
shellfish industry (9). Water quality cri-
teria were then stated as :
- In making the sanitary survey consideration should be given
to the hydrographic and geographic characteristics of the estuary,
the bacteriological quality of the growing area water and bot-
tom sediments, and the presence and location of small sources of
pollution, including boats, which might contribute fresh sewage
to the area.
;t The purpose of this reappraisal is to determine if there have
been changes in stream flow, sewage treatment, populations, or
other similar factors which might result in a change in the sani-
tary quality of the growing area. The amount of field work asso-
ciated with such a reappraisal will depend upon the area under
consideration and the magnitude of the changes which have
taken place.
' An MPN of approximately 70 per 100 ml.
Jarraarv 195!)
-------
a. The area is sufficiently removed from
major sources of pollution so that the shell-
fish would not be subjected to fecal contam-
ination in quantities which might be danger-
ous to the public health.
b. The area is free from pollution by even
small quantities of fresh sewage. The re-
port emphasized that bacteriological exam-
ination does not, in itself, offer conclusive
proof of the sanitary quality of an area.
c. Bacteriological examination does not
ordinarily show the presence of the coli-aer-
ogenes group of bacteria in 1 cc. dilutions of
growing area water.
The reliability of this three-part standard
for evaluating the safety of shellfish produc-
ing areas is evidenced by the fact that no
major outbreaks of typhoid fever or other
enteric disease have been attributed to shell-
fish harvested from waters meeting the cri-
teria since they were adopted in the United
States in 1925. Similar water c[uality cri-
teria have been in use in Canada with like
results. The available epidemiological and
laboratory evidence gives little idea as to the
margin of safety, but it is probably consider-
able as indicated by the virtual absence of re-
ported shellfish caused enteric disease over a
comparatively long period of time (18) (20)
(21).
The purpose of the sanitary survey is to
identify and evaluate those factors influenc-
ing the sanitary quality of a growing area
and which may include sources of pollution,
potential or actual; the volume of dilution
water; the effects of currents, winds and
tides in disseminating pollution over the
growing areas; the bacterial quality of water
and bottom sediments; die-out of polluting
bacteria in the tributaries and the estuary;
bottom configuration; and salinity and tur-
bidity of the water. Sources of pollution in-
clude municipal sewage discharged into the
estuary or inflowing rivers; sewage brought
into the estuary by tides or currents; surface
run-off from polluted areas; industrial
wastes; and discharges from pleasure craft,
fishing boats, naval vessels, and merchant
shipping.
Bacteriological examination of the grow-
ing waters is an important component of the
sanitary survey. In many instances the bac-
teriological and related salinity data will also
provide valuable information on the hydro-
graphic characteristics of an area.5 6
Ideally, a large number of water samples
for bacteriological examination should be
collected at each station. However, in most
instances this is not practical because of time
and budget limitations, and accordingly only
a limited number of samples can be
collected. Therefore, sampling stations
should be chosen which will provide a max-
imum of data, and which will be representa-
tive of the bacteriological quality of water
in as wide an area as possible. Sample col-
lection should be timed to represent the most
unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions since shellfish respond rapidly to
an increase in the number of bacteria in their
environment (25) (26).
There is no specified minimum number of
sampling stations, frequency of sampling, or
total number of samples. Sampling results
obtained over a period of several years can
be used as a block of data provided at least 15
samples have been collected from each of a
representative number of stations along the
line separating approved from restricted
growing areas and there have been no ad-
verse changes in hydrographic or sanitary
conditions. Only occasional bacteriological
samples are necessary from areas which are
shown to be free from pollution.
Experience with the shellfish certification
program indicates a tendency to omit or de-
emphasize some components of the sanitary
survey unless a central State file of all shell-
r' Bacteria in an unfavorable environment die out in such a
way that following an initial lag period there is a large per-
centage decline during the first few days. Descriptions of studies
on bacterial die-out have been published by Greenberg (22) and
Pearson (2.J). Die-off has also been investigated by the Public
Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory at Woods Hole,
Mass., and Pensacola, Fla. Application of this principle may be
helpful in predicting the quantity of pollution which will reach
an area, and in establishing objective effluent quality cri-
teria (2().
" In connection with the evaluation of sampling results, it
should be noted that the MPN determination is not a precise
measure of the concentration of bacteria (.}). Thus, in repeated
sampling from waters having a uniform density of bacteria vary-
ing MPN estimates will be obtained. The use of the tolerance
factor 3.3 (applicable only to 5 tube decimal dilution MPN's) is
one method of recognizing this variation. For example, in a
body of water in which the median concentration of coliform
bacteria is 70 per 100 ml., 95% of observed MPN's will he be-
tween 20 and 230 per 100 ml. ; i. e., 70/3.3=21 and 70X3.3=230.
10
January 1959
-------
fish sanitary surveys, reappraisals, and re-
surveys is maintained. This is particularly
true where responsibility for shellfish sanita-
tion is divided between two or more State
agencies. Maintenance of a central State file
for all shellfish sanitary survey information
will also simplify the endorsement appraisal
of State programs by the Public Health Serv-
ice and will help prevent loss of old data
which may be useful in evaluating the sani-
tary quality of an area.
Periodic reappraisals of the sanitary
quality of shellfish producing areas are neces-
sary to determine that environmental condi-
tions are such that the original conclusions
are still valid. A resurvey should be made if
the reappraisal shows a significant change.
2. Classification of Growing Areas.—All
coastal waters shall be classified as to their
public health suitability for the harvesting of
market shellfish. Classification criteria are
described in sections C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6,
and C-7 of this manual. Except in emer-
gency any upward revision of an area classi-
fication shall be preceded by a sanitary
survey, resurvey, or reappraisal. A written
analysis of the data justifying the reclassifi-
cation shall be made a part of the area file.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. All costal waters in the State are cor-
rectly designated with one of the following
classifications on the basis of sanitary survey
information: Approved; conditionally ap-
proved; restricted; or prohibited?
b. Area classifications are revised when-
ever warranted by survey data.
c. Classifications are not revised upward
without at least a file review, and there is a
written record of such review in the area file
maintained by the State shellfish control
agency.
d. All coastal areas which have not been
subjected to sanitary surveys shall be auto-
matically classified as prohibited.
Public-health explanation.—The probable
presence or absence of pathogenic organisms
in shellfish waters is of the greatest impor-
tance in deciding how shellfish obtained from
7 Closures may also be based on presence of paralytic shellfish
poison.
June 1962
an area may be used. All coastal waters
should thus be classified according to the in-
formation developed in the sanitary survey.
Classification should not be revised upward
without careful consideration of available
data. Areas should be reclassified whenever
warranted by existing data. A written justi-
fication for the reclassification simplifies
Public Health Service appraisal of State
programs.
A hypothetical use of the four recognized
area classifications is shown in figure 1. This
idealized situation depicts an estuary receiv-
ing sewage from two cities, "A" and "B."
City "A" has complete sewage treatment in-
cluding chlorination of effluent. City "B" has
no sewage treatment. The estuary has been
divided into five areas, designated by roman
numerals, on the basis of sanitary survey
information:
Approved
Area I. The sanitary survey indicates
that sewage from cities "A" ar*& 'B" (even
with the "A" sewage plant not functioning)
would not reach this area in such concentra-
tion as to constitute a public-health hazard.
The median coliform MPN of the water is
less than 70/100 ml. The sanitary quality of
the area is independent of sewage treatment
at city "A."
Conditionally Approved
Area II. This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I; however, the quality varies
with the effectiveness of sewage treatment at
city "A." This area would probably be clas-
sified prohibited if city "A" had not provided
sewage treatment.
Restricted
Area, III. Sewage from "B" reaches this
area, and the median coliform MPN of water
is between 70 and 700 per 100 ml. Shellfish
may be used only under specified conditions.
Prohibited
Area IV. Direct harvesting from this
area is prohibited because of raw sewage
11
647036 O - 62 - 2
-------
12
January 1959
-------
from "B." The median coliform MPN of
water may exceed 700/100 ml.
Area V. Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited because of possible failure of
the sewage treatment plant. Closure is based
on need for a safety factor rather than coli-
form content of water or amount of dilution
water.
3. Approved Areas.—Growing areas may
be designated as approved when: (a) the san-
itary survey indicates that pathogenic micro-
organisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful in-
dustrial wastes do not reach the area in dan-
gerous concentration, and (b) this is verified
by laboratory findings insofar as possible.
Shellfish may be taken from such areas for
direct marketing.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when the three following criteria
are met:
a. The area is not so contaminated with
fecal material that consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and
b. The area is not so contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous
(see section C, item 7, regarding paralytic
shellfish poison in shellfish growing areas),
and
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
than 10 per cent of the samples ordinarily ex-
ceed an MPN of 230 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
decimal dilution test (or 330 per 100 ml.,
where the 3-tube decimal dilution test is
used) in those portions of the area most prob-
ably exposed to fecal contamination during
the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollu-
tion conditions. (Note: This concentration
might be exceeded if less than 8 million cubic
feet of a coliform-free dilution water are
available for each population equivalent (coli-
form) of sewage reaching the area.) The
foregoing limits need not be applied if it can
be shown by detailed study that the colif orms
are not of direct fecal origin and do not in-
dicate a public health hazard (19) (20) .8
E This MPN value is based on a typical ratio of coliforms to
pathogens and would not be applicable to any situation in which
an abnormally large number of pathogens might be present.
Consideration must also be given to the possible presence of in-
dustrial or agricultural wastes in which there is an atypical coli-
form to pathogen ratio (30).
Public-health explanation.—A review of
epidemiological investigations of disease out-
breaks attributable to the consumption of raw
shellfish reveals that two general situations
prevail '•' insofar as pollution of growing or
storage areas are concerned.
(1) Gross sewage contamination of a
growing or wet storage area. (A report of
a 1910 outbreak of typhoid fever involving
45 persons notes that raw sewage from a
city with a population of 30,000 was dis-
charged only a few hundred feet away
from clam beds and floats (27) (28). In
1947 a case of typhoid fever was attributed
to clams harvested 200 yards from the out-
let of a municipal sewage treatment plant
(29). In the latter case, the coliform
MPN of the harbor water exceeded 12,000
per 100 ml. and the area had been posted
as closed to shellfish harvesting.)
(2) Chance contamination of a growing
or wet storage area by fresh fecal material
which may not be diffused throughout the
entire area (14) (16) (17) (19) and there-
fore not readily detectable by ordinary bac-
teriological procedures. The possibility of
chance contamination was noted by Dr.
Gurion in his report on a 1902 typhoid out-
break, and who is quoted in Public Health
Bulletin No. 86, as "there is a zone of pollu-
tion established by the mere fact of the ex-
istence of a populated city upon the banks
of a stream or tidal estuary which makes
the laying down of oysters and clams in
these waters a pernicious custom if per-
sisted in, because it renders these articles
of food dangerous at times, and always
suspicious". The 1956 outbreak of infec-
tious hepatitis in Sweden (691 cases)
attributed to oysters which were contami-
nated in a wet storage area is an example
of such contamination (16). Similarly in
1939, 87 cases of typhoid were attributed
to fecal contamination of a storage area by
a typhoid carrier (14) •
It is well established that shellfish from
water having a median coliform MPN not
0 There is a third general consideration in which shellfish may
be contaminated through mishandling. This is not related to
growing area sanitation and is considered in part II of this
manual.
June 1962
13
-------
exceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and which is also
protected against chance contamination with
fecal material, will not be involved in the
spread of disease which can be attributed to
initial contamination of the shellfish. This is
not surprising since a water MPN of 70/100
ml. is equivalent to a dilution ratio of about
8 million cubic feet of colif orm-f ree water per
day for the fecal material from each person
contributing sewage to the area. This tre-
mendous volume of water is available in shell-
fish growing areas through tidal action which
is constantly bringing unpolluted water into
the area.8
Areas which are approved for direct mar-
ket harvesting of shellfish which wi [1 be eaten
raw must necessarily meet one general test;
i.e., sewage reaching the growing area must
be so treated, diluted, or aged that it will be
of negligible public-health significance. This
implies an element of time and distance to
permit the mixing of the sewage or fecal ma-
terial with the very large volume of diluting
water and for a major portion of the micro-
organisms to die out. Studies of the natural
die-off of microorganisms in an unfavorable
marine environment have been summarized
by Greenberg (22).
The effectiveness of sewage treatment
processes must be considered in evaluating
the sanitary quality of a growing area since
the bacterial content of the effluent will be
determined by the degree of treatment which
is obtained (2). The results of bacteriolog-
ical sampling must also be correMed with
sewage treatment plant operation, and eval-
uated in terms of the minimum treatment
which can be expected with a realization of
the possibility of malfunctioning, overload-
ing, or poor operation.
The presence of radionuclides in growing
area waters may also have public-health sig-
nificance since shellfish, along with other
marine organisms, have the ability to concen-
trate such materials (31) (32) (33) (34).
The degree to which radioisotopes will be
concentrated depends upon the species of
shellfish and the specific radioisotope. For
example, it has been reported that the East-
see footnote % on page 13.
ern oyster has a concentration factor of
17,000 for Zn 65 whereas the concentration
factor for Sr 89 is approximately unity (31).
The distribution of the radioisotope in the
shellfish and the biological half-life are also
variable. Sources of radioactive materials
include fall-out, industrial wastes, and nu-
clear reactors. Limiting maximum permis-
sible concentrations of radioactive materials
expressed in terms of specific radioisotopes
and unidentified mixtures in water and food
have been established (35) (36). The cur-
rent standard should be consulted in evaluat-
ing the public-health significance of detected
radioactivity in market shellfish.
The bacterial quality of active shellfish will
ordinarily be directly proportional to the bac-
terial quality of the water in which they
grew; however, considerable variation in in-
dividual determinations may be expected.
The coliform MPN's of the shellfish usually
exceed those of the overlying water because
shellfish filter large quantities of water to ob-
tain food, thereby concentrating the sus-
pended bacteria. This relationship will
depend upon the shellfish species, water tem-
perature, presence of certain chemicals, and
varying capabilities of the individual an-
imals. (See appendix A.)
4. Conditionally Approved Areas.—The
suitability of some areas for harvesting shell-
fish for direct marketing is dependent upon
the attainment of an established perform-
ance standard by sewage treatment works
discharging effluent, directly or indirectly, to
the area. In other cases the sanitary quality
of an area may be affected by seasonal popu-
lation, or sporadic use of a dock or harbor
facility. Such areas may be classified as
conditionally approved.
State shellfish control agencies shall estab-
lish conditionally approved areas only when
satisfied that (a) all necessary measures
have been taken to insure that performance
standards will be met, and (b) that precau-
tions have been taken to assure that shellfish
will not be marketed from the areas subse-
quent to any failure to meet the performance
standards and before the shellfish can purify
themselves of polluting micro-organisms.
14
January 1959
-------
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. The water quality requirements for an
approved area are met at all times while the
area is approved as a source of shellfish for
direct marketing.
b. An operating procedure for each condi-
tionally approved area is developed jointly by
the State shellfish control agency, local agen-
cies, including those responsible for operation
of sewerage systems, and the local shellfish
industry. The operating procedure should be
based on an evaluation of each of the poten-
tial sources of pollution which may affect the
area. The procedure should establish per-
formance standards, specify necessary safety
devices and measures, and define inspection
and check procedures. (These procedures
are described in more detail in the following
public-health explanation.)
c. A closed safety zone is established be-
tween the conditionally approved area and
the source of pollution to give the State agency
time to stop shellfish harvesting if perform-
ance standards are not met.
d. Boundaries of conditionally approved
areas are so marked as to be readily identified
by harvesters.
e. Critical sewerage system units are so
designed, constructed, and maintained that
the chances of failure to meet the established
performance standards due to mechanical
failure or overloading are minimized.
f. There is a complete understanding of
the purpose of the conditionally approved
classification by all parties concerned, includ-
ing the shellfish industry. Successful func-
tioning of the concept is dependent upon the
wholehearted cooperation of all interested
parties. If such cooperation is not assured
the State should not approve the area for di-
rect harvesting of market shellfish.
g. Any failure to meet the performance
standards is immediately reported to the
State shellfish control agency by telephone or
messenger. In some instances States may
find it desirable to delegate the authority for
closing a conditionally approved area to a
representative of the agency located in the
immediate area.
h. The State immediately closes condition-
ally approved areas to shellfish harvesting
following a report that the performance
standards have not been met. The area shall
remain closed until the performance stand-
ards can again be met plus a length of time
sufficient for the shelfish to purify themselves
so that they will not be a hazard to the public
health. (See section D-l, "Relaying," for
information on the length of time required
for self-purification of shellfish.)
i. The State shellfish control agency makes
at least two evaluations during the shellfish
harvesting season of each conditionally ap-
proved area including inspection of each crit-
ical unit of the sewerage system to determine
the general mechanical condition of the equip-
ment, the accuracy of recording devices, and
the accuracy of reporting by the operating
agency.
j. If it is discovered that failure to meet
performance standards have not been re-
ported by the operating agency, or if the per-
formance standards are not met, the area
shall immediately revert to a restricted or
prohibited classification.
k. All data relating to the operation of a
conditionally approved area, including oper-
ation of sewerage systems, are maintained in
a file by the State shellfish control agency.
Public-health explanation.—The condition-
ally approved classification is designed pri-
marily to protect shellfish growing areas in
which the water quality might undergo a
significant adverse change within a short pe-
riod of time.10 The change might result from
overloading or mechanical failure of a sewage
treatment plant, or bypassing of sewage at a
lift station.
Water quality in many growing areas in
the more densely populated sections of the
country is, to some degree, dependent upon
the operation of sewage treatment plants.
For example, the boundaries of an approved
shellfish area might be determined during a
period when a tributary sewage treatment
plant is operating at a satisfactory level. If
10 A natural disaster may also cause many sewage treatment
plants to be out of service for an extended period of time. The
conditionally approred area concept is not ordinarily concerned
with such emergency situations.
January 1959
15
-------
there is some interruption in treatment it
follows that there will be some degradation
in water quality in the growing area, which
may justify a relocation of the boundaries.
The degree of relocation would depend upon
such items as the distance between the pollu-
tion source and the growing area, hydrog-
raphy, the amount of dilution water, and the
amount of pollution.
The concept is also applicable to other sit-
uations in which there may be a rapid or
seasonal change in water quality. Examples
of such situations include—
a. A growing area adjacent to a resort
community. During the summer months the
community might have a large population
which might have an adverse effect on water
quality. However, during the winter when
there are few people in the community the
water quality might improve sufficiently to
allow approval of the area. In some States
this is known as a seasonal closure.
b. A protected harbor in a sparsely settled
area might provide anchorage for a fishing
fleet several months a year. When the fishing
fleet is in, the harbor water would be of poor
sanitary quality; however, during the re-
mainder of the year the quality of the harbor
water might be satisfactory. The area would
be approved for shellfish harvesting only
when the fishing fleet is not using the harbor.
c. The water quality in an area fluctuates
with the discharge of a major river. During
periods of high runoff the area is polluted
because of decreased flow time in the river.
However, during periods of low runoff the
area might be of satisfactory quality and thus
be approved for shellfish harvesting.
The establishment of conditionally ap-
proved areas might be considered whenever
the potential for sewage contamination is
such that the limiting water quality criteria
for an approved area might be exceeded in
less than one week due to a failure of sewage
treatment, or other situations as described
above.
The first step in determining whether an
area should be placed in the conditionally
approved classification is the evaluation of
the potential sources of pollution in terms of
their effect on water quality in the area. Po-
tential sources of pollution include the
following:
(1) Sewage treatment plants.
(a) By-passing of all or part of sew-
age because of mechanical or power fail-
ure, hydraulic overloading, or treatment
overloading.
(b) Reduced degree of treatment due
to operational difficulties or inadequate
plant.
(2) Sewage lift stations.
(a) By-passing during periods of
maximum flow due to inadequate
capacity.
(6) By-passing because of mechanical
or power failure.
(3) Interceptor sewers or underwater
outfalls.
(a) Exfiltration due to faulty con-
struction.
(6) Leakage due to damage.
(4) Other sources of pollution.
(a) Sewage from merchant or naval
vessels.
(b) Sewage from recreation use of
area.
The second step in establishment of a con-
ditionally approved area is the evaluation of
each source of pollution in terms of the water
quality standards to be maintained, and the
formulation of performance standards for
each installation having a significant effect
on the sanitary quality of the area. Exam-
ples of performance standards might
include:
(1) Bacteriological quality of effluent
from sewage treatment plants. This
might be stated in terms of chlorine resid-
ual if the bacteriological quality of the ef-
fluent can be positively related to chlorine
residual. The following is an example of a
performance standard (37) : "The me-
dian coliform MPN, in any one month,
shall not exceed 500 per 100 ml, based on
not less than 16 composite samples per
month, and not more than 10 percent of
the samples shall have an MPN in excess
of 10,000 per 100 ml. Determinations of
the chlorine residual of the effluent should
be made hourly and recorded in the perma-
nent plant records."
16
January 1959
-------
(2) Total quantity of sewage which
can be discharged from any given unit, or
from a combination of units, without caus-
ing the basic water quality standards to be
exceeded.
(3) Amount of shipping in the area and
the amount of sewage which can be
expected.
Design criteria which may be useful in
formulating an opinion on the quantity of
sewage which can be discharged into an area
without exceeding the desired water quality
standards include: Population equivalent
(coliform) of sewage; predicted survival of
coliform in sea water, effectiveness of chlo-
rination, and the total quantity of clean dilu-
tion water in an area. Results of many
studies on the survival of bacteria in sea
water have been summarized in An Investi-
gation of the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Sewage and Sludge; Publication
No. 14, California State Water Pollution
Control Board, 1956.
The mechanical equipment at critical sew-
age treatment or pumping units should be
such that interruptions will be minimized.
Wherever possible operations should be auto-
matically recorded on charts. Examples of
the requirements which might be imposed,
depending upon the importance of the unit in
terms of water quality, include:
(1) Ample capacity for storm flows.
(Storm water should ordinarily be excluded
from the sanitary system.)
(2) Standby equipment to insure that
treatment or pumping will not be inter-
rupted because of damage to a single unit
or to power failure.
(3) Instrumentation of pumps and
equipment to allow the regulatory agency
to determine that performance standards
have been met. Examples include:
(a) Recording scales to indicate rate
of chlorine use. Chlorine flow can be in-
tegrated with hydraulic flow to establish
a ratio.
(b) Liquid level recording gauges in
overflow channels of sewage treatment
plants and wet wells of lift stations to
indicate when overflow takes place.
Charts should be dated and initialed
by the operator. Gauges should be
calibrated so that discharge can be
estimated.
(c) Automatic devices to warn of fail-
ure or malfunctioning at self-operated
pumping stations or treatment plants.
(4) The effect of storm sewage can be
calculated by multiplying the total esti-
mated flow by the observed coliform con-
tent. The result can be expressed in terms
of population equivalents (coliform).
Design and operation of equipment should
be such that closure provisions should not
have to be invoked more than once per year
under ordinary circumstances.
A closed safety area should be interposed
between the conditionally approved area and
the source of pollution. The size of such area
should be based on the total time it would
take for the operating agency to detect a
failure, notify the State shellfish control
agency, and for the latter agency to stop shell-
fish harvesting. It is recommended that the
area be of such size that the flow time through
the safety area be at least twice that required
for the notification process to become effec-
tive. Due consideration should be given to
the possibility that closure actions might be
necessary on holidays or at night.
The type of marking which will be required
for conditionally approved areas will vary
from State to State depending upon the legal
requirements for closing an area.
The length of time a conditionally approved
area should be closed following a temporary
closure will depend upon several factors in-
cluding the species of shellfish, water tem-
perature, purification rates, presence of silt
or other chemicals that might interfere with
the physiological activity of the shellfish, and
the degree of pollution of the area. (See sec-
tion D-l of this manual for additional infor-
mation on the natural purification of
shellfish.)
5. Restricted Areas.—An area may be clas-
sified as restricted when a sanitary survey
indicates a limited degree of pollution which
would make it unsafe to harvest the shellfish
for direct marketing. Alternatively the
States may classify such areas as prohibited.
(See section C-6, this manual.) Shellfish
January 1950
17
-------
from such areas may be marketed after puri-
fying or relaying as provided for in section D.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when the following water quality
ceriteria are met in areas designated by States
as restricted." 12
a. The area is so contaminated with fecal
materials that direct consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and/or
b. The area is not so contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous,
and/or
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 700 per 100 ml. and not more
than 10 percent of the samples exceed an
MPN of 2,300 per 100 ml. in those portions
of the areas most probably exposed to fecal
contamination during the most unfavora-
ble hydrographic and pollution conditions.
(Note: this concentration might be exceeded
if less than 800,000 cubic feet of a coliform-
free dilution water are available for each
population equivalent (coliform) of sewage
reaching the area.)
d. Shellfish from restricted areas are not
marketed without controlled purification or
relaying.
Public-health explanation.—In many in-
stances it is difficult to draw a clear line of
demarcation between polluted a.nd non-pol-
luted areas. In such instances the State may,
at its option, classify areas of intermediate
sanitary quality as restricted and authorize
the use of the shellfish for relaying, or con-
trolled purification.
6. Prohibited Areas.—An area shall be clas-
sified prohibited if the sanitary survey indi-
cates that dangerous numbers of pathogenic
micro-organisms might reach an area. The
taking of shellfish from such areas for direct
marketing shall be prohibited. Relaying or
other salvage operations shall be carefully
supervised to insure against polluted shellfish
entering trade channels. Coastal areas which
have not been subjected to sanitary surveys
11 It is not mandatory that States us this classification. Areas
not meeting the appro ml classification may be closed to all har-
vesting for direct marketing.
1L> Routine sanitary surveys and reappraisals of restricted areas
shall be made on the same frequency as for approver! areas. (See
section C-l.)
shall be automatically classified as prohibited.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
a. An area is classified as prohibited if a
sanitary survey indicates either of the follow-
ing degrees of pollution:
(1) The area is so contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazard-
ous and/or
(2) The median coliform MPN of the
water exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than
10 percent of the samples have a coliform
MPN in excess of 2,300 per 100 ml.
(Note: This concentration might be
reached if less than 800,000 cubic feet of a
coliform-free dilution water are available
for each population equivalent (coliform)
of sewage reaching the area.)
b. No market shellfish are taken from
prohibited areas except by special permit as
described in section D.
c. Coastal areas in which sanitary surveys
have not been made shall be automatically
classified as prohibited.
Public-health explanation.—The positive
relationship between enteric disease and the
eating of raw or partially cooked shellfish
has been outlined in section C-l. Prevention
of the interstate transport of shellfish con-
taining sufficient numbers of pathogenic mi-
cro-organisms to cause disease is a primary
objective of the Cooperative Program. There-
fore, areas containing dangerous concentra-
tions of micro-organisms of fecal origin, or
areas which may be slightly contaminated
with fresh fecal discharges, should not be ap-
proved as a source of shellfish for direct
marketing.
7. Closure of Areas Due to Paralytic
Shellfish Poison.—The State shellfish control
agency shall regularly collect and assay rep-
resentative samples of shellfish from growing
areas where paralytic shellfish poison is likely
to occur. If the poison content reaches 80
micrograms per 100 grams of the edible por-
tions of raw shellfish meat, the area shall be
closed to the taking of the species of shellfish
in which the poison has been found.13 The
13 This value is based on the results of epidemiological investi-
gations of outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poison in Canada in
19B4 and 1957 (38) (39).
18
June 19U2
-------
harvesting of shellfish from such areas shall
be controlled in accord with the recommenda-
tions of sections E-l and E-2 of this manual.
The quarantine shall remain in effect until
such time as the State shellfish control agency
is convinced the poison content of the shellfish
involved is below the quarantine level.14
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control agency col-
lects and assays representative samples of
shellfish for the presence of paralytic shellfish
poison from each suspected growing area
during the harvesting season. (See section
B-2 for assay methods.)
b. A quarantine is imposed against the
taking of shellfish when the toxicity reaches
80 micrograms per 100 grams of the edible
portion of raw shellfish.
Public-health explanation.—In some areas
paralytic poison is collected temporarily by
bivalve shellfish from free-swimming, one-
celled marine plants on which these shellfish
feed. The plants flourish seasonally when
water conditions are favorable.
1 * The provisions of this item apply only to shellfish which will
be marketed as a fresh or frozen product as properly controlled
heat processing will reduce the poison content of the shellfish.
Cases of paralytic poisoning, including
several fatalities, resulting from poisonous
shellfish have been reported from both the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The minimum
quantity of poison which will cause intoxica-
tion in a susceptible person is not known.
Epidemiological investigations of paralytic
shellfish poisoning in Canada have indicated
200 to 600 micrograms of poison will produce
symptoms in susceptible persons and a death
has been attributed to the ingestion of a prob-
able 480 micrograms of poison. Investiga-
tions indicate that lesser amounts of the poi-
son have no deleterious effects on humans.
Growing areas should be closed at a lower
toxicity level to provide an adequate margin
of safety since in many instances toxicity
levels will change rapidly (38) (39). It has
also been shown that the heat treatment af-
forded in ordinary canning processes re-
duces the poison content of raw shellfish
considerably.
A review of literature and research dealing
with the source of the poison, the occurrence
and distribution of poisonous shellfish, physi-
ology and toxicology, characteristics of the
poison, and prevention and control of poison-
ing has been prepared and is obtainable from
the Public Health Service (40).
January 1959
19
-------
Section D
PREPARATION OF SHELLFISH FOR MARKETING
1. Relaying.—State shellfish control agen-
cies may approve the intra or interstate
transplanting of market shellfish from re-
stricted or prohibited areas to approved areas
subject to certain limitations. All phases of
the operation shall be under the immediate
supervision of responsible State (s) shellfish
control or patrol agency (s). A memorandum
of understanding shall be developed between
the agencies responsible for the control of in-
terstate relaying operations. (Shellfish may
be transplanted from an approvei area to an-
other like area at any time without restriction
due to sanitary reasons.)
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. Shellfish are not relaid from restricted
or prohibited areas to approved areas without
written permission of the State shellfish con-
trol agency.
b. All relaying operations are under the
immediate supervision of the State shellfish
control or patrol agency. Supervision shall
be such that no polluted shellfish are mar-
keted before the end of the approved relaying
period. The supervising officer shall be au-
thorized and equipped to enforce the State
regulations on relaying; shall actually super-
vise the harvesting, transport and relaying of
shellfish; and shall patrol the approved area
during the period that shellfish are under-
going the cleansing process. However, direct
supervision will not be necessary if relaying
operations are carried out during a period
when shellfish may not be marketed. A con-
tinuous record of water temperature, salinity,
and any other critical variables must be main-
tained when it is known that the limiting
values may be approached and when the mini-
mum relaying periods are being used.
c. State permission to re-lay shellfish is
given only to responsible persons unless the
entire operation is under direct supervision
by the State. Responsibility shall, when pos-
sible, be determined by the past record of the
permit applicant. It is recommended that ap-
plicants be required to post performance
bonds.
d. Relaid shellfish are held in the approved
area for a period of time sufficient to allow
them to cleanse themselves of polluting bac-
teria. (The time required for purification
will be determined by water temperature,
salinity, initial bacteriological quality and
species of shellfish.)
e. Relaid shellfish are not harvested with-
out written permission from the State shell-
fish control agency.
f. Areas designated for relaid shellfish are
so located and marked that they may be
readily identified by the harvesters and so
that shellfish in any adjacent approved area
will not be contaminated. (This requirement
applies only to relaying during the harvest-
ing season.)
g. Shellfish are not relayed intra or inter-
state from restricted or prohibited areas to
approved areas without written permission
of the State (s) shellfish control agency (s).
(If shellfish are relayed interstate, a memo-
randum of agreement shall be developed
outlining the control measures to be used'.)
Public-health explanation. — Shellfish
transplanted from a polluted to a clean en-
vironment will cleanse themselves of the
polluting bacteria. This is a natural phe-
nomenon resulting from the shellfish feeding
processes. Bacteria in the body and shell
cavity of the shellfish at the time of trans-
20
June 1962
-------
planting are either used as food or are ejected
in feces or pseudofeces.
The length of time required for this cleans-
ing process is influenced by many factors in-
cluding original level of pollution, water
temperature, presence of chemicals inhibitory
to physiological activity of the shellfish, salin-
ity, and varying capabilities of the individual
animals. Advice on limiting water tempera-
tures, either maximum or minimum, should
be obtained from local marine biologists.
Investigations by marine biologists have
confirmed that the physiological activities of
the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is
reduced when the water temperature falls be-
low a certain value. It has been found that
the pumping rate of Eastern oysters is re-
duced at water temperatures below 50° F.,
and that most animals stop pumping at a
water temperature of about 41° F. However,
a few oysters show slight activity at temper-
atures approaching 32° F. (41) (42). This
phenomenon was first noted by shellfish bac-
teriologists who found that Eastern oysters
harvested from polluted areas during cold
weather had coliform contents comparable
with those of oysters harvested from clean
areas during warmer weather (43) (44)
(45).
Gibbard, et al. (46) investigating temper-
ature-induced hibernation was unable to dem-
onstrate coliforms in Eastern oysters within
a few days after the water temperatures
dropped to 32° F. The rapidity with which
hibernating oysters become active when the
water temperature rises above the threshold
value was discussed by Wachter (47) in 1925
and was demonstrated by Gibbard, et al.
(46). The latter investigator found that
contamination accompanying a sudden two
degree increase in water temperature from
41° to 43° F. was reflected in the oysters in
one day.
Relaying operations must be carefully su-
pervised by an official State agency since the
shellfish may contain pathogenic micro-
organisms. Control must apply to all phases
of the operation including initial harvesting,
transportation, replanting, purification pe-
riod, and final harvesting for marketing if the
relaying area is adjacent to a restricted area
or to an area containing relaid shellfish which
have not been released for harvesting.
2. Controlled Purification.—Shellfish from
restricted or prohibited areas may be mar-
keted after effective controlled purification.
Purification shall be permitted only under the
immediate supervision of the State shellfish
control agency. Water used for purification
shall be of high bacteriological quality and its
physical and chemical properties shall be
favorable to maximum physiological activity
of the shellfish. Stringent precautions shall
be taken by the State shellfish control agency
to insure that shellfish harvested from re-
stricted or prohibited areas are actually sub-
mitted to an effective purification process be-
fore marketing.
Purification of shellfish from prohibited
areas shall not be approved by the State un-
less relaying is not practical for biological
reasons, and no public-health hazard will re-
sult from the use of such shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
a. The controlled purification system, in-
cluding water treatment, has been demon-
strated to be consistently effective for the
species of shellfish being purified. Purifica-
tion may be accomplished in either a natural
body of water or in tanks. (In determining
the effectiveness of the process at least the
following factors shall be investigated:
Water temperature, silt or turbidity, dis-
solved oxygen, presence of chemicals, and
time required for purification.) The bacteri-
ological quality of the purified shellfish shall
be at least equal to shellfish of the same spe-
cies harvested from local approved areas.
b. A purification plant operating proce-
dure is developed and copies are supplied to
the Public Health Service.
c. Water used for purification is obtained
from an area meeting the physical and bac-
teriological requirements of an approved
growing area, or in the case of treated water
the bacteriological limits of the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards (48) are
met. If water is to be treated, it shall be
obtained from an area meeting at least the
sanitary requirements for a restricted area.
d. Water used for purification has chem-
.Tanuarv
21
-------
ical and physical characteristics conducive to
maximum physiological activity of the shell-
fish. (Consideration shall be given to the
following-: Presence of chemicals, turbidity,
temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen,
and to the adequacy of the facilities of
the operating agency for measuring these
characteristics.)
e. Shellfish are freed of contamination and
foreign material adhering to shells before
purification.
f. Shellfish are culled before and after
purification.
g. Purification plant operation is under
the administrative control of the State shell-
fish control agency. Purification plants may
be operated by agencies other than the State;
however, insofar as the Cooperative Program
is concerned, the State is responsible for sat-
isfactory operation.
h. Laboratory control is maintained over
the purification operation. Controls shall in-
clude at least the following: Daily or tidal-
cycle bacteriological quality of water; final
bacteriological quality for each lot of shellfish
purified; and, when they are critical factors,
hourly or continuous salinity determinations
and tidal-cycle turbidity determinations.
i. The plant operator possesses a satisfac-
tory knowledge of the principles of water
treatment and bacteriology.
j. Animals, rodents, and unauthorized
persons are excluded from the plant.
k. Plant employees fulfill the qualifications
for a shucker as described in section B-28,
part II of this manual.
1. The State has an effective system for
assuring that shellfish harvested from re-
stricted areas will be submitted to purification
before marketing. Shellfish harvesting from
prohibited areas for controlled purification
shall be under the immediate supervision of
the State.
m. Shellfish from prohibited areas are not
subjected to purification unless the State
shellfish control agency can show that relay-
ing or depletion is not biologically feasible;
and that no public-health hazard will result
from the use of such shellfish.
Public-health explanation.—The ability of
shellfish to purify themselves in clean water
was discovered early in the 1900's. The bio-
logical process is reasonably well understood
and is described by Arcisz and Kelly (26) as
follows:
"Purification is a mechanical process ef-
fected by the physiological functioning of the
shellfish in clean water. When shellfish are
feeding, the gills act as a filter to strain out
some of the material that may be brought in
by the water which passes through them. If
this water contains sewage, some of the
micro-organisms in it are entrapped in the
mucus on the body of the shellfish and trans-
ferred to the alimentary tract. Some of these
are perhaps utilized as food (49) and the
others discharged from the body in the form
of feces and pseudofeces. When shellfish
from polluted water are placed in clean water,
the sewage bacteria are eliminated from the
shellfish, and, since no more are ingested,
purification is accomplished."
The purification process has been investi-
gated extensively in England and to a lesser
extent in the United States and Canada (50)
(51) (52). The technique is reliable if
proper methods are used, and insofar as is
known, is applicable to all commercial species
of shellfish.
Many of the earlier investigators suggested
that purification be accomplished in tanks
using water which had been subjected to a
treatment process (52). The analogy with
water treatment was carried to the point of
recommending a chlorine residual in the puri-
fication tanks. However, fishery biologists
have shown that shellfish pumping is de-
creased or inhibited by even small quantities
of chlorine (53) (54). The inhibitory effect
of chlorinated-dechlorinated water on activ-
ity of Eastern oysters has been noted by the
Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation
Laboratory.
Since purification depends upon the pump-
ing rate of the shellfish, it is important that
the water be free of chemicals or physical
characteristics which might interfere with
this activity. For example, silt or dissolved
organic substances may influence the pump-
ing rates of shellfish (55) (56). The rela-
tionship of water temperature to pumping
rates has been mentioned previously.
22
January 1959
-------
Shellfish purification facilities have gener-
ally been considered to include holding tanks
and water treatment facilities (57) (58) ;
however, investigations in Canada and Eng-
land have demonstrated that purification can
be accomplished with relatively simple in-
stallations if the operation is supervised
properly (59) (50) (60) (61). Accordingly,
any purification process of proven effective-
ness will be accepted by the Cooperative
Program.
Administrative control of the purification
process is necessary to insure that shellfish
are properly washed and culled, are held for
the required length of time, and that the puri-
fication water supply is properly controlled.
January 1959
23
-------
Section E
CONTROL OF HARVESTING FROM CLOSED AREAS
1. Identification of Closed Areas.—Shell-
fish harvesters shall be notified by direct no-
tice and warning signs of areas closed to har-
vesting. Closed areas shall be so marked or
described that they may be easily recognized
by the harvesters. The measures necessary
to accomplish delineation and notification will
vary with the structure of the local shellfish
industry and with the legal requirements of
each State.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when:
a. The boundaries of the closed areas are
marked by fixed objects or landmarks in a
manner which permits successful prosecution
of any violations of the closed aieas.
b. Shellfish harvesters are notified of the
location of closed areas by publication or di-
rect notification (such as registered mail)
and by warning signs posted at points of
access to each closed area. The; method of
notification and identification should permit
the successful prosecution of persons harvest-
ing shellfish from the closed areas. (The lim-
iting of shellfish harvesting permits to spe-
cific areas is an alternative to posting or noti-
fication. Where such a system is used, post-
ing will be required only for closed areas
which contain market shellfish.)
Public-health- explanation.—Previous sec-
tions of this manual have described the
public-health reasons for limiting shellfish
harvesting to areas free of contamination and
paralytic shellfish poison. Methods have been
described for the evaluation and classifica-
tion of such areas. However, classification is
not effective unless the State car prevent ille-
gal harvesting of shellfish for direct market-
ing from these closed areas.
For the most part, control of illegal har-
vesting depends upon the police' activities as
described in section E-2. However, adequate
delineation of the closed areas is fundamental
to effective patrol.
The type of area identification will be de-
termined by the structure of the local shellfish
industry. Posting a warning sign is one
method of informing shellfish harvesters that
an area is closed to the taking of shellfish for
public-health reasons. However, if the local
shellfish industry is highly organized, with
shellfish being harvested by only a few opera-
tors, identification may be accomplished by
officially informing the harvesters that cer-
tain areas are closed to the taking of shellfish.
It is recommended that the advice of the
State's legal counsel be obtained to insure that
the marking of closed areas and notifications
to shellfish harvesters are such that illegal
harvesting can be prosecuted successfully.
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting of
Shellfish From Closed Areas.—Closed grow-
ing areas shall be patrolled by a State agency
to prevent illegal harvesting. The patrol
force shall be so equipped that its officers will
be able to apprehend persons taking shellfish
from closed areas.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. There is no evidence that shellfish are
being harvested from closed areas except by
special permit as required to meet local con-
ditions.
b. Closed shellfish growing areas are pa-
trolled by representatives of an official agency,
due consideration being given to night, week-
end and holiday patrols. (States may dele-
gate patrol activities to local organizations;
however, responsibility for effective control
will remain with the State insofar as the
Cooperative Program is concerned.
c. Patrol forces are so equipped that per-
sons observed in closed areas may be appre-
hended.
d. Complete records of patrol activities,
including violations and court actions, are
maintained in the central office of the State
shellfish control or patrol agency. It will be
24
January 1959
-------
the responsibility of the State to include local
patrol activities in these records. (See sec-
tion A, subsection 2 (e) regarding monthly
summaries of patrol activities.)
Public-health explanation.—The primary
objective of the Cooperative Program is to
insure that shellfish will be harvested only
from areas which are free of dangerous con-
centrations of pathogenic micro-organisms,
industrial or radioactive wastes, or paralytic
shellfish poison.
Growing areas may be classified as to their
public-health suitability for shellfish harvest-
ing on the basis of information obtained by
sanitary and toxicological surveys. How-
ever, if local shellfish harvesters are not con-
vinced of the need for restrictions, shellfish
may be harvested surreptitiously from the
closed areas. Thus, patrol failure may nul-
lify the public-health safeguards resulting
from sanitary survey activities.
The fact that law prohibits the removal of
shellfish from certain areas will deter most
persons from attempting to harvest such
shellfish provided they are aware of the law
and of the areas which are closed. However,
local public opinion may not support the need
for such closures. In such cases favorable
opinion can probably be developed only
through an educational program or a locally
demonstrated need such as an epidemic or
outbreak of paralytic shellfish poisoning.
There is also a minority element not con-
cerned with the welfare of their customers
and who, through ignorance or purpose, will
attempt to circumvent the harvesting restric-
tions.
Patrols must, therefore, be directed against
three classes of individuals; i. e., those who
are ignorant of the law, those who believe the
law is unjust or unreasonable, and those who
have no regard for the law.
Several mechanisms for improving the
effectiveness of patrols include educational
programs to acquaint shellfish harvesters
with the public-health reasons for the clos-
ures, elimination of the "temptation element"
by depletion, and relaying or purification.
Apprehension, prosecution, and punishment
of violators is a final resort.
The type of patrol organization needed for
any particular situation cannot be specified
and is determined by the nature of areas to
be patrolled, means of access, methods of
harvesting, and species. Patrol equipment
should be such that the officers can apprehend
persons harvesting shellfish in a closed area.
Necessary equipment might include patrol
boats capable of operating in open waters;
small, high-speed, readily transportable
boats, or patrol automobiles. In many in-
stances, two-way radio will be helpful in co-
ordinating patrol activities.
Organization of the patrol activity must
take into consideration the need for night,
weekend, holiday, and surprise patrols.
Either nuisance or continual patrol may be
used depending on the nature of the area to
be patrolled and the type of industry.
The adequacy of State laws as a basis for
prosecution is an important component of this
activity. Shellfish patrol will probably be
ineffective if State laws are so written or
interpreted that violators cannot be success-
fully prosecuted, or if penalties are so small
that they are economically unimportant. The
latter point may be important in an area
where local public opinion does not support
the need for the restriction.
3. Depletion of Closed Areas.—The State
shellfish control or patrol agency shall super-
vise all depletion operations. All market-size
shellfish and as many of the smaller size as
can be gathered by reasonable methods shall
be removed in the initial depletion operation.
Depletion of each area shall be carried out at
intervals to prevent the development of mar-
ket-sized shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will
be satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control or patrol
agency exercises direct supervision over each
depletion project including patrol of the area
in which the shellfish are relaid. (See section
D-l.)
b. All market shellfish and as many of the
smaller size shellfish as can be gathered by
reasonable methods are removed in the deple-
tion operation.
c. Similar supervised depletion operations
January 1959
25
-------
are carried out at intervals to prevent de-
velopment of market-sized shellfish in quanti-
ties which would make commercial harvest-
ing economically practicable in the depleted
areas.
Public-health explanation.—Complete re-
moval of shellfish from polluted to clean areas
under appropriate precautions is the best
safeguard against contaminated shellfish
reaching the market. In some cases depletion
may be more economical and effective than
patrol of closed areas.
Appendix A
BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA OF SHELLFISH AND
SHELLFISH WATERS
The bacteriological examination of shellfish
and shellfish growing waters is important in
evaluating the sanitary quality of the aquatic
environment; the sanitary quality of the
shellfish as harvested; and, the changes in the
sanitary quality of shellfish which occur dur-
ing harvesting, shucking-packing, and mar-
keting.
Section C of this manual outlines the pro-
cedures to be followed in evaluting the sani-
tary quality of an area. The objective data
obtained through bacteriological examination
of water samples is frequently indispensable
in making such evaluations. However, the
statistical and biological factors which influ-
ence bacteriological results must be recog-
nized and understood if valid interpretation
of results is to be obtained. The purpose of
this appendix is to describe some of these
factors as they are understood in 1958, and
to mention some additional sources of infor-
mation.
Shellfish will generally reflect the bacterio-
logical quality of the water in which they have
grown. However, this relationship is ap-
parently not sufficiently constant to permit
development of a uniform bacteriological
standard which could be applied to all species
of shellfish. For example, the soft shell clam
(Mya arenaria) shows a consistently higher
coliform content than do other species har-
vested from areas of like sanitary quality.
Similarly, Eastern oysters harvested from
South Atlantic and Gulf areas have a higher
coliform content than those from the Middle
Atlantic States.1"' Seasonal variation is also
pronounced (2). Table 1 demonstrates some
of these variations.
15 The geographic subdivisions used coincide with those used in
"Fishery Statistics of the United States," Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, U. S. Department of the Interior.
26
January 1959
-------
The bacteriological quality of Eastern oys-
ters harvested from the North and Middle
Atlantic regions has been well investigated.
Oysters as harvested from approved areas in
these two regions should not ordinarily ex-
ceed a coliform MPN of 230 per 100 grams of
shellfish meats although a few samples may
approach or exceed 2,400 per 100 grams. If
this latter value is exceeded in two consecu-
tive samples, the State shellfish control
agency should investigate to determine the
probable cause.
Eastern oysters harvested from Chesa-
peake Bay, South Atlantic or Gulf States
cannot be expected to meet routinely this
standard of 230 per 100 grams even though
harvested from water of like sanitary quality.
This has been demonstrated in papers pre-
sented by Wilson and McClesky (62) and in
the discussions at the 1956 and 1958 Shellfish
Sanitation Workshops (2) (3).
The data contained in table II shows coli-
form contents of oysters (Crassostrea vir-
ginica) as harvested from areas of high
sanitary quality on the Gulf coast.
On the basis of these data, oysters as har-
vested from Gulf areas might ordinarily have
a coliform MPN of less than 2,400/100 grams.
However, if this value is exceeded in two
consecutive samples, the State shellfish con-
trol agency should undertake an investigation
to determine the probable cause.
The bacteriological quality of hard clams
(Mercenaria mercenaries) harvested from
the New England and Middle Atlantic States
has also been thoroughly investigated and the
relationship seems well established (20).
The findings of many State investigations are
supported by Public Health Service Shellfish
Sanitation Laboratory findings as shown in
table I and which indicate the limiting coli-
form MPN's described for Eastern oysters
from the New England and Middle Atlantic
States are also applicable to hard clams har-
vested, from similar areas. It is not known if
similar bacterial results could be expected in
hard clams harvested from Chesapeake Bay
or South Atlantic States.
The bacteriology of soft shell clams (Mya
arenaria) has also been investigated exten-
sively in the Canadian Maritime Provinces
and the New England and Middle Atlantic
States. Data indicate that the limit of 230
cannot always be met in the case of soft clams
harvested from approved areas and also that
they will consistently have higher coliform
MPN's than oysters or hard clams harvested
from the same area (2). Preliminary in-
vestigations by the Maryland Department of
Health indicate high coliform MPN's are
TABLE I
Average Shellfish Coliform MPN's for Various Applied Water MPN's
Water temperature
Less than 8° C
8°-17° C
20°-23° C
Species
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters - . -
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters
Soft clams
Hard clams
Eastern oysters
Average shellfish MPN
Average water MPN's
20
380
76
26
350
120
130
375
84
37
70
930
170
64
980
320
450
833
220
190
250
2,300
370
160
2,800
840
1.600
1,900
560
960
700
4,800
710
340
6.500
1,900
4,700
3.600
1,200
3,600
1,000
6,200
890
450
8,700
2 500
6,800
4,500
1,600
5,800
Source: Bacteriological Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market Shellfish; C. B. Kelly; Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop; Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., 1956.
Note: This data is based on experiments conducted at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and may not be directly applicable to other regions.
January 1959
27
647036 O - 62 - 3
-------
found in soft clams harvested from the rela-
tively warm water of Chesapeake Bay al-
though the water quality is high and the areas
are free of pollution (2). If a coliform MPN
of 2,400/100 grams of soft-clam meats is ex-
ceeded in two successive samples of clams as
harvested from approved areas the State
shellfish control agency should investigate to
determine the probable cause.
Studies on the bacteriological quality of
mussels harvested from approved areas in the
Canadian Maritime Provinces, New England,
and the Middle Atlantic States indicate
that the water to shellfish coliform relation-
ships are similar to those described for soft
shell clams. However, mussels may have
somewhat higher MPN's than other shellfish
species harvested from like areas.
It is emphasized that the foregoing bac-
teriological relationships apply only to shell-
fish at the time of removal from the growing
areas and not to shell stock in storage for any
appreciable period of time, or to shucked
shellfish.
The influence of shucking, packing, and
storage on the bacteriological quality of the
shucked product has been recognized for
years. One investigator has reported a posi-
tive correlation between plant sanitation or
operating practices and the standard plate
count of the product (63).
The Canadian Department of National
Health and Welfare in 1950 pointed out that
most of the United States shucked Eastern
oysters sold in Canada had high coliform
MPN's, high standard plate counts, or both.
They reported that of 77 shipments of
shucked Eastern oysters from the United
States, 44.2 percent had a coliform MPN of
less than 230 while 41.5 percent had coliform
MPN's in excess of 16,000 per 100 grams.
These results, when interpreted in accord
with the 1946 Manual of Recommended Prac-
tice for Sanitary Control of the Shellfish In-
dustry indicated the oysters were from a pol-
luted source or had been grossly mishandled
(64).
The significance of these results was dis-
cussed at the 1950 meeting of the Canadian
Interdepartmental Shellfish Committee. On
the basis of limited information on the sani-
TABLE II
Coliform MPN's of Oysters Sampled at Time of Harvesting
Coliform MPN per 100 gms. meats
Percent of
Samples l in
Stated Group
Less than 230
Less than 2,400...
Less than 24,000. _
Less than 160,000.
63
90
97
100
i No. of Samples, 30.
Source: Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop; Bacterio-
logical Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market
Shellfish, Kelly, C. B.
tary quality of similar shellfish sold on the
American markets, it was decided to establish
an interim bacteriological standard for
shucked Eastern oysters sold in Canada. This
standard was based on the premise that an
increase in the bacteria content of market
shellfish was unavoidable. Adoption of this
interim standard by Canada resulted in a
significant improvement in the sanitary qual-
ity of shucked oysters imported from the
United States (2).
In 1950 the Public Health Service, in co-
operation with the Government of Canada
and several State health departments, investi-
gated the bacteriological changes occurring
during the processing and shipment of oys~
ters from Chesapeake Bay to selected market
areas. The study demonstrated a marked
deterioration in bacteriological quality dur-
ing shucking and shipment to market (65).
In 1954 and 1955 the Virginia Department
of Health also investigated the changes in
bacteriological quality which took place in
oysters during shucking and packing (2). It
was found that in the winter months about
two-third of the samples of shell oysters had
coliform MPN's of 230 or less per 100 grams.
However, during the summer months few
samples were under 230/100 grams and only
25 percent were below 2,400. On the "as
packed" product during the winter months
10 percent of the samples had a coliform
MPN of 230 or less, 50 percent were 2,400 or
less, 75 percent were 9,000 or less, and 90
percent were below 24,000 (2).
The bacterial changes taking place during
the harvesting and processing of oysters in
28
January 1959
-------
the Gulf States has been investigated by the
Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation
Laboratory in cooperation with the States
(2) (3). These studies have shown: (1)
oysters as harvested in the Gulf States are of
higher coliform content than are those har-
vested from areas of like sanitary quality in
New England and Middle Atlantic States;
(2) a significant increase in the coliform
content may take place in the shell oyster
prior to shucking; and (3) an increase in
bacteria content takes place during shucking.
These results are shown in table III.
Results obtained in these bacteriological
studies of shellfish harvesting, shucking-
packing and marketing were reviewed at the
1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop (2). In
recognition of the data presented, the 1956
Workshop recommended the temporary use
of an "Acceptable," "Acceptable-on-Condi-
tion," and "Rejectable" classification based
on a combined coliform MPN—standard
plate count index of quality for shucked East-
ern oysters as marketed. The 1956 Workshop
also recommended that the Public Health
Service and the interested States undertake
a cooperative study of the bacteriological
quality of shucked Eastern oysters shipped
from Chesapeake Bay to New York and
Canadian markets. Such a cooperative study
was undertaken by the interested State and
Federal agencies in the fall of 1956.
The results of this two-year study were dis-
cussed at the 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop (
-------
References
1. Jensen, E. T.: The 1954 National Conference on
Shellfish Sanitation, Public Health Reports, vol.
70, No. 9, Sept. 1955.
2. Proceedings—1956 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, mimeographed, Public Health Service, 1956.
3. Proceedings—1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, lithographed, Public Health Service, 1958.
4. Woodward, Richard L.: How Probable Is the
Most Probable Number? Journal, American
Water Works Association, vol. 49, No. 8; 1060-
1068; August 1957.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Sew-
age and Industrial Wastes, American Public
Health Association.
6. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No.
143, July 1924.
7. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No.
204, May 1933.
8. Phelps, Earl B.: Stream Sanitation, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 1944.
9. Report on Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States, Supple-
ment No. 53, Public Health Reports, Nov. 6,1925.
10. Orlob, Gerald T.: Evaluating Bacterial Con-
tamination in Sea Water Samples, Public Health
Reports, Vol. 71, No. 12, Deceirber 1956.
11. Schantz, E. J.: Purified Shellfish Poison for
Bioassay Standardization, Journal of the Associa-
tion of Official Agricultural Che-nists, Feb. 1958.
12. McFarren, E. P., et al.: Chemical Determination
of Paralytic Shellfish Poison in Clams, Journal
of the Association of Official Agricultural Chem-
ists, Feb. 1958.
13. Fisher, L. M., Chairman: Report of the Commit-
tee of the Public Health Engineering Section of
the American Public Health Association, Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, £'7, 180-196, Sup-
plement, March 1937.
14. Old, H. N. and Gill, S, L.: A Typhoid Fever
Epidemic Caused by Carrier Bootlegging Oysters,
American Journal of Public Health, 30: 633-640,
June 1940.
15. Hart, J. C.: Typhoid Fever from Clams, Con-
necticut Health Bulletin, December 1945.
16. Roos, Bertil: Hepatitis Epidemic Conveyed by
Oysters, Svenska Lakartidningen, vol. 53, No. 16,
989-1003, 1956. (Translation e.vailable from the
Public Health Service.)
17. Lindberg-Broman, Ann Mari: Clinical Observa-
tions in the So-Called Oyster Hepatitis, Svenka
Lakartidningen, vol. 53, No. 16, 1003-9, 1956.
(Translation available from the Public Health
Service.)
18. Meyers, K. F.: Medical Progress—Food Poison-
ing, New England Journal of Medicine, 249: 765-
773, 804-812 and 843-852 (Nov. 5, 12 and 19)
1953.
19. Lumsden, L. L., Hasseltine, H. E., Leak, J. P., and
Veldee, M. V.: A Typhoid Fever Epidemic Caused
by Oyster-Borne Infection, Public Health Re-
ports, supp. No. 50, 1925.
20. A Report on the Public Health Aspects of Clam-
ming in Raritan Bay, Public Health Service, re-
issued June 1954.
21. Dack, G. M.: Food Poisoning, third edition; the
University of Chicago Press, 1956.
22. Greenberg, Arnold E.: Survival of Enteric Or-
ganisms in Sea Water, Public Health Reports,
vol. 71, No. 1, January 1956.
23. An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine
Outfall Disposal of Sewage and Sludge, Publica-
tion No. 14, California State Water Pollution
Control Board, 1956.
24. Harris, Eugene K.: On the Probability of Sur-
vival of Bacteria in Sea Water, Biometrics, June
1958.
25. Wood, P. C.: Factors Affecting the Pollution and
Self-Purification of Molhiscan Shellfish, Extrait
du Journal du Conseil International Pour 1'Ex-
ploration de la Mer, vol. XXII, No. 2, 1957.
26. Arcisz, William and Kelly, C. B.: Self-Purifica-
tion of the Soft Clam, Mya arenaria, Public
Health Reports, vol. 70, No. 6; 605-614, June
1955.
27. Investigation of Pollution of Tidal Waters of
Maryland and Virginia, Public Health Bulletin
No. 74, 1916.
28. Investigation of the Pollution of Certain Tidal
Waters of New Jersey, Neiv York and Delaware,
Public Health Bulletin No. 86, 1917.
29. Mood, Eric W.: First Typhoid Case in Seven
Years, Monthly Report of the New Haven, Conn.,
Department of Health, December 1948.
30. Bidwell, Milton H., and Kelly, C. B.: Ducks and
Shellfish Sanitation, American Journal of Public
Health, vol. 40, No. 8, August 1950.
31. Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography
and Fisheries, Publication No. 551, National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
1957.
32. Gong, J. K., et al.: Uptake of Fission Products
and Neutron-Induced Radionuclides by the Clam,
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental
Biology and Medicine, vol. 95, 451-454, 1957.
33. Radioactive Contamination of Certain Areas in
the Pacific Ocean From Nuclear Tests, United
States Atomic Energy Commission, August 1957.
34. Weiss, H. V., and Shipman, W. H.: Biological
Concentration by Killer Clams of Cobalt-60 from
Radioactive Fallout, Science, vol. 125, No. 3250,
April 1957.
30
June 1962
-------
35. Atomic Energy, Federal Register, January 29,
1957.
36. Maximum Permissible Amounts of Radioisotopes
in the Human Body and Maximum Permissible
Concentrations in Air and Water, Handbook 52,
National Bureau of Standards, March 1953.
37. Water Quality Survey of Hampton Roads Shell-
fish Areas, Virginia State Department of Health
and U. S. Public Health Service, 1950.
38. Tennant, A. D., Naubert, J., and Corbeil, H. E.:
An Outbreak of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning,
the Canadian Medical Association Journal, 72:
436-439, 1955.
39. Proceedings—1957 Conference on Paralytic
Shellfish Poison, mimeographed; Public Health
Service, 1958.
40. McFarren, E. P., et al: Public Health Signifi-
cance of Paralytic Shellfish Poison—A Review of
Literature and Unpublished Research, Proceed-
ing, National Shellfisheries Association, 1955.
41. Galtsoff, P. S.: Biology of the Oyster in Relation
to Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health,
vol. 26, 245-247, 1936.
42. Loosanoff, V. L.: Some Aspects of Behavior of
Oysters at Different Temperatures, Biological
Bulletin, vol. 114, No. 1, 57-70, 1958.
43. Gage, S. DeM., and Gorham, P.: Self-Purification
of Oysters During Hibernation, American Jour-
nal of Public Health, December 1925.
44. Gumming, Hugh S.: Investigation of the Pollu-
tion and Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac
Watershed with Special Reference to Self-Purifi-
cation and the Sanitary Condition of Shellfish in
the Lower Potomac River, U. S. Public Health
Service, Hygienic Labortory Bulletin No. 104,
February 1916.
45. Fisher, L. M., and Acker, J. E.: Bacteriological
Examinations of Oysters and Water from Narra-
gansett Bay During the Winter and Spring in
1927-28, Public Health Reports, vol. 50, No. 42,
October 18, 1935.
46. Gibbard, James, et al.: Effect of Hibernation on
Content of Coliform Bacteria in Oysters, Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, vol. 32, 979-986,
September 1942.
47. Wachter, L. M.: The Laboratory Aspects of
Oyster Pollution, American Journal of Public
Health, 15, 1066-68, 1925.
48. Public Health Service Drinking Water Stand-
ards, Public Health Reports, vol. 61, No. 11,
March 15, 1946.
49. ZoBell, C. E., and Landon, W. A.: Bacterial
Nutrition of the California Mussel, Proc. Soc.
Exper. Biol. and Med., 36, 113-116, 1936.
50. Wood, P. C.: The Cleansing of Oysters, Public
Health, February, 1957.
51. Erdman, I. E., Kelly, J. M., and Tennant, A. D.:
1954 Clam Cleansing Studies (Mya), Manuscript
Report, Fish Inspection Laboratories, No. 55-1,
Canada Department of Fisheries.
52. Messer, R., and Reece, G. M.: Progress in Oyster
Conditioning With Report of Experiments at the
Demonstration Plant, Norfolk, Va., Public Health
Reports, Reprint No. 1870. 1451-1460, 1937.
53. Galtsoff, Paul S.: Reaction of Oysters to Chlorin-
ation, Research Report 11, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1946.
54. Sandholzer, L. A., and Buckner, C. R.: Bacterio-
logical Studies of Oyster Conditioning, Commer-
cial Fisheries Review, 9, 7-11, 1947.
55. Loosanoff, V. L., and Tommers, F. S. The Effect
of Suspended Silt and Other Substances on the
Rate of Feeding of Oysters, Science, 107, 69, 1948.
56. Collier, Albert, et al.: Effect of Dissolved Organic
Substances on Oysters, Fishery Bulletin 84, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1953.
57. Vilela, H.: Oysters in Consumption and in the
National Economy, publication 18, Council of
Studies of Fisheries, Separate from Bulletin of
Fisheries No. 43, Lisbon, Portugal, 1954. (Trans-
lation available from the Public Health Service).
58. Report of the Special Corn-mission Established To
Make an Investigation and Study Relative to
Edible Shellfish and Shellfish Chlorinating Plants,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December
1947.
59. Swansburg, K. B., and Mullan, M. W.: Studies in
the Self-Cleansing of Quahougs (Venus merce-
naria, L.), manuscript report 57-2. Canada De-
partment of Fisheries, 1957.
60. Cole, H. A.: Purification of Oysters in Simple
Pits, Fishery Investigations, series II, vol. XVIII,
No. 5, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
London, 1954.
61. Reynolds, Nial: A Simplified System of Mussel
Purification, Fishery Investigations, series II,
vol. XX, No. 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fish-
eries, London, 1956.
62. Wilson, Thomas E., and McClesky, C. S.: Indices
of Pollution in Louisiana Oysters, Food Research,
16, 313, 1951.
63. Kelly, C. B.: Proceeding, National Shellfisheries
Association, 19^2.
64. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary
Control of the Shellfish Industry, publication No.
33, Public Health Service, 1946.
65. Kelly, C. B. and Arcisz, Wm.: Bacteriological
Control of Oysters During Processing and Mar-
keting, Public Health Reports, Vol. 69; No. 8,
August 1954.
66. McFarren, Earl F.: Report on Collaborative
Studies on the Bioassay for Paralytic Shellfish
Poison, Journal of the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists, February 1959.
67. Proceedings—1961 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service. 1962.
June 1962
31
-------
-------
INDEX
Page
Approved areas:
bacteriological quality 13
bacteriological quality of shellfish from__ 27, 28
classification 11
definition 13
industrial wastes 13
radioactive materials 14
relationship to sewage treatment 15
sanitary survey 11
Bacteriological:
content of hibernating shellfish 22
control of purification .— 23
die out 10,17
examination of growing water 10
frequency of water sampling 10
influence of shucking-packing and storage
on bacterial quality of shellfish 27
most probable numbers . 2,10
procedures 8
quality of hard clams 27
quality of mussels 28
quality of oysters 27
quality of shucked market oysters 28
quality of soft clams 27
relationship of sewage treatment to water
quality 15
shellfish-water relationship 25
Certificates, shipper 6
Classification of growing areas 11,13
Coliform group, definitions 3
Conditionally approved areas:
boundary marketing 15,17
definition 14
discussion 15
establishment of performance standards- 14
in harbors 16
near resort areas 16
performance standards 16
records 15
relationship to river discharge 16
safety zones 15,17
water quality requirements 14
Controlled purification :
administrative control 21
definition 3
discussion 22
laboratory control 22
use of shellfish from restricted or pro-
hibited areas 21
water quality required 21
Cooperative program :
application to growing areas 5
application to handlers 5
application to harvesters 5
definition 3
history 3
Closed areas:
depletion of 24
marking of boundaries 15,17, 23
notification to harvesters 23
use of shellfish 20,21
Definitions 3
Depletion of closed areas 24
Die-out of bacteria 10,17
Page
Disease from shellfish 9,13,19
Growing areas, definitions 3
Hibernation of shellfish 21
Industrial wastes:
in approved areas 13
in prohibited areas 18
in restricted areas 18
Infectious hepatitis from shellfish 13
Intrastate sale of shellfish 7
Laboratory:
bacteriological procedures 8
chemical and physical procedures 8
control of purification 22
toxicological procedures 8
Laws and regulations:
classification of growing areas 4
control of illegal harvesting 4
general requirements 4
harvesting permits 4
relationship to patrol 23,24
Most probable number—see bacteriological.
Paralytic shellfish poison:
closure of areas 18
collection and assay of samples 18
discussion 19
in approved areas 12
laboratory examination for 8
quarantine level 18,19
Patrol:
equipment required 24
frequency 23
Need:
shellfish for purification 22
records 23
relationship to State laws 24
relaying 20
Prohibited areas :
bacteriological quality 18
depletion of . 24
establishment of 18
identification and marking 23
patrol of 23,24
radioactive materials in__, 18
use of shellfish from 18,21,24
Radioactive materials:
in growing areas 13
in shellfish 14
maximum permissible concentrations 14
Records :
court actions 5,23
operation of conditionally approved areas, 14
patrol activities 5,23
plant inspection 5
purification plant operation 22
relaying 20
sanitary surveys 5,9,11
Relaying:
from restricted or prohibited areas 20
marking and identification of relaying
areas 20
permission for 20
supervision of 20
June 1!M>!>
33
-------
Page
Repackers:
inspection 6
records of inspection 6
requirements for certification 5
sanitary rating 29
Restricted areas:
bacteriological quality of 18
depletion of 24
establishment of 17
fecal contamination of 18
patrol of 23
radioactive materials in 18
use of shellfish from 18,21,24
Sanitary surveys:
content of 9
definition 3
frequency required . , 9
purpose 10
records 5,9
sewage treatment evaluation 14,16,17
Self-purification of shellfish 20,22
Sewage treatment:
instrumentation and records 17
performance standards for 16
records of 15,17
Sewage treatment—Continued
relationship to approved areas
relationship to bacteriological sampling-
Sewage treatment—Continued
special equipment requirements
storm sewers
Shellfish shipper certificates:
control
expiration date
requirements for
Shellfish shipper list
Shell stock shippers:
inspection
records of inspection
requirements for certification-
Shucker-packers:
inspection
records of inspection
requirements for certification-
sanitary rating
Transplanting
Typhoid fever—see Disease.
Wet storage
Page
14
14
17
17
5,6
1,5
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
3
13
34
June 1962
US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962 O—647038
-------
j 02 01 0
Nisva a3Aia
01
X3NNV NOIIVIS
TVAVN '
-------
2 aanou
3Nld
3A08V ia3SNI 33S
------- |