-------
(1)
COMMUNITY
NAME
ABERDEEN
Ri-L SIR ,
BKLCAHP
GREEN RIDGE
JOPPATOWNE
WILLOUGHBY 8CH
(2!
1960
POPULATION
9679
4ijO
-
-
-
-
(3!
POPULATION
SERVED
COUNTY NAME
HARFORO
TOTAL
WATfcR
USED-MGD
10000 0.400
7000 0.500
3400 0,144
150 0,(jl5
1500 0,150
600 0.060
OWNER-
SHIP
(«)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
1
Z
T
i
Z
2
(1) fi
COMMUNITY 196
NAME POPUL
ALLVIEW ESTATES
APPLIED PHY LAB
DANIELS
!) (JJ
0 POPULATION
ATION SERVED
COUNTY NAME
HOWARD
TOTAL OHNbR-
WATER SHIP
USED-MGD
(6)
COMMUNITIES SER
BY THIS FACILI
VED 1
1
800 0.030 2
X X 2
450 0.009 2
(I) 12) O)
[COMMUNITY
NAME
1960
POPULATION
POPULATION
SERVED
COUNTY NAME
KENT
TOTAL
WATER
USED-MGO
OWNER-
SHIP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
CHESTERTQHN
GALENA
ROCK HALL
3602
299
1073
3800
700
1100
0.550
0.036
0.110
(1) 12) <3>
j COMMUNITY
NAME
1960
POPULATION
POPULATION
SERVED
SOUNTY NAME
ONTGOMERY
TOTAL
WATER
USED-MOD
OWNER-
SHIP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
CARDEROCK ANCHR
CARLTON MILLS
DAMASCUS
ROCKVILLE
26090
45
75
550
32000
X
X
0.033
2.200
-------
(7)
COMMUNITY
NAME
ABERDEEN
BEL -' I «
BtLCANP
GAEE-i RIDGE
JOPPATOWNE
HILLOUGHBY BCH
'7>
COMMUNITY
NAME
ALLVIfiW ESTATES
APPLliB PHY LAB
DANIELS
(7)
COMMUNITY
NAME
CHESTLRTOHN
GALENA
;U;CK HALL
(•7>
COMMUNITY
NAME
CARDEROCK ANCHR
CARLTON MILLS
DAMASCUS
R3CKVILLE
(6)
FACILITY SO
NAME TYPE
ABL-KDE-tM 2 5
COUNTY NAME
9) HARFORO (|0
URCE
NAME
HELLS
"C HUTtR WORKS 1 WINTERS RUN
BATA SHOE Cn 2 7
WtLLS
GREEN RIDGE 2 WELL
JGPPATOWNE UTIL 2 3
WILLOUGHBY BCH 2 X
(ft
FACILITY SO
NAME TYPE
WELLS
ELLS
TREATMENT SYM
AM KP DC
VCDM^FDK
OH
DH K.P
AT KP DC
DH AT KP SO
COUNTY NAME
9) HOWARD >
MAX
SAFE
HITHDRAHAL
MGD
1.000
3.800
0.330
0.036
1.300
0.360
(12)
MAX
SAFE
WITHDRAWAL
MGD
0.120
X
X
(12)
MAX
SAFE
HITHDRAHAL
MGD
1.730
0.230
0.650
HZ)
MAX
SAFE
HITHDRAHAL
MGD
1.224
0.016
0.078
8.600
(13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
0.400
0.500
0.144
0.015
0.150
0.060
15)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
0.030
X
0.009
(13)
AVG. 1
DAILY
USE
MGD |
0.550
0.036
0.110
(13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
X
X
0.033
2.200
17' (8) (9)
COMMUNITY
NAME
FACILITY
NAME
SOI
TYPE
COUNTY NAME
PRINCE GEORGES
IRCE
NAME
OO) (II) (12) (13)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
RAH
HATER
STORAGE
MG
MAX
SAFE
WITHDRAWAL
MGD
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
"EL AIR-BOHIE BEL AIR-BOWIE 2 HELLS
AT CAL DC MT MP S FRS D
4.000 0.600
-------
(1)
(2)
(3)
COUNTY
PRINCE
G -S
(6)
COMMUNITY
NAME
POPULATION
use
GO
OMNER
SHIP
8£LLEFONTfi
CALVtRT M/>NUR
CfcOARVIL ST FOR
CHELTENHAM
GUYNN PARK
N! MASLBORO
UPPER MARLBORO
SUB SAN CO
673
120
• 15000
220
250
600
145
120
5000
675000
0.012
0.125
0.012
0.004
0.060
0.015
0.009
0.150
60.262
HHITt HALL
36
0.004
(1) (Z) (3)
COMMUNITY
NAME
1960
POPULATION
POPULATION
SERVED
COUNTY NAME
QUEEN ANNES
TOTAL
HATER
USED-HGD
OWNtR-
SHIP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
CtNTRtVILLE
UUEENSTOHN
1663
355
1330
360
0.290
0.026
(1) (Z) (3)
COMMUNITY
NAME
1960
POPULATION
POPULATION
SERVED
COUNTY NAME
ST MARYS
TOTAL
MATER
USED-MGD
OWNER-
SHIP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
BRETONS BAY
CHARLOTTE HALL
GREENVIEH KNOLL
HOLLYWOOD
LtONARDTOHN
LEXINGTON PARK
PINEY POINT
POINT LOOKOUT
ST CLEMENT SHOR
ST MARYS CITY
TOWN CR MANOR
1281
75
275
50
80
4000
7500
500
X
650
308
860
E 0.003
E 0.020
0.005
X
0.400
0.302
• 0.050
X
• 0.065
E 0.008
» 0.034
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
•BOWIE . WEEKEND POFULAXIOI DURIBG RACIHO SEASOI.
•LEOHARDTOW . INCLUDES 2,500 DAYTIME USERS.
*PINEY POUT . SUMER POPULATIOB aa> WATER USE. WUTTER FOFUUTIOH 250, WDOER WATER USE 0.02? MOD.
*ST CLEMEST SHORE . SUMER PQFUIATIQH AKD WATER USE. WHITER POPULATIOK 260, WHITER WATER USE 0.026 MOP.
•ST MARYS CITY . IHCLUDES 178 PART TIME USERS.
•TOW CR MAJOR . UKUnOS 500 SCHOOL CHILDREH HI COH30LIDATED SCHOOi.
-------
<6) (9) 1 HVUEittlttS
I CCWITV
FACILITV
NAME
SO!
TYPE
MCE
NAME
(10) (II) (12) (13)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
MATER
STORAGE
MAX
SAFE
WITHDRAWAL
MGD
oS?e?
«§§
BELLEFONTt-
BtLLFHJNTE
2 SPRINGS
a.JXIE 3U<
COMMUNITY
NAME
UNTREVILLE
QUEE'-iSTOHM
COMMUNITY
NAME
BRETONS BAY
CHARLOTTE HALL
GREENVIEW KNOLL
HOLLYWOOD
LEONARDTOHN
LEXINGTON PARK
PINEY POINT
POINT LOOKOUT
ST CLEMENT SHOR
ST MARYS CITY
TOWN CR MANOR
CALVER7 MANOR
2 WfcLL
CEOARVIL ST FOR 2 WELLS
CtDARVIL ST FOR 2 SPRINGS
MD BOYS VILLAGE 2 WF.LLS
GWYNM PARK
NE KARLP.ORQ
UPPER MARLBORO
2 WELL
2 WELL
2 WELLS
WASH SUB SAN CO 1 PATUXeNT R
WASH SUB SAN CG 1 POTOMAC R
WASH SUB SAN CO 2 WELLS
WHITE HALL
(81
(FACILITY
NAME
CENTREVILLE
QUEENSTOWN
(8)
FACILITY
NAME
2 WfcLL
If) Ql
SOURCE
TYPEI NAME
2 WELLS
2 WELLS
CC
SOURCE
TYPEI NAME
CHERRY COVE MCO 2 WELL
CHARLOT HAL SCH 2 SPRINGS
GREENVIEH KNOLL 2 WELL
TOMN CREEK MCO
LEONARDTOMN
PATUXENT WCO
2 WELLS
2 WELLS
2 WELLS
PINEY POINT MCO 2 WELLS
J A STEVENSON
2 WELL
ST CLEMENT SHQR 2 WELL
ST MARY JR COLL 2 WELLS
TOWN CR MNR WCO 2 WELLS
DH
CAL MB SO OH F<"S
OH
NONL
MONt
OH
OH
NONfc
DH
DCMSFKOV
DCHSFKVO
DC
DH
UNTY NAME
EEN ANNES (10)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
DC
DH
UNTY NAME
MARYS (10)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
OH
DH
DH
NONE
DH
DH
DH
DH
NONE
DH
NONE
X
0.360
X
0.03C
X
0.238
O.U5
0.072
0.430
X 45.000
X
0.962
0.108
(II) (12)
RAM MAX
MATER SAFE
STORAGE MITHDRAHAL
MG MGD
1.590
0.306
(II) (It)
RAM MAX
MATER SAFE
STORAGE WITHDRAWAL
MG MGD
0.1TO
0.012
X
0.012
X
X
X.
O.01S
O.U09
0.150
53.800
5.500
0.962
0.004
13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
0.290
0.026
(13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
0.003
0.380 E 0.020
0.144
0.144
0.504
0.950
0.324
0.048
X
0.024
0.043
O.OO5
X
0.400
0.302
3.050
X
0.065
0.008
0.034
-------
(i) a\ (3i
COMMUNITY
NAME
1960
POPULATION
POPULATION
SERVED
wear*
TOTAL
HATER
USED-HGO
OHNER-
SHTP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY 'THIS FACILITY
CRISFIELO 3540 5300 0.053 1
PRINCESS ANNE 1351 1400 0.250 1
(1)
COMMUNITY
NAME
CLAIdORNE
EASTON
OXFORD
ST MICHAELS
TRAPPt
COMMUNITY
NAME
HOONSBORO
HAGERSTOWN
HANCOCK
WILLIAMSPORT
(1)
COMMUNITY
DELMAR
HEBRON VOL FD
QUANT ICO
SALISBURY
SHARPTOHN
it)
1960
POPULATION
—
6337
852
1484
358
1960
POPULATION
1644
36660
2004
1853
(2)
POPULATION
1291
754
_
16302
620
13)
"OPTION
90
7500
1000
1875
325
POPULATION
SERVED
2000
85500
2000
1855
CS>
"KWH*
2500
700
164
17197
620
95S8S?1**"
TOTAL OMMG
HATER SHI
USED-MGD
0.005 2
0.750 1
0.100 1
0.190 1
0.030 1
HisHlNGTON
TOTAL OHNE
HATER SHI
USED-MGD
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
HSiSSlcB*"
USED-MGD $HI
0.450 1
0.075 2
0.023 5
2.307 1
E 0.060 1
E
16)
R- COMMUNITIES SERVED
P BVTHIS FACILITY
(6)
R- COMMUNITIES SERVED
P BY THIS FACILITY
SECURITY, WILLIAMSPORT
E
r 'BTvaiS'Ptci-Em0
DELMAR, DELAWARE
-------
(7)
COMMUNITY
.NAME
CUSFIH.D
P^lTiCI-SS M.Utr
(7)
COMMUNITY
NAME
CLAITORNE
l-4STG,\
OXFORD
ST MICHAELS
•HAPP:;
17'
COMMUNITY
NAME
BOOfJSBORO
HAGtKSTOW^i
HANC'ICi"
(6)
FACILITY
.«AME 1
CRISFULO
°-;lNCt^>S ANNE
<•)
FACILITY
NAME 1
t«TON
GXfURD
ST MICHAELS
TrtAPPt
(6)
FACILITY
NAME 1
BOOMSBORO
BOONS 30RO
HAGERSFOWN
HA&ERSTOWx
HANCOCK
HANCOCK
(9) &
SOURCE
FYPF NAME
2 WELLS
2 WhLLS
cc
(9) ft
SOURCE
FYPEj NAME
i HELL
2 WcLLS
2 WhLLS
2 HELLS
2 WELL
CC
(9) W<
SOURCE
rYPEj NAME
1 GILARDI RUN
2 SPRINGS
I PUTOXAC R
2 SPRINGS
U^TY NAMF
MERSET (10)
TREATMENT SYMBC
NONE
A! FPS KP UC
UNTY NAME !
LBOT | ««>
TREATMENT SYMBC
NONE
DC
DC
OH
OH
UNTY NAME
ISHINGTON (10)
TREATMENT SYMBC
DC
DC
CA F SO FRS DS KP
OC KP VS
1 POTO",AC i. CA SO FP.S DC
1 LIT TGNQLOWAY C CA S3 F*S DC
(ID (IZ)
LS RAH MAX
WATER SAFE
STORAGE WITHDRAWAL
MG MGO
1.800
0.970
(II) «2)
)LS RAH MAX
WATER SAFE
STORAGE WITHDRAWAL
MG MGD
V
1.500
X
0.290
X
(II) (12)
)LS RAW MAX
WATER SAFE
STORAGE WITHDRAWAL
MG MGD
X X
0.030
VS - X
y
* X X
• XX
!I3)
AVG,
DAILY
USE
MGO
0.530
0.250
(13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
0.005
0,750
0.100
0.1 'Hi
0.030
(13)
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
X
X
6.730
X
X
X
(7) (8) (9)
COMMUNITY
NAME
FACILITY
NAME
COUNTY NAMF
WICJMICO
SOURCE
TYPM NAME
(10) (II) (12) (13)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
RAW
WATER
STORAGE
MG
MAX
SAFE
WITHDRAWAL
MGD
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGD
DEX MA",
He"RON VOL FD
QUANTICfi
SALIS' URY
SM«RPfOWi\I
OELMAR 2 >;ELLS
HEBRON 2 WtlLS
POPLAR HL PRISN 2 WLLL
SALISBURY 2 W-1LLS
SHARPTOWN 2 Wt-LLS
OH
i>H
Ai] FP KP FZ DH
AC SC KP DC MG VA
DH
1.095 0.^50
0.720 O.O75
X 0.023
X 2.307
0.250 t 0.060
-------
(I)
COMMUNITY
NAME
BERLIN
OCEAN CITY
POCOMOKE CITY
SNOW HILL
<*>
1960
POPULATION
2046
983
3329
2311
(3)
POPULATION
SERVED
£»
HFifc
USED-MGO
2500 0.345
•100000 • 2.000
3250 0.300
2300 0.290
IT»"E
OWNER-
SHIP
(6)
COMMUNITIES SERVED
BY THIS FACILITY
1
1
1
1
«OCZA> CITY . SOMR POPUUnOB AMD WfflEB WS. KOin raPUJJOiat 992, VXRB WOOL VSS O.*00 MOD.
-------
1 COUNTY NAME
WORCESTER
COMMUNITY
NAME
FACILITY
NAME
SOURCE
TYPEl NAME
<(«» (ID (1.2) .13)
TREATMENT SYMBOLS
RAH
WATER
STORAGE
MG
MAX
SAFE
WITHDRAWAL
MGO
AVG.
DAILY
USE
MGO
BERLIN
OCEAN CITY
POCOMOKE CITY
SNOW HILL
BERLIN 2 WELLS
OCEAN CITY 2 WELLS
POCOMOKE CITY 2 WELLS
SNOW HILL 2 WELLS
DH
KP FZ FZ DC
DC
DC VT
2.000 0.3*5
3.800 2.000
X 0.300
1.200 0.250
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........o.............. 1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION 2
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 4
Fort George G0 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
COIGIflSIOUS 18
R1CQBMENDATIONS 20
APPENDICES ........................ 22
!„ 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
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland State Department of Health has recently
prohibited the harvesting of shellfish from waters of the Chesapeake
,,Bay near the month of the Patuxent River and in several small
tributary estuaries of the Patuxent liver. 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 Patoxent River originates in Howard and Montgomery
Counties,, Maa'ylaad, 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 irrigation, and waste disposal. About 5
per cent of all clams and about 10 per cent of the oysters
harvested within the State of Maryland presently come from beds
in or adjacent to the Patuxent River 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 downstream. 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 1»35 mgd from an estimated
population served of 18,000 persons. Treatment consists of com-
minution, screening, grit removal, 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 85 per cent. The outfall
-------
-------
discharges to the Little Patuxent at a point 7«0 miles upstream
from its confluence with Patuxent River, which is 63 miles from
the rfoesapeake 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 Agency^ the Children's Center and
Cedar Khoil? operated by the District of Columbia; and Argome
Hills| in addition to that portion of the Port's personnel not
served "by Plant No. 1. Treatment consists of grit removal,, com-
minution, preehlorination, sedimentations, secondary treatment by
high rate trickling filters, final sedimentation, post ehlorina-
tion, and sludge digestion and drying„ Removal of BOP averages
about 90 per cent. Plant No. 2 is about 4,0 miles upstream from
Rant Mo0 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 Pataxent
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 coliform MPN was 7(,90Q for
the six-month period January-July, 1964. The high bacterial
counts above the plants apparently resulted from non-federal
-------
-------
waste-water discharges from communities, institutions and industry.
The counts below the outfalls of the plants were seldom greater
than the counts above,, and at times were lessj in general the
counts were not changed appreciably by the effluents from the
plants. The only defect in treatment observed was the discharging
from the final settling tank of some floating humus and fly larvae
from the trickling filters.
Vehicle wash waters are discharged untreated either to
the Patoxent Eiver or the Little Patuxent River. These -wash waters,
totaling aboat 1(30,000 gpd (gallons per day), have not generally
caused pollution problems. The l&ryland Department of Water
Resoiarees, however., has observed some oil on one occasion la a
tributary of Little Patuxent River near one of the wash racks.
Also,, that Department has observed diatomaceous earth in another
tributary from the back-washing of filters at a swlamitjg pool.
Patuxent Wildlife Refuge
The Pattucent Wildlife Refuge of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, is located opposite Fort
Ifeade in Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland,
largely on the south bank of the Patuxent River. The Refuge is
a scientific research center with population ranging from 15
residents to a workday staff of approximately 170 persons„
Sanitary wastes from the Refuge are treated by septic tank,
-------
intermittant sand filters, and a waste stabilization lagoon before
discharging through. Island Marsh to the Patuxent River at a point
70 miles above its mouth. Quality of the effluent is excellent,
as indicated by the fact that the lagoon, which is the fins,! stage
of treatment, supports a fish population of bluegill, bass, and
grass pike,
N&val Academy Dairy
The Naval Academy Dairy, located at Gambrills,, Sfe.rylan.dj,
in Anne Arundel County, supplies 1,250 gallons of milk daily from
290 cows to the Naval Academy in Annapolis during the academic
year. (The production of 650 gallons per day from 2,30 cows during
the summer is largely converted to powdered milke) Out of a staff
of 51 employees, 26 are residents along with their 70 dependents,,
The domestic wastes from 13 of the families, totaling 47 persons,
are treated in nine individual septic tanks and discharged to
leaching pits about 30 feet deep. Wastes from the remainitig 74
persons and from the milking 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 4000-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 Pattacent .River0
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
Patoxent 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 No. 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 chlorination before discharge
to a tributary 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent
River, which is 57 miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay0 The remaining
-------
5,000 gpd are treated by septic tanks, followed "by seepage pits.
Occasionally tlie 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 Air Force Base
The sanitary wastes from Andrews Air Force Base are treated
in three treatment plants, only one of which (Plant No» 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
No. 3 consists of comminution, settling and sludge digestion in
Imhoff tanks, secondary treatment by trickling filters,, final
settling, post chlorination, and sludge drying. The 300.,000 gpd
average flow is well within the 4&0,000 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 discharged 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 Calve^t" Hp^ging Area
Mount Calvert Housing Area, located at the former Nike
Site No. W-35 near Groom, Maryland, is operated by the Army and
provides housing for approximately 45 persons, including depend-
ents. 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, ±n turn, is about 44 miles above the mouth of the
Patuxent Hiver, should have little effect upon the bacteriological
quality of the water.
Brandywine Housing Area
Brandywine Housing Area, located at former Nike Site No.
W-36 near Brandywine, Maryland, is operated by the Air Force and
provides housing for approximately 45 persons, including dependents,
The estimated 3,000 gpd of sanitary waste are treated by septic
tank, sand filtration, and chlorination. This small quantity of
-------
11
efficiently treated waste, discharging to & small tributary at a
point 8 miles above its confluence with the Patuxent River., which,,
in "tarn!,, is about 44 miles above the mouth of the Patuxeat Biver,
should have little effect upon the bacteriological qoality of the
water.
Pa.tux en fc Naval Air Station
The Patuxent Maval Air Station, located at the mouth of
the Patuxent Biver in St. Mary's County, Maryland, carries out
the normal functions of a Navy air station and also contains the
Patuxent Maval Mr Test Center. An Annex of the Station, located
across the River in Calvert 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' Clubj 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
plant.
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 Mr Station. The plant receives
-------
12
an average flow of 1.37 ngd with treatment consisting of grit removal,
comminution, pre-aeration, pre-ehlorination, vacuation, sedimentation,
post ehlorination, and sludge digestion and drying. Reduction of
bio-chemical oxygen demand averages about 50 per cent0 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, ehlorination with
contact chamber, and sludge drying. Because of limited and inter-
mi ttant 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 previous 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 surfacej that one serving the hydraulic catapult area.
Four additional septic tanks discharge directly to the Patxucent
River. One septic tank discharges through gravel-filled drums
before discharge to the Patuxent 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 tank.
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. Recirculation of treated waste to the trickling
filter maintains 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. Aircraft washing wastes from three locations discharge to
the Patuxent River, from four locations to the Chesapeake Bay, and
from two loaations 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.
-------
16
-,..ffit ^ ,.-.„
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 Cuckhold-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 "prohibitedOu The main
portion of Section IV is classified as "approved;" however, because
of several high bacteriological counts obtained during the summer of
1964, sampling is being continued. Section V is classified as
"approvedj" 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 Jferyland 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
-------
MAINLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR
SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
Part I of the ftfeTO^il of Operations of the Cooperativj&
Program for the 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
-------
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, 1%4, 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 Run. The
bacteriological data collected at the sampling points shown on
Figure 2 are presented in Appendix I.
Under Maryland's system of classification, the extent 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 extent 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.
-------
-------
PATUXENT NAVA
AIR \S T A T I 0
FIGURE
-------
18
CONCLUSIONS
1. Seven of the nine Federal installations in the
Patuxent Biver 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 Galvert
Housing Area, and Brandywine Housing Area. All of these provide
shlorination 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.
2. 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
Gardenss 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
Offisers5 Club is experiencing difficulties in obtaining maximum
efficiency,
5. At Fort George G. Meade, humus and fly larvae from
the trickling filters have been observed diseharging from the final
settling tanks.
-------
19
6. At Fort George G. Meade, oil from a vehicle wash.
rack and diatomaeeous 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 in the vicinity of the
mouth of the Patuxent River was classified as "prohibited" on
September 1, 1964, by the Maryland State Department of Health 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 discharge
of 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 reduction in
the size of the "prohibited" area on October 26, 1%4, 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 harvesting in water
affected in case of a possible plant failure.
-------
20
EECCaMENDATIONS
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 Officers8 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,,
4, 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 G. 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 Mr Station and Fort George
G. Meade should receive adequate treatment for oil and grease removal,
7. Where not presently provided, subsurface tile fields
should he 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 ABEA OF
CHESAPEAKE BAT BI THE MARYLAND STATE
DEPAHTMENT OF HEALTH
Flood Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
Station*
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Flood Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/10Q ml)
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
September 2. 1964 Seirt ember 3. 1964
-3
9.1
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3 -3
1-B
1-S
1A-B
1A-S
1B-B
IB^S
1C-B
1C-S
13 -B
13 -S
13A-B
3.6
3.6
3.6
-3**
-3
-3
-3
-3
9.1
7.3
_3
i^^TTtfflfltf ^1* § * l9o^L
15
93
15
3.6
75
9.1
15
3.6
150
9.1
14
9.1
3.6
43
9.1
93
23
23
23
36
9.1
3.6
43
9,1
* S * Surface; B * Bottomj Station locations shown on Figure 2,
** Minos sign (-) denotes "less than."
-------
23
APPENDIX I (Con't)
BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CEDAR POINT AREA OF
CHESAPEAKE BAY BY THE MARYLAND STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Station*
Flood Tide
Goli£orm
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Flood Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Ebb Tide
Coliform
Bacteria
(MPN/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-S
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
Sent ember 2/+.
3.6
3.6
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
93
3.6
-3
196A
—3
-3
-3
-3
3.6
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
—3
-3
* S = Surface; B e Bottomj 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
1962 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.
HI
-------
-------
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 Shellfish. 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 xiO9 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 1902
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. Each 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.
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 coliforms,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:
2 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.
3 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.
January 1959
-------
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 quality 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.50
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-
5 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 (23). 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}K
" 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 (4). 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 be 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" an4 '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 (6) 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
v«s not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
"* 0 per cent of the samples ordinarily ex-
TPN of 230 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
''ition test (or 330 per 100 ml.,
tube decimal dilution test is
^. ^ortions of the area most prob-
„ -^ rSL fecal contamination during
, ^v '~' ^able hydrographic and pollu-
, ^-jSJ1 « ]s (Note: This concentration
* ^
-------
exceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and ivhich 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 coliform-free 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 will 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 correlated 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) (36).
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 8 on page 13.
ern oyster has a concentration factor of
17,000 for Zn 85 whereas the concentration
factor for Sr89 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 she1"
fish for direct marketing is dependent
the attainment of an established
ance standard by sewage treats
discharging effluent, directly or
the area. In other cases the sa.,
of an area may be affected by seas<.
lation, or sporadic use of a dock or *
facility. Such areas may be classified
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
con) 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.
(b) 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 wate,r
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 1959
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.1112
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 and 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 approreil classification may be closed to all har-
vesting for direct marketing.
1J Routine sanitary surveys and reappraisals of restricted areas
shall be made on the same frequency as for approved 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 irade 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 shel fish 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
1954 and 1957 (38) (39).
18
June 1902
-------
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
taking1 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.
11 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 approved 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 appli aant. 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 f eces 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,
t -no- ->rtation, replanting, purification pe-
id final harvesting for marketing if the
g 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-
1950
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 iis a mechanical process ef-
fected by the phyisiological 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 a:^e used, and insofar as is
known, is applicable to all commercial species
of shellfish.
Many of the earlier investigators suggested
that purification IDC 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) (i<4). The inhibitory effect
of chlorinated-decMorinated 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 1950
-------
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 areas.
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 can 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 a re 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 unjtfst 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 £,reas.
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 are£,s of like sanitary quality.
Similarly, Eastern oysters harvested from
South Atlantic ar d Gulf areas have a higher
coliform content ;han those from the Middle
Atlantic States.13 Seasonal variation is also
pronounced (2). Table 1 demonstrates some
of these variations.
" The geographic subdi visions used coincide with those used in
"Fishery Statistics of the United States," Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, U. S. Department of the Intel ior.
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 mercenaria) 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-
TABLB II
Coliform MPA"so/Oysters Sam-pled at Time of Harvesting
Coliform MPN per 100 gms. meats
Less than 230
Less than 2,400___
Less than 24,000__
Less than 160,000_
Percent of
Samples ' in
Stated Group
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 (3). On the basis of these discussions
the Workshop recommended a two part "Ac-
ceptable-Re jectable" interim market stand-
ard for shucked Eastern oysters based on
fecal coliform MPN's and standard plate
counts.
TABLE III
Coliform MPN's and Standard Plate Counts of Oysters During Harvesting and Processing
COLIFORM MPN RANGE
Less than 230 _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ .
231-2400 _ _ _
2401-24,000
24,001-160,000_
160,000 or more
Number of samples
STANDARD PLATE COUNT RANGE
1-1500. .. ---
1600-10,000 __ ... _..
11,000-50,000
51,000-1,000,000
1,000,000 or more
Number of samples. . .
Percent of samples in stated group or less
Shell oysters
Dug
63
90
97
100
30
29
79
90
100
28
0 hours '
45
81
100
11
0
82
100
11
12 hours 2
5
15
50
85
100
20
5
15
30
100
20
Shucked oysters
As
shucked 3
5
5
47
79
100
19
0
5
20
90
100
20
Pots4
0
5
31
47
100
19
0
5
10
100
19
As
packed 5
0
5
79
95
100
19
5
10
52
100
19
1 Shell oysters as delivered to the shucking plant.
2 Shell oysters after 12 hours storage at shucking plant.
3 Oysters at time of shucking.
4 Oysters as delivered to packing room.
s Shucked oysters as packed.
Source: Proceedings, 1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop; Bacteriological Examination as an Indicator of Sanitary Quality of Market Shellfish,
Kelly, C. B.
January 1959
29
-------
References
1. Jensen, E. T.: The 1954 National Conference on
Shellfish Sanitation, Public Health Reports, vol.
70, No. 9, Sept. 1955.
2. Proceedings—1956 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, mimeographed, Public Health Service, 1956.
3. Proceedings—1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, lithographed, Public Health Service, 1958.
4. Woodward, Richard L.: How Probable Is the
Most Probable Number? Journal, American
Water Works Association, vol. 49, No. 8; 1060-
1068; August 1957.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Sew-
age and Industrial Wastes, American Public
Health Association.
6. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No.
143, July 1924.
7. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No.
204, May 1933.
8. Phelps, Earl B.: Stream Sanitation, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 1944.
9. Report on Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States, Supple-
ment No. 53, Public Health Reports, Nov. 6, 1925.
10. Orlob, Gerald T.: Evaluating Bacterial Con-
tamination in Sea Water Samples, Public Health
Reports, Vol. 71, No. 12, December 1956.
11. Schantz, E. J.: Purified Shellfish Poison for
Bioassay Standardization, Journal of the Associa-
tion of Official Agricultural Chemists, 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, 27, 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 available 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 C licago 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 Molluscan 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 ~\?irginia, Public Health Bulletin
No. 74, 1916.
28. Investigation of the Pollution of Certain Tidal
Waters of New Jersey, New 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 Scieices, National Research Council,
1957.
32. Gong, J. K., et v,l.: Uptake of Fission Products
and Neutron-Induced Radionuclides by the Clam,
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental
Biology and Mecicine, 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 Falhut, 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. F., 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.:
1,954 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
Sribstances 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 Commission 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, 1942.
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 1062
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
Page
Sewage treatment—Continued
relationship to approved areas 14
relationship to bacteriological sampling__ 14
Sewage treatment—Continued
special equipmert requirements 17
storm sewers 17
Shellfish shipper certificates:
control 6
expiration date 6
requirements for 5,6
Shellfish shipper list 1,5
Shell stock shippers:
inspection 6
records of inspection 6
requirements for certification 5
Shucker-packers:
inspection 6
records of inspection 6
requirements for certification 6
sanitary rating 6
Transplanting 3
Typhoid fever—see Disease.
Wet storage 13
34
June 1962
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962 O 647038
-------
GOV
WASHINGTONX, TRAN
D C
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL
' ~ .TATION ANNEX
UXENT RIVER
AlR STATioN
PATUXENT RIVER BASIN
FIGURE I
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................... 1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................... 2
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES ................. 3
Andrews Air Force Base ... .............. 3
Fort Washington National Monument .......... 5
Fort Belvoir . . . . , ......... 5
Lorton Nike Site (No. 6U) .............. 7
East Coast Radio Transmitting Station . . . . . . . . 7
Naval Propellant Plant, Indian Head ....... „ . 8
Waldorf Nike Site (No. WO .............. 10
Naval Research Laboratory Field Site, Waldorf . „ . . 11
Manassas Air Force Base ............... 11
Quantico Marine Corps Reservation .......... 12
East Coast Radio Receiving Station .......... ih
Radio Research Field Site, ONR, La Plata . . „ . . . , 15
Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren .......... 15
George Washington Birthplace National Monument .... 16
Coast Guard Station, Piney Point ........... 16
Naval Outlying Field, Webster ............ 17
Smith Point Light Station .............. 17
MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SHELLFISH GROWING
AREAS ......................... 18
CONCLUSIONS ....... o ............. o . 20
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 23
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland State Department of Health recently pro-
hibited (effective September 1, 196U) the harvesting of shellfish
from several areas of the Chesapeake Bay due to water pollution,,
Included in this prohibition was one relatively small area of
the Potomac River estuary in Breton Bay near Leonardtown, Maryland,
which has since been largely reopened. Neale Sound north of Cobb
Island and a portion of the upper reaches of St. Mary's River
have been closed for some time» The closures mentioned above
are related to the effects of municipal waste discharges. In
order to determine the extent to which waste discharges from
Federal installations may have contributed to these unsatisfactory
conditions, a review was made of waste disposal practices at
nearby Federal government facilities. This report summarizes
the waste disposal practices at Federal installations in the
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D0 C«, presents a dis-
cussion of the effects of the waste effluents on water quality,
and sets forth recommendations for necessary action.
-------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Potomac River Basin drains an area of 14,670 square
miles in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the
District of Columbia. The tidal estuary portion of the Basin
drains 35090 square miles and is 116 miles long. The average
stream flow to the head of the estuary is 11,060 cfs (cubic feet
per second), or approximately 1»0 cfs per square mile,. Salt
water influence normally extends to Mount Vernon, and tidal
influence extends to the northwest corner of the District of
Columbia.
Except for the District of Columbia section and inlets
and bays on the western shore, the Potomac River estuary lies
within the State of Maryland„ The Upstream limit of shellfish
production in the estuary lies between Colonial Beach and Dahlgren,
Virginia, on the western shore and just downstream from the
Potomac River Bridge (Morgantown) on the eastern shore„ The
Potomac River produces about 13 per cent of the clams and 10
per cent of the oysters harvested in Maryland. In addition,
shellfish are harvested from the tributary bays lying in Virginia.
-------
-------
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The seventeen Federal Installations discharging waste
effluents to the Potomac River estuary or to tributaries of the
estuary below the District of Columbia include nine in Maryland
and eight in Virginia. Following are brief descriptions of
these installations and their waste disposal practices, listed
from upstream to downstream. The locations of these installations
are shown in Figure 1, inside back cover.
Andrews Air Force Base
Andrews Air Force Base is located in Prince George's
County, Maryland, approximately five miles southeast of the
District of Columbia. A large fleet of various types of aircraft
is maintained, repaired and stored. The daytime population is
estimated to be about llt-,000, including military and civilian
personnel. The sanitary wastes from Andrews Air Force Base are
treated in three sewage treatment plants. Plants No» 1 and No,
h discharge to the Potomac River Basin, while Plant No. 3 discharges
to the Patuxent River Basin. In addition, about 8,UOO gpd
(gallons per day) are treated by septic tanks and tile fields in
areas remote from the main sewage treatment plants«
Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 913?500
gpd and consists of a comminuter, Par shall flume., lift station,
Imhoff tank, open sludge drying beds, trickling filters with
-------
-------
k
rotary distributors, final settling basins, and chlorination
followed by a contact tank. The plant is currently receiving
approximately 700,000 gpd of domestic wastes„ Air Force
personnel have indicated that the plant has achieved a BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand) reduction in the range of 85 per
cent, indicating good treatment. The plant effluent is dis-
charged to Meetinghouse Branch which flows into Tinker's Creek,
a tributary of the Potomac River.
Sewage Treatment Plant No» k receives domestic wastes
from the golf club and is also of the Imhoff tank—trickling
filter type. The plant experiences varied flows as usage is
largely dependent upon season and weather. The effluent is dis-
charged to Payne's Branch, a tributary of Tinker's Creek and the
Potomac River.
The treatment provided by these two plants is adequate,
and the operation is considered to be good. In view of this,
the bacteriological quality of the Potomac River is not expected
to be appreciably affected by the discharges from these plants.
Industrial wastes which consist mainly of aircraft wash-
waters are discharged to the Patuxent River Basin. A compre-
hensive survey of all waste discharges has been completed by a
private consultant, and an active program is underway to provide
modifications of procedures and/or treatment of industrial wastes
where needed.
-------
-------
5
Fort Washington National Monument
Fort Washington, operated by the National Park Service,
is located on the Potomac River in Prince George's County, Mary-
land, about six miles south of the District of Columbia. An
estimated 1,500 gpd of sanitary wastes are treated by septic tank
and sub-surface sand filter„ No discharge has been observed from
the filter. Several temporary chemical comfort stations are
rented from a private company on a daily basis when large crowds
are expected.
Fort Belvoir
Fort Belvoir is an Army Corps of Engineers facility
located in Fairfax County, Virginia, about nine miles south of
Alexandria, The mission of Fort Belvoir is the training of
engineer officers and the testing of military engineering equip-
ment. The work-day population of the Fort is estimated to be
18,500 persons with the majority of these living on the post0
Most of the domestic wastes of the Fort are treated at
two sewage treatment plants,, Septic tanks with sub-surface
disposal are used to serve several isolated areas. A program
is underway to connect most of the septic tanks to the main
sewerage system.
Sewage Treatment Plant No* 1, serving approximately
3,700 persons, consists of bar screens,, primary settling tanks,
intermittant fixed-nozzle trickling filter, and chlorination with
-------
-------
6
contact tank. Open sludge drying beds are used for raw sludge.
Average flow to the plant is 312,000 gpd. The plant is effect-
ing an 88 per cent BOD removal and an 86 per cent removal of
suspended solids, Indicating good operation. The final plant
effluent is discharged through a 200-foot outfall to Gunston
Cove. Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2, the larger of the two plants,
consists of a grit chamber, comminuter, primary settling tanks,
intermittent trickling filters, secondary settling tanks, and
chlorination with contact tank. Primary and secondary sludges
are digested in a heated digester. The digested sludge is then
dewatered by a vacuum filter. The final sludge from this plant
and from Plant No. 1 is used for fertilizer, land fill and com-
post. The treatment plant is effecting a 90 per cent BOD
removal and an 81 per cent removal of suspended solids, again
indicating good operation. The flow to Plant No. 2 averages
1.45 mgd (million gallons per day). The final effluent is dis-
charged into the Potomac River through a 900-foot outfall sewer.
All septic tanks are reported to be operating satisfac-
torily with no discharge from the drain fields except at the
golf course club house, which has been observed to overflow to
Accotink Creek.
All motor pools and vehicle parks are provided with
grease and oil separators which are carefully maintained,, The
recovered grease and oil are sold. The nuclear and climatic
-------
laboratory discharges 7.5 mgd of cooling water which has passed
once through a heat exchanger. This waste, to which no chemicals
have been added, discharges to the Potomac River.
The Potomac River, which receives the effluents from the
two primary sewage treatment plants, is in a degraded condition
near Fort Belvoir. Algal blooms have occurred in the main stem
and also in Dogue Creek. The well-treated effluent from Fort
Belvoir would be expected to have no significant effect on the
bacteriological quality of the Potomac River.
Lorton Nike Site
Nike Site No. 64, located about 1.5 miles west of Lorton,
Virginia, in Fairfax County, has a complement of 50 persons.
Domestic wastes totaling about 3,000 gpd are treated by septic
tanks followed by sand filter beds. The effluent is chlorinated
before discharge to Giles Run, a tributary of Occoquan Creek,
As this type of treatment effects very good bacterial reductions,
no appreciable effect on the bacteriological quality of the
receiving waters would be expected.
East Coast Radio Transmitting Station
The East Coast Radio Transmitting Station, operated and
maintained by the Department of the Army, is located in Prince
William County, Virginia, approximately two miles southeast of
Woodbridge on Occoquan Bay. The Station is manned 24 hours a
-------
8
day and has a rated complement of 110 persons. Domestic wastes
are treated in two systems. The system serving the quarters
area consists of a septic tank and sand filter followed by
chlorination before discharging to Marumsco Creek, a tributary
of Occoquan Bay. This type of treatment effects very good
bacterial reductions. This system treats an estimated 2,800
gpd from 41 full time residents in the housing area. The
second system treats an estimated 2,000 gpd from personnel of
the three shifts in the operations area and consists of a septic
tank which discharges to land. The effluent flows over land to
reach Occoquan Bay through marshy land. Funds have been approp-
riated to divert these domestic wastes into the Woodbridge
Sanitary District's sewage treatment plant. Bids are being
sought, and the proposed completion of the project is expected
for November 1964. The project will eliminate discharge of
inadequately treated sewage to surface waters.
Naval Propellent Plantf Indian Head
The Naval Propellant Plantf located near Indian Head,
Maryland, in Charles County, about 25 miles south of the District
of Columbia, carries out research on, and development of, chemical
propellents. Approximately 2,800 persons are employed, and 500
persons are residents at the installation. Domestic wastea from
the Housing Area are treated in a primary sewage treatment plant
with chlorination before discharge to the Potomac River. Domestic
-------
wastes from the Rocket Engine Test Area and the Storage Area are
treated in three Imhoff tanks, two of which discharge to the
Potomac River, and one of which discharges to a tile field. In
addition, individual septic tanks serve the area, two overflowing
to the Potomac River, one to Mattawoman Creek, and others discharg-
ing to tile fields. The total flow to the Potomac River, including
the above systems without tile fields and the primary plant, is
about 255,000 gpd. The total flow to the tile fields from the
Imhoff tank and the septic tanks is about 45,000 gpd_
Both domestic and industrial wastes are discharged, un-
treated, from the Industrial Area through a combined system to
Mattawoman Creek,, Several septic tanks in this area also dis-
charge effluent to Mattawoman Greek* The flow of the industrial
wastes is estimated to be about 20,000 gpd^, but no estimate is
available on these domestic wastesc The Stumpneck Area, utilized
for ordnance disposal, is separated from the major portion, of the
installation by Mattawoman Creek. Approximately 130 persons
contribute wastes to eight septic tanks which discharge to sxib-
surface tile fields or to the surface of the ground. Approxi-
mately 380,000 gpd of cooling water are discharged to the
Potomac River from the installation. Steam eondensate is wasted
to the ground at various locations, A project which includes
facilities to provide treatment for & .major port ion. of untreated
wastes from the installation is' proposed, for scheduling in. the
1969 Military Construction Program,
-------
-------
10
Waldorf Nike Site
Nike Site No. 44 is located near Waldorf in Charles County,
Maryland. Domestic wastes are treated in three systems. Wastes
from the control area and the mess hall receive treatment in an
extended mechanical aeration unit followed by chlorination. This
unit with a design capacity of 100 persons presently treats the
wastes from 20 persons over each 24-hour period. The discharge,
estimated to be 1,200 gpd, is to a ditch leading to Mattawoman
Creek.
Wastes from the launching area are treated by septic tank
followed by sand filter and chlorination of effluent* The contri-
buting population is the same as in the control area, and the
effluent, estimated to be 1,200 gpd, discharges to the same ditch.
The housing area contains 12 units currently housing 3&
persons. The wastes, estimated to be about 3,000 gpd, are treated
by septic tank followed by a sand filter bed. Any effluent from
the filter bed would be collected in an artificial pond for
seepage; however, no effluent from the bed has been observed to
date.
The small amount of well-treated and chlorinated waste
from the Waldorf Nike Site would be expected to have negligible
effect upon the bacteriological quality of the waters of Matta-
woman Creek or the Potomac River.
-------
11
Naval Research Laboratory Field Site,. Waldorf
The Naval Research Laboratory Field Site, Waldorf, is
located in Charles County, Maryland, at the former Nike Site No.
45 Control Area. An experimental antenna is being constructed
for research on communications. About 15 to 20 persons will be
present during a normal work-day. The existing system of septic
tank followed by a sand filter bed with post-chlorination will
be continued. The discharge will be to a ditch running to
Mattawoman Creek. The final effluent should have no appreciable
effect upon the bacteriological quality of Mattawoman Creek or
the Potomac River.
Manassas Air Force Base
Manassas Air Force Base, located approximately nine
miles south of Manassas in Prince William County, Virginia, con-
tains the 647th Radar Squadron, SAGE. The total population of
the Base is 175 persons, including residents. The sanitary
wastes from one building, containing seven persons during the
work-day, discharge to a septic tank with sub-surface tile field
for disposal of effluent. The main sewage treatment plant, which
serves the remaining 168 persons, was designed for a population
of 350. It provides comminution, activated sludge treatment,
secondary settling, chlorination, and sludge drying on open beds.
The effluent, which ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 gpd, is dis-
charged to a small tributary of the South Fork Quantico River,
-------
-------
12
which is a tributary of the Potomac River, Operation of the
plant is considered to be good, and the effluent should have
little effect on the bacteriological quality of the Potomac
River.
Quantico Marine Corps Reservation
The Quantico Marine Corps Reservation covers approximate-
ly 50,000 acres in William, Stafford, and Fauquier Counties,
Virginia, about 30 miles south of Washington, D. C. The popula-
tion of the Reservation is 13,543, which includes 7,600 military
personnel and dependents who reside on the Reservation. The
Reservation contains the Marine Corps Schools, including Camp
Barrett and Camp Upshur, and the Marine Corps Air Station,
including Brown Field,
Sanitary wastes are mainly treated at the following
facilities:
(l) Mg.ifl Sewage Treatment Plant — consisting of pre-
chlorination, sedimentation, trickling filters,
final sedimentation, post-chlorination, and sludge
digestion and drying, discharging 1.39 mgd to the
Potomac River.
(2) Camp Upshur Sewage Treatment Plant — consisting
of sedimentation, activated sludge process, final
sedimentation, chlorination, and sludge digestion
-------
-------
13
and drying, discharging 94,000 gpd to Cedar Run
of Occoquan Creels:, a tributary of the Potomac River.
(3) Rifle Range Sewage Treatment Plant — consisting
of sedimentation and digestion of sludge in an
Imhoff tank, trickling filter, final sedimentation,
ehlorination,, and sludge drying, discharging 60,000
gpd during the summer to Beaver Run of Aquia Greek,
a tributary of the Potomac River, Winter flows
decrease to about 25,000 gpd.
(4) Brown Field Sej[ajge,J^a1^niL_. Plant — consisting
of sedimentation and digestion of sludge in an
Imhoff tank, ehlorination, and sludge drying, dis-
charging a maximum flow of 86,400 gpd to Chopa-
wamsic Creek, a tributary of the Potomac River.
Maximum flows, which occur during the summer,
exceed design capacity.
(5) Midway Islands Sewage Treatment Plant — consisting
of sedimentation and heated digestion of sludge in
a circular Imhoff tank, trickling filter, final
sedimentation, chlorination, and sludge drying,
discharging 62,000 gpd to Tank Greek, a tributary
of the Potomac River.
(6) SssS&^S£I^^^S3L^&-l£SS^mL^lS^L — consisting
of sedimentations activated sludge processf final
-------
-------
14
sedimentation, chlorination, and sludge digestion
and drying, discharging 164,500 gpd to Aquia Creek.
In addition to the above facilities, four septic tanks
and a cesspool receive a total flow of about 8,000 gpd with the
effluent discharged to sub-surface systems,, Two septic tanks
located in the Brown Field Area overflow to the Potomac River,
and wastes from sanitary facilities at three other locations
discharge directly to the Potomac River.
The principal industrial waste consists of washwater
from vehicle washracks. Substantial amounts of greases and oils
are gaining entry to the Potomac River from the washracks. A
landfill, receiving digested sewage sludge, ashes, and fill dirt,
located on the west bank of the Potomac River, is contributing
pollutional material to the river.
East Coast Radio Receiving Station
The East Coast Radio Receiving Station, operated and
maintained by the Department of the Army, is located in Charles
County, Maryland, near La Plata. An estimated 10,000 gpd of
sanitary wastes are treated by extended aeration, followed by
sand filter beds, before discharging to Clark Run of Zekiah
Swamp of the Wicomico River, a tributary of the Potomac River.
With this degree of treatment, the effluent might have a limit-
ed effect upon the bacteriological conditions in Clark Run,
while the effect would be negligible in the shellfish growing
areas of the Potomac River,
-------
-------
15
Radio Research Field Site. ONR. La Plata
The Radio Research Field Site, La Plata, Maryland, of
the Office of Naval Research, is contractor-operated and located
at former Nike Site No. 54. About five persons will be located
at the former control area during an eight-hour work-day. The
existing waste treatment facilities, consisting of septic tank
and sand filter bed, will be utilized. No waste effluent is
expected from the filter bed tinder the present operation, since
the treatment system was designed for a far greater number of
persons.
Naval Weapons Laboratory,, Dahlgren
The Naval Weapons Laboratory, located at Dahlgren,
Virginia, two miles downstream from the Potomac River (Morgan-
town) Bridge, is engaged in Naval weapons developmental activit-
ies. The base has a population of 2,800 during the day and
1,000 at night. The main portion of the base is served by a
secondary sewage treatment plant consisting of a barmlnuter,
primary settling basins, trickling filters, secondary settling
basins, chlorinators and chlorine contact tankss and sludge
digesters and drying beds. The plant is currently operating at
its design capacity of 350,000 gpd. The presently achieved
over-all BOD reduction of 85 per cent indicates good, operation,,
Discharge is to Machodoc Creek. The plant effluent should have
very little effect upon the bacteriological quality of the
-------
16
adjacent Maryland shellfish waters under normal operating condi-
tions. A potential adverse affect exists, however, due to the
possibility of emergency by-pass or plant malfunction, necessitat-
ing the discharge of raw or partially treated sewage and to the
proximity of both Maryland and Virginia shellfish growing waters
in the immediate vicinity.
A total of 20 septic tanks with sub-surface disposal
facilities serve outlying areas. A photographic laboratory dis-
charges several hundred gallons per week of solutions into the
main sewerage system.
George Washfl^gtWi Birthplace National Monument
The George Washington Birthplace National Monument,
operated by the National Park Service, is located on the Potomac
River in Westmoreland County, Virginia. Three septic tanks
receive about 1,000 gpd of sanitary wastes, with the effluent
being discharged to sub-surface tile fields.
Coast Guard Station, Piney Point
The Coast Guard Station, Piney Point, is located in St.
Mary's County, Maryland, and has a complement of 11 men. One
six-room house quarters nine men; a three-room house quarters
two men; and a small building contains the radio watch and
garage. Each of the three buildings is served by a septic tank
and seepage pit. No surface discharge has been observed from
the seepage pits.
-------
17
Naval Outlying Field, Webster
The Naval Outlying Field, Webster, located in St. Mary's
County, Maryland, consists of two operational activities.
About 15 to 20 enlisted men carry out the functions of
the landing field crew, including the operation of fire trucks
and other emergency vehicles. Aircraft from the Patuxent Naval
Air Station and Andrews Air Force Base make occasional landings
there. This activity will probably be discontinued in the near
future.
The Naval Air Navigation and Electronics Project has a
complement of about 65 persons who are present during working
hours studying radar and electronic navigation. Three septic
tanks serve the installation, one with a tile field, which dis-
charges to St. Mary's river, and the other two with chlorination
of the effluents before discharge to St. Mary's River. These
discharges occur in "approved" shellfish waters.
Smith Point Light Station
The Smith Point Light Station, operated by the Coast
Guard, is located about three miles off the mouth of the Potomac
River in the Chesapeake Bay off of Northumberland County, Virginia.
About 500 gpd of sanitary wastes are discharged, without treat-
ment, to the Bay into "approved" shellfish waters.
-------
18
MARYLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR
SHEIXFISH GROWING AREAS
Part I of the Manual of Operations of the Cooperative
Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers.
Public Health Service Publication No. 33, stipulates that shell-
fish growing areas are categorized according to four classifica-
tions: "approved," "conditionally approved," "restricted," and
"prohibited/1
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 shellfish areas are designated as either "approved" or "pro-
hibited." However, since about November 1, 1964, predelineated
temporary closure areas have been established within "approved"
areas, subject to possible sewage influence in the event of
treatment plant by-passing or failure. This is essentially
consistent with the "conditionally approved" concept used in
the cooperative shellfish program.
For classification purposes, the Maryland State Depart-
ment of Health has divided the Potomac River estuary and
surrounding area of the Chesapeake Bay into five sections, as
shown in Figure 1* Based upon bacteriological sanrpling and
sanitary surveys, the following classifications have been
-------
-------
19
assigned within these sections. In Section I, Neale Sound north
of Cobb Island is classified as "prohibited;" the remainder of
Section I is classified as "approved." In Section II, Breton
Bay, north of a line drawn from Society Hill to Lovers Point,
is classified as "prohibited." The remainder of Section II is
classified as "approved." Section III is classified as "approved"
in its entirety. In Section IV, St. Mary's River upstream from
a line from Portobello Point east to the opposite shore is
classified as "prohibited." The remainder of Section IV is
classified as "approved." Section V, which covers an area of
Chesapeake Bay north of the Potomac River from Cedar Point to
Point Lookout, is classified as "approved," except that a small
area adjacent to the Patuxent Naval Air Station is classified
as "prohibited." This latter prohibited area is discussed in
the report, "Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations,
Patuxent River Basin, October 1964."
-------
20
CONCLUSIONS
1. Twelve of the seventeen Federal installations in the
Potomac River Basin, below Washington, D. C., either provide
adequate treatment of wastes or have initiated construction pro-
grams to correct existing deficiencies. These installations
are: Andrews Mr Force Base, Fort Washington National Monument,
Fort Belvoir, Lorton Nike Site, East Coast Radio Transmitting
Station, Waldorf Nike Site, Naval Research Laboratory Field Site,
Manassas Air Force Base, Radio Research Field Site of the Office
of Naval Research, Dahlgren Naval Weapons Laboratory, George
Washington Birthplace National Monument, and the Piney Point
Coast Guard Station.
2, The Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, Virginia,
has adequate secondary treatment, is well operated, and under
normal operating conditions has no adverse affect on the
bacteriological quality of Maryland shellfish waters, A poten-
tial adverse affect exists, however, in the event of emergency
by-pass or plant malfunction and due to the immediate proximity
of Virginia shellfish waters which are located between the
treatment plant outfall and the Maryland shellfish waters„
3. The five remaining Federal installations (Naval
Propellant Plant, Indian Head; Quantieo Marine Corps Reservation;
East Coast Radio Receiving Station; Naval Outlying Field, Webster;
and Smith Point Light Station) were found to have certain
-------
21
deficiencies in waste treatment practices, as noted in the
following sections. However, in view of the nature of these
deficiencies, the size of the installations involved, and their
location in relation to the shellfish growing areas concerned,
it is felt that the waste effluents from the Naval Propellant
Plant, Indian Head; Quantico Marine Corps Reservation; and East
Coast Radio Receiving Station do not contribute in any signifi-
cant manner to the bacteriological conditions which brought
about the recent closing of shellfish growing areas in the
Potomac River below Washington, D. C.
4. Two septic tanks at the Webster Naval Outlying Field
discharge chlorinated effluents directly to the St. Mary's River,
which is a shoreline violation in an "approved" shellfish area.
5. Sanitary wastes from the Smith Point Light Station
are discharged untreated to the Chesapeake Bay, in violation of
requirements in an "approved" shellfish area.
6. At the Indian Head Naval Propellant Plant, the dis-
charge of septic tank, Imhoff tank and primary treatment plant
effluents to the Potomac River is not considered to be adequate
treatment. In addition, the discharge of untreated domestic
and industrial wastes to the Mattawoman Creek is not acceptable,
nor is the practice of disposing of septic tank effluents to
the ground surface adequate in view of the potential health
hazard associated with this procedure.
-------
22
7. At the Quantico Marine Corps Reservation, the design
capacity of the Brown Field Primary Sewage Treatment Plant is
exceeded during the summer months. In addition, effluents from
two septic tanks located in the Brown Field Area and untreated
wastes from three other locations discharge directly to the
Potomac River,
8. Wastes from vehicle washracks at the Quantico Marine
Corps Reservation containing grease and oils are discharged to
the Potomac River.
9. A landfill operation at the Quantico Marine Corps
Reservation is contributing pollutional material to the Potomac
River.
10. A treatment facility at the East Coast Radio Receiv-
ing Station discharges waste effluent to Clark Run without
chlorination.
-------
23
RECQMyENBAlIONS
1. A detailed engineering study should be made to
determine the most feasible solution or solutions to current
deficiencies in treatment practices at the Indian Head Naval
Propellant Plant,, Specific items to be considered include:
a. Provision of secondary treatment or its
equivalent for all domestic and industrial
wastes,
b. Separate treatment of industrial wastes, if
these wastes are shown to be toxic to.bio-
logical treatment processes.
c. Sub-surface disposal of effluents from
septic tanks.
2. The Quantico Marine Corps Reservation should initiate
an action program leading to the design and construction of
adequate secondary treatment facilities to serve the Brown Field
Area. Additional capacity in the primary units of this plant
should be provided as required to insure adequate treatment of
the peai summertime loads.
3, Adequate treatment facilities should be provided at
all locations within the Quantico Reservation where septic tank
overflows and untreated wastes currently discharge to the Potomac
River.
-------
-------
24
4. The Quantico Reservation's landfill operation on the
west bank of the Potomac should "fee moved Inland, if feasible, to
eliminate this source of pollutian of the Potomac River.
5. Wastes generated by vehicle washing operations at
the Quantico Reservation should receive adequate treatment for
oil and grease removal.
6. Dahlgren Naval Weapons Laboratory should provide
dual effluent ehlorination facilities to insure the highest
possible degree of protection for shellfish areas adjacent to
the treatment plant outfall. Arrangements should also be made
for notification to the Maryland and Virginia Departments of
Health in the event of plant malfunction or ehlorination failure.
7. Septic tanks at the Webster Naval Outlying Field
should be provided with sub-surface disposal systems„
8. Untreated wastes from the Smith Point Light Station
should receive adequate treatment.
9. Chlorination should be provided for all effluents
discharged to surface waters from sanitary waste treatment
facilities of these installations,
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION 2
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 3
Cove Point Light Station . 3
Naval Reserve lab (Chesapeake Beach) 3
Thomas Point Shoal Light Station 4
Coast Guard Station, Annapolis 4
Naval Academy (Annapolis) .............. 5
Ellieott City Post Office 6
Fort MeHenry National Monument (Baltimore) 7
Corps of Engineers facility, Fort McHenry (Baltimore). 7
Naval Reserve Training Center, Baltimore S
GSA-DJE Depot, Curtis Bay 9
Coast Guard Yard, Curtis Creek 10
Fort Howard Veterans Administration Hospital 11
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (Strawberry
Point) 11
Edgewood Arsenal 13
Aberdeen Proving Ground ...... 14
Naval Training Center, Bainbridge . 15
Perry Point Veterans Administration Hospital ..... 16
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Resident Office
(Chesapeake City) 16
-------
-------
Light Attendant Station 17
Kent County Nike Site (No. 30) (Tolchester) 17
Coast Guard Station, Tilghnan Island . . „ 18
MAEXLAHD'S CLASSIFICATION ERQ3BAM FOR SHELLFISH GROWING
AREAS 19
CONCLUSIONS ....................... 20
RECOMMENDATIONS 22
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland State Department of Health recently pro-
hibited the harvesting of shellfish from several areas of the
Chesapeake Bay due to water pollution. In order to determine
the extent to which Federal installations may contribute to these
unsatisfactory conditions, a review was made of practices at
those installations which discharge waste effluents to the
Chesapeake Bay system in Maryland. This report summarizes the
waste disposal practices at all Federal installations, excluding
those in the Potomac and Patuxent River Basins, which could
affect the water quality of the upper Chesapeake Bay and sets
forth recommendations for improvements where necessary. Two
previous reports presented similar information on Federal installa-
tions in the Potomac and Patuxent River Basins.
The report has been prepared in cooperation with the
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection, Shell-
fish Sanitation Branch of the Public Health Service.
-------
-------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Bay is a large estuarine system with a
total drainage area of 67,000 square miles, covering parts of
the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West
Virginia, and Virginia. The surface area of the Bay, plus its
tributary estuaries, is 3,260 square nautical miles. Waters of
the Bay are used extensively for recreation, cooling water sup-
plies, and sjort and coHmereial fishing. The shellfish harvest
in Maryland totaled 34.3 million pounds in 1963 and was valued
at 9.3 million dollars.
-------
-------
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Twenty-one Federal installations in the upper Chesapeake
Bay area, excluding the Potomac and Patuxent River Basins, were
considered to be located such that waste effluent discharges
could conceivably affect the quality of shellfish growing waters
in Maryland. Following are brief descriptions of those installa-
tions and their waste disposal practices, listed clockwise
around the Bay. The locations of the installations are shown
on Figure 1, inside back cover.
Cove Point Light Station
The Cove Point Light Station of the Coast Guard is
located near the southern tip of Calvert County, Maryland.
Sanitary wastes from three residence units with 15 persons and
the radio building are discharged to a septic tank followed by
a tile field. Seepage from the tile field to the ground surface
has been observed. A new system consisting of a septic tank
followed by a sand filter bed, from which no effluent is expected,
has been planned and is expected to be completed by June 1965.
Naval Reserve Lab
The Naval Reserve Lab, located at Chesapeake Beach in
Calvert County, Maryland, employs 350 to 400 persons. Approxi-
mately 38,000 gpd (gallons per day) of domestic wastes are treat-
ed in a secondary sewage treatment plant designed for 50,000 gpd,
-------
-------
consisting of primary sedimentation, secondary treatment by
trickling filter, secondary sedimentation, post-chlorination,
and sludge digestion and drying. Discharge is to the Chesapeake
Bay. Periodic laboratory analyses of the plant effluent reveal
good operation. BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) removal has
been in excess of 90 per cent. Two septic tanks discharging to
sub-surface systems receive 100 gpd from remote buildings.
About 1,000 gpd of wasted cooling water are discharged from cool-
ing towers of the air conditioning system to the Chesapeake Bay.
Thomas Point Shoaj. Light Station
Thomas Point Shoal Light Station of the Coast Guard is
located in the Chesapeake Bay about 1.5 miles off of Thomas
Point in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Approximately 500 gpd
of sanitary wastes are discharged to the Bay without treatment.
Coast Guard Stationf Annapolis
The Coast Guard Station, Annapolis, is a search and
rescue unit quartered in a two-deck barge docked near the mouth
of Back Creek, a tributary of the Severn River in Arme Arundel
County, Maryland. Out of a staff of ten, an average of five to
eight men may be found aboard at any one time. Sanitary wastes
are treated by two septic tanks in series and are chlorinated
before discharging to the creek. This system is not considered
to be satisfactory. Wastes from the galley, showers, lavatories,
-------
-------
and an automatic clothes washing machine discharge overboard
with no treatment. Sanitary sewers of the City of Annapolis
are available within a few hundred feet,
Naval Academy
The Naval Academy, located on the south side of the
Severn River in Annapolis, Maryland, discharges approximately
1.18 mgd (million gallons per day) of domestic wastes to the
Academy sewerage system, which is connected to the Annapolis
City system. Approximately 175,000 gpd of laundry wastes are
discharged to the Severn River without treatment. The Fiscal
Year 1966 Military Construction Program includes plans for
building a new laundry with construction planned for the spring
of 1966. After completion, discharge of laundry wastes will be
to the Academy sewerage system.
The Marine Engineering Laboratory, Naval Radio Station,
Naval Station, Naval Small Craft Facility, and the Naval Academy
Officer's Golf Association, all located on the north side of the
Severn River opposite the Naval Academy, are served by a primary
sewage treatment plant operated by the Naval Academy. Personnel
plus dependents total about 2,200 persons, of whom about 1^,500
are residents; and the Golf Association has 325 members„ The
plant, designed to treat 1.0 mgd, is presently receiving 430,000
gpd of domestic wastes. Treatment consists of pre-chlorination
for odor control, sedimentation, post-chlorination, and sludge
-------
-------
digestion and drying. The plant effluent flows by gravity
through a pipeline laid on the bottom of Carr's Creek and finally
discharges about 1,500 feet out in the Severn River, A -weir
higher than the maximum high tide separates the effluent pipe-
line at the plant from the pipeline in Carr's Creek. While no
chlorine contact chamber has been provided^ calculations show
that a contact time of about a half hour is provided by the out-
fall pipe. Approximately #.4 mgd of cooling water are pumped
from the Severn River and discharged back to the .River with no
chemicals added. The lower Severn Hiver estuary is a "prohibited"
shellfish harvesting area.
Ellicott City Post Office
The Ellicott City Post Office,, located in Howard County,
Maryland, discharges sanitary wastes directly to Tiber River
without treatment„ Post Office employees total 28 persons, and
in addition.,eight to ten persons In the County Agent's Office
are located in the same building. No eojssninity sewerage system
is available in Ellicott City; however, the County is currently
developing a sewerage system program. All other buildings in
the area also discharge wastes directly, without treatment, so
that treatment of wastes from the Post Office, as a temporary
measure, would have very little beneficial effect.
-------
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
Fort McHenry, located in Baltimore, Maryland, and operat-
ed by the National Park Service, attracts about a half million
people each year. Of these, perhaps two-thirds go to the
Visitor Center and 50,000 to 60,000 pay admission to enter the
Fort. The average attendance during August, the heaviest month,
through the main gate is 3,300 persons per day. It is estimated
that a maximum of 30,000 gpd of sanitary wastes are treated in
two septic tanks. A 12,000-gallon eeptie tank serving the
Visitor Center, discharges directly to the Northwest Branch,
Patapsco River, and a 3,500-gallon septic tank receiving wastes
from inside the Fort, discharges directly to the Patapseo River.
City sewers are located about a quarter of a mile away, but on
the other side of a ravine and at a higher elevation. This
installation is located adjacent to an Army Corps of Engineers
installation and a Navy Reserve Center, both discharging inade-
quately treated wastes. Therefore, consideration should be
given to a cooperative effort by these agencies to connecting
sanitary facilities to the City system or to constructing a com-
mon facility at one of the installations to provide adequate
treatment.
Corps of Engineers Facilityf Fort McHenry
The Corps of Engineers Facility at Fort McHenry, in
Baltimore, Maryland, consists of two buildings. One building
-------
-------
8
contains a soils laboratory with ten persons and a navigation
group with five persons. The second building is a warehouse
with five persons. Another ten field personnel are present at
the facility briefly each day. The total waste of about 450
gpd discharges without treatment directly to the Patapsco River.
Since this facility is located adjacent to both Fort McHenry
National Monument and the Naval Reserve Training Center, neither
of which provide adequate treatment, consideration should be
given to a cooperative program of waste disposal with those
agencies. City sewers are located about a quarter of a mile
away, but on the other side of a ravine and at a higher eleva-
tion,
NavajL Reserve Training Center. Baltimore
The Naval Reserve Training Center, Baltimore, is located
adjacent to Fort McHenry in the City of Baltimore, Maryland.
The installation contains three buildings (only one in use at
the present), a destroyer escort (DE-218), and a grounded sub-
marine. Twenty-six assigned persons administer the Training
Center; 58 men are aboard the destroyer escort full time; and
approximately 275 persons attend training sessions for three
hours on five nights per week and eight hours per day on week-
ends. About 50,OCX) gpd of domestic wastes are discharged directly
to the Northwest Branch, Patapsco liver, without treatment.
Siace this installation is located adjacent to both Fort McHenry
-------
National Monument and a Corps of Engineers facility, neither of
which have adequate waste treatment, consideration should be
given to a cooperative program of waste disposal with those
agencies. City sanitary sewers are located about a quarter of
a mile away, but on the other side of a ravine and at a higher
elevation.
GSA - HidS Depot,. Curtis Bay
The Defense Materials Service of the General Services
Administration operates the Curtis Bay Depot for the stock pil-
ing of strategic and critical materials for the Government in
Anne Arundel County, Just south of Baltimore, Maryland. The
Army operates a Reserve Center on 20 acres of the total of 828
acres at the installation. A 20,000-gallon septic tank serves
22 DM3 personnel and 20 Army personnel on an 8-hour, 5-day per
week basis, 50 Army Reservists on Thursday evenings, and 500
Army Reservists one weekend each month, eight hours each of the
two days. A mess hall is operated for the mid-day meal for two
days one weekend a month. Also, one residence with two addition-
al persons discharges to the tank. A 2,000-gallon septic tank
serves 3^ persons in a change house with showers. Both of the
septic tanks overflow directly to Curtis Creek without further
treatment. A 500-gallon septic tank serves one person at the
guard house on each shift. Sanitary facilities at the pier on
Curtis Creek serve two men during a regular work week and some
-------
-------
10
of the Reservists part-time during the sunnier, discharging
apparently with no treatment.
One vehicle maintenance shop services Army vehicles and
another shop services EMS vehicles. Some minor discharges to
the storm drains of solvents, gasoline, oils, and radiator
drainings were observed.
Coqst Guard Yard, Curtis Creek
The Coast Guard Yard is located south of Baltimore in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The installation is "bordered by
Curtis Creek, a tributary of Curtis Bay and the Patapsco River.
It is the ship repair yard for Coast Guard vessels and headquarters
for small craft surveillance. Population consists of 1,250
civilian employees, who work eight hours a day, and from 120 to
500 military personnel, who are residents.
Domestic wastes, estimated to be in the magnitude of
25,000 gallons per day during normal work days, are discharged
from toilets and urinals to 15 septic tanks. One septic tank
has sub-surface tile fields, seven overflow to Arundel Cove (a
tributary of Curtis Creek), and seven overflow to Curtis Creek.
Total tank capacity is reported to be 21,000 gallons. Coast
Guard personnel indicated that the tanks are cleaned every
spring by private contractor. Other sanitary wastes from showers,
washbowls, etc., are estimated to be approximately 35,000 gallons
per day and are discharged to storm sewers.
-------
-------
11
The Coast Guard vessels that operate out of Curtis Bay
on various missions periodically return for supplies and repairs.
While docked, domestic wastes are discharged overboard. No
estimate is available as to what this volume may be. If vessels
are docked for prolonged periods, the crews move into barracks
located on the base.
Industrial wastes, for which an estimate is not avail-
able, are discharged untreated either into Arundel Cove or
Curtis Creek, or are collected in containers and disposed of by
commercial contract. The wastes originate from the many shops
which carry on diverse activities in support of vessel repair
and maintenance.
Fort Howard Veteran^ AdainjLstration Hospital
The Fort Howard VA Hospital, located in Baltimore County,
Maryland, discharges about 100,000 gpd of wastes to the Patapsco
River. Most of the wastes are not treated, the only treated
effluents being from a few small septic tanks, A program of
sewer construction is underway by the Baltimore County Depart-
ment of Public Works to collect all of the wastes from the
hospital for treatment at Baltimore City's Back River Sewage
Treatment Plant by the end of calendar year 1965.
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
The Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, located on
-------
12
land leased from the Martin Company at Strawberry Point in
Baltimore County, Maryland, carries out modification of aircraft,
propalsion experiments, and acoustics testing. Approximately
200 persons are present during a normal working day. Sanitary
wastes of about 7,000 gallons for eight hours each day are
treated in a secondary sewage treatment plant designed to treat
about 16,000 gallons for eight hours each day (a rate of 48,000
gpd) and consisting of sedimentation and digestion of sludge in
a two-story circular tank, trickling filter, final sedimentation,
chlorination with contact tank, and sludge drying„ Discharge is
to Prog Sfortar Creek, a tributary of Middle River. Becirculation
from the bottom of the final sedimentation tank to the primary
sedimentation tanks removes sludge from the final tank and pro-
vides adequate moisture and nutrients to the trickling filter
during periods of low flow (nights and weekends). The final
sedimentation tank was converted from a previously existing
septic tank and has no provision to collect floating solids.
The lack of this feature is probably not serious under present
low flows, but in the event flows are increased substantially,
the need for a skimming device should be determined. No apparent
industrial waste problems exist, although the handling and
storage of jet fuels present a potential problem from spillage,
so that great care must be given in any transfer of the fuel.
The General Services Administration has issued a permit to the
-------
-------
13
Air Force to use this installation for a three-year period, but
the beginning date has not been settled.
EdgewQod Arsenal
The Edgewood Arsenal of the Department of the Army,
covering 4,700 acres near Edgewood, Maryland, in Baltimore County,
has a population of 7,100, of which 3,200 are residents. Activ-
ities include research and development of chemical warfare agents,
operation of a former Army chemical plant by the Diamond Alkali
Chemical Company, and research and development by the Nuclear
Research Labs. The Fourth Missile Battalion Headquarters is
stationed at the Arsenal, and a battery is maintained near the
Arsenal. A primary sewage treatment plant, consisting of com-
minution, sedimentation, and sludge digestion and drying,
receives an average of 1.4 mgd of domestic wastes from the
Arsenal and from Edgewood and vicinity. Discharge is to the
Bush River. An additional 20,000 gpd from remote areas of the
Arsenal are treated by septic tanks, some of which discharge to
the Gunpowder or Bush Rivers or their tributaries, while others
discharge to sub-surface tile fields. About 40,000 gpd of
domestic wastes from the missile battery are treated by septic
tank, followed by sand filtration and chlorination.
The chemical plant discharges to Canal Creek of the Gun-
powder River approximately 600,000 gpd of cooling water (110° -
120°F.) and 150,000 gpd of industrial waste containing alkalies,
-------
14
calcium carbonate, and chlorine from the manufacture of chlorine,
caustic soda, and hydrogen from salt. An additional estimated
850,000 gpd of industrial waste containing organic solvents from
the Chemical Research and Development Labs and caustic soda from
the Bulk Operation lab are discharged to the Bush River. A
study by the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency in 1962 showed
substantial bacterial contribution from the Arsenal to Bush
River and also showed high pH values in Canal Creek, Gunpowder
River, Kings Creek, and Bush River.
Aberdeen Prov;ing Ground
Aberdeen Proving Ground, a large Army Post located in
Harford County, Maryland, has two primary missions; (l) research,
development, and engineering testing of .Army material, and (2)
ordnance and other military training. Employment totals approx-
imately 10,700; some 5,000 of which are residents along with
about 2,500 dependents. Most of the sanitary wastes are treated
in two sewage treatment plants. In addition, a small primary
plant serves the airport and discharges to Romney Creek, a
tributary of the Chesapeake Bayj and 58 septic tanks with sub-
surface tile fields serve outlying areas. The Main Sewage Treat-
ment Plant, with a design capacity of 2.8 mgd, receives an
/
average flow of 1.35 mgd and consists of screening, sedimenta-
tion, and sludge digestion and drying. Effluent is discharged
to Spesutie Narrows (a tidal basin artificially closed at the
-------
15
northern end •with the southern end open to the Chesapeake Bay).
Spesutie Narrows is located within the boundaries of the reserva-
tion. The Pussey Sewage Treatment Plant,with a design capacity
/
of 500^,000 gpd, receives an average of 167,000 gpd from 670
Wherry Housing units. Treatment consists of screening, sedimenta-
tion and digestion of sludge in Imhoff tanks,, secondary treat-
ment by trickling filter, final sedimentation, and sludge drying.
Effluent is discharged to Swan Creek, which is located outside
the reservation and flows to the Chesepaake Bay, The unchlorinat-
ed effluents from both major sewage treatment plants could cause
bacteriological contamination of the Chesapeake Bay. Industrial
wastes consist mainly of vehicle wash waters.
Naval Training Center,. Bainbridge
The Naval Training Center at Bainbridge, iferyland, in
Cecil County, has a 24-hour population equivalent of about 7,100
(that is, countis^ an 8-hour employee as one-third equivalent
and & full-time resident as one equivalent). Sanitary wastes
from the Training Center, Manor Heights housing, and a county
school, averaging 675,000 gpd, are treated in a secondary sewage
treatment plant designed to treat an average flow of 3.0 mgd.
(Some of the treatment units are out of service due to the re-
duced flows). The treatment plant consists of grit chamber,
pre-chlorinator, comminuter, primary settling basins, trickling
filters, final sedimentation basins, post-chlorinator with
-------
16
contact chamber, and sludge digesters and drying beds. The
plant effluent discharges to the Susquehanna River below Port
Deposit, Maryland. The well-treated and chlorinated effluent
should have little effect upon the "bacteriological quality of
the river or the Chesapeake Bay,
Perrv Point Yeterqiftp Ai^inistra'tiion Hospital
The Perry Point VA Hospital, located in Cecil County,
Maryland, provides care for about 1,500 patients with a component
of 1,200 employees. About 300 of the employees reside on the
grounds with their dependents. Effective January 14, 1965, the
approximately 500,000 gpd of domestic and industrial wastes
generated by this installation received secondary treatment in
the Perryville Sewage Treatment Plant. This treatment plant,
owned and operated by the Town of Perryville, Maryland, is a
modified activated sludge plant including primary clarifiers,
combination aeration and settling tanks, heated digester, sludge
drying beds, and chlorination. This well-treated and chlorinated
effluent should_have little effect upon the bacteriological quality
of t^e Susquehanna River^r the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Resident Office of the
Corps of Engineers is located at Chesapeake City, in Cecil County,
Maryland. The Resident Office employs 69 persons, nine of whom
-------
-------
17
are present in the office during the working day, five days a
week; and one person is present all other times. The remaining
persons are present only at the beginning and the ending of the
working day. About 600 gpd of sewage are treated in a septic
tank and discharged directly to the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal.
Chesapeake City Light Attendant Station
The Chesapeake City Light Attendant Station of the Coast
Guard is located at the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Resident
Office of the Corps of Engineers at Chesapeake City, Maryland.
The Station has a component of four men who are present during
the working day five days a week. The one building consists
largely of shops for attending lights along the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal. One 40-foot "buoy "boat is maintained at the Sta-
tion. Wastes are treated by a septic tank which discharges
directly to a small boat basin along the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal. This procedure is unsatisfactory.
County Nj,ke Sifre
Nike Site No. 30 is located near Tolchester in Kent
County, Maryland. The Control Area is served by two septic
tanks with leaching wells. Three identical systems serve the
MCA Housing Area and two sections of barracks at the Launch Area,
consisting of septic tanks, sub-surface sand filters with underdrains,
-------
18
and chlorination. Discharge from the sand filters, totaling
about 6,000 gpd, is to a small tributary of Chesapeake Bay.
This small amount of well-treated and chlorinated effluent would
be expected to have very little effect upon the bacteriological
quality of the tributary and of the Chesapeake Bay.
Coast Guard Station. Tilghman Island
The Coast Guard Station, Tilghroan Island, located in
Talbot County, Maryland, has a component of nine men. The Sta-
tion is a search and rescue unit, as well as a light attendant
station. It is located in one building, and waste disposal is
through a septic tank and sand filter bed. No discharge has
been observed from the bed to date.
-------
19
MABXLAND'S CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR
SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
Bart I of the Manual of Operations of the Cooperative
Prograjj for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers t
Public Health Service Publication No. 33, stipulates that shell-
fish growing areas are categorized according to four classifica-
tions;' "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 shellfish areas are designated as either "approved" or "pro-
hibited." However, since about November 1, 1964, predelineated
temporary closure areas have been established within "approved"
areas, subject to possible sewage influence in the event of
treatment plant by-passing or failure. This is essentially
consistent with the "conditionally approved" concept used in
the cooperative shellfish program.
The shellfish harvesting areas in Maryland waters cover-
ed by this report, classified as "prohibited" as of December 1,
1964, are shown on Figure 1. All other areas are classified as
"approved."
-------
20
CONCLUSIONS
1. Six of the 21 Federal installations in the Chesa-
peake Bay area of Maryland, excluding the Potomac and Patuxent
River Basins, provide a satisfactory degree of treatment for
sanitary wastes. These installations are: Naval Reserve Lab at
Chesapeake Beach; Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at
Strawberry Point; Naval Training Center at Bairibridge; Kent
County Nike Site near Tolchester; Coast Guard Station, Tilghman
Island; and Perry Point VA Hospital.
2. At the Cove Point Light Station, seepage of septic
tank effluent from the tile field to the ground surface presents
an unsatisfactory condition. The problem has been recognized
by Coast Guard authorities, and plans for a new disposal system
are complete.
3. The Thomas Point Shoal Light Station provides no
treatment for sanitary wastes.
4. The Coast Guard Station, Annapolis, provides inade-
quate treatment of sanitary wastes. The problem has been
recognized by the Coast Guard authorities, and plans are under-
way to connect to the Annapolis sewerage system.
5. Laundry wastes from the Naval Academy are discharged
directly to the Severn River without treatment. The Severn
River and adjoining areas of the Chesapeake Bay are highly
utilized for recreation and for Naval Academy boating activities,
-------
21
so that a Mgh degree of protection of the waters is necessary,
6. The Post Office at Ellieott City provides no treat-
ment of sanitary wastes. However, plans for a sewerage system
are underway by Howard County, and it is anticipated that the
Post Office will connect to this system when it becomes avail-
able ., Short term remedial measures would have little beneficial
effect, because all other buildings in the area provide no treat-
ment.
7. At Fort MeHenry National Monument and Historic
Shrine, the septic tanks are not considered as adequate treat-
ment devices.
8. The Naval Reserve Training Center, Baltimore, pro-
vides no treatment of sanitary wastes,
9. The Corps of Engineers Facility at Fort McHenry pro-
vides no treatment of sanitary wastes.
10. At the GSA-HB Depot, the septic tanks are not con-
sidered as adequate treatment devices. Some minor discharges
of solvents, gasoline, oil, and radiator drainings to storm
drains were observed.
11. At the Coast Guard Yard, Curtis Creek, 14 septic
tanks which overflow are not considered to constitute adequate
treatment. The discharge of other sanitary wastes to storm
drains is also not acceptable. The untreated discharge of
industrial wastes from various activities also contributes to
-------
22
pollution of Curtis Bay.
12. The Fort Howard VA Hospital provides no treatment
of sanitary wastes. However, plans are underway to connect to
the Baltimore sewerage system daring 1965,
13 o Inadequate treatment of wastes from the Fort MeHenry
National Monument, the Corps of Engineers Facility at Fort
McHenry, the Naval Reserve Training Center at Baltimore, the
Ourtis Bay GSA-H6 Depot, the Curtis Greek Coast Guard Yard,
and the Fort Howard VA Hospital represents a health hazard, due
to the fact that these discharges occur in a potential shellfish
harvesting area subject to "sport harvesting" at this time.
14« At the Edgewood Arsenal, ehlorination of the effluent
from the primary sewage treatment plant is not provided, A high-
er degree of treatment is needed, considering the high recreational
use of the receiving waters and the location of an "approved"
shellfish area immediately downstream from the installation.
Waters receiving domestic and industrial wastes have been observed
to have excessive bacteriological and pH levels. Several septic
tanks discharge directly to surface waters.
15. At the Aberdeen Proving Ground, ehlorination of the
effluents from both ma^or sewage treatment plants is not pro-
vided.. A higher degree of treatment is needed at the main plant,
considering the high recreational use of the Chesapeake Bay and
the location of an "approved" shellfish area immediately downstream
from the installations.
-------
23
16. At the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Resident
Office^, the septic tank is not considered as an adequate treat-
ment device.
17. The Chesapeake City Light Attendant Station pro-
vides no treatment of sanitary wastes.
-------
24
BECCMMMDATIONS
1. The Cove Point Light Station should be provided with
a new septic tank and sub-surface disposal system, as planned.
2. The Thomas Point Light Station should provide adequate
treatment of sanitary wastes.
3. The Coast CJuard Station, Annapolis, should connect
to the Annapolis sewerage system, as planned.
4. At the Naval Academy, plans should be developed to
provide secondary treatment including chlorination.
5. A cooperative program of waste disposal should be
developed by the Naval Reserve Training Center, Fort McHenry
National Monument, and the Corps of Engineers Facility, Fort
McHenry. Consideration should be given to connecting to the
Baltimore sewerage system.
6. The GSA-HB Depot should provide sub-surface disposal
of septic tank effluents, or an alternate plan for secondary
treatment including chlorination should be developed.
7. The Coast Guard Yard, Curtis Creek, should conduct
an engineering study to develop plans for adequate collection
and treatment of sewage and industrial wastes. Such plans
should include provisions for:
a. Collection of all sanitary wastes, including
wastes from showers, wash basins, etc., now
discharging to storm sewers.
-------
-------
25
b. Collection and proper treatment of all industrial
wastes. Separate treatment should be provided
if these wastes are not amendable to conventional
sewage treatment processes.
c. Provision in the collection system to care for
wastes emanating from docked vessels.
d. Secondary type waste treatment facilities, includ-
ing chlorination of plant effluent.
8. Edgewood Arsenal should provide ehlorination of
waste effluent from the primary sewage treatment plant as soon
as possible. Plans should be developed to provide secondary
treatment including chlorination in the near future. All septic
tanks discharging to surface waters should be provided with sub-
surface disposal of effluents, or the contributing facilities
should be connected to the Arsenal sewerage system. Additional
data should be obtained to determine whether industrial wastes
from the Arsenal are causing pollution of receiving waters.
9. The Aberdeen Proving Ground should provide chlorina-
tion of waste effluent from both major sewage treatment plants
as SOCHI as possible. Plans should be developed to provide
secondary treatment of all wastes, including chlorinstion, in
the near future.
10. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Resident Office
and the Chesapeake Light Attendant Station should either be con-
nected to the Chesapeake City sewerage system or a plan for pro-
viding secondary treatment with chlorination should be developed.
-------
26
11. Federal installations should make arrangements for
notification to the Maryland Department of Health in the event
of plant malfunction or chlorination failure.
-------
LEGEND
NOTEJ FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS IN THE PATUXENT
AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS ARE COVERED IN
SEPARATE REPORTS
COVE POINT LIGHT STATION
NAVAL RESERVE LAB
THOMAS POINT SHOAL LIGHT STATION
COAST GUARD STATION, ANNAPOLIS
NAVAL ACADEMY, ANNAPOLIS
ELL!COTT CITY POST OFFICE
FORT McHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FACILITY, FORT McHENRY
NAVAL RESERVE TRAINING CENTER
GSA-DMS DEPOT, CURTIS BAY
COAST GUARD YARD, CURTIS CREEK
FORT HOWARD VETERANS HOSPITAL
NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL PLANT
EOGEWOOD ARSENAL
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, BAINBRIDGE
PERRY POINT VETERANS HOSPITAL
CHESAPEAKE 6 DELAWARE CANAL RESIDENT OFFICE
CHESAPEAKE CITY LIGHT ATTENDANT STATION
KENT COUNTY NIKE SITE (NO 30)
COAST GUARD STATION, TiLGHMAN ISLAND
i-oo = FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
= AREAS PROHIBITED TO SHELLFISH HARVESTING
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS - CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA OF MARYLAND
-------
THE POTOMAC ESTUARY
STATISTICS AND PROJECTIONS
##
Johan A. Aalto
Presented at the winter public meeting of the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin at Fredericksburg,
Virginia, on February 29, 1968
Acting Director, Chesapeake Field Station, Middle Atlantic
Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Department of the Interior
-------
THE POTOMAC ESTUARY
STATISTICS AND PROJECTIONS
**
Johan A. Aalto
Before examining the Potomac Estuary in particular as a
changing environment, it is necessary that we view the critical
area of the upper estuary, the center of our interest in this
discussion of water quality, in its proper perspective within
the entire Potomac River Basin. Since problems of the Potomac
Estuary were last discussed at a meeting of this group in 196^,
considerable data have been collected and analyzed which enable
us to identify more precisely areas where water quality degrada-
tion has occurred, the extent to which inadequately treated waste
discharges continue to contribute to this degradation, and the
effect of desirable and necessary corrective actions by
municipalities or industries.
Several stream segments upstream from the Metropolitan
Washington area have been identified where water quality does
not conform with established nor proposed State standards . How-
ever, in every case the natural assimilative capacity of the
receiving waters has been adequate to eliminate any measurable
Presented at the winter public meeting of the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin at Fredericksburg,
Virginia, on February 29, 1968.
**
Acting Director, Chesapeake Field Station, Middle Atlantic
Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Department of the Interior.
-------
water quality degradation long before it reached the upper estu-
ary near Washington. Staff of the Chesapeake Field Station of
the Middle Atlantic Region, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, have determined the general pollution abatement
actions necessary to control the major waste discharges of the
Potomac River Basin. These immediate needs have been presented
in an internal document made available to pertinent State, County,
and other governmental agencies as a cooperative service, in
accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1.965.
We have also carried out special studies of the upper estuary
and of selected upstream reaches of the River, as requested by
the Water Quality Sub-Task Group of the President's Interdepart-
mental Task Force on Project Potomac. Several technical data
reports have been published in connection with bacteriological,
nutrient, diffusion, and other investigations of water quality
conditions in the Potomac Estuary.
It should come as no surprise to you that more than two-
thirds of the total pollution load in the Potomac River Basin,
expressed as 5-day biocnemical oxygen demand (BOD), is discharged
as treated sewage wastes into the upper Potomac Estuary. Fortu-
nately, industrial development envisioned by President George
Washington has not materialized, so that industrial wastes are
not a significant part of the water quality problem in the
Estuary today.
-------
The waste assimilative capacity of the free-flowing River
upstream is greater than that of the Estuary where the net seaward
flow is slow, especially during the critical low flow months in
late summer. Waste loads from the Washington Metropolitan area's
population of approximately two million people, after present
treatment levels, are equivalent to the untreated sewage from
850,000 people. This load of approximately 1^0,000 pounds of
5-day BOD per day is eight times the assimilative capacity re-
quired to maintain a dissolved oxygen (DO) average of 5 milligrams
per liter (mg/l). We find that the proposed DO objective has not
been met in recent years between Fort Washington and the Alexandria-
Washington area, and that the DO at certain critical low flow
periods has approached total depletion. The high BOD loads are
the major but not the only causes of the oxygen depletion observed.
Bottom deposits, representing accumulated suspended organic solids
discharged from sewage treatment plants exert appreciable oxygen
demand upon the estuarine waters. Also, the nutrient content of
these discharges may stimulate profuse algal blooms which, while
objectionable in themselves, also deplete DO upon decay. These
are among the several factors contributing to water quality
degradation observed in the Estuary.
There has been no clearly defined downward trend in DO
values in the upper Estuary since 196U, even with the unusually
low flows during the summer months of the intervening years.
This may reflect some improved treatment plant efficiencies.
-------
Bacterial pollution is excessive in the Metropolitan area
by any standards. There has been a general upward trend in the
mean coliform counts since 196^. Average counts observed have been
as high as 500,000 MPN per 100 ml in sections of the upper Estuary.
Counts in excess of 1,000 per 100 ml generally classify water un-
suitable for recreational use. The upward coliform trend can be
attributed to the increase in population served by sewage treat-
ment plants which chlorinate effluents during the summer months
only and by increase in urban runoff during storms.
Intensive bacteriological investigations by staff of the
Chesapeake Field Station, conducted from January to March 1967,
showed highest coliform counts at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge samp-
ling station but decreasing somewhat toward Fort Washington.
Considerably lower counts were recorded at stations both upstream
and downstream from these bounds. There is a net downstream move-
ment in the Estuary accounting for a part of the gradual coliform
decrease by dispersion and dilution. Normal tidal excursion, how-
ever, tends to retain high counts in the general area of the major
sewage treatment plant discharges and may explain some of the
erratic high counts found at upstream stations near the head of
the Estuary. Median counts per 100 ml at Woodrow Wilson Bridge
for this period were 91,000 MPN coliforms and 25,000 MPN fecal
coliforms (E. Coli). Incidentally, positive salmonella was
identified in seven out of nine swabs taken. Note that the
approved Maryland water quality standards for this reach specify
-------
that a count in excess of 2^0 MPN fecal coliforms per 100 ml
indicates a need for a supplementary sanitary survey. By bacterial
standards, it is obvious that the estuarine waters are grossly
polluted.
Other water quality parameters have not changed signifi-
cantly since 196U. Staff of the Chesapeake Field Station have
conducted rather intensive surveys as the basis for planning ef-
fective pollution control action programs for the upper Potomac
Estuary. Primary sources of pollution are the six major munici-
pal waste treatment plants in the Washington Metropolitan area.
These plants are discussed below in order of total waste load
contribution. The approximate population equivalent discharged
by each plant is shown in Figure 1. It must be borne in mind
that in working with biological processes, the sampling data
vary widely; nevertheless, a mean of continuous sampling data
over the year will furnish a reliable index of plant performance.
The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant
discharges approximately 72 per cent of the total BOD load to
the Estuary. Although the plant efficiency has increased from
approximately 60 to 70 per cent BOD removal, this falls short
of the 85 per cent removal that can be expected reasonably from
secondary treatment plants. The load, however, has increased
some 25 per cent since 196^*, so that there has been no signifi-
cant change in the net BOD load discharged to the Estuary.
Additional primary facilities are presently being designed.
-------
The Arlington Sewage Treatment Plant accounts for l6 per
cent of the total load to the Estuary. This loading is a dispro-
portionate share according to the population served, but the sewage
receives only primary treatment which amounts to approximately 35
per cent BOD removal. Secondary treatment facilities have been
completed and are currently under test, with full operation antici-
pated in March of this year. These facilities are designed for 90
per cent BOD removal.
The Fairfax County Westgate Sewage Treatment Plant contrib-
utes seven per cent of the total loading to the Estuary from an
intermediate type treatment plant with approximately 50 per cent
BOD removal.
The City of Alexandria Sewage Treatment Plant discharge
represents four per cent of the total BOD load. The plant pro-
vides secondary treatment with approximately 75 per cent BOD
removal efficiency. There is a temporary overloading of these
facilities from Fairfax County sewers which have been accepted
pending construction of additional facilities by Fairfax County
in Accotink.
The remaining sewage treatment plants in the area are
Fairfax County's Dogue Creek and Little Hunting Creek plants and
the Department of Defense Ft. Belvoir and Pentagon plants. All
of these plants contribute approximately one per cent of loading
to the Estuary. Relatively remote locations have little adverse
effect on water quality.
-------
7
In correlating average monthly DO values along the upper
Estuary with location of treatment plant outfalls, it can be seen
that the values decrease steadily to a minimum for the two miles
upstream from Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This area receives the dis-
charge from the District of Columbia, Arlington, Alexandria, and
Fairfax-Westgate Sewage Treatment Plants (Figure l). There is a
slow recovery from this area to Fort Washington where a DO value
of k mg/1 is reached.
Summarizing, it can be stated that water quality in the
upper estuarine zone in the Metropolitan Washington area is degraded
as indicated by the DO and bacterial parameters. An analysis of
the historical data since 196U shows no significant quality change,
either degradation or improvement. The effects of impounded ef-
ficiency in the sewage treatment plants and some limited reduction
in the frequency and intensity of combined sewer overflows appear
to have been offset by an increase in waste loads from the rapidly
expanding population. As a basis for evaluating the waste assimi-
lative capacity of the upper Estuary, Maryland water quality
standards for DO have been applied; since a major part of the
critically polluted areas are located in Maryland waters, as can
be seen from the map (Figure 2). Standards for the State of
Virginia and the District of Columbia have been submitted, though
not yet approved. These standards are expected, however, to be
compatible with those of Maryland for adjoining segments and for
principal tributaries flowing into the Potomac River.
-------
8
The water quality data collected by the District, the
States, and other agencies have been supplemented with sampling
and analyses by staff of the Chesapeake Field Station. The annual
compilations of water quality data from the cooperative network
of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin have been
especially useful.
Water quality and associated waste load data have been
used as input to the Potomac River mathematical model. This model
represents a systems analysis approach which enables us to examine
and predict water quality problems that may occur and to develop
alternative solutions which may be made available to basin-
implementing agencies. A discussion of the Potomac Estuary model,
developed by Dr. Leo J. Hetling, formerly of the Field Station,
was presented at a previous meeting. This model is of special
interest as it has been applied in the solution of DO, nutrient,
and salinity problems. Based upon an analysis of flows during
the critically dry years of 196^, 1965, and 1966, it has been
determined that area sewage treatment plants will be required to
remove the following percentages of 5-day BOD to achieve the
corresponding mean DO levels in 1985:
PerCent BOD Removal Mean DO in mg/1
80 1.5
85 3.0
90 h. 0
95 5-0
-------
The above figures were based upon utilization of Bloorn-
ington and Savage Reservoirs and water use as projected by the
Corps of Engineers in their Potomac River Basin Report, and they
include the effects of benthal uptake. In general, the indicated
minimum DO figures run about 1 rag/1 below the mean.
For comparison, the 19&5 DO profile shows a mean of 2 mg/1
with a minimum less than 1 mg/1. If 85 per cent BOD removal were
assumed, the mean DO projected for the critical months of July,
August, and September would be somewhat below 5 rag/1 and the mini-
mum, slightly below k mg/1. This level of treatment can be
reasonably achieved by conventional biological methods and is
used as a basis for the short-term projections that follow.
The staff of the Chesapeake Field Station is actively
engaged in development of a comprehensive program for reducing
pollution in the Potomac River Basin. This involves the collec-
tion and analysis of data from water quality investigations, the
identification of waste discharge sources, technical assistance
to other agencies, the development of new systems analysis tech-
niques for evaluating effects of present and future waste dis-
charges on water quality, and the determination of immediate needs
for pollution abatement.
Comprehensive water pollution control programs for other
basins of the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Area are also under way in
cooperation with interstate, State, and local agencies and other
interested organizations.
-------
10
A mathematical model of the free-flowing upstream Potomac
River has also been developed and verified for main stem segments
only at this time. Further work is in progress to refine the
model for several tributaries which have local water quality
problems. This model will permit rapid evaluation of effects of
projected waste discharges on water quality at virtually all
critical locations in the Potomac River Basin. It is necessary
for the Chesapeake Field Station staff to possess interdisciplinary
technical competence since chemical, bacteriological, biological,
oceanographic, and mathematical as well as the engineering disci-
plines are represented. The Field Station is also investigating
biological aspects of thermal pollution, nutrient-chlorophyll
relationships, and small boat pollution effects.
In attempting to make projections, better qualified
prognosticators have hesitated where water pollution abatement
was involved, and the usual course is to refer the complexity of
the problem and propose further studies. However, it should be
obvious from the items presented thus far that first, the Potomac
estuarine water quality is degraded far beyond any reasonably
accepted standards; and second, the direct cause, the inadequately
treated sewage disposal plant wastes, requires correction. The
agencies responsible for each treatment plant are aware of each
plant's deficiencies in capacity and efficiency. A program to
provide this capacity and the minimum 85 per cent removal by
conventional biological treatment can be realized. All that is
-------
11
necessary is the appropriation of funds for the design, construc-
tion, and operation of the additional facilities. At the same
time, some provision for advanced waste treatment should be
included. In addition, full-time chlorination at all sewage
treatment plants is essential for control of bacterial pollution.
Sewer separation programs will continue, and new approaches
to reducing overflows and urban runoff will be explored under
present research grants. Turbidity in the River will be reduced
by enforcement of existing regulations and enactment of new regu-
lations similar to those pioneered in Montgomery County.
The program just outlined can be placed into effect witn-
in three years and should be implemented immediately as a first
step. An interstate agency to resolve political differences and
prepare the long-term plan must be established.
The technical expertise is available. Water quality en-
hancement can be realized, but it is contingent upon aroused
citizen interest to demand action and assume the financial obli-
gations that such action entails.
In short, pollution abatement in the Potomac River Ustuary
is up to you!
-------
POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY
BOD5 CONTRIBUTIONS 1966
700
600
LU
Q.
O
O
2 500
. •>
o:
<
i
i—
CO
LU
£ 400
Q
LU
CD
Q:
I
o
co 300
Q
Q
<
/
/
\j \j \r(tQ/\j "
/
s
/
s
s
x'
/
/
/
/
x
-"'
0.
t/)
/
/ •*
I LU
H OC
X CO ' 0 Q.
£f C5 to
o_ JT ? LU
< * ^ g
§3 t i
5s ^2
Lu £ xx
i
-------
-------
/
/
Little Foils - Uppfcr Limit
hain Br.
o
o\ WASHINGTON, D. C.
o
<*•
ARLINGTON CO.
Giesboro Pt.
0
/ Dist. of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant
PRINCE GEORGES/ CO.
Fairfax - Westgate S. T. P.
FAIRFAX CO.
Fort
Belvoir
Fairf/lx-X-ittle Hunting Cr. S. T. P.
Ft. Washington
Fairfax VDogue Cr. S. T. P.
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
POTOMAC RIVER-WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN ARE/!
Point - Lower Limit
FIGURE 2
-------
VOLUME 24
1976 Annual
Current Nutrient Assessment - Upper Potomac Estuary
Current Assessment Paper No. 1
Evaluation of Western Branch Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion - Phases I and II
Situation Report - Potomac River
Sediment Studies in Back River Estuary, Baltimore,
Maryland
Technical Distribution of Metals in Elizabeth River Sediments
Report 61
Technical A Water Quality Modelling Study of the Delaware
Report 62 Estuary
-------
VOLUME 21
Technical Papers
11 A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model
12 Simulation of Chloride Concentrations in the
Potomac Estuary - March 1968
13 Optimal Release Sequences for Hater Quality
Control in Multiple-Reservoir Systems - 1968
VOLUME 22
Technical Papers
Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964
Summary of Water Quality - Potomac River Basin in
Maryland - October 1965
The Role of Mathematical Models in the Potomac River
Basin Water Quality Management Program - December 1967
Use of Mathematical Models as Aids to Decision Making
in Water Quality Control - February 1968
Piscataway Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study
Report - August 1968
VOLUME 23
Ocean Dumping Surveys
Environmental Survey of an Interim Ocean Dumpsite,
Middle Atlantic Bight - September 1973
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites,
Middle Atlantic Bight - January 1974
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites
Middle Atlantic Bight - Supplemental Report -
October 1974
Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on Mid-
continental Shelf Environment off Delaware
and Maryland - January 1975
-------
VOLUME 19 (continued)
Working Documents
Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
December 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
October 1968
VOLUME 20
Technical Papers.
1 A Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
2 A River-Mile Indexing System for Computer Application
in Storing and Retrieving Data (unavailable)
3 Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Methodology to be
Applied when Determining the Capacity of a Stream to
Assimilate Organic Wastes - October 1964
4 Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters •
May 1965
5 Use of Rhodamine B Dye as a Tracer in Streams of the
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1965
6 An In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965
7 A Study of Tidal Dispersion in the Potomac River
February 1966
8 A Mathematical Model for the Potomac River - what it
has done and what it can do - December 1966
9 A Discussion and Tabulation of Diffusion Coefficients
for Tidal Waters Computed as a Function of Velocity
February 1967
10 Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats
July 1966
-------
VOLUME 17 (continued)
Working Documents
28 Selected Biological Surveys in the James River Basin,
Gillie Creek in the Richmond Area, Appomattox River
in the Petersburg Area, Bailey Creek from Fort Lee
to Hopewell - April 1968
VOLUME 18
Working Documents
29 Biological Survey of the Upper and Middle Patuxent
River and some of its Tributaries - from Maryland
Route 97 Bridge near Roxbury Mills to the Maryland
Route 4 Bridge near Wayson's Corner, Maryland -
Chesapeake Drainage Basin - June 1968
30 Rock Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
March 1969
31 The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
Technical Evaluation - September 1969
VOLUME 19
Working Documents
Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data
Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Patuxent River Basin - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D.C.- November 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965
The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
February 1968
Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
Velocities - July 1968
-------
VOLUME 16
Working Documents
16 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to
Havre de Grace, Maryland - July 1967
17 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Potomac
River Basin - June 1967
18 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Central Western
Shore of Chesapeake Bay. Area (Magothy, Severn, South, and
West River Drainage Areas) July 1967
19 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Northwest
Chesapeake Bay Area (Patapsco to Susquehanna Drainage
Basins in Maryland) August 1967
20 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs - The Eastern
Shore of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia - September 1967
VOLUME 17
Working Documents
21 Biological Surveys of the Upper James River Basin
Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and
Piney River Areas - January 1968
22 Biological Survey of Antietam Creek and some of its
Tributaries from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania to Antietam,
Maryland - Potomac River Basin - February 1968
23 Biological Survey of the Monocacy River and Tributaries
from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Maryland Rt. 28 Bridge
Potomac River Basin - January 1968
24 Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of
Annapolis, Maryland - Summer 1967
25 Mine Drainage Pollution of the North Branch of Potomac
River - Interim Report - August 1968
26 Water Quality Survey in the Shenandoah River of the
Potomac River Basin - June 1967
27 Water Quality Survey in the James and Maury Rivers
Glasgow, Virginia - September 1967
-------
VOLUME 13 (continued)
Working Documents
5 Summary of Water Quality and Waste Outfalls, Rock Creek
in Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of
Columbia - December 1966
6 Water Pollution Survey - Back River 1965 - February 1967
7 Efficiency Study of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant - February 1967
VOLUME 14
Working Documents
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin) March 1967
9 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Jum'ata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, New York, to Lake Lackawanna
River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April 1967
VOLUME 15
Working Documents
12 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, York River
Basin - April 1967
13 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, West Branch,
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1967
14 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, James River
Basin - June 1967
15 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Patuxent River
Basin - May 1967
-------
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
to 1
Appendix
to 2
3
4
VOLUME 11 (continued)
Data Reports
Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970
Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970
Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971
Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico,River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971
Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970
VOLUME 12
Working Documents
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966
VOLUME 13
Working Documents
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967
Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to the Potomac River) October 1966
-------
VOLUME 10(continued)
Data Reports
15 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1967
16 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1968
17 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1969
18 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transects,
Intensive and Southeast Water Laboratory Cooperative
Study - 1969
19 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Phosphate
Tracer Study - 1969
VOLUME 11
Data Reports
20 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transport Study
1969-1970
21 Water Quality Survey of the Piscataway Creek Watershed
1968-1970
22 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1970
23 Water Quality Survey of the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
Maryland Tributaries - 1970-1971
24 Water Quality Survey of the Upper Chesapeake Bay
1969-1971
25 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
Survey - 1970
26 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Dissolved Oxygen
Budget Studies - 1970
27 Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
1970
28 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Embayments
and Transects - 1970
29 Water Quality of the Upper Potomac Estuary Enforcement
Survey - 1970
-------
VOLUME 9 (continued)
Data Reports
Investigation of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department
of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland - October-December 1967
Biological Survey of the Upper Potomac River and
Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968
Water Quality Survey of the Eastern Shore Chesapeake
Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
Summer 1967
Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
Bay Tributaries
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1967
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1968
Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967
Cooperative Bacteriological Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
Dredging Spoil Disposal - Cruise Report No. 11
VOLUME 10
Data Reports
9 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1965-1966
10 Water Quality Survey of the Annapolis Metro Area - 1967
11 Nutrient Data on Sediment Samples of the Potomac Estuary
1966-1968
12 1969 Head of the Bay Tributaries
13 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1968
14 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1969
-------
VOLUME 6 (continued)
Technical Reports
51 A System of Mathematical Models for Water Quality
Management
52 Numerical Method for Groundwater Hydraulics
53 Upper Potomac Estuary Eutrophication Control
Requirements
54 AUT0-QUAL Modelling System
Supplement AUT0-QUAL Modelling System: Modification for
to 54 Non-Point Source Loadings
VOLUME 7
Technical Reports
55 Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System
56 Nutrient Enrichment and Control Requirements in the
Upper Chesapeake Bay
57 The Potomac River Estuary in the Washington
Metropolitan Area - A History of its Water Quality
Problems and their Solution
VOLUME 8
Technical Reports
58 Application of AUT0-QUAL Modelling System to the
Patuxent River Basin
59 Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments
60 Summary and Conclusions - Nutrient Transport and
Accountability in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin
VOLUME 9
Data Reports
Water Quality Survey, James River and Selected
Tributaries - October 1969
Water Quality Survey in the North Branch Potomac River
between Cumberland and Luke, Maryland - August 1967
-------
VOLUME 3 (continued)
Technical Reports
27 Water Quality and Wastewater Loadings - Upper Potomac
Estuary during 1969
VOLUME 4
Technical Reports
29 Step Backward Regression
31 Relative Contributions of Nutrients to the Potomac
River Basin from Various Sources
33 Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality in the
Potomac Estuary
35 Water Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac
Estuary
VOLUME 5
Technical Reports
37 Nutrient Transport and Dissolved Oxygen Budget
Studies in the Potomac Estuary
39 Preliminary Analyses of the Wastewater and Assimilation
Capacities of the Anacostia Tidal River System
41 Current Water Quality Conditions and Investigations
in the Upper Potomac River Tidal System
43 Physical Data of the Potomac River Tidal System
Including Mathematical Model Segmentation
45 Nutrient Management in the Potomac Estuary
VOLUME 6
Technical Reports
47 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study
49 Heavy Metals Analyses of Bottom Sediment in the
Potomac River Estuary
-------
PUBLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE*
VOLUME 1
Technical Reports
5 A Technical Assessment of Current Water Quality
Conditions and Factors Affecting Water Quality in
the Upper Potomac Estuary
6 Sanitary Bacteriology of the Upper Potomac Estuary
7 The Potomac Estuary Mathematical Model
9 Nutrients in the Potomac River Basin
11 Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality Control
in Multiple Reservoir Systems
VOLUME 2
Technical Reports
13 Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac River Basin
15 Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin
17 Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Assessment
VOLUME 3
Technical Reports
19 Potomac-Piscataway Dye Release and Wastewater
Assimilation Studies
21 LNEPLT
23 XYPLOT
25 PLOT3D
* Formerly CB-SRBP, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare; CFS-FWPCA, and CTSL-FWQA, Middle Atlantic
Region, U.S. Department of the Interior
-------
Table of Contents
Volume 19
Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data -
Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations -
Patuxent River Basin - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D. C. -
November 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965
The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections
February 1968
Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
Velocities - July 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
December 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin
October 1969
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annapolis Field Office
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
WORKING DOCUMENTS
Cci\u'-r for Environmental
16:50 /xr-jU Street (3PM52)
rlnWirtlphia, PA 19103
Volume 19
-------
•u •'•. y IV . ipli :«i
flu
C„ ,' '' - r u Drii r^i i)o]i on nc v' f j_oc i ^y
h i.1 vc. D ri'h; ''f^c
RESULT ' OI< Ginvi,,.
'•,. !" •) -."cell onal ^ "" oL hhe T''; L
..• •• .( •- u rove • T.l
-. Ot ,h, 7r LO -• !.y • "L: ' -• ' Ly Ac^u;:
U Q :•
D. r:>.-- ";_Ject, on;;, Jon o cl;il River
(Rive- :\\\c.. 5^.6 lo 7" JO . . .
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. fi*ujYW Description
The Chesapeake Field Station, JFWPCA, conducted field surveys
from 1966 to 1968 to obtain cross-section measurements and mass travel
>
velocities in the Patuxent River and Little Patuxent River. Cross-section
surveys were conducted on the tidal river between Jones Point (River Mile
36.8) which is the upp«r limit of hydrographic information on the USGS
7 1/2 minute (scale 1:24,000) quadrangles, and RM 53.4, which is near the
head of tide. In this reach cross-sect ions were measured at 0.2 mile
intervals.
Cross-section and dye travel surveys were conducted on selected
reaches of the Patuxent River near and downstream from the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway, near Montpelier, Md., (RM 73.4) said on selected
reaches of the Little Patuxent River near and downstream from US Route 1,
(RM 81.0). A basin map is shown in Figure 1. River mile zero is at the
mouth of the tidal river near Solomon's, Md.
B. Purpose and Authority
These field activities were undertaken to provide information about
physical characteristics of the river for use in computing the effects of
waste discharges on the river. The survey was conducted and this report
prepared under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) which directed the Secretary of the
Interior to develop programs for eliminating pollution of interstate waters
and improving the sanitary conditions of surface and underground waters.
-------
II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
A. Cross—section Ift^iLSurfments
1. Field procedures
In the non-tidal reaches, where the river is quite narrow, widths
^
were usually measured using a marked rope. An optical rangefinder with
a range of 8 - 100 feet was also used. The river was crossed both by
wading and by boat. Depths were measured at transverse stations with a
narked staff.
In the tidal reaches, somewhat more elaborate procedures were neces-
sary. The water was always deep enough to require a boat. Depths were det-
ermined using a portable battery-operated, pointer-indicating, non-recor-
ding depth finder. The transducer foot was at first held over the side
by handj later a clamp was used to hold it to the gunwale of the skiff.
JUf,
The instrument us«d indicated depths on 0 - 12 and 0 - 120 foot scales.
The range selection, an unusual feature, reduces the loss in precision
encountered in sound shallow water with a depth finder designed for use
in water more than a hundred feet deep.
River widths taried from about 100 to nearly 1,000 feet. Narrower
sections were measured using a 300-ft. marked steel-cable tagline of the
Lee-Au type. The line was anchored or tied at one end, and then carried
JA
Edmund Scientific Co. 6 inch rangefinder. This instrument was of limited
usefulness for large river work because of its short range. In other
respects it was satisfactory. (See disclaimer below.)
^tifr
Ray Jefferson Model 400. (See disclaimer below.)
Disclaimer: Mention of equipment items by manufacturer or mention of speci-
fic features of said equipment does not constitute endorsement by FWPCA.
-------
across the river and held fast. A second boat was used to measure depths
at the transverse stations.
The widths of a majority of the wider sections were measured using
the following procedure: The boat was steered directly across the river
running at a uniform speed. Depths were read at uniform time intervals
(usually 10 seconds) measured by a watch with a sweep-second hand. The
exact .location of the section was noted, and the width in feet was later
estimated from topographic maps. The measured depths were then pro-rated
in the cross-section by dividing the width into equal segments so the num>-
ber of segments agreed with the number of depths. Cross-sections so obtained
are marked "time sections". The tagltne was occasionally used in conjunc-
tion with the optical rangefinder to measure widths of more than 300 feet.
2. Computations
Bottom profiles were plotted from measured depths and transverse
distances. These graphs are shown in Sections III-C and III-D of this
report for the tidal and non-tidal reaches respectively, in river mile
order beginning at the downstream limit of the survey. The vertical axis
of the graphs is measured depth, with the observed water surface at zero.
A second horizontal line representing the water surface at mean low water
(I/O) appears on the cross-section plots for the tidal river. This graphi-
cal adjustment is necessary to obtain depths and cross-sectional areas
at a common tidal height condition. Areas indicated on the cross-section
graphs for the tidal river are those cross-sectional areas below MLW.
Graphs of cross-sectional area versus river mile are shown in Section III-A.
-------
*
Cross-sectional areas were measured using a ooltpnasating polar plani-
meter.
In order to estimate the variation of the actual tidal heights as
influenced by wind from the heights due to the astronomical tides, a
measurement was made from an arbitrary temporary reference point (RP) to
the water surface preceding and following each day's cross-section measure-
ments. The RP was located at Hill's Bridge, the crossing of Md. Route 4,
near Wayson's Corner. The elevation of the RP was related to the elevation
of MLW by measuring down on the bulkhead to the high water mark. The high
water mark was assumed to lie above MLW by 2.4 ft., a distance equal to
the mean tidal range. Observed and predicted tidal heights are listed in
Table 1 as variations from MLW.
The procedure outlined gave the actual tidal heights at the beginning
and end of each day's surveying period at Hill's Bridge only. Locations
downstream were referred to the Hills Bridge measurements by assuming
(a) that the wind produced a uniform change in mean tidal height in the
reach between Hill's Bridge and Nottingham (RM 38.4, near Jones Point)
over the time involved in making each day's cross-section measurements;
and (b) that the astronomical tides would be superimposed on the longer-
Keuffel and Esser Model 62 0000. (See disclaimer page 2.)
•H"Jfr
as indicated by the predicted heights in the US Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tide Tables. 1968.
Hill's Bridge and Nottingham are "subordinate tidal stations", at
which predictions can be obtained by difference from a reference station
(Baltimore). Tidal heights are not recorded at most subordinate stations.
-------
11
Tidal Itaiffht
a
Kb.
Mar.
Ibr.
to.
Mur.
Mar.
Mar.
Mur.
Mur.
Mar.
Apr.
88)
29
7
8
11
20
21
22
25
26
29
2
(0-2400)
1010
1330
0930
U25
1030
1510
1030
1530
1510
1000
1530
1030
1530
1000
1530
1030
1430
1100
1530
1000
1410
\4TW «
-0.9
-1.2
+1.6
+0.6
+1.8
+1.2
+0.3
+2.0
+1.1
+1.9
+0.5
+U2
-1.3
-1.4
-0.4
+1.6
-0.4
+1.4
-0.1
-0.2
above Mi)
+0.6
-0.2
+0.3
+1.8
+2.1
+1.4
+2.2
-0.1
+1.4
+2.4
+1.3
+1.4
+4.4
-0.4
+4.8
-0.4
+5.1
-0.2
+5.4
+4.4
+1.4
-------
period tidal height variations produced by wind.
Under these assumptions, actual tidal heights at Nottingham were
estimated by adding or subtracting the differences in predicted (astron-
omical) tidal heights between Hill's Bridge and Nottingham to the actual
heights measured at Hill's Bridge. The tidal heights at the beginning and
end of each day's surveying were interpolated linearly with distance between
Hill's Bridge and Nottingham. The changes in tidal height with time over
the reach covered that day could then be estimated.
Locations upstream from Hill's Bridge were referred to the Hill's
Bridge measurements under the assumption that tidal action stopped it the
upper limit of the tidewater survey (EM 53.4). Differences in the observed
tidal heights proceeding and following each day's surveying were decreased
to zero linearly with distance between Hill's Bridge and RM 53.4. Variations
with time over the day's surveyed reach were then estimated. Cross-sections
in the extreme upper tidal reaches probably vary as much with streamflow as
with tide. Streamflow my exert an appreciable effect on cross-sectional
area as far downstream as BM 49, where the tidal river begins to enlarge
greatly.
For the non-tidal river, where depth and cross-sectional area vary
with river discharge, the cross-sectional areas were computed from cross-
section graphs plotted exactly as measured. Areas of these sections must
therefore be related to the river discharge at which they were taken. The
variation of depth and cross-sectional area with flow is discussed in Section
III-C.
-------
JI .- 6
(3. ha.:.,: 'LVavej.Velocity He • :uix/iart:
The time-of-travel of the vater in,-?, ,, v; ; rie i.'.ur* d ;.'r:>,.i >nc tr> three
tlrrx:.; in four stream, reaches, each of .,'hich ronialne-d a I!" Geil o;_,.' cal f Sur-
vey *lemporary caging elation. 'It'. U;'G,' hail ••] T p>'c. v.i ou; Jy -.mciivt'd a
t.iUK-of-travel r.urvey covering the ;c foui1 plur, t;'0 arid! .ion.nl rrnchc , both
of i.'hic-h included gages. Gaging station iorction.'. ond th- nur.ibc.1 o"
l/i/iic-of-travcl :j«asurcnent.: in each reach nee indi."ted in Treble '\
Tine of travel war; determined by Jnb.-'odU'Jnt Khod'^AJn' B dye into
the rater nnc detecting i', later at a point dor n:;ti'f-; t. A ^->•'•"] ou; o.-acLr .-
var, u:>ed to dc=toct the dye. Sai^jle^ "ere tak:-n -'t ten-uinutc intei v-fil ••
".o chot bhc peak concentration could be e: r.ily diotirigulr-hcd. The clrijsi.c
tliae between time of release ."nd the time of pc^k. rnd the dl:;tancu bctx.-rcn
the relec.K and sampling point; were used to dctcn.u.nc ari ^ve.'nge '••&.,:
travel velocity over the reach. All time-of-travel measurement,, •,,-r-rc
conducted during periods of steady flo^;. Dye vclocit'c : "o obtained arc
indicated on graphs of discharge vercuo velocity in Section 133..B.
C. '/aviations of Depth and Telocity l-.Mth liiycr Discharge
The logarithms of depth and velocity ve.'c plotted against the logar-
ithms of rnver discharge for the six gaging stations in the urvcy area,
using average depths and average velocities frov the UfSGS discharge measure-
ments. The resulting graphs are shown in Section III-B.
Logarithms of dye velocities obtained fron ti/acer ^tudie.^ were
also plotted versus the logarithms of river discharge. Dye velocities
* These stations consist of reference points to establish urtcr uirfacc
elevations at river locations at which the stage-discharge relation has
been established. Terminology does not refer to short-term installation
of a recording gage.
** Turner Model III (See disclaimer Page 2).
-------
31ft&JLflA
fetuxant Rivtr at
Tabla 2
STATICM MBCRIPTIONS
fiiSBLMttt
75.0
ffljflf flf ^TBYII1
CIS IX
BSOS U
Patuxtnt Rivtr at
Pi<
-------
formed straight lines parallel to but at lover value than the average
velocities from discharge. The parallel orientation of the ''velocity"
and "velocity adjusted" liner, hn". been found to be M g'ncrnJly valid
relationship. The "velocity adjusted" IJne can be used to find Lhe
ion::-, travel velocities at variour; discharge::.
The "depths" IJne can be U"f?d bo tr-'nrUnte depth;" ;ind cro;;n--
"< clj.ori'j 1 ?iriv;;- to .jtreatr f l.o , rendition.' )th>: th/m Uio.,'- .°t v:hl<'h
the cro ;r;-.jections were measui'ed. Rear;onable accuracy should be main-
tnin'.'d in ero.;;;-:;ocbi onal crear. <:.,, long" .1.; thf riv<~ • ".tagc doe', no. exceed
bank-iXill conditions.
-------
US 40
BALTO.-WASH. PARKWAY
MONTPELI£R(RM75.0)
SAVAGL H (RM8I.5)
, STATION L-l (RM63.8)
— PIC.EON HOUSE CORNER (RM63.7)
US 50 (JOHN HANSON HWY. at RM 60.7)
QUEEN ANNE'S BRIDGE (RM54j9!
HILLS BRIDGE (RM47.4)
LEGEND
A ESTABLISHED GAGING STATIONS
A TEMPORARY GAGING STATIONS
• TiDAL HEIGHT PREDICTIONS
(USC&G!. SUBORDINATE STATIONS)
NOTTINGHAM (RM38.4)
JONES POINT (RM 36.8)
SOLOMONS
ISLAND
FIGURE
-------
Ill - 1
III - A. CROSS-3ECTIOIIAL AREAS OF THK TIDAL RIVER
VERSUS RIVER MILE
-------
-------
-------
Ill -
III - B. DEPTH, VELOCITY AMD 'TELOCITY ADJUSTED
VERSUS RIVER DIGCI1ARGE
-------
-------
1 . ' ; i M 1 n
_|; j_,_ I j_ _, _j j , i | i I i !„ j.^1 _j__ I
-, !-, (T) :n '- '', CM Kl ': . > -- ir^ ti
-------
MiTT.fr
-------
-------
-------
^l-ao^ayn wo
-------
JI'.
-------
Depth INI Feet
•Vl
(f)
\
u
x
D
00
s9
I
ff
Q
cU
Oi
cc
p
4-
OJ
u.
4-
-o
a
Q)
cc
t--
-------
1
.
!
! . '
I T
; , i
j
i
i
\
o ,
•|~
.
z
i
i
d
(o;
"oJ|
~e"
CO
j vfl
'j"i'
i (U
i
i fO
2
O
4-
U
£
(L
—\ --
V*
-------
u.
2
HI
QC
4-
X
^"*
*. u-
•\
°0
X
»0
-------
I 1
iN^Feftj
4-
-a
3
s
-1-
.4.
-------
OPJf
[- - ~ - T
pepfh ij* Fee-f
pet/
«
or i
-------
-------
Dep + hj i w F e*4-
d
_
4- '
il
q) !
S'
-------
cu
Oo
no
of
0)
OO
z
0
1
o
cr
Q
Qj
£
H
z
-c:
a:
Q}
QC
-------
Depifh IN Feel
\
o
Q>
CC
X
cc
Q_
00
o)
GC
i
O
CM
ro
-t-
o:
2
O
$
F
CD
"13
ffi
Qj
CC
-------
fh IN FeeT
-------
-------
Of/
oo/--
DepfK ill Fee4
i i j __. i
CO
\
O
_.}»
i
Ol
rnl
CX3
J j£ ...r£
]
I
oJ
QJ
! • j Q)
• L ..j;. .> . «i
• ' , '• Cd "".
_j j .^^S
' i i "z '
. ' • : : . j ' $£ a
d
CM
I
rr>
«u,
-4-
"j ;
Qjj
tTJ
! '
CJ
c •
cr
Q)
-------
oof
oo Y
-------
oojF I ' '
T
I
Deplh IN
_.r. .,.
.51
-*-i
M
J
s
F
u_
2
£
cc
a:
-4-
-------
moo/
-------
-------
-------
»•» $
OJ
u
Z
£
cr
o)
or
-------
cc
01
QC
4-
co
t
n
-------
T
T"
oof,
j . DLdJjth. I
' •
-------
Off
90 e
OJff •
eo-g.-
-------
•O
IN Fee 4"
-------
IILJ... ^jsk.il..
ill
-------
-------
-------
OOP/
004--
909
I
-v.—4-»^«.
.
T~
1—1-^
«P|
v
1 •---!-
00
~&
H
-------
: I <
-------
-------
t-h
,
!
i ! ' I !
£Mij i L
T
-------
••or
-------
**o
-------
OtV
-------
-------
- f-4 t-5
-------
L4-~~_;-~ -4~J—L
-------
1- ~i---
o*r -h
' . 1.. , , . , 1
' }
' !
— ,-_—-, . w __-.-f~. -»- ~ I f~f^f" ' "~ '
\ V m 1
i N' ;
i : • iu ,
-L_ U - 4 .-.*..-
r . 1 i
i , i
. i i
1 i g t
^ i
• ; ! °^ ;
.. .U_...l^._i.
i i Z i
( oj
i tc
>
i
. i
•1
*C
i
J
™"
7f
_£. -
!
i
1
* M^
00
sS
1 *
or
u,
2
•I
13.
1 i
Q l
r< -Qo
-------
4-
Lu.
-o
a
E
CC
4°
rK
-\
*?>
-------
;-4 4
Feel'
I
T
-"
V
I ! V
j
1 ** :
r ~^
o
H
s
X
cc
H-.
.fid..
Oo
^
j
-------
(X*
E
-------
eotf
4-
Q)
U.
z
-C
4-
IB
l
5
-------
.ml ._£«Je,t
3
<•
i
L ;_„
1
" ' "1
'
. i
J ..
, t
„ : . :
.
i
i
i
i
t
i
; 1
1 !
, ,.
I |
iri
vfj !
i ;
-V-
E
£
-------
-------
De p|+h IN
Ojf-
-------
oof
Depfh
oir
CD
E
CE
Qj
ac
-------
QJ
u_
•z
"O
3
E
(E
-------
OO
I
ca
04
"l ;
OQ
QC Q
-------
00
I
CM
-a
E
a:
t
-------
E
c£
or
oo
l
"
•
Lu.
a:
Q)
-------
•Of
1
Pepj4h
N
-------
or
-------
IN Fjeei;
U-
LL_
H-
£
03
cc
.4-
-------
*•/
N
M
i.
4.
2
a)
X
00
-.;
cr
Q>,
*/
-------
-------
21
M 6 ooi
I
Ti
cc
-g
£
Ci
Q)
o:
H-
i
-f •
-------
•rf®
-------
O
QJ
U_
S
CL
-------
of/
or/
-------
-------
-4-
h
-------
Off/
Dep|+K
or-
TE"
-J
£
a:
Ml
v
QC
A^»J
' «
Li*}
QJ
H-
. !«
Lljc
" r
'
•
1 !
1
t
, : i
;._.|
j
1
-4-
Q)
ti
-^ i
I
-i
-------
-------
pcpfh i
-------
T"
j i
Deplh i
1 . i , .
1 J
i
N Fee.!
"\
*)
-------
I <
i N F<2-e-~l~
-------
-------
IN Feef
-------
••I
-------
091
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
J.J..L
III - D. CROSG--GECTIONS, WOK-TIDAL ":r.T.^
(RIVER MILES 53.6 TO 73.l|)
-------
-------
Pcpfh JN Feet
i * • ',
LL.
j
2
fcs
-------
-------
"il
-------
-------
-------
VVI
-------
-------
/-r
.j—
II
P.epJT n i (_N
LD
U
a
a:
Q)
8
cr
-------
-------
°t>
o*
-------
L <»
oC
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
€
a:
en
-------
-------
i .';
-------
-------
-------
I
-------
-------
-------
-------
-E
-o
8
cc
-------
Feet
\\
-ft
X:
E
CE .
-------
01
X
LJU
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
April 29, 1969
TO: Participants of the Potomac River Basin Wasteirater
Inventory:
SUBJECT: Revision Number 1 of the Wastewater Inventory Potomac
River Basin
Enclosed is a copy of Chapter III which has been cor-
rected and updated. Chapter III as originally published
should be discarded as it contains some errors. Other
changes to be made in "pen and ink" are also enclosed.
Again, any additional comments or corrections are
invited.
Norbert A. Jaworski, Ph.D
Sanitary Engineer
Chesapeake Technical Support
Laboratory
Middle Atlantic Region
Enclosures 3
-------
PEN AND INK CHANGES
1. Page II - 2 — Under Governmental Agencies; Add Pennsylvania
State Health Department
2. Figure III - 1 — Keyser should be designated primary treatment
3. Page IV - 2 — * = Wastewater Discharge to a Municipal System
4. Table V - 1, Page V - 2 — Indexes I-Biological Class for West
Virginia Pulp & Paper Company should be changed to B-ll
5. Table V - 1 (Cont.), Page V - 3 — Change Westernport, Maryland
under Receiving Stream to North Branch Potomac River and for same under
Remarks add Upper Potomac River Commission Plant
6. Table V - 1 (Cont.), Page V - 4 — Ridgely, West Virginia change
Removal of BOD (%) to zero. Under Receiving Stream for same change to
North Branch Potomac River and under Remarks no treatment
7. Table V - 4, Page V - 8 — Williamsport, Maryland Effluent BOD
should read 350
8. Table V - 5, Page V - 9 — Doubleday & Company Index should
read A-2
9. Table V - 5, Page V - 9 — Marquette Cement Mfg. Company Index
should read H-2
10. Table V - 5, Page V - 9 — Western, Maryland R. R. Index should
read E-7
11. Table V - 12, Page V - 20 — Cumberland TWP, Pennsylvania Effluent
BOD (#/dav) should read 8
-------
-------
Ill - 1
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY
As of December, 1968, there are 384 known wastewater discharges
in the Potomac River Basin. From the detailed inventory presented in
Chapter V and from the 1958 inventory published by the U. S. Public
Health Service, the following information has been summarized:
1. There are about 2,900,000 people served by 264 domestic
wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. Of the
2,702,000 people served, the wastes from 13,000 receive no
treatment, 100,000 receive primary treatment, and 2,787,000
receive intermediate-secondary wastewater treatment. (See
Figure III - 1 for major municipal wastewater discharges in
the Potomac River Basin)
2. There are 67 industrial biodegradable wastewater discharged
producing about 151,900 #/day of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) of which approximately 5C$ is removed by wastewater
treatment.
3. The wastewater BOD loading for the entire basin is pre-
sented below:
Waste Before
Type Treatment
(#/day)
Sanitary 591,100
Industrial 151 f 900
Total 743,000
% of
Total
80
_2P_
100
After
Treatment
(#/day)
158,000
75r300
233,300
% of
Total
68
_JI_
100
-------
-------
Ill - 2
4. In 1958, the sewered population of the basin was about
2,050,000 with a total municipal and industrial BOD
loading, after treatment, of about 325,000 #/day.
5. Of the present 2,900,000 sewered population, about 86
percent is in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan area.
6. Industry in the North Branch and Shenandoah sub-basins
discharge about 61 and 31 percent, respectively, of the
total BOD loadings from industrial sources. (See Figure
III - 2 for major industrial wastewater discharges in the
Potomac River Basin)
7. In the basin, there are 28 industrial and municipal
facilities discharging a total of 2,114,000,000 gallons
per day of cooling water. (See Figure III - 3 for major
thermal discharges in the Potomac River Basin)
8. The nutrient wastewater loadings [phosphorus (PO.) and
A
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) as N] discharged into the
surface water of the basin are presented below:
Waste
Type
Sanitary
EndustriaA
Total
PO
(#/diy)
73,400
8,000
81,400
% of
Total
90
JLJL
100
TKN
(#/day)
60,000
5fOOO
65,000
% of
Total
93
_1_
100
9. Of the total wastewater nutrient loading in the basin,
approximately 77 percent and 83 percent of the phosphorus
-------
-------
Ill - 3
and TKN, respectively, is from discharges in the
Washington, D. C. area.
-------
-------
WASTEWATER INVENTORY
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
December 1968
Compiled by:
Norbert A. Jaworski
and
Johan A. Aalto
Supporting Laboratory Staff:
Donald W. Lear
James Marks
Orterio Villa
Anne Favorite
Chesapeake Field Station
Middle Atlantic Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
-------
.
7/.BLI". OF CONTENTS
Pa/rr
LJ.",T IT TABUS .................. ii
i IGT or FIGURE ................. ii i
II. INTOOL'UGTION ............... II - I
IXrpooc ar-' '.ccpo ........... II - 1
r. Authority ............... II - 2
";. 'I'jknov.'IedgnentJ? ............ II - 2
III. r-^-.^PY .................. Ill - l
IV. DATA SOURCES AND PR'^TrrTATION ....... IV - 1
i. D:tta L'ourcec ............. IV - 1
?. r-'ta p->cfc-ntaticn ........... IV - 2
V. ,VAiSTn/>.£Tr;r I^/T'INTORY ........... V - 1
-------
LIST OF TABLE3
Number
IV - 1 Industrial Wastev.-ater Classification and Index. ... IV - 3
Municipal niul Industrial Wastewnter Inventory:
V - 1
V - 1'
V - 3
V - 4
V - 5
V - •
V - 7
V - -
V - c~>
V - 10
V - 11
v - r:
V - 13
V - IA
V - Vj
V - 16
V - I'"'
V - 18
North Branch Potomac River Basin
South Branch and Upper Potomac River Basin
Opequon Creek .
Conococheague Creek and Upper and Middle
Fotoir.ac River Basin
Antietam and Middle Potomac R-'ver Basin
North Fork Shenandoah River Basin
North Rj ver at South Fork Shenandoah
River Basin
Middle River of South Fork Shenandoah River Basin . .
.qouth River of South Fork Shenandoah River Basin . .
Main Sterr. South Fork Shenandosh River Basin
Main Steir Shenandoah
Catoctin Creek, .V.J.; (Jatoctin, Ya . ; Monocacy, Pa . . .
Monocacy River, Md
Lower Portion of Upper Potomac River Basin
Upper Esturry of Potomac River Basin
Or^oquari Creek Basin
i/id lie fctuary of lotoirac River Basir.
Lower Estuary of Potomac River Basin
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
-7
5
r!
s
Q
11
13
14
16
17
19
20
^1
-'3
~ i
-'7
30
3?
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Pafig
III - 1 Major Municipal V/aste Discharges Ill - 4
III - 2 Major Industrial vVastewater Discharges Ill - ^
III - .3 Major Thermal Discharges Ill - C
-------
I - 1
CHAPTER I
PREFACE
The first complete inventory of water uses and wastewster
loadings in the Potomac River Basin was compiled in 195tS by the
U. S. Public Health Service. Since then numerous surveys, investi-
gations, and inspections of these facilities have been conducted
by various local, state, and federal agencies. These findings
were consolidated in 1966, by the Chesapeake Field Station, into
a waste inventory as part of the President's Water Quality Sub-
Task Force Study and distributed to the several state, county,
and municipal agencies involved. It has been continuously updated
and revised and served as a basis for this inventory.
Since 1°5."', other parameters such as nutrients have become
a significant factor in water quality rranagement. The need for
current waste discharge data continues. Knowledge of existing
and past water use and wastewater loadings is essential in pro-
viding for water quality management in any river basin.
-------
II - 1
CHARTER II
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
As part of the Chesapeake Bay-£usquehanna River Basins Project,
the Chesapeake Field Station (CFS), Middle Atlantic Region, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) has undertaken a com-
prehensive water quality jranagement study of the Potomac River Basin.
Important phases of this study are the determination of the effects of
wastewater discharges on water quality in the Potomac Estuary and the
recommendation of a program to achieve the approved water quality
standards for this interstate river.
An essential part of the background investigation has been the
compilation of n current inventory of all wastewater discharges in the
Potomac Ri\er Basin. This compilation, in conjuction with past infor-
mation end future projections, forms the base from which a comprehensive
water quality management program can be developed.
Presented in this report is a complete inventory of all reported
wastevreter discharges including:
1. Population Served '. . % BOD Removal
2. Wastewater Index ". Phosphorus in effluent (#/day)
7. A'astewater Flow (;;gd) 8. Nitrogen in effluent (///day)
/,. Untreated BOD (/'/day) 9. Receiving Stream
',. Treated BOD (///day) 1C. Remarks
-------
Tne preceding information is presented in detail and summary form by
sub regions, eighteen in all. Maps showing major municipal, industrial-
<; iodegradable, and thermal wastewater discharges ore also prenenloii.
3. Authority
This survey was conducted and the report prepared under the
prcv, is ions of l,be Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended ('<'}
U.r.C. /• i et seq.) which directs the Secretary of the Interior to
prepare or develop programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sani-
iary condition of surface and underground waters, -in cooperation with
State water pollution control agencies and with the municipalities and
industries involved.
C. Acknowledgments
The assistance and cooperation of various governmental and insti-
tutional agencies together with the industries in the basin enabled the
Chesapeake Field Station to collect gnd assemble data in what would
otherwise have taken a much longer period of time. While every agency
and industry contacted provided valuable assistance, the cooperation of
the following governmental agencies and industries who participated in
the sampling program merit special recognition:
Governmental Agencies:
Maryland Department of 'A'ater Resources
Maryland State Department of Health
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Virginia State Water Control Board
-------
IT
West Virgii""1'a Department of Natural Resources
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
District of Columbia, Depart!! ent of Public Health
•• District of Columbia, Department of Sanitary Engineering
Upper Potomac River Cormipsion. V/on1 ernport, Maryland
cipal.i I. ies;
City of Alexandras, Virginia
City of Winchester, Virginia
City of Waynesboro. Virginia
City of Staurton, Virginia
City of Hancock, Maryland
City of Tinto, Maryland
City of Oresepto^rr., Maryland
City of Bowll'ig Green, Maryland
City of Cumberland, Maryland
City of Frederick, Maryland
Citv of liagerstown, .Varyland
City of Williamsport, Maryland
City of Martinsburg, West Virginia
City of Rormey, 7/est Virginia
City of Potersl-'Tg, tfest Virginia
City of fv'oorefield, West Virginia
City of Keyser, West Virginia
Town of Front Royal, Virginia
Borough of Chairbersturg, Pennsylvania
Borough of Gettysburg, Fennsyl\rania
Dorough of Greencastle, Pennsylvania
Borough of vVaynesboro, Fennsylvania
Borough of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania
County of Fairfax, Virginia
County of Arlington, Virginia
Industries;
Celanese Fibers Company, A:, celle, Maryland
West V'rginia Pulp and Paper Company, Luke, Ivlaryland
Byron and Sons, W;lliansport. Maryland
Loewengart and Company, 1','ercersburg, Pennsyl'-ania
Loewengart and Coirpany, Petersburg, ronBgylyania-- H/. t/
Rockingham Poultry Coirpsny, .Voorefield, V.'est Virginia
*3. I. DiiPoij4,, J.Iartir.sbi:rg, ".Vest Virginia
Minnesota Lining and Manufacturing Conpany, ?'artinsourg,
West Virginia
Corning Glass Co;rpa:y, Mar^.insburg, 7/est Virginia
Ha 11 town Paper Co-ipany, Hilltown, '.Vest Virginia
S. 1. DuPont Company, ','/a;."r.eEv'oro, Virginia
-------
II - /
Croirpton-Shenandoah, Waynesboro, Virginia
Merck and Company, Elkton, Virginia
American Viscose, Front Royal, Virginia
Potomac Edison Company, Hagerstown, Maryland
Potomac Electric Power Company, '.Vashington, D, C.
-------
Ill - :
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY
As of December, 19' 6, there are 3°4 known wastewater discharges
in the Polo ac River Basin. Fro>! the detailed inventory presented in
Chapter V and from the l^i'o inventor:; published by the U. S. F-jbl'c
Health Service, the following information has beer, summarised;
1. Ihere are about 2,'rO?,000 people served by ±- /, domestic
wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. Of the
:,VO?,000 people served, the wastes fron 13,000 receive no
treatment, 100,000 receive primary treatirent, and ?,:~ )';,000
receive Intermediate-secondary.' wastewater treatment. (See
Figure III - 1 for major municipal wastewater discharges ir.
tne Potomac River Basir)
?. There are 67 industrial biodegradable wastewater dischargee
producing about 151,900 ;/ /day of biochemical oxygen derrand
(BOD) of which approximately nO% is removed by wastewaier
treatment.
3. The wastewater BOD loading for the entire basin is pre-
sented below:
Waste
Type
Ggni tary
Industrial
Total
Before
Treatment
>,1,100
151.900
7/,3,OOQ
. 01
Total
•"0
20
100
After
Tre
15^
75
TJ-J
a tment
xday)
, 000
.300
,300
;" of
Total
.v
v2
100
-------
Ill - ->
4. In 1^5b\ the sewered population of the '-35In was about
2,0';0,000 v/ith a total municipal arid industrial BOD
loading, after treatment, of about 3?r>,000 ^-'day.
Of Mie present ?, Mi,iHXi sewered populatio1', ohout M
percent is in the V.'ashington, D. C. Metropolitan area.
• . Industry in the North Branch and Shenandoah suh-basins
'J'scl.arfe r.bout 1 and 31 percent, respectively, of the
total BOD loadings fro-, industrial sources. (See Figure
III - ? for r.a."or industrial wastewater discharges in the
I'otoiiac Paver 3asir)
7. In the basir, there are 28 industrial and nunicipal
facilities discharging a total of 2,114,000,000 gallons
per day of coolinF water. (See Figure III - 3 for najor
(.henrial discharges i.j the Potomac fLiver Basin)
Tie nutrient v/astev/pter loadings [phosphorus (P0_,/) and
total K.'eldahl nitrorer (1KN) as N] discharged into the
surface water of the basin are presented below:
Waste P0,; ;.' of TKN % of
Type r.4y/day) Total (••/ 'day) Total
Sa niter;/
Industrial
Total
~!'i , 000 -'1
nnr; -i
§ ^^
'5.000 100
60,000
: .COO
- ooo
J — -
77
100
9. Of 4he total wastewater nutrient loadin" 'n the basin,
approximately 75 percent ?nd '0 percent of tae phosphorus
-------
Ill
ii'J TKN. respectively, is from
vefi 'n the
'.Vashl -utton, D. C. ^
-------
-------
-------
-------
IV - 1
CHAPTER IV
DATA SOURCES AND PRESENTATION
A. Jatn I'ourceG
The information used in co; pill "4; the wast ewater invertory
v/as obtained froir; ;;iany sources including:
]. '!;>e VXV, cooperative 'ndustrial water use survey for the
Cnesapeake Bay-o^squehanna River Basics Fro.'ect (Formerly
iy the Pi;hiic Health Service of the U. C, Department of
Keslth, Education, and V/elfare and MOV/ "::/ :,he Federal
'.Vater Pollution Control Administration of l.l.e U. i'l.
Department of the I-.terior)
^. IVastev/ater treatne:>t records and inventories as corrpiled
.>y the various state agencies in Virginia, ,','est Virginia,
and I'&rylend.
?. '.Yastewater inventor;/* prepared in 1966 *r.y the Chesapeake
Field Station ss part of the President's S'.b Task Force
on water quality and the sut'sequent cooperative was le-
v/at er surveyr iy Chesapeake Field Station.
All municipal discharges r:avi^, a wastewater flow greater Uian 1.0
..jjd and all industries v:ith biodegradable waste with a flow greater
ihan 0,5 rigd were saipled durirg ].-"> -\ For :-ost of these discharges,
three V,-hour composites were obtained and analyzed for BOD, PO/, and
TKN.
',7rsJ ewatt-r load in,-3 for the reminder of the facilities were deter-
mined fvor1 either o-hour composites, grab sanples, or fror' assmred
-------
IV -
value:;. Jb'or the latter the folloT.'ini; o.Uour: ptio:iiL; v/ero us en;
Dorestir Vastewater Flow 10P jcd
Untroatec BOD (to inly Domestic) :>00 ng/1
Untreated BOD (KicrJy Industrial) :^0 nc/3
''0!" i->5;:ovpl - Primary Hants '-Tv?
POD Ren oval - Secondary i'lnnts ^%
Fhosphorue - (PO^, es PO. ) JO nig/1*
Nitrogen - (TKN as N) 17 mg/1*
T:;e f?.o-ivs and loadings presented in this report ere consider0. 1 to
pversre annual values for the IQo^' calender year.
In the detailed inventory presented in Chapter V, the following
a bl >r e v J a 1 i one are u r ed :
M = Not Applicable
UNK - Unla.own
3T ~ Septic Tanks
* - .Vfiste/;ater Discharge for I^onicipal System.
An Jndustrlal -.vastev.'ater rroupin^ which ,vas developed by the Chesapeake
Fjelu otatioi'. v:es used to classify and index the discharges. (See
Table IV - 1.)
•
These are average concentrations as determined ''n s nutrient
survey during' 19;V . A report presenting the findings of the survey
is currently beir^ prepare:" by the Chesapeake Field Station.
-------
TV
Table IV 1
INDUSTRIAL V/ASTEV/ATEn CLARIFICATION AND INDKX
Chesapeake Field Station
Armapol is , '.Maryland
1. Wjnic'pal, Institutional, etc.
?. Industrial
B. INDUSTRIAL BIOLOGICAL WASTES (I-Biol.)
1. Tanneries ?nd Leather Trades
?. Pharmaceuticals (antibiotics, Mologicals; e.g., penicillin)
;. Alcohol Industries (brewing and distilling)
/'. Miscellaneous Fernentatior. Industries
Glue, Size, and Gelatine Plants
'.Vooi Oouring
. Text Lie i/ianufacture (natural fibers; e.g., cotton, wool, silk, flax)
8. Floor-cloth Manufacture
°, Laundries
10. Paper
IT. Pulj
C. FOOD PROCESSING WASTES (Food)
1. Canneries
-?. Meat Packing, 3 laughter rouse, and Related Trade?
'/.. Poultry
Milk and Dairy Wastes
Corn Products Plants
(~. Bee4 Su.?ar Factories
7. Cane cupar Factories
H. Fist Processing Plants
vl. Other Food Processing and Dehydration Plants
in. Citrus
11. Beverages (soft drinks)
D. AGRICULTURAL AND UifflAN RUNOFF (Arric.)
1. Piggeries
5. Chicken Yar'Ic
E. HYDROCARBON WASTES (Hy-Car.)
i . Oil >Vells
•1. Fetroleuii' Refining
-------
IV -
:. Styrene Manufacture
Co-pelyrrer Rubber Pi-ants'
Butadiene Plants
Nature! Rubber Processing or fie^Iairring
Fetro] Stations, Gs rages, Engineering V.orks
A j rcr?1 ft Ma i ntenance
PHENOLIC ',YA3Ti'r (Pheno.)
1 . Gan Plants and Dy-pi'oduct Coke Plants
\ Tar DJGti llation, Road Oil, *>nd Cresoting Plants
, . C^eir;' ;-a 1 Plants
.. oyi'tbeti'1 Resin Plants
' . iv'ood Distillation
1 . Hye Manufacturing
:.:i;JCELLAljKOUJ OHOANIC CHEIv'JCAL .VASTES (Orran.)
j. f'ti-.-ifio'i Pleats ( .::, TNI, Tetryl, Anmoni'ir picrste, etc.)
.?. oyuthetic or Man-jiiade Textile P'.berc (e.g. rayon, rylon, etc.)
Orcjaniu Cher.dcel Manufacture
' . Fairrtn and VarnichPs
Oil ana Grease Procecsir.^ a:rl ilefining
H. COOLING A'ASTSJ (Cool.)
1 . Coolin-T .i;pt,e
l.'Jner&] Wac'a I/iff J lurries arri ou.spojisions (e.f;, stone aav/i^;^ r-a;i
nnd chJna clay v.'asr::'ng)
I.'Jne PJrsinege (j-it '.veter fro.T coaJ cines)
Fichle Liquor //'asttJ (c-.<:- iron and copper pickling, jalvani;.in,y
? . L'lectro-i'.latir.g
t; . iVater ^01 ten ing
Inorganic Chenacal ;.fer:ufectur :nt- ..astes
. . Battery Fanufacture
Coal-vaching
1' . Inorganic Pig; ents
11 . Fnotogrephir? Pastes
J. IUDIOAGT1VE .VAST^J (Red.)
(e.;. atojjic e:iergy plants ar.ri o./.ner:i:.e;itel stations; hospitals pud
in:!ur trie:- iK'ing rs'Iioact i. /e isotopes)
-------
-------
V -
INVENTORY TABLI"
-------
g
i
g
n
1
1
rn
r-l ^
3 S
,O £H
® CO
IS
M
O
5
g
i — i
o
I-H
Eg
1
cc
•HE
•H d
41 H
O -p
a
A
&
|B
w
S
6H
H
•H
1 II
$ ozo
o
Of •
8 £§
+> <«H O
<£ wm
a
« as
« (3 CO
1 M
•z,
g
c
S
^1
d
i
1
to
1
T:
O f-
c/:
E
1
1?
•o
\
1
*'-»
^
1
\
v_x
^o
2b
•o
y.
X
11
•a
c
H
CO
CO
A
o
fc «
O Pi 4) IH 41 4)
fc fi 4) C 4) C CO
O 4) ja -d A -H
,-) ft m a (084)
0 P ft rH
1 CO ^4) F 4) -H
> > Pi
•O 4) rH -H rH -H
•H > •< +> 11 +> p
U (rf O O O CJ O
0) d>
ID 4) 4) 4)
„><;>! r< Pi FH
ffl X 4) O O O
M 4) 4)
41 r< fi O O O
Eh O 3 H H H
o (2 o) d u)
O O H HH *H ^-4
co«;«e (Eg 333.
.g fc ** «««
! i 1 11 ill
gg - $2 222
g£ rH gg g^Z
gg 0 gg ggg
g£ 8 ^S S^g
r-f
OXO O^ OJ«1^
O O O O
rH CXJ i-H f^~\ r^\ r*^ r^ c^
III II III
tCa-a! rHM 1-HrHM
^ ^ h r< h*
rH H • D 4) 0> 4> O ^ O O ^^
-t-> • O ^ rH IB
o^ ^ o-p«( $+>^>
we" • *« J • ° J s*
ffl § * cS»* •§* .
-H-P ^ «H^ C^HTJ
(5W T< 4>O>> iDOrl
•H r< fi H S.
I *
U +=
00
S
f) 01
cS fi
te «"
C c§+3 rt-Ptf % M X M M
cd fl scSfiu ffi V
S^ -prH-PCO bflM^tMM
O 3" OPnO ROOOO
+* CO C3 O £i h ffi (Q CO 03
CO OJ I""" CQ D CQ Cj 'O M H M M
o -HO -o-o a S * 8 8
H ditH SfHZc-i COOOcSO
1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O "^^ O^^^ rHrHir\^ttO
za; r^^gJz H^rH
1
° g g 8g^ g ^ ^ ^ ? cX
r-T
^ ^ ^ ^SiSSSi u^OOOO
O ^^ 2^^^ rH^OOOO
H"
iT\ t rH
•\
VO
O rMO 5?2S^ rH^OOO
O O HOu-NO OOOOO
rH CM -vj"
o o
r-l C^vrH r-H r~l r- • M CJCUrHrHrH
1 11 1 Jf II 1 f 1 1 1
<^ H ^j QQ^fQ [Tj «(J CJ ^(J ^{ ^J "^
, ,
• rH H
fH O O •
• *O 2
^g* * S^^^T.5
•s o * Ok^"-* 00 •* ^H JJ "* •
rH4>'H«fiS ™p3tO *-'d
rHrH^qg ScS'"«'2S^
•HrHK -^ ^p:-PCCOfj
0^ oso-aHa-p
•PBO>5 P P'C^b'oSrt
s as 3 ted £ 5£ s £ 3 a
\
..
, (
--'
o
t s
tx
v
!
-------
•H
Q)
O
1
1
c
O
E-i
I I
s a
!
o
M ) S
Sfl S 8 8
•3 r~ H
H
Si
fc cu o
*° «> vc
•p
I
(S «
o o
o
CO CQ
Z 55
OJ O
r-H
1
o
•(->
uj m
3 £
\J \J
$ I
SB 9s
CQ s
SS s
II I I III
o o o.
xo :
£< O
Q «
ll
I
•c
0)
o
45
> 8
« £
rH B,
I •§
JH (
"M |
W
| g 8 | $
^** V\ "^
**™s *4
J* M
-------
g g
0
Receiving
Stream
£
It
+» 0 -H -H -H
00 a -p p -p
S, 3 ooo
CO €)
al *H O O -p O -p 4> «p
o i ,?.§&£$£&
« OS 03 K
o o o o a) o a)
a) « W -P +> W -P +> "
S £ • <8 (8 . <8 (S g g g
C5 C3 ,O ,O CO CO QQ
cq co § is f4§rn f-r «> e a>
r-5 HO « B5O« «=+» +i +J
rH rH 4^ -P -P
•fH'MO • *O* • Id Of Jd
S BSH S5 SBHS5 SS=ft ffi C
0 1 II 1 III III 1 1
tsjj if\ J5 £2? Z is vo c*^ £•• o^ 0^ CO
ir\ tVJ
w jt
S
H
~ is
1 Jo
o
•
rH +3
. !n8
> &n
t>
i ?
s
^
fn
a
*
+-
03
i
* i
*£
i
a
fS
!••— •
>> to W K)
s° ^
^
*^** ^ O-Sl £fi rf^O^ ifN ^ 6n E-< H
>^. zs ys z *z & -3- c^\ o to U3 to
J*-«t
'fta VO
^
| S § « * S s | S| e § s
§±
§o 9^2 ooo o o
O"\-^ to OHCU OJ CJ O H O
S O OO ^4" ir\O*^ OCJO O O
O ra
• hn O Cd •
0 ^^ .SVx ^-N *^v ^-- % • *
*|§ |a la §i ^ a- sa f. *. |
o>» - hp-ra-'H" fe h
•H'OT3>>'O •B13'H'O& -P O
Iss.-HSa^iss.'ij.oi g >: g
""fj °TI . ^^ oTj s? 1 s3 § s g
c p> c co H
•H ^ BrQ ® W tft & '^ ^ 4)
"^"ZlS *^§ "^ M *S hp fQ +* 0 rH -P
Cd w O SO Of Q)O OO»ri 3*HO 3 J-3 flJ
ss^^c-'KSw^-ft'C.BocwC. m S £
en al
i °^
& c
•Si
1 1»
c§ 3^
J
-S «
M O
- S
v 4^
o '
, , , ,
rH°^ M
SS g
1
rH O ^ M
SS SS £
"l« lj
O O < «
oi\o ss S
§o p ^
1-1 S R
o o &
0 0 0
• R rH O
g g
Koppers Co.
(Green Spring, W. Va.)
Cumberland Charcoal Co.
(Beryl, W. Va.)
-------
-------
gfc
g §
a a
E!
i *
C rH O
» ^ S.
» 8 I
J a w
«
o
£
«
o
PS
o
«
t>
« 03
W W
£
CO
I I
fi-S
I
•o
r-l
V
r-1
I
g
at
a,
£
•a
H
4)
•H
Vl
|
5
O
H
I
£
2
S
5
§
iH
O
o
1
o
•w
1
s
jj
CQ
03
^
1-:
I -a
4> rH
JH 4)
$
5 jj
-K
! 1 i
P. o
S a Pt So
H •) 4) a
t, <£ co >-5
ft « * «
> o o o
SB s H 4J
TJ -P -P -P *rl
rH O O OK
O D-, o> A.
vl . a
o •+•*
S CO CO CO A.
II 1 II
O O f\ \O ~J
•* >TN H
O O *A O ir\
C\J D- rH OJ
OJ Ts >A IT\ O
rH MD CO C^ c-
O O rH r^ H
c*- O --T ir\
*
o o fN ^ o
H r\ O O r-l
o o o o o*
II 1 II
O -a; 0
B * 09 "S^ S r^ !>
a> « > -rT a
§4) S:" 4>* O^ ^
H4) >, X!4) rHR o)
•jjr4 4J ag 5g *
O *5s Q 3 c5 o PH jd
a
c
o
•H
1
CO
h
d)
t>
•rH
«
1
(D
o
1
^
IA
LT>
to
•-t
o)
§
o*
1
g
«
o
o
03
5*!
4> 3:'
+3
CO -P
si
> 0
8 sS
S
0)
0
4>
g
«
.Ef
CO
I
*
1
c^\
IA
IA
O
§
C\J
O
to
0
d
^
9
CO
.0
iH
•s
r— 1
•
S
w
CO
1
P!
CO
r?
£
rl
3!
rH
S
o
o
«
CO
g
«
1"
W
g
^
1
^
LA
o
lA
-f
5
to
3
d
•t
o
•tf
1
£
^
,-,
at
*
CO
CQ *rH
ra co
JC i»
^c,
JS3
id h
H 4)
S 8
C P,
a)
-P -p
O O)
•H e
P -H
Oi-O
4) 4)
CO CO
-
«
3*
p>
co
i -
*
( 1
4, •*-
a,g ^
,a< "^
i-H 2 Cv
«a^
; ^
•fl S • */i
"i
rH
O O
0*0*
OJ OJ
1 1
•«! M
• -w
fi ^
»
rH rH
2 cij
4) «
-------
-------
f-1
«
(H
ft
AS
01
4) h
H <1)
O >
O O
I I
01
^
O
A!
0
A!
CD
2
o
A!
O
CO
CQ
A!
0)
CD
I
O
CM
-
I
o
S S
H r^
O O
O
LT\
C\J
O
VO
o
o
o
I I
C
CO
to
a
a
CO
K
a
CO
fn
S
O
OJ
o
CO
c*\
o ;
o
hpS
•H -
cd -H
O IH
P,
CO CO
CO
S CU
P IH
p CD
•H pa
3
JS
• P
fO
•H
C •-
•rl O>
rf C3
-------
-------
cc
fn
i
Ml
O -P|
0) CO
?3 dJ
5l *N?
43 *
9 Hi *5
H H "0
S * !~
i fl
1 H s
« rH
1 §l
Bt 9
S *
" s I
I o •
rH H 3 W
Of p? V
SO •
-fj
Q ^H O
5 S PQ
S
1
^
• — '
'i
•-?
4) 1 C5
« K
o o
M H
ft >
to
CO
g
•a
J
1
HH
CO
rH
O
1
g
CO
cd
CO
CO
4)
"rl p}
rl rH
ffl rH
> cd
£4
t
rl
O
1
^
'
O
'«£
8
s
§
8
c*--
"•
8
*
CM
rH
1
*"
9
to
to
rH
jg
^
rl
41
ra
4)
o
.S
^
1
1
o
•H
ft
V
to
01
rl rX
» » 04)
H 90 | s s
o o o (2
M C
SO) ,OO >i
1 8s a = =
•a! ^! O o fn
II i i ill
OJ M X C"% •* O .rf
,§ .§ ^ .§ r"' *
"| | -- 11^
mO M >n -^ vo <
O i ">
\JD M M to » O X
^
O rM A4 O M O <
-4- R n m £ OJ y£
S3 & rH & •*
§§ § § lie
o" oj" o o a o o
OJ VO VD rH OJ -^ C\J
II 1 1 III
«< W CQ < -aj C3 S3
tl rH •
a o G •
• O 1H • • «) H
£31 0Q £! fj hO Q
CO t>> 1 Cd 0} H^ O
w w M co tn o o
S S w 2
vo
CO •
S 3
33
^ ^ bo •
4) ^~« S ^ cd* ^ ^
,00) rH OJ >•
33 tS 0 > ^1 •
j-3 O • ^
ffi *^ ^ - ^ bp
r* rl C •>
C CU J"S 4) -H >>
S -P O +^ >» (3 cd
E* CO O CO 0 ^H K
•H cu ri p>
> | .
3s 3^
" § ^ E"
•a HO &
0 4) O O
O CO BE -P
& to S 4)
C J3 M cu
rH S ^-^ t-^1
1
8
•H
ft
to
1^ ,X
CD 4)
O O (fi "
c c -o
O O r<
g S g _
III
II II
•A JfJ r-l ^
rH W g
VD O OJ ^!
OJ ^n 3
CJ
0 g ^rrf
8 8 £3
8O m <
>A !> 2
rH f~
^
C^
§Q *Tv LT\
O W OJ
O rH o" O
rH rH OJ rH
II II
•< <<
•ft O •
0) CQ "
rH ^ CO bj)
rH bO Cd M
•H *-| r-H 13
t> 3 0 ,5
W rO CD
t*> CQ bp P
(U K C -H
e-H 'H -P
-P P ^
cd ^ ^ ci
QJ fl} OS
^ S o — -•
w
bfl 80
S "d w
J2 -H JS § *
n a) c o^ c
eo C a) E
•*» -a -P tp -p
C -I-Hl
O >> O -ri C
•rH H ~r< r-H
-p ^ -t? ^ J^
&» at P«-p bo
ft) S 4> ® -H
CO d) w 4) 4) 4)
ri rH MM fn H
O 0 0 O 00
S S S S S c
§8 §§ §S
ol II II
ii ii . i
^ »S •-* s! "^ ^
2 2 t^2
IT\ •< rH <^ ^ ^
"N 2 S 2 f as
R!3s ^^ Sg
r*A
to IS to i!% O O
g g g'
1 •
0
o • o
3 4
0)
a ^ H ^-- S^.
co cd -p > ed Q td
S • C • 'Z, •
cfl == -H 4) & Be
CD •* ,£4 Q "" 'CJ ^
S tio bo -P bD tiD
•H rl ? OJ h -P rl
t-J 3 5 41 ^ ft ^
tO , ] £ ,Q O .^
^H c oy t-3 c J c
Cd -H -H Q -H
T3 -P CQ h -P -P
C H 4) -rl rl • f-l
-P J^ O rH S • S
1
5
^
H
; ' .
-
-i
^4
fv
,
V3
^s.
^
-------
fi
d
(U
r-l
•a
•a
Remarks
s
"Pi
•H 0)
0)
FH
O
uo
a
C-N
CM \O
H
fi A
o o
i g
£-
O O
VD "A
O
0
O
1)
M CO
O (1)
O
§
d C
rH 0)
O CO
o o
vo r-
8 w
CM"
o o o o ~*
OA O O IA OJ
^f r-l r^ O O
O* O o' O O
rH rH rH f-
I I I I
O <
CO CO W '
8 8 g
00 c~
at .40
^ £ I,
§
H
O
•iH
O O >A
VO O OJ
H xf xt
O O O
O OJ rH
O O O
<<1
§ § §
CO CO CO
8
~
OJ 0"\
stle
en
G
8 S
c-
O C«A
B 8
o o*
OJ rH
I I
O
-------
-------
•H g
si
jj -fj »rj flj
O O $ ^
O O -A
888
rH rH lH^
CVl"
C^\ O
C»\ r*
W W
CD O O
O O O
OJ
•al «jj
ts
V
-p
CO
' g
o o
rl rl
g?
ss
« in
88
o CD"
<< M
ri
co 2
I
I
S> D -H
£ H £ S
cu o
8 £
o o
* *
•H -H
i 3
• • _
+> to -H C
cu H m H
rj CU C
01
*H
C
0> CU
CO CU :
O O
I I
80
®
1
o
OJ
§ir\
CVJ
o o o' o
S S
CO CO
0 2
c*~ o
*,
-------
ttt
1
s
'g
" i
«*. to
t>> ITj
3 f
"8 ^
S
8
El
&
I
CO
II
03 •<
1 1 1
Il'
I 'J O, OS * -JN.
S
•-• I
8 8
000
3 • • • •
o * www
OP
CM W
t»N p-
53
CO
-------
FH
4>
rH
fi
&
•5
8
•a
fi
2
cu
X!
CO
,«
FH
£
x!
-p
FH
O
Z
> ct
•H 0)
CD FH
O -p
FH
CO
A
S
•p
E
4) z
3 B
rH EH
>
co
•a
\
25.
f~~
>,
^
* — '
/^^
>,
^
=tt
^—*
.
^
^_^
•a
CD
-P
•a
p. >
£t3
CO
I
co
a
CD
O
& rH
1 I °
'S ** S
C3 to CM
1= § fe
O
rH rH O
1 I 1
< (S t* i
• O ^ JH •- CQ • •
f<0 ^ ^ 1* bo o cd
W B 3 ^H 3 W M
CO X! CO ,Q =
C £i C FH C -.CD
3 10 O JH O 0) • rH
S C CO CO rH O rH
•rt -H >j «,H hO CJ> -H
Cq^(FH CUCOFH a >
•* 0 I-, rHCUFn COCOC
rHOCD rHrHCd -H-p'H
30!W C0«a FnOi-a
ft -^~-> i> co ^- EH 3 -^
i' ' . '","' -W"»f"^'WSi ^fpwwwf^jWWWMMWHKMM
r^\
IA O
CO O
rH
f\ O
C- O
rH ITN
CM CM
0 0
rH O
O 0
i — 1 O^
1 1
tlD
•rl CD
j Timberville
i
' Valley Hous
; (Timbervill
fi
»
•a
&
1
M
S3
C
ED
0
i
o
•a
1
^
^
a
ctT
Baker Dairy
(Timbervill
C 00
>! O
C vo
I c^
rX «A
C 00
1= to
» 0
C TN
t3 C^\
O
rH rH
1 1
< «;
fl C
CO Cd
CO co
^
Z CO
eo'
^— X J>
TO •
-^ O CO
P.° FH° ^
Convict Can;
(Rockingham
(Harrisonbu
New Market,
£
°'
•g
0
°J
c
s
o
rH
O
1
O
•a
1
^
o
c
M ' — *
•
CO M >•
t) -p
O rH -
Caroline Fo
Textron Pou
(New Market
X
"'"•"' "t"frv- f^JuKMWp
•;" -,i. i"w
-------
-------
o
W p
S o
rH O
£
EH
•— x «! C
•P W CO
c H H o
tD 'CJ
4> Q C
rH IS 01
£1 rH R
CO 41
E-1 ~ ^
Q CO
o
d £
2 JS
rH +J
o S
n O
§ ^
a
r)
Ct
a
B5
Ef
•H e=
> a
•H 11
0) r<
0 +J
4) CO
05
rl
4)
£
cd
•a
/jr
c >>
pU
&
e
,
^
I-t
JCQ
o
£g
CM O5
H
B
-P
M
5
C
rl
+J
S>
I
CO
T3
0 rl
OH 41
CO
4)
•z.
X
*"&
•x.
25
•as.
1
"~*fc
*~"
1
*b
•a
-1
41
•a
(3
CO
3
0
rH
o
o
f,
o
CO
g
JS
CO
Al
rl
fcl
Z
1
P
C
»
•a
K^
1
1
1
rH
1
<
i
CO
zi
CO --•
t>
o -
J3 o
0 0
ID
r, X!
rH g
rH f)
CO C
s s
0 fi
P co
CO ^
r<
C 8
co m
rH
0, h rl
4> CU
4) G M
Z » O
41
C3 C At AS 0
CO CO M rl 4)
Al -X ° U B
rl rl CO >5 -p
O O ^5 4) CO
•H o
C -P rl
2 ^ CO CO EH
1 III 1
VD A! Al rH O
i-H C C rH r-t
*3 S
> Aj Aj O r-
CM C K CV i-H
» &
O AJ AS O O
<"\ B H c^ O
to Aj AJ r\ O
ru R fi o v>
rH & a r-
» « « R 8
H O S3 i-H >f\
C-*
O Al At O O
rH (5 R to D;
rH tb S3 O O
0 0 0
rH rH i — 1 rH C1^
1 III 1
<
CM Z Z rH a
i? —
o ed' ^
3 ^ -P > ^j>
• o
g IH o a #
O P< cq 41 CO 41 -
C9 Pv'AI -r>j3 " bO CU)
0 CcO +>G° rf §'3
^ gw" S3 B S5l
§ - • « 0 3 41 -H
^ OO2 CDC TJ rH MW
c
0)
J3
• CO •
U G " C
d> d) ^ 4> 44
^ ^ ^ X 4>
CO tO £> t/) to fl O C
rH S3 rH S3
8 R 38%
rH U^ & lf\ S3
rn"
s s -a s -a
O"s OA S3 C^ S>
0 0 0
t^ rH rH r-t CM
II II 1
i-H •
O rl
j^ fi "OR' _S
w c/5 fn co S
. p,ot
S> > 4) - > O
'S'Ar'S-! M<^rf
O M O ^1 O +* f-i £3 9
t33 O CH S O,Q
C ^O -P fiMV ,O -P CQ
X1W O OO^ -P ^3tO
t/2 — ^ ^ CQ O > CO O ' — •
rX
-------
1
£>
H -iH
W co O
o CD K
H CO
S rl 6-H
S
M « rH
ft) Q
K J3 S> C
H a o CQ
H o e
S §
CO 0)
jc co •
i-J JH V-) C
M fa W
EH Si
CO -P
!S CO
M rH Q
0)
CCt
g 1 g
M -H M
O Ftj fe
(-H
1 I!
0 ^
3 a>
-p
s
-p
v
£
0,1
o u
OH 0)
CO
1
a
•z,
a
^
|
*
X
0
•0
^
* — •
S
' — '
^^
ffl
rrj
^te
^^"
to
«
^
"""^
T?
I
x
0)
B
M
CO
O
^ X
4) V
CD
M 0
O • PH *
•g ,g .^.g
•rt 01
rH - rH "
OS rH S
•P -P $ -P
§ -H • -H
|5 £5
rH C G
88
* M M
cu «J *C
JX
o
rX fa
ccscpiqc
ti>'~J p O^ ^ 3 J3
O
cqWco S SiS x >! S
X moooooo
O • g to o cct at
O2O «P CQCQ CQ CQ CQ
III ! .1 1 1 1
>j^rr\ J4 OO rH rH X
G C"\ OJ G W C
.K^l-O A! OO <^N f\ M
G +0 r\ a ^ C
ED CD ^X3 to
XOOJ X O"> O if\ i!
Cr^cTN c OC^ tX) W G
» S3 O
^OrH rX OJO sf C^\ ^
ri --o oj a rn K
r-H
XCA!> X OO t> |> A)
BC^\JD C OJO rH H C
t=> xf OJ C3 O CD
NT
AjOO At OO O O A!
C'xOVD C5 OJtfN rH rH C
CSOJrH C3 OC\] O O CD
o' o' o' oj o' o
o
rHrHrH rH rHrH rH rH rH
III 1 II 1 1 1
rH
O
. » • t -ri . . *
BBS g °?S K C R
cocoes co MCO CO CO co
SjrHCA 2 §O 3 2 2
00 CT- (A
>\ *•,
rH r-
r-t
S
S~^ S y^-x S~~\ X~«» CQ ^^>'
(Q * t^ * * * • •
C/7 • r- i {> ^ >» CO <1J >• t> t>
• CO fij O f> +^ ^>
K t^ CO^ *^ O *• •- Qj f-
^3 • *• f-iHP^htio (H ^ "~: H
^0*0 ?-* * 2 rW3 ^H (D^J rH^J (OP
W 5^'fHCO'firOrtCHH1C C
O O-pO
Ifl ^ *> fnW OJW O St/1 >itO CW
^* O +» tlfl O fn COln -H (Uln T3JH CQ^i
C3^>^3 +* VH^( r^^H rM i-HSn -HrH (OlH
M Ctf "H ^> Vi dj C^ i^ ^-( (^ ftf i — 1 (0 d) (tJ
r(
O
fa
CO
«
•
o
,
1
c
c
s
•g
C3
fi
s
c
rH
1
*"
H
cd
CO
|
^
fs
cd
-P ' *
•H •
c ro
re >
co
CD
> o
CO O
O -p
CJ -H5
CO -H CO
CO -P b"
>> CO P
-------
to
I
&
Q
c
•H
in
r.
0)
g
•a
CO
o
£
•p
g
CO
o
1
4)
rH
T3
T3
S
SP
>
•H
O
5
•p
rH
W
rH
5)
«
£
H
-p
Hi
Jt
1
a
E
«S
|
C^"
k
41
f
z
EH
2
H
§
V-
O
g
g
b
c
+:
S
!
i
T)
4>
g
CC
i
a
Z
•p
a
£
-P CO
rH «
rH -P
•H 4>
* S
t* fX
J> 4)
4) fn « r< 0
H 4) a) 4) ^ 03
O > 4> C >;4) km
•H rH 4) -H 4) 4) 2
.* OS T3 » « rl I* S
O -04) O 4) -H
!«! 4) -H to » CO -P
« rH J5 rH 01 M
'O p> T3 *H >} «H
r* -H (H 'H -H 4) 'H ^
EH S 11 0 S I-; 00
a) i i i i ill t i
*-*. *t co M -a rf < o rfrf
>> si rH e! 2 ssss^o 22
^ & P
^
^ E ^ -3 S ^S8 gS"
« » » <^
^v
" — '
g I ^ | a aj § ^s
} | R | g gg S gg
^
j)^-s
| | S | g 2*3 § §S
^fe OJ
* *
^ >i O .4J Q OOg OO
13 J3 rH {7 \O f^ rH ^ O O
S O OOOrHOO
H
•S 1 T1 1* 1 "V "f 1 'T' 1*
03 . . (H*
3 s B «' « °^ a s°
rH CO Ct( Of O O'^v COO
O CO CO CO O OSW COO
2 2 2 2 2 g^22
ITN
OJ
rH
4) •
•p O O
O -H O
'-* -P r.
=» 0 O
CO >• CO rH '^^ rH 01 W
* -H 0> • W W 4) ••— ^
W ^ Q y — , +3 |0 ^-> ^^* • .H •
• o> 4>- ,>>• 0 mo
fto -a a oca -pa > •*>
1B O S ^ •»• 3 f^ QJ ^ (ti
c5 cd C hr< 3 ^3
V^^7 M47 ClO-p GOG) 4)4) cfcO 4) > S> -P 3-P
«-— >^- M— S^ 3^ CO << W
4)
O
S
0
•H
-P
02
•H
O
M
H
/
^
0
1
|
1
1
•g
|*^
•a!
fj
2
• a)
co >
Riverheads H.
(August Co.,
rl
O
g
O
•H
•P
CO
•H
O
«J
H
1
fl
0
1
1
X
1
c
s
rH
(0
2
i
P<
cV
CO
(0
Staunton Plaz
ping Center
(Staunton, Va
t
5
•H
CD
De Jarnette S
^
4)
4)
t,
O
•H
H
'
^
>
1A
CO
to
O
0
r^
0
O
4
s
co
2
*
(Staunton, Va
rH
S
o
•rl
•P
a
o
1
c
Woodrow Wilso
^
Q)
*
o
S
«f
•H
-------
-------
6
f>
a
fn
v
t>
&
I
SP
W
s .
CO -P
p, pj
i
I
t>
I
V tl
> >
a a
•o -o
« T)
°v
V
R
S
I
^tS
0) O
O -P
•p -P
II
ir\
to
a
CM
CJ
3
o
8
CO
s
-------
-------
T)
C
^ 8
1 '"f-
> \
OS
M
•H 6
.5 i
O -r'
0) CO
SH
€
la
d
M H
1 " *»
K « rH
1 3 i«
£ 5 eg o
T 1 .
> d ,* i" Q
n P3 O *t i tf
rH p (». M
"° W
£ | |
i ; is
*3 M
S £
S ^ 8
W £ ,-J
g g
§ CO
f-
!
S
-p
0
a
T3
• a
O rl
OH S
CO
41
t
^
\
•^
•^
*fc
1
5
>>
"'fc
x_x
|
173
ttl
J.
H
1)
73
M
CO
CO
e
rH
O
S
•H
xi
g
CO
i
S
to
1
|
q
&
3
^
13
rH
1
1
§
0
^
s-^.
15
0
Convict Roa
(Augusta Co
?
•H
Ctt
j3
g
W
I
o^
TV
W
tr\
£
g
o
O
rH
1
1
I
•Jj
1
•a
s
rH
1
•a!
9
CO
•a
S3
•
r?
e
Stuarts Dra
i> v
•H *rH
A J5
g g =
CO CO
i I i
§O «i
IA 2!
c^
O O 4!
CM W
5^ £31
w 8 aS
•,
H
I gs«
w §8
. . °i
O i-H »/\
I-H rH
Y~J" rH
1 1
O O 3)
c e •
1 II
51 ^
o'
o ra
rC 3
8Q
s~* S ^~\
•a • i) •
S3 ¥ Z «f
g > iS >
J§ p" -P • o"
CO H 13 t) f*
« JO t2 M ,0
H * b
O -^ W o»C.
Jt>
S
g
•"H ll ft
* H i.
rl ^ h rl CO rl
4) O 4) O FH €>
•H P*H *H *H ^ *H
_(- j;. _£. jj OT J3
+J +J +J +> >,+J
g 8 g g '- S3
CO CO CO CO O CO
III II II
£v C^ \Q rH 3) < rf
« ^H 222
rH
1
IT\ tfN O rH
o g > 1 . 52-
h co - co WO
O CO CO 4) £1
,Q T3 »> T3 O rH 10
8 g 5 3S SS
R § € ££ S&
« M r. « O *
* co o w^ O^--
-------
g
1
g
&<*
EH
O <
1-1 *
1
0) K
H EH
EH g
l-H
Q
%
g
S
^
f-
^
bo
C
•H S
> ct
"5 S
O -P
rl
4)
|
•p
IB
w
fi p
•rl Si
(3 EH'
•H (B Q
(S |C
rt S
d a> *V-
0 tf O
*o
1
1 £g
(M ^H CC
r. M
O
S
S £g
| ***
CO
-S g
* El
C-l
H^
•P
B
1^
PH a
i
I
-^
CO
•a
1
2=
1
^N.
^^
•t^r
t
*V^
~-ffc
1
5s
"•a
S
0)
T3
e
CO
CO
o
4)
s*?
K 40
sl
UJ V
a co
4) -H
CO T)
'rT
II 1
^ « g| g g g
fe uJ 5 c ft a a
CO 'iH CO CO CO
&4 fl ft, fry [Zy
r.' H' • J
H EH CO — CO CO CO
1 1 1 II 1
•a -a ° ^ w s
S S *°, »
| | § ^ S |
CM
^ ^4 VO O O J3
C rt VO C'N C^N C
to to to
» ^ Q o o *i
!§ 1 S S ^ S
•I
C'A
| | 8 3 8 |
o"
,M -M Q o o -y
H c o y^* M2 c
J3 f? £*- C\J O &
t> 0 0
rH rH CM rH rH rH
1 1 1 II 1
rH
O
. -H • • •
S rt oji g c c
CO CO '•H co CO co
ir\ to
rH H
CO
^
to ^^
&° • «' 0
•H co !> C
r< M 0)
Pi • - »— • > CO
co a • - • _
4) 0 0 o' r^ (8 ^" a '^
+^> T3 0) - 8 • -H
4) D+JoMfi -T3 OR
fi >
^
Stanley
rH
CO
-p
CO
4)
• f* **4 rM M
C O 4) 4) 4) C3
4) 4) Q) Q) ft)
W rH 0 00 • 'CO
'H C C
E*< CO rH r-HrH ,T3 ,Cfc
,« iH -H -rt CO CO
* f .0 f>
CO 03 ra Q3 fc" r ' - w
1 SB .:
M • CO C0 ttf * • H
H W ffi Wffi CO CO = H
1 1 1 11 t 113
IS rH 5 C § ^ 0 Zj £
J " « 1 s - §2|
,X O O At O >f\ O < .M
c c*\ -4- c3 c*\ C- c^ as c
& to &
| 8 8 J 8 FJ j£3|
H •«
rH ~ O
^ O O ^Q c^ 2^^
B o >r\ co co o as 13
[3 lf\ CO to VO "** to
C\? r^
rH
"tl 8 ° "3 ° ° 5° 'S
to rH Q toOJ O VOl>to
O O O O CO O
rH OJ rH CVJrH rH C^lrHCVl
1 1 ( 1 II 1 III
rH
•H . - S rH •
c c pa 5 Q s ?° 8 S
co a) i cda co rToco
CO CO M coco co OOco
**»»$$*
• o •
o a — ~ PI---
O M " R "
^> r !* ° !*
S->CP-VrX^O^ fl) K*
>> >* <§& o>> V gtS ."g
-------
1
o
-p
s
o
0
rH
3 S I
0) fa
£
> i
•H a)
O fn
O • "
s
H C
^ -e .««
CO
•p
CO
R
•H
^
•a
to
5
o
fl K
(U 0)
O -p
^§
tt) 6
«£
S
o
p.
£
O
CM ,
0
-
o o
O OJ
O H
1 I
Q <
O
-H
FH
O
CT-
i-H
CO
I
-------
-------
g
i
5
M
S
ftt 9
i 1
d w
M A
•H
o :S
S
M
o
M
JB
f.
ct
»
•5! I
o +
«
0
1
IE
s
2
H
H
£ c
^
o
i§
.
do
c
g
£
+
g
+3
01
i
• 4
(2 «
W
i
1
X,
|
i
\
^fc
s-+*
^*r
1
•TO
•o
*
H
T3
C
H
CO
CO
m
1
«
I
CO
1
s
g
^J
g
2
8
o
rH
•7
X
i
&
2
,
<§
Northern Va. Powe
(Cedarville, Va.)
>> fP
rl -H
& *o
rl tl O tO
V V -n tx>
> > M +> g
•rl -H V fl -H
& W *» 50 do ri f-i
fs H •>-( PL, 0)
o {J*5 fcq w > ~
tiCC 4JR rH£C bo Ql
« « 3 co q
P>O< >>-p «+> k C
€74>CM) -r>fH Ml-* O OJ^
•PH^O 'H> P*> rH XI
CO CO O OH COM N CO
III II II 1 II
M f~ if\ S~* O >A rfrf
^O c^ SZ* IA MJ 35 z
^CXJrH < C^ ,M Q ^<
rttorH »3c^ (3 o 25!
JD ~^ ^o c? CM
fXOO OO OO O QQ
R tf\ >r\ \£ co ^4* to O O O
{3 O C\J O C*^ O f*N O O O
OO OO OO rH °Pi
o
III II II 1 II
•<.cjj<; o< OK « MM
rH • •
O rl rl
« • « . •O rH -H 0) 0>
g g c 2 c 09 CQ c c
1 a cS £ c§ ScS M ss
zj;^J-Sc\j2 z §
CO \O f^
*, A
H C*\
O
s~** O
CO *tf * *J f
W -. ^ • "~» O cd * *
>i •» • • «» * O • J0> Pit>
J>j 4^ i>v • o &• O Id H M
•p 5 4? ^ g ^ - ^ * • S •
•rl O -H rH-C+J &* O *
o o - « B -H • «
0} *) -rH D rJ * U* ^ rH *•
CO- tOrH-drHE-l^ S^S
t^S?«^8g8 0 *> CO +»
PlJ3i>j hrHOO) -(JrH rH
(U p,L, . 1* (H mrj rHrH -rH
4) += U G d, 4) 01 3 _5 '-'^CO.tf
•r'CO •r' V *OQ f,
• H
«
I
CO
1
VO
S
o
o
IA
0
>A
O
8
o
rH
1
**
tt
CO
CM
»A
,
!>
«=
£
to
!
i
«
i
CO
1
^1-
to
o
S
0
0
8
o
^J"
w
•
3
0
•
*
B & 0 Railroad
(Harper's Ferry,
-------
o
C\J
I
I
s
I
>
^s
s
*"" s
£
rl
5
S
1
•X
0)
I>
JH
rl
°
•P
8
3
S
|
0
8
•p
d
If
Si
"Sir
O -P
r<
4)
.c
S
4J
8s
51? S
1—4 £H
w
s
E-I
Is
V ^~
3 0
.
P
*Hi C
£
&
•p
1
•p
a
1
ci ?
£ g
M-l Vr
*>
£
x-x
1
\
*
>.
5
\
Its
~
"S
$
^
s~*.
\&
„
8
*
1
-x
&
-1?
ft>
c
en
m
1
O
O
C
•H
.p
o
o
-p
5
1
s
s
>n
w
IT*
^
§
o
8
o
1
•
1
5
Xf
a
oT
rH
r-l
3
•p
5
1
SI
ir\
vo
ir\
<»\
tf\
H
r-l
i-l
0
q
o
^
•i
1
1A
i-H
H"
•
Z§
§
tJ
0
•p
S
1
*^o
CVI
o
to
^.
"*
o
s
0
(M
O
•o
1
g
s
M1
£~
H CO
0) >
te »s
H 0
H rH
O rH
0.£
4) rH
0
a
+>
8
+i
i
^0
o
H
O
ts
s
1
0
rH
1
1
8
c^
•
a
>
<\
«J
5
K 4) 4)
° 1 6
§ >1 »
£ 5 S
1 1 1
C- 0 r-t
>^ OJ
H
CO O OJ
(J\ Qs
iT\ £> lT\
C*\ VD 00
•^ VQ *fN
CJ ^ ^
t- o o
^O *^r f\
VO r~i
•s
88°
O O O
1* 11* ^
• • •
W CO W
S 8 8
U^ O \O
r^\ O
fH
«
* *.
s * a
•\ hn *^
x y g
o 3 3
4) t>
O O
I I
O O
o
fi
s
J
4)
rH
•P
•p
H
Rf
4} 4)
•P 4)
R, A
w
•s
r-l
o
&
to
8
O r-l 1A
4)
O
&
I III I
O f\ r^i
O O IA
VO TV IA
C^ W tO
PH
O O
O^ C^
o
0
I1
o
I
£
8
r-J
O
rH
1
I
3
O 0
« s
0* 0
5 2
w w
o o^
8
rH
O
rH
4
1
8
§
d
o
I
g
•H +* g I-H in
S rH §S S
S ^j) ?
?% 4) ?»,Q « . , = _ . , „
-p « -PS -r»ji s-e -ys
4^ B *PP +?>< OH Rfl}
S J $5 So sSS 5^
fr *-*• o fr a »
c ,o w c 6 -cT !fl -H *
•H ft - tgO -P rH O>> h
S3-P CO 4) -P-P A f,
5 rH 41 -H -rl t, CO ffl
-------
w 4
1 fc
1
la
1
«> *
rl
+i
B
* S
rH E-
1 **
S «K Q
3 _ |g
H B « 0
co S
rl
1 C
. J t> H->
> 3 S Cr,§
4J OcJ *t-t OC
X> cn O
Of g Of
So *
R -P
Q G C
2? fl«
S g
M r-
§
rl
1
g
S
a.
•c
OH 4)
CO
I
S
^
•5
S
1
T3
\
^
1
25-
T3
I
X
4)
M
CO
CO
3
o
r!
O
ro
1
V
•z. S
1 1
rH (^
rH CM
CM i-l
ITN IA
to r>
00 >A
IA cy
CM
§ S
O CM
O O
rH rH
1 1
< <
i i
CO CO
§I-H
H
IK
r-l
H
5
•H
P<
W
+» •
w S
g - 3
rH 4)
rH rH tlO
5<-\ r)
•H 3
> f>
li ai ta
O 'H +J
•P f -H
o en s
•H CO S
8
o
EH
rl
E-i
1
in
JX.
co
CM
CM
NT
rH
O
i-l
**
1
g
» " &
t) 4J jcf
C +2 rl
Ai iJ CO
1 1 1
51 °^ *— '
rH
£ 5 °
OJ
< -4 O
z to o
rH
g s °
^ ° c
\b p
c\r
O 0 0
rH rH rH
1 1 1
CEi a) -p
t) p -p o CQ
bO O CO rH g
^ ^ (3 E -rj
•H S -H g
rl « E -P -P
PC -p Cm
B at
Willow Fa
(Westmins
g
CO
s
CO
§
•rH
•P
to
bo
•H
tn
rl
rH
g
P.
CO
1
O
0
8
o
•a
o
rH
"°/
1
^
^
O
[*« 1)
Shriver B
(Westinins
G
§
M
S
ckerson Run
•«H
Q
1
CO
rH
O
•-O
rH
VQ
VO
rH
O
O
0
rH
1
"*
S3
OJ
CO
to
to
*.
ri
O
to
•a
c
•H
I
8
O
bo
3
1)
a>
o
S.
s
1
c
1
X
ll
o
rH
O
O
CM
1
O
£
g
o*
o
•o •a
I"
Thurmont
(Thurmont
x
X
»H
O
1
+>
1
"*
'
C
1
c
c
c
o
i-H
o
o
CM
1
o
1
g
5?*-^
rH •
J. Austin
(Thurmont
c
O
•rl
+3
«
00
vS
fc
rH
>>
a)
rl
P,
CO
1
O
01
o
o
l-l
0
•p
o
8
o
OJ
0
1
*»
1) §
N K
V
S -H
-------
^^ ^
-P
g
O
"^7
3
^-^-
g
S
>>
o
1
i
1
a
|
Receiving
Stream
c
X
-p
4) !Z
3 S
S
S
^
1§
V > ^
T3
2^
^- o
^^
tin
r-
^^
^-^
^
t~~^ in
^
X
O
«• 8
H O
X
4) rH
•O 1
10
rH §
0 CO
0
^O
Woodsboro, Md.
§
•H
ti
bo
•H
^
M
1
CO
i
o
o
8
rH
o
1
§
o
1
o
I
s
o"^
Castle Cheese
(Six Bridge, M
4)
S
m
0
•z.
'3'
•H
S
Glade Creek
Davis Br.
(Patapeco B
i i
\o to
rH
<> TV
C\J
o cy^
m fM
m O
rH rH
O O
Sr*%
0
-d d
rH rH
1 1
<• <
• •
CO CO
CM O
c~ vo
rH C^
r-T
i
Walkers ville, :
New Market, Md
g
Monocacy Ri
i
f\J
0
»
o
5
§
o
rH
1
9
CO
8
in
^
Camp Detrick
(Frederick, Md
FH
S
Monocacy Ri
i
o
~^"
CO
ir\
O
•«
H
m
in
0
^8
oT
§
H
CM
O
to
to
"*
rH
1
CO
§
°
Frederick, Md.
>
Monocacy Ri
i
rH
C\!
m
to
CM
C-
H
i
o"
rH
1
o!
C
B
CO
a
s-*.
Pine Cliff
(Frederick, Md
^
-P
V
•z.
V
Carroll Cre
i
rH
in
CM
o
IA
in
8
0
in
i
M
£
I
3
~
Eveready Co.
(Frederick, Md
CQ
Corning Fibre :
a>
Carroll Cre
i
H
rH
0
rH
H
1
O
O
i-H
1
CQ
i
•H
a
~
(Frederick, Md
t>
DO Fi
> 0)
^ 3 S
» £ £ I
o R C B
a to o i>
8 ° 5 «
.§ r," 0 fl°
S H (H H
fill
rH
2 55
-* «g g CM
t: a S <8
C5
^
CM § S
| s a E?
§ § 3 §
O rH O O
-J- CM CM rH
till
O M rH •Of
r.' r.'
3 a § g
& s a 1
a a a *
R
!": «,": ""?
tfS -91 18 s-
h . ^ . ^3 , SB
E) » a) A* f> >t s
•rH O > « r< 0 (5
0 *H O "rt O -H Bj -
(5r4 FHh ft, fH « g
4> t5 t) 0 5
I-H -a T) al T) -f< a)
$| r,'g Sfi 5*
•Ofc, .&< rHIx, t) S3
^— a—
-------
-------
I
>
.g
1
1
0
rl
£3
to
1
1
pj
i
5
s
1-
I
s
C
tt>
•H £
> ft
•H 4)
t) rl
O P
o^60
r4
c
fi
£
§ g
CM
w
£
E-i
i-H
i f
°
gg
w
.
£g
R«
g
Sl
p
g
K
*1
£8
CO
a
2:
^
«
^
^^
1
=tfc
' — '
t^
•S
^tj-j
5
1
^
1
$=
•a
41
T3
J— 1
CQ
rH
O
^
O -X
O r^ t)
J" 0
O o
•H
4) P<
,£> CO O
•H (5 C
EH O :*
1 1 I
H ~t 34
C\J rH £
[> m i*4
<^ CU fi
00 00 P
S Sg
O *i> -C
Nt" (H &
S 33
rH rH &
0 0
rH rH H
1 1 1
5 fi* S
CO CO CO
8O
g
"X *
rH H
CO a
P P
Purcellville, Va
Middleburg - Wes
- Eas
•o
0 0
•a
c
* «
R o
*> P
fap O CH M
GO PC
•H ho 3 -H
4) ql 4> p
CQ ^ z o
>! ri
- fl C CQ
4) o 3
ri C ^ ^q £g ra
O^i X OS M 4) 4) rH
i) v't, 4) 4) 4)» rH
f> 41 O.-D 4) ri !WO O
fe rl r( ^ O O •,-! fc,
O O O — 1 O 1-1
H 'H 80 CO 4>
*d4) 4JCO 4) O O>^ rH
Oca 9-t~J ^ ^ 4)rH P
§0 8* 0 S « 'o -"H
H o cS co co ^ _,
II ' 1 1 1 I 1
§| H| rt El | » El
?J "| ^ El ! £ g
S^ £0 "3 «c g "rtto g
E3 tt? C3
O^ CJ^ rH < ^O <
.-g g 3 | ^ 2
v|| S| "* g | § g
§1 §1 § 8 i 1 §
o o o o o o o
rHCvJ rHCvJ H >A -4-rH CM
II II 1 1 II 1
rH •
O rl rl
• -rl • • • 4) -Q • 4)
Co' COCO CO VH Ow "rl
con cow co S feco S
°g gg g g g ° g
« "1
CM rH
rH •
-^ ^ >> o jd ""^ ^^ p
• rl O > O • >> • O
OP o g ri s
tS g « ^ _ a -ri g «J--^
* a 8 "^ ri - * •• »>a
coxio r^S^KaB • o
£>(dH 44p °X &?? P^ 4) rHCOJfCO C3rH
MfiO SB PC 4)K S In ~ rH
CO OPiVl'H fl4J 4) R >S'H
PPW O OTJ O« >>JM O *>>
& 4) rH 4) rH fiC OP UP -0 S J2
COrHrH t04) Op 3-rl H -H C OO
4) N « O > MO -H CO T3 CO K rH _6
4>0t^4 VJU Ot-H 4>C5 .00 4> Ji PC
J w >— c5 Q fr*-—- *^-^ s- — K s- —
S
g
•a
rH
•H
O
«' & *.
C 4) h
10 3 4) J3 *
rH P IM O >
rH rm ° S £
O O CO 0
^ 1 Is ^
P P • O P
•HO rl rl °
^-1 G< £"l flQ A^
1 \ III
g g g g g ^
1
J
El g g g g N,
^
S El El g g
s s a i «,:,,
'-
g g g S El
O O rj O Q
i-H CVJ , O «~v
r- CVJ 1> OJ rH
II III
W M W M W
i5 rl ^ r,' -
O 4) C3 4) i-H
1 fi 1 R g
g g g g g ^
)V
\
P O CO
IS 4) c
6 H >-— ^ 0)
H ^^ s * °
rl'-- 4> rl ^ C 2 C
p • P ,o a o
*s * P .s Ss i
8-. <0 hot) Cdx
0} «rl pOrH COA CJ
P'aP JJI-HWO-H
M CO rl 2 rl -H Q
fft) ri ^°> 4>>j
•rj,fl UP Q P ^ Cl t- O
flp 4)13 OO P4) o
S4> r-lB oKjdQ g^a Pi
CQ i>H PCQ QO <]J
SBC- fiE WE-lv- C5-^ d,
-------
-------
s
i
i
s
(H
S i
> d
^-J
H EH
&
EH Z5
a
a
3
3
§
!
&
BP
•H a
> a
•H
w w
o o
(8 OH
«0 1 1 II
| gg Ss
3
0? §! S § S
•a ZM
>Si>^
=tfc
• — --
g gg Sg
¥ ^g °§
"O C^N
^
,-,
*O tA
^ CM"
^ o o go
|»a r°\ o »-H o
bn • • • •
ff 0 0 H c^
8 HCV4 WrH
Q * • *
^ §
<\T
"**
-P
U) f
•H CO *^^
1 - ^
S g. ^
•P -H -P C
ra PCS
1 i||
O • 4) «
o £££
§ ;
B >r* *"*
t) 4) V
4)4) t)t)O O 00 P^ S ffi 3
4> 4) t)f)£~C4> 05
^ f-i ^i^-i9f (0 £J <0 • ^o^Ow
ZQ S Z Z 3z22§Q
CO • VO
•P rH
cS w
rj, ^ . 5 rH B
M • O CO t> €)
B r4 £> O > O
O •*••* 4) a) • ^^* •*'^ at *~^ ^**
,M •> >J1 O -PV(H*H* ••
to S «" W « 2 «o Oo +>o
|^ -8 § <§ «T ^ ^S 5o *o £e
« »rt • 40 ** M S V 33 H *" ^P "^ *
sagw..^ c5^ g* £5 fa "Sc SB 3
•rT- X'rH TS^i-H" CJ-j^rH QO «C5 NO
&<>l - +>O-H Q-O al^ .O M O'H fl-P CO-P SP 6
ri X 5 c3 > 3 C P tf S « > «) ap bp ^ M O
rH-rl rl 8 43 CO* «0 O ««0 «B off«RP
•(X-rlCOrHO rHZ« •« R+J -H Jl'ri -rl M
C h 5 €)§ pS, P S5P -HP O.q SJ5 QA R
• •H rl •>• Orl "rt -H P« p« OB i>O -rl
ii i 31! Ji 2« ri jl 11 i* 11 s
-------
-------
1
c
1
rl
«
>
<(_f
«
O
1
CM
O
f
1
(4
ft
£•
•},
S
«
M
!§
• H t)
1) rl
O P
^
V
J3
•P
ffluen
1W
w
S
E-i
H
> 3
Jra
«g
HP
JH Q
w
•p
c °
M
§
S
V
•p
g
t>
-p
^ 3
•p -P -p
8$ &
O O 0
-p -p p
o o o
i i i
o
-4-
33 8
^
^J
1^ Ss L^"
Is -a i>
< < 0
SS 0
CM
C*-
** §
in
r^
s§ §
Q O C--'
CM
1 1
35 ^ . O
J • °
CO =M
«-rl °
(j T3 -t-3
cri a o
3 -n
rH « (H
0) «| ^>
> H CO
Ctf < -H
•Z, •— Q
&
|
i
o
1
i
^
si
«r^
S
g
g
o
o
15
H
rH
1
£Ti
•
rH
g
«
co
gi^
-p
PEPCO Gene:
(Alexandrii
1
I
i
^
g
<^<
r3
g
g
8
'•O
o
^v
M
t
^J
t)
g
^
o
o
rH
g
K*
^
Is
rfashington
(Hillside,
S
M
o
•H
t-1
O
CO
pa
i
^
g
5l
s
g
2
§
rH
CVJ
M
»
«J^
s
a
g
cS
x — s
g !>'
g ,
c5 TJ
•O Vj
CO -rl
rl
• ft
•>S
£5 R
g §
rl rl
4) dj
O O
1 1
o o
l,O CO
-*t rH
Nf OJ
8 S
O cT1
^ c*\
\o o
8 8
^t o
O OJ
rH
8 8
VO H
to" u-T
r^ OJ
§o
o
f-J rH
f\J rH
rH rH
fi
> **™^ d ••*^» HH
03 • H •
O 1^ Xi w
tig rH rH
W 73 CO 'H *
PH -P PU S P!
O to o CO w O
OJ PL, £H P< O C FJ
H^ S -p £; Fn (0 -H
'H CD CO S TJ rH rH
rH
c
5
O O
CD (0
CQ CQ
co to
g S
PH ft
1 1
o ^
^ s
rH "g
»
(T1 IT\
to to
r-> X
rH C
&
S 3
H &
t c
0 S3
o
o
rH rH
1 1
p q
T3 § H
^ cSS
S
Piscataway
rl
1=
<
O
CO
(H
1
>>
CO
-p
cd
o
CO
•H
o.
8
O
O
^
O^
o
lT\
8
I>
VD
§
«^
i
•a!
a
CO
CO
s
*^x
o
-------
-------
*
-p
§
o
H
*
1
S
Is
SI
0 +
6
£
s
rfluant
TKN
~l
rH
II
w"
+»•
H Q
SH C
£«
ft
C
j
K
ll
CO
I
1
*
1
1
8
1
v^"
*>>
4
2*
'•e'
^
1
a
S
o
* Abandoned 1967
*
cataway Ci
a
K
,
3
OJ
UN
0
O
r-
rH
8
r-J
O
"
1
§
rH*
S
+>
1
Washing
I
X
!
M
S •
I 1
1 1
0 0
if\ *n
O ^?
60
^
g £
o o
H
tfN O
OJ ^O
rH OD
tfC oT
0 O
to TO
OJ rH
T1 1*
CO CO
8 §
to vo
3
+> S>
/9
i -M i
5*1 3
at ^
ft +* f< V
X s
? 5
* §
» +>
1 i
1 1
§ 85
OJ
S 8
("•"N rH
o to
o* to
0 O
Q O
O rH
cvT
O 0
fN rH
**J" f*A
rH O
1 1
9 9
10 CO
8 8
-* r^
5 6
8 H
1 1
Belvoir
Balvoir
C «
X
|
o
3
,
8
OJ
fN
S
g
O
OJ*
|
rH
^
1
§
H
!
•rl
O
1
41
£
g
I!
O A4
O -H
O ^
1 1
sS ^
S ro
g -
^
S c^
S 0
ir\ CJ
|
I «
« -rl
3 1
a
M & &
III
(S CL, (2
1 1 1
- 8 3
OJ O^ WN
>r OJ
o o c~
"TV •*
10 § S
t> o o
t*\ rH
° 8 8
O O O
rH rH r^
t -4 -i>
W CO CO
O Q 0
ft ? 8
CM H
1
5 a
A 2 a
SbO
- S -
Tj • ffi ft)
^3 o *
s - i s
? 8 O -H
H • -S 'S
It; s s
-------
-------
g
o
I
^
1
P
I—I
> E3
*> H
P 8
tf 5
H g
Q
5
g
I-H
O
M
1
«]
«
SP
'> 6
•H C
4) U3
«
|
P
W
2
H
rH
•S 8 § i" i
•* A4 «J t->
t) 0* W S ^
+= «j -H y
JW rH (fl
•H -H «J P)
3 > 0 C=
.a" to n
ft S V -rt ft
| ffl » jt< S
m to cd CM a
01
p.
c3
§
g
ffl
K G
S A
W rt
fn 2
CQ CQ
1 i
--t ^
- 1
m >j
" 1
O M
£>
o ^
8 1
o
9 9
w to
£ S
g
•H
^- +s,-~.
• Jf J
> >
5 h •-< fc
S t) rH O
•rl -H -H
«l SI
S£ -52!
J^. !>^-
G C G
5 a 5
•O T3 T3
S w S
CQ CQ CO
1 1 1
iX rM A1
!§ C§ S
!§ » 5
1 1 1
1 I 1
M M %
C=> D t>
1 1 1
CVJ W rH
§ g §
CO W to
s s s
*"7
1 1 *
+i^~, "^^-^ *
+J . +5 . o
to a to «) o
> > r-l
S •> o *» On
I*! O HO CO *~H
») -H
rH fc CO rl O5=
H t) V M
•H -H >!••-(. ^ «J
K 3 «) 3 -HO
P? «i 55
5fl 5« Ifi
> ^^ co>-^ n,~^
fi G G
& S S
J5 -G T3
O O H
"Z. -Z, CQ
1 1 1
1 1 -
3 C ^
l§ l§
Aj ^ in
H S *
A! Aj >n
!§ 1
•g *J J^
O S>
1 1 §
O
rH rH rH
<• Ai ffl* m'
W! : 1 r :
HcS hcS ,3
JO 10
g rH B *>„,•§
2 rH El rH m -rH
•H -H W t> 'H
1 » JO S rH 3c
XI t) 1-1 «) £ -H «J
O O DO -r) > O
O G C R > a C
Sti -gti 5-S^
^£ 35 ^155
_
cS
T3
2
CQ
1
o
rH
rH
J5
i-H
O
5
o
rH
9
to
8
•3
1
$
Linton Hi
(Briston,
g
8
•a
2
CQ
I
|
1
|
|
c
0
1
9
to
s
-7
o'
o
c §
O CO
P« 'rl
•H rH
-------
-------
•p
-7 §
•P ^-'
§
0 R
— ' -H
\£> aj
H 85
1 A!
t)
==• B
V 0
•° §
H 1
0
cS
1
H
•H O
4) ^i
O -P
«W
«
|
1— 1 f-l
£
EH
rH
J^ff
^_
°
li
W
+3
P
g
Ed
«^
€
1
t
-P
0}
t:
o m
PL, D
CO
4)
E
a
fr
§
&
§
•\
s
^^
1
s
I
IT3
fjn
J?
X
£
T3
Hi
to
rH
O
j
«l
V
o
C R
ci; & a
SCO O
O O
rH rH 0
CO CQ O
1 1 1
'R 'R 'R
P P P
A! Ai A!
£ £ :§
e <8 "R
P P
M J^ M
1 g i
•3 -S •S
P !§ 5
° •* -s
» £ g
o
OJ rH rH
1 1- 1
R R* R*
cd cd CO
CO tO CO
g 3 £
tO rH
•P O
0 O
2 -G
rrj o ^ '-^
O tO-
ri O O
PH ,G O O
tu>
>>^^ -HE H
ffl • £H? w CO
rH CO -H -H
O > C rH rH
fO rH rH
tlO CO 'H 5= -5
•H CO » V O t>
rH CO -HO -P O
P CO g £ R H
13 R K -H h -H
O CO 0) ft O M
OS ti a-, fii^
T.^- i-a — - H ^
CO
n
V
z
C C
eg £
rH rH
rH H
* *
1 1
rH E>-
CM g
H
to to
CM g
H
IS \D
H ^O
0 Q
rH O
o ->i"
O 0
rH rH
I 1
cd cd
00 co
So
Q
O^ \O
^
,__J
8
J5
o
CO
cy)
•M
• to
Qfl> r-
U rH OJ
cc: ^ =ifc ^fc
to to
cd co cd cd
to to 01 01
CO CO CO tO
CO R CO CO
a M fi R
J! ^ J
R
5
rH
rH
£
1
w
o
in
rH
to
o
•H
Q -
to
in of
Manassai
(Manassi
I
rH
rH
CQ
1
R
p
1
1
i
s
1
rH
1
•aj
cd
CO
•a
p
t>
u •
t) O
rH O
CQ
•rH
M %•
K
t-, 'rt
v h
K
£
rH
rH
"
1
•a
p
1
J
1
R
1
rH
1
**
§
CO
•R
P
m
-p
CD
-P
17
^i O
§0
•H
P t-j
CO H
•H
CO ^
Barrett
(Prince
c
3 R R CS
X» K 'o
5t^ r*i O
rj V^T i^] p^
3 c5 o o
K CU O -H tl
rH ^ Pq rH rH
0 T3 ft t>B CO -P
rH •H fi, -H rH -H
0 S p CQ BH hj
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M **M*- -a
^ ^ p ^ "* p
>1 NT Aj » OJ Aj
q oj H H to t3
p p p p
AJ O UA IT* rH AJ
g o tn to to g
1 *!!§ 1
s °° ^^ ^ §
1 siis 1
CD O
OJ rH rH H rH H
1 1 1 1 1 1
R' R' C fi S3 R
(C Of tf At •} CO
CO 00 CO C.O 00 CO
X Q < ^ O rX
fi O ^ K O c
to O O t3
rH C^v
x— v
.-— s C "
• * O aj
O (0 -H >
o > o>
F; *5 b^
3 >l -H -p
•H -P -O Cl
rH C ,Q ?
rH 3 3 O
* -H O ^> CO O
co 5s co 0 ,0 t^
•t) M OOCJ 'OoJ
Ed O tf t) Q *H -H «M
C <«rHrlC2rH «)rH
bi -H ^H TJ C) +J np -H
!>,£< 'HT3P(bOClJ COOJ
OjOn rt^ft'HrH Cfe
W
o
c§
€)
rH
•P
•H
1
r^
-
to
ir\
r-N
O
°
0
rH
1
C
CO
w
0
CXI
,«
o ~
r^ >>
§ 0
o
Convict
(Fairfa.
-------
^7
•P
§
o
VO
H
>
5
bp
.5
g
•a
K
CO
o
p.
oH
,_,
rH
8
i-H
CJ
«
00
!C
rH
0
8
o
i-H
1
**
1
8
•,
^
Q
tn"~^
W
w •
id co
to
CO
S^
*!
Ct)
Greater
(Lock L
g
t2
H
rH
CQ
1
O
i-H
00
i-l
C"\
cu
°
o
^
1
"*
H
of
CO
«J
^
cJ
"^
"o >^
4: g
o ?i
CO 0
o
rl «
Yorkshi
(flairfa
&
rH
S
E-i
,i^
V
4)
rl
O
t)
•H
0,
1
|
1
^
^
•a
&
1
g
s
rH
1
^
C
«
CO
g
*•"•*
OJ
C
o C
4J
& X
Robert
( Pairf a
t>
S
0
9
O rH rH
O -H -rt
0 O O
1 1 I
NT H CO
rH lA
UA OJ O
OJ O
rH
O IA LA
tO CO IA
c^ OJ Cr
c^ O
CA
LN t> CA
VO rH tt?
80 o
rH rH
rH O -*$•
O O O
H H rH
1 1 1
fi fi g
(0 flj CD
CO CO CO
8 3 £
>J3
^
t)
IP
•rt
K .
T? t) {>> +*
O -P -P to
O *H *rH H
> 1 t) OJ S rH
J* > *> §
P 3 55 *- D^S 4)
58* gO g
0 O -P H +> O
O O HO H *
O O O t.-n] O O
«
F-4 CO
U (P
O £
o oJ
9 O
H t)
^ O
r§ O
CVJ
rH 2
cv
ir\
-------
-------
V
f-l
o
OA
1
^s
1
d "2
s at
I
1
fl
s
I
I
I
: -O
*
•a
M
OQ
S
d
•H +J
fc S
*> K"1
co *
»
fi 4)
r^ >X « A4 4> <^
hh ? ? S y h /! $
f-i H 4) 4) O 4) H O 4)
§ § 4> «> « 4> c5 O So 3 O» XO
+> 4? 4) 4) 4) 4} 4> -p O 4) 4>
SS £ K E .M g g +> g ^ 'H * £ S
OOOOOnHOO O O S *p
a a o o o H o p £ +> * a 3*> v -H
11 « ""O^a < *? * "5 S '''^ £ "-1
OO^343434)a-P-H +»O +» +»
+3-P cB rt rt f K t3 +> • *> +» • -i-1 -*-> •
^gsslllis^sl^sas
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1
f^-J- C"\ <«\ CVJ rH -^ ^ i-l M f- ^ •S'S i-« IS
^S S S S ^
lA ^D U\ U~\ N^- r— 1 ^4 ^d (—1 tM OJ *^ '^3'j ^ ^
& ^ p*^ i3 t^
^CO^^^^-A
00'- CO OOCO^OCO fl CO [9 * tOtfN tO <30
m-tf ir» irs^H^A ^ i— I >) t^- ^ "^^ *"* ^
o™\v£) OA ^-^^OQ ^ W ,X ;> ^ ^^ *o Q
C^V rH C^N C^ C O ^ W ^ SB C Pn O
gSooog8|H^oo^ogg
O r'X O O W O f*N SOOrH OJSrHO »-<
do o o* o" o o o o g o o o
^^ ^ ^"ajol*!! *3 ^-^ • CO bO
-prrj-i-fO ^Ctf-f3 •f'-P'S* Q
R2 J*SW§ > -H • g S-**1 "O 8r-l m
0 ft a _ ts " w~^^J a « A" -H -HO c
(H«fH-'-IXl-rl •- ' 4 P H • U f-)O *>
rH*O HbOr-l *£fiSS «H "^^a t-*-C "g
C M 73 •'COD ^HV tfCr4 O ^ ttltt*H
Ac *4)^4)oBCt«»-,c5 3 3 £ a £, W « c a 41
8 O04»5>0+»4)t,0 fl 3 tf -H-H-HB
rj-ri qy-tamajso'O'-i >> j>> in -H o -H >> >• S* P
• •0 '-SviTT3i-l« HH0tJp X< «-(Cl(7fi
15 3* !£ J £ ! 24 £ II £5 1 I 1 IS I
4)
^
o
o
•H
•g
1
I
^1
H
PN
<*N
M
Gl
O
n*
-------
-------
I
s
s
~ 1
rl
O -P
C
-P
I8
w
s
J_
9s
if *HI
w c
ga
fc«
-p
^ s
M
g
d
rl
«
•r'
-r>
0
i
Jjj
1)
E
>* rX
4) l>
0 0
0 0
o o
•H -rl
5 S
1 ' '
s
5 8 g
^ OJ
^
^ 5 g
§
""""'
5 s 2
3 NT
2*
^_^
£> Q SJ
>
g £
,3
o
* 3
EH G? CS
W CO rH co
£ O -HO
i 33 |5
-p
1
•P
n
S
O 4)
rl rl
O 0
O O
•H *H rX
I S r!
fS
q
O O EH
1 1 i
< O O
£c£ OJ CT^
rH
^00
g H -A
OJ rH
< co oj
;< O f\
rH rH
O 0 0
S'X> OJ
to vO
o o o
OJ H H
1 1 1
M tn <
II II |I
-P s
S Sf 'i
^ *-3 fft
Jx
J
S O 4) 4> O
^ 6 u 6 £
4) (0 0] C0 rQ
> *H *H «H vi
4J O1 O* O* rH
CQ ^J «aj ^j o
I ill)
to
o o o o
i-H rH OJ rH H rH
1 III 1 1
rl
5 g'J £ g a
CO CO S W CO tO
g rl 8 S *
•p
ra
•H
Q
^^ • rH
0} n O •
.X > CO « J3 <0
rl > 0 >
(ff " ' W
rH O • .C •
-P Cl rH O bO O
tl -p rH -H T3 O -HO
Sf V -H > rl K
e F •SSPT^.l3
rt rl OO^H^TJf;;
(g 0 SU Q (Oh -pV. ^j — t/5 ^_^. c^ >*^f
S
%
• H
V
C)
rl
O
«
•H
3
^
0
O
o
o
o
j.
rH
1
S
CO
§
y-^
«J
V
So-
,3°
§1
as
£5
C?S
h
3
-p
0
1
+=
£
'
OJ
c^
lf\
to
OJ
rH
O
H
^
1
1
X"N
a
rH -
S o
II
0
-------
-------
I
&
rH
i
i i
gl "? °
M- ,
ceiving
tream
tS"
rH
C
XI
s
+>
h
d^
S N
1 1 1
O >T\ rH
IA C^
g
(g
till
F W rl rl
CO O O C
J3 S -rl -rl «
G R
•H £1 -r-t -H C
N 0 Z « H
1 II
OJ OJ H X i-H
l§ *
^ X
O 4)
S S
0 0
& i?
G C
•H *H
0, (C
1 I
Si -
_.,,
1 I
& 0
1 f
•H 0
PH r-5
1 )
C^ rH
rH
0
>
CO
"t?
rl
CO
1
-o
rH
•H
«
CO
5
"
|
rH
i§
oo to to
OJ O
rH
S 1 o
M 3 +>
e | d§
8
^ i
M ft
O 0
M rH
§
rH
0
t^ o
^
rr? °
£ ^
Its
O
"5" cS
bfl •
s5 °
V r-l
T) 1
"S M ^
i «
1
.*
j? S
CO
a §
O CO
I
rH
1
LaPlata, Md.
to
§
o
c^v
O
rH
1
O
1
g
' !»*
If
3= Q
II
o
CM
1
o
OJ
o
rH
•*
4
8
"A
Oj"
18
•s
Colonial Bran
OJ
•st
°
§
0
CT-
CO
i
M
g
E?~
Waldorf Laxind
(Waldorf, Md.
CM
S
O
g
O
i-H
1
«!
J
£
"2
*3
P.
o
•H t
13 at
East Coast Ra
(Receiving St
w H 1 «
L-- 00 ^10^
0 «N ^0
g 8 So
o o o
H rH rH rH
1 1 II
• fT g
• S Pi *H O g|~4 P
o a o t> o > v
CO O O — CO *• — t-5
«S oj
z! oj
g R
X , O
el 8J
o
OJ H
1 i
M <<
^
1 I
g s
00
g
§— >
^ s5
| : 1 :
O,' vH rn .H
^ I^
OJ i-H
OJ
f, to
O T\
OJ O
O O
rH rH
I I
4j
*H O
Nav. Air Navi
& Electronics
-------
-------
I
I
^-s
I
I
•H
«
O
to
o:
^~s
S
rH
s
w
1
CO
1
o
5
I !
s t e
* & &
fM
1
1
00
1
o
i
1
o
.8
5
I
S-o . 8s* S
(So* a r h
il1 -JS S
J« w
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
IV - 1 Industrial Wastewater Classification and Index .... .IV 3
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Inventory:
V - 1 North Branch Potomac River Basin V 2
V - 2 South Branch and Upper Potomac River Basin . . V s
V 3 Opequon Cr«-ek , . . . .... V - 7
V 4 Conococht-a^ue Creek and Upper and Middle Potomac
River Basin .... V - <-;
V > Am ielam and Middle Potomac River Basin V ()
V • h North Fork Shenandoah River Basin V 11
•
V 7 North River nt South Fork Shenandoah
k i vi' i Bus in .... ... V 1 i
V - H Middle River of South Fork Sht-nandoah River Basin . . 7 14
V - 9 South River oi South Fork Shenandoah River Basin ... V - 16
V • !0 Main Stem South Fork Shenandoah River Basin . . . . V ]~
V - II Main Stem Shenandoah V - 19
V 12 Caloctin Crei.-k. Md ; Catoctin, Va. ; Monoracy, Pa. ... V • .'()
V - 13 Monocacs River, Mu. . . . V - ,-i \
V - 14 Lower Portion oi Upper Potomac River Basin V i ]
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Numbt-r Pago
111 - 1 Major Municipal Waste Discharges Ill - 3
111 - 1 Major Industrial Wastewater Discharges Ill 4
III - 3 Major Thermal Discharges Ill !>
111
-------
I 1
CHAPTER I
PREFACE
The first complete inventory of water uses and wastewater Loadings
in the Potomac River Basin was compiled in 1958 by the U. S. Public Health
Service. Since then numerous surveys, investigations, and inspections
of these facilities have been conducted bv various local, state, and
federal agencies. These findings wrre consolidated in 1966, into a waste
inventory as part of the President's Water Quality Sub-Task Force Study
/tnd distributed to the several state, county, and municipal agencies
involved. It has been continuously updated and revised.
Since 195H, other parameters such as nutrients have become a
significant factor in water quality management. The need for curnnt
waste discharge data continues. Knowledge of existing and past water
use and wastewater loadings is essential in providing for water qualitv
in any river basin.
-------
II I
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
A Purpo&e and Scope
In accordance with Recommendation !•-» of the Potomac Ent\ f(.i-::upt
Conft.-ti.-nc>'. the Federal Water Pollurion Control Administration, Middl<-
Atlantic Region, in cooperation with the Interstate Commission on i lu-
Potomac . ih<' States if Maryland Virginia and West Virginia has ' ride t
t.iki-n a joint water quality st'^dv of the Upper Potomac Basin. An
i sscnt i Ireated BOD (#/day) 10, Remarks
1 he preceding information is presentee! IP detail ami summai
lc>rm bv suh- regions, four'.ten in all. Maps shewing major municipal ,
) ndust. r lal -hu>d« gradable and thermal wastewaier discharges are ^K.
presented.
^ • Acknowledgements
The assistance and cooperation of various governmental and insti
tutiun.il agencies together with the industries in the basin enabled the
-------
II - 2
Middle Atlantic Region to collect and assemble data in what would other-
wise have taken a much longer period of time. While every agency and
industry contacted provided valuable assistance, the cooperation of
tht- governmental agencies and industries who participated in the sampling
program is greatly appreciated.
-------
ill 1
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY
As of October 1969. there are 271 known wastewater discharges
in the Upper Potomac River Basin. From the detailed inventory presented
in Chapter V, the following information has been summarized:
1. There are about 420,700 people served by 135 domestic
wastewater treatment facilities in the Upper Basin.
» , •
(See Figure III 1 for major municipal wastewater dis-
charges in the Potomac River Basin)
2. There are 14 industrial biodegradable wastewater discharges
producing about 77,600 #/day of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) of which approximately 60% is removed by waste-
water treatment.
3. Ihe wastewater BOD loading for the Upper Basin is presented
below;
Before After
Waste Treatment % oi Treatment 7,, ot
Ty_pe (#/day) To ta 1 (»/day)
San i tary
1 ndustr lal
1 ( • t a 1
117,5OO
161,000
278,500
42
58
100
44 , 40O
73,200
117,600
3*
62
10O
4, Industrv in the Upper Basin discharges about 62% of the tria
BOD loadings. (See Figure III - 2 for major industrial wast
water discharges in the Potomac River Basin)
5. In the Upper Basin, there are 26 industrial and municipal fas
discharging a total of 1,180 million gallons per day of <.
-------
-------
Ill - 2
6. The nutrient wastewater loadings (phosphorus (PO^) and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) as N) discharged into the surface
water of the basin are presented below:
Waste
Type
Sanitary
Industrial
»
Total
PO^
(#/day)
10,400
7,600
18,000
% of
Total
58
42
100
TKN
(#/day)
5,900
4,900
10,800
% of
Total
55
45
100
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
IV - 1
CHAPTER IV
DATA SOURCES AND PRESENTATION
A Data Sources
The information used in compiling the wastewater inventors was
obtained from many sources including:
I. The 1964 cooperative industrial water use survey for the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project (Formerly
by the Public Health Service of the U. S. Department oi
Health, Education and Welfare, and now by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration of the U. S.
Department of the Interior)
2 Wasiewater treatment records and inventories as compiled
by the various state agencies in Virginia, West Virginia
Maryland and Pennsylvania-
3. Wastewater inventory prepared in 1966 as part .~>i the
President's Sub Task Force on water qualitv and the sub',--
qi-ent cooperative wastewater surveys.
All municipal discharges having a wastewater flow greater than 1 0 mgd
and all industries with biodegradable waste with a tlow greater th.tn
O.b mgd were sampled during 1968- For most of these discharges, three
2& hour composites were obtained and analyzed for BODS PO^. and TKN.
Wastewater loadings for the remainder of the facilities were determined
from either 8-hour composites, grab samples, or from assumed values
For the latter the following assumptions were used;
-------
IV
Domestic Wastewater Flow 100 gcd
Untreated BOD (Mainly Domestic) 2OO mg/l
Untreated BOD (Highly Industrial) 250 mg/l
BOD Removal - Primary Plants 35 %
BOD Removal • Secondary Plants 85 %
Phosphorus - (PO^ as P04> 30 mg/l*
Nitrogen • (TKN as N) 17 mg/l*
The flows and loadings presented in this report are considered to be
annual values tor the 1968 calendar
B - Data Presen tat ion
In the- detailed inventory presented in Chapter V, the following
abbreviations are used;
NA = Not Applicable
UNK = Unknown
ST = Septic Tanks
* = Wastt-water Discharge for Municipal System
An industrial wastewater grouping which was developed by the Chesapeake
Technical Support Laboratory was used to classify and index the discharges
(See Table IV 1)
*These are average concentrations as determined in a nutrient
survey during 1966
-------
IV
Table IV - 1
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX
A. SANITARY (San )
1. Municipal, Institutional, etc,
2. Industrial
3- Unincorporated areas
B. INDUSTRIAL BIOLOGICAL WASTES (I-Biol.)
1 Tanneries and Leather Trades
2. Pharmaceuticals (antibiotics, biologicals; e.g., penicillin)
3 Alcohol Industries
-------
IV - 4
3- 'Styrene Manufacture
4. Co-polymer Rubber Plants
5. Butadiene Plants
(S, Natural Rubber Processing
7. Petrol Stations, Garages, Engineering Works
8. Aircraft Maintenance
F. PHENOLIC WASTES (Pheno.)
1. Gas Plants and By-product Coke Plants
2. Tar Distillation, Road Oil, and Cresoting Plants
3. Chemical Plants
4. Synthetic Resin Plants
5. Wood Distillation
6. Dye Manufacturing
G. MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC CHEMICAL WASTES (Organ.)
1, Munition Plants (e.g. TNT, Tetryl, Ammonium picrate, etc.)
2. Synthi-iic Pharmaceuticals
3. Synthetic or Man-made Textile Fibers (e.g., rayon, nylon, etc.)
4. Organic Chemical Manufacture
'). Paints and Varnishes
6. Oil and Grease Processing and Refining
H. COOLING WASTES (Cool.)
1. Cooling Water for Condensers
2. Boiler Blow-off
I. WASTES CHIEFLY MINERAL IN NATURE, WITH POSSIBLE MINOR ORGANICS (Miner,)
I. Br ine Wastes
2. Mim ra1 Washing Slurries and Suspensions (e.g., stone sawing, sand
and china clay washing)
3. Mine Drainage (pit water from coai mines)
4. Pickle Liquor Waster (e.g., iron and copper pickling, galvanizing)
5. Eiectro-plat ing
6. Water Softening
7. Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes
ft. Battery Manufacture
9. Coal-washing
10. Inorganic Pigments
11. Photographic Wastes
.1. RADIOACTIVE WASTES (Rad.)
(e.g., atomic energy plants and experimental stations; hospitals and
industries using radioactive isotopes)
-------
-------
WASTEWATER INVKHFOR1.'
-------
r ! n !
* * I ~ J
a £ £ r P
= ' S •" ? if *
* f -f
s» e
§i* O ON M
£ S X S B
« jf r r r
* • • •
s fe
O O
W BJ 00
III
V ' 5
*- W '
o o o o p o \* p i
g*888 S ggj
ooo^f-' 9^*5
rf .-< ^.
-J
o
8
ggi
c
9
I §
I I I I
nil
? t I 8
i
51
3!
51
o
?
•&
• -», -» I.,
g^F
P ,.,. p
o o o
S> >? .o
00
I
f
-------
-------
a B
•2?
y
H O
8
Co
e
b o
^ p
O Kt
O ci>
S8
t? X CO CO
fV I** Vft O"
C, §=*,
(X* O
a
g
g
f
•E
1
!
9
I
I
-------
-•0 0
'*!
S1?
• r
Q-
o
I
3
r*
f*°
M
(5
t)
o|-f
gll*
yt-g-
Ifcrietta
chian Stan
rland, Md.
— <» o
o
v •
H
^
* f
f^ ^
*"* P*
A e
a §
09 b
cr
1 y
y
I
H-
f
9
rf
» 5
H' S
1C
gs-
o
^' ^
§"?.
ft f»
* 5
rt> .1»
1
•5
o
I
1
8
x -T;
i i
\j t-j i
o o o
§ § §
-
8
00
o
c o ru
•' > O O CJ
0 rj >-*
O -* O
CD O
: S Iy
£
o
I
V J •. ^
i i
3E
W
O rt
= - tr to uo ft* re
g I II
on no
O
8
b
r*
O
-------
-------
j
f
TJ • -6'
Iff | '
ui 5 w
g ft £6" --f3
I I fg f?
E !< ?| 2*
- •* i^^s ">
„ * • « iy r T
Cfl
a.
*j
.- a-?
: i
'X
S g
8
o e
a ?
In rn
•f r*
• > o
5
z s
e ?
n >
I f
ro i\,
> >
o o
g f
p
w U
S 8
§
c> S
v^ 0
5 #
O CD
c^ iS
X f
ru
Ol
~l t\t ...
00 S
°> - o S g
-? f ? *
3 a i ^
" &> Co
tn W
•t) t>
H 4
3 M» P-
& 1
'f f
C/l , K-« ,
- » "^ B S?
i a WHiS T> a
:• B-fsftf? g
!!-ir"t g
0>'ftf^'- *^
.' 3d » :;
C' *i
•51
C'J
"5
J?
r
n>
>i
o
i
It
IH
p>
?
13
3)
<
o
1
&l
«
9
^J-
o
tf
D
g
o
33
M-
<
<»
H
1*
tz> tH
r .**
TJ T)
1 I
i i
r> A
£0 37
1 ?
- i
ri OQ
K--
5) 0
q i-1
r* O.
I -
0 S
so *1
3. H TJ
0 O •-
0 ff
1 cr 3
t ft Cfl
^
•-- n r-
1 O '.
— C-
'
;
;-•
T
•1
a: -i
o o
o
? ?
^0
— f-
o> •«
^ q
r? c*
-------
S i8 JF
C -O X
>-« VJ ?>
o on
tp i* r* y i J
5 p M.
-------
-------
2 < 3"
4; 3 3 <*
• » , ~ s
(, i_ gdS g
J? a f
«J £
5 3 s «
2 is i
* *r -
o * ,
Li ., ,
<: i*
• '- S"
f~l S1
"C ff
8
c^
o
* $*>'•£
*>:*>.
8 fe
8
^5 5,
g,-
•j I-*
o 8 t.
•r, ?•'
- ?ci gi
g, ?,
O 0 o
¥ e,.-?
0 ' >-
Of
*1
a.
= ?
C
o
3
o
M
fl*
(t
^r
•u
C
o
n
<••>
n
fV
»
t"T
I I
3 ^'
z :
r
o
1
C)
3
•*
•£ 5
L;
- -r o
3
-ft
^
§
*"S
^
:S
3
cl
p '<
r "> 2
13- •
*0
tf it
5H
«< 0
a .+
3a>
3
£• S"
(I, J.
^~ £B
r :1
s
-------
Potomac Edison Co
(filliMBport, 1*1
5
p
2
*
•
M
k
O
s
5
fiUiajwport, Md.
K-
§
in
5
'
x
t
o
V*J
ui
^
00
Ul
».D. Byron Co.
(tllliamport, iti
•
5
KH
OT
O
*-•*
CO
~
o
0
w
'X
8
fs
3* a
5
•t
g
o
t
o
Q
-J
8
Vtorccrstvirg , Pa .
Green c*e tie, ?a .
\-~" ro
o O
if V
B ?
> >
i i
0
_ IV'
— ro
- o
j.
•a C
Oo O
Uwwengart 4 Cc.
(Mercers burg, Pa.
Jtetal Twp.
(Perm*.)
H.. •
§ 35
^ M
3 4>
o
,M
». ca
1 1
>-J ^->
0 O
I 8
u^
C w
0 M
XT
r»-
!
C1
3
*
„ p.
5 ,
P
H
>• W
t t
O O
$'%
I-'
o o
§
I
>— '
y
^
8
,,
e'
>
^
0
8
T.
o
o
Scotland Orphar«K
re
a
$
Co
f?
>.
t~-
c
p
1 ^
£
B.J. Hei.-a _c
,' Chafflberabur^ , Pa
5
•1
o
^'J
o
^
8
C)
B
a
»
*
f
3,
y
y
u,
5
>
>'•
..
CD
r
O5
£
55
SS
i rv>
!Ss?
*w
i
r
a O
ac CQ
a v
9?,
C
o
o o
rr tr
r
• I i i
op r>
•y V rr
i
i
fo
i
8
p p o o
it (t
v" &
6' <<:
to o c
p < ^
fr- o> o
M
-------
jf j?
!/
- s
ro
V-t ^
8 o
f f
f r
<3 O
10 o
x 59
o o
* 5
M
S 8
300
\Jt
£• s
V*J • *-*
1 1
1 £
8 ?
0 E
* I
1 *
*? S
*m ^
*-*•
j
Ffcirchild H
( Hag «r« town
H*
Ksr
• i
o
o
3
gf
g M W
_>i '
T ^ ^
00.°
|gs
S8
p&
SES
gt
y f\)
«* ^
7?
.-|2
w *
II ?
p'c z
f*« •
1 T
? ' ^
!
Si? JB? i? tcl" ? v^S1
Jf* Iff * Fa = s £.
*l * W)«* « « lO r- ""• C7
• H It • M tt C o» t-
3« >}« • 1O3- V 9
g at 3 rf «l c* . - So.
08 9 JF 3 2 "* f
K 5 |C • S 3? 8> ^ if o
ta> • D. JO « DJ 3 t* Q. •
. . . r* 3
H-1 3T f
<• >-» ui
O f^i
c*
2
I» O
O VJ
O ON
"o
ae f b g i> g
P S- o V o >
O pC t/j Q iy ?^ ^
A -.»•
>£ ^ 9 ^ ^~^ *>
1 ft II i 1 i
V*J o VJi O> c O O
8 v! R? 8 t vS w
tj!
X f K f v/. g
0
"^
P P 8 ic u. 5^
£ ? vj j£ g JC»
•-•
P «E § » o CM
*Jt
3C X ~>J 9C ?I
> P O P O S K--
1 I 11 1 1
§• 5- 5" §• 5 S*!1
c* e+ r+ c* » *
• •" • •" °° S »
§ B § S > 0 0
0 0 O 0 rJ o vC
88^888 8
Co t/j fj: U) Co trt Oj o
£» » f» A » fl» *
3D^3T3 ^^
. , , . , ^ to
to
1 1 I 1 I t tO-
OOO^OCi GB
O^OsOOO K-'O.
^ o ¥ £ 5 s ^ -
ro **
o a= ,i •!. <-:
-
W IV, &
« ru MI v, o ' ^ -1.
2u,OO ** *
* i
»• i
M H- ^ (V F
^ -J vw S. o A <5
i < i i i i t IT 1
f f M °H ? ? 1
3 O O M. i
* 11 *
,
i
Ci ^
N Q1
« .
c.
s
i
r
&
1 £
~ i»
tn a 5
•=) ^
r 5
a
tt^ g,
«S "^ r*
1
pa, £
ji "
H f
5-
M
8
n
a3
Sc
fi§
o
1
i
wS?
• M.
' E-
r
i
-------
-------
:z it> *B 'c ;r. 33 o HQ» HOD Hrr *~3 Q *-J CD ^ fo^ :r o> IB" ^ ^ ^
1)>-T > £D O r* ^' tK" t- t--1 """ M I--1 o *•-•<-* O ^ r* »• *• (D »—' f -• QJ r i
^ <~* C 1 ^ <. E" CO t: >—• cj ^JM 1' I*~" -J. ffl 3tOflj ^'^t-' *-* T K
•~t t- ' ^ •I,-.'-' CT »~i ^(P ff Cf- Q"1- CT ti < £i "-jCj^ «>S
ST *
i»
< 3 -
00 -^
. . OJ
ffl O
• o
(B , , 01
g
0. ' '
OB »
§ R
a
i
§=
w
c
3
z ro
V v^>
C. ^ C^
y> o t-1 Q c:
K o o o !v
viJ
.
S oi ^ w §=
6 0 O XT
c d
O O Uj O K1
h-' 1— CJ
C^j O O- Q) ^
i i ^i ^ f_ p*i
- .'
'• °
a - H
M ~-
>,
•~-
i ''
T .,
•>-
^ ti<
^' V
'"'
""<*•
.
C^ Q.
^ ^
LO "
O > .
• ' •-
* 7-
'TI
uj •• b
o -i r<
'< O
c^ - • i j i
3 ^4 fo 0
f ~— to < ;.'
t.- » »
3
1 II (I'll
Co Z>-9 Z«-JZZZW
C) ri o • • • T3
c+ *^j nii-Jhq^j^tf
;r oz: o^ooo^
tt 4 • 1 3 t 1 1
O 15 (» f~»
•I C/' O C/J ^ W Co C/7 ^1
i^ r~t*-i tr^pf'tJ^^i
>v a ? -^ 3 3 r? TO
•T n ' ' ' *
? §
(<» tl Z C/l
<-* * 5
•» n T) o
"' t' ^3
iii m
r~ t- t- v:
33 3
K' >- | ., Q
>-• KJ H> M
»— ' >— ' t— ' ^
I? (V V
1-1 1 o
IP (p fft 'j
* * ?
1 JT «
80 c
- ?
^1
ib
'I'
D. (6
'1 OJ
It
p •-'
h ).
£D
'1
-------
f?
«. 5-
y a .-.
R "i a
S?
'i
II Is f» pf 5 If
* M - S? . 3 2 - - f
£
e
£? c:
Ul c
8 f
8
§ e
o
n
CL
Ik
>1
O
^
a
X'
o
I*
£V
»
O
3
n
K-
Z
•»]
O
1
(/)
?
3
H
*1
Z
51
»r
C-i
Cr
It
3
* * ^
>^
^? "*•
38 2
"• * §
& £ |
? S o
i
4
n
-------
v
?."
If
a a
r ,t
•3 t
- o
t +
< ^
N._
? ??
~ *"
1 f*
7 3 (J
3 -^^
•^ t T1
* -
0
4
- i?
•< *— '
* O
CD
5 *
•l*ewater,
1 •". Va.
S5
ir :
v -
n
•< rr
» (r
K
C j
§?
c »
r< >-'
^!
o
r>
3
a
2
; f
?0
^!i:
- ^
-«i
t/»
8
ft
r r
o
0
o
§=
c
*
a
&
I
f
-------
•~ - o to 3 w * o w * §•£•<» fr P 5* £ j? •< • -^ »
>i c+ • r* q S if ?fi • £< **J * •* ••
£ r* * «* * 3- S •£* S* £ 'S • (? £ £ 1 ^ 9<*
* , e •» esa E e § -~a e s si a s • 2 f
C f:> ON 5 H Q 5 F| D O «* * P r*- c* r* 9 ffp
c/i e* 3 c+ li ** D <+ 9 Q ** O Q • O • P> P *i
'".00 fi 4 fi ° ' * » 3 - * - ?
H-tlCn3*fl«*O«* OP. - O - >-l Q
, 5 ^ .. c+ . M-«€+>-*"aO« 9 •<• ^K
1 ."> ^' < f ^* <"*» -a S?H" S' .* v •*•
...I- HE o s of •" s s1?8 ^t ' ^ff ~3
iu ^-4 M M- O3 * MA
• t . H- S tf ef -^ o s
^ ST f 8 5 ?
)_•(»• 1 O 1—
c* O ^5
O
g
t-> (O
1 ) X/> « "0 "rj
O Z mrvJZ 2 ? ?• 5 Pg K
f'i C/i W C/) C/i W O t/i Co 2T O ^ O
Sit at 9 w • OP* (* ^- O P5 O
? p P ? ? ^ P P s & &
, «^ . .
> !fr > X > >• tc>* ^f-^sc^'W
' i i i i i ii iit'i
0 O O OO f-'OO^O
^ b; k S §> f 3F k ffbl^ S
0 o 0 O K ¥t OO OOO O
* *
Jv
C jv C3 C <~j
P ui o u. sT 3 •• i3 J5 g ? !?
' O &- O »r tr1 F> Opp3f
G C3 v>-
i.- j »-. a g ?Z?i->?J?c:Zt
V, o o (» K K- > S -j F > g. P
C! Q 3K
5j- co .y (x y p C £ ^ y C T* £
i- s s ; f » s »i *
?! ^' a X- &. & S5 S ffj. B
1 J ) 1 1 1 II 111 1
? P S> P ff ? 5? K1 52 «
•^. H *l H • • Sc» 0=a.n-r»
* t- f >* H-«< M- D. *< «<
con ao Q£v 01^-'
r* r* H- IT ET r*-CO (•:•- Cfl
,•: ^. K- M- n H ~ S o '5
'.- » • p ^- H- » 4 ij » »: j
• p p B m ED p rt ft .• o S
'!• K K B c+ r* B« <»;<1»1
>~J *->• t-- 08 K- A ti
'tlrioo«» »rj "(
:» 3 2 3 8 S3
» * <» «
>r »f >r o OK
i i
•r «r
•3' W? ? | y 3>3U^J
a.7i ^f>' o' ** o 11— KJ f r* 5 raS>
§8 §8 I?
«* f- » c+ O
t* >
f
r»
S c
OT O ^! O
k- S? S? 2
_G a 5 g
a
^ ^ X 3
iiia.
M
O B
5 i-1 c a.
^-^
f ^ f -f
« a p,x
& - & 1
f a; f »
e « e 1,
c fr
& s & i
i t i V
t-••
4
* o
i~
•! H-
a
i
i
5
a.
a-
t— '
ff
iU
o
*•*>
I
I
01
rr
§
a.
|
f?
«*
(D
-------
8 £
8 £
\
ff
cf
K B
B B
M £
• 0
B B
-------
i"
• I—
or
§3
O *
n
e*
< *f
n
O
£
p to
O V
J"1 •
30 K
A,*.
o o
*
_ _
p p
P£
£*
S£
55
i i
CO O
i?**
M
M- •
$3
f* I-'
8*
3
S"
• p.
o
o
f
n
H" •
K >•
r\j o
si
9K
p ~-J
£_,
X 00
Pv>
?•-
f.
J
c*
Bff
p CO * •—• •• ft
t* » » 11 '
1 a | I- F
o o cr ••« "o
" I1 3 338
< • O • c*
g j- < 5"
8 ^-1
O p
8 a
•d
8
vT) O
Co Co Co o O
C3 3 P O w
I"1 *
> >• >• 3: o
1 1 1 II
O O fu >-f '-'
i g § §§
I-- ->J
>-* oo fy
o ^* v* P o
„*"*
O v^ \ji P O
O ^* VnJ P V^1
*.
fO VA) V O
<£ v> ui ^0
>-• ^J
K V- S Pg
( 1 1 II
Cfl C/» Cn C/>
8 S 8 ,8
r* <* t* «*
tr tr cr cr
B B g g
1 5 J 3S
>< •< ^ •>
— O CO O — • O
* *1 r* *1 > O
J* D £ « i3
SB • i* *i <
3 W >1 3 C ,-•
• «* <^ t; 01 o
• o « >-~ r» r»
Cr 3 K' B»
CO V ^ *"
3 cr • * ? 8
- • HK in • o.
— 2 <-* c* -
< • » o
• u <£ A Bi B
0 • ^ >
y n *
O *•> t •
o p
P 1 5 S
O Co '/) O) o
<3 t3 5 D t*
5* • » CD
a
K-4
O > > >> 3
1 III Q.
^. ^ f__, ,-J o
H
o o e
• • J p v*j 3 F*
O N* w »«r X
» — •
-^^.
!*
iS §" § &
o K- v^ *• vi
^
01 p a> a vi
•w ^
g & VJ. & vf
f
S
Co
^ o
< V
A •
a.
(
D
ft-
I
ft-
t
*l
CO C
SB
S
(-" c* M
8tr o
M
•
w ^ fc
CO 3 O K
§p - S
C/1
'** S
t^ S jr
g cr
SB >-» o w t>
5 "i •< P
co
Ota I 1
i! ^ I
1-1 2?
^ i H
S ? I
~1 w ff S
^ .5
c a p.
8 & ~ & 1
i i f < Q
Co Co Co C/i
8 828
3|
»+
f
i
+ 0
c» e» j* r» W a
or y tf zr KM-
• <
S ff g 2? P S-
• • s s
•1 3*1
*
-------
7*
o i
ft*
0
rS
< 0
—•3
?
58#
• re
*» ac o
i > i
ro i~» vj
O 00
?'ro^
•TOO
p
~* Jv.
? £ 8
•O
1 V*>
r Po
1
rS^
?P8
* T1-
-58
' '
1 = CO
Co
3-
: It
9
O
a
5
V
*-- '
Ul
•- t: r- — M -—< — f '—c in ~ so
75 5 Fk P.* r| F§ g £*
S :• £ 3- 5 c 3? II E IT
— 4- v;— !"<*«< V • - .S
» • 3 • x- - CB - jp << fc
35 << 3 S " 3s B"
H"? ^ 0 ^5 ^ ° ^ *"" •" *" -0
I C
< - X H-
<• <*
•L-- 30 V
.
If t--
88?ge£8?
CO Co Co t-H Co C/J CO *»J
o
t-1
> >> CB,>> > >O
I II I 1 i II
^ Mru i-1 ro i-1 H-VO
o o o o op
Sru Q CO 'J' Q ^
03 o 3 ^* O S OD ro
\j oK- o o K- oo
^ cj vji ^j c; vo
ru ryp O O ? ooO
P ro fr 0 0 k- 00
a ^ w 9
V- OK- 0 O & OC
l-^ C-3 0 ro ? MM
ro *o pr tr> \j* PC CTN ~J
a a. §*
i ofr i-* * S* pf *a o
i ii i i i ii
co E? ?F ff n •-) coco
W ff W >-t c*
S- 5- 2- K 8 ^,
. 5 u B • co » .
CO H- H- M. (f Co
51 MM M ai ••) sj3
S MM M O1 • ?»
3 •-•• 3 3
O O O M CO
3*1 1 H' 2T
(f « »
(» <» « OS
K- K- "* 2
£
0
£
3
sr
<» ^ 3
— * • «r
a* i ?
— n ^ ?
a O a -
:• 8 <
•
-0" •*
M M
CQ VJi
CO CO CO
B> Dp
3 33
• • '
^ >* >>
I I I
O O
? § g
O t-1 \*j
g- 8 S
C3 ro
3 v*
If O O
a
3 w v*j
K- 00
<3
a M o\
K1 V» M
„
& V*)
1 1 1
co co Co
Co Co Co
? .^ 5
H*f g'f
fr ."*" ff| ,-*
S * ^ s
n .»
• • o
3 <: c/j
n IB .
* —
5 g
M. CO
1 3>
CO
H- •
O
M
0) >
1 1
^
8 f
3
\j» C
8 &
•Ji G
8 &
CS
^i 3
ro
QJ G
-*"
o' K-
i i
F; ?
Q. • CO
I-- CO
|* CO
"-
0. Co
-e
0 S
?g
OQ »-*
f I
a
•j;
ft
in
V
*<
&
en
0>
SE
CO 0
u
CD
> D
i O.
M n>
X
Q
C3 0.
3 ^-
*
G 0)"
& t
"— '
' — -
C3 O-"
g. 5
G
K --
?
g 1
i
Co
i??
< -o
SB
n
I
r*-
•j
3 EM
B» O
tj M
H
c/j H
C*
g& 8 £
3 M ^
<-* c* hH
Q HI
O W CT*
D ^ M
<-*• rr1 P
g ^
h. Co °
O SO o »~J
">§ g. a
CD§ P
5 < M H
8r " g
n>
M M §
3 S- 1
^-'^- O
a •
3 <<:
\
' *?
f?
.^
Crt
rr
rt
D
« g
g?
C*
°
3-
>1
CO ?
r+ 0
3t
>-.
O <
a
i
i
S'
-------
1 *• <» •* (-• •« p
2 *J * T *- T t".
•J g ^ g |j O
<* o c* a, c* 5"
£P
E fxr £g £s !
< s? " o 5° g'
.* S ?£ ?~ *
o ~~" ^" -J1
J1 £ g z
o X S» >•
W > O O •«) 0
STO J DO >-•
H O -• o o o < i a
jy o U- I— o o.
^ CJ p»
S. P .1 I
•^ z z S
O v» >• > o -—
'tfc
l\) P-
So 5 5^ 4^^
o w P > >*i ^
Uj
• 1 i ii n
g! g! CO W W
O O CO CT W
^ T W tr P
44 S i* n
* » 3 3D
fi1
•ft
I?
*
it
-' KH
0 CO O
(ft *T3
B ?
0)
5, 8 5
PC tt
W 3? H
CL
O » g H
8^ s 3
HI B S
"D ^'^ 3C
t3 o R
o o
M 3 ""^
5 S
3
•r
M
C.SP
c* O
1 r«
• <
^ t-1-
»
I
M
-------
f 9 F§
i J s*
»- $• 2*-
y * ."F
a ? .-1
^"
D> (i
•^
r\> /^ P"
C/> (/> K
•? •* 8
M
i • i
o o o
o o o-
008
0 O 5
*
vn Ul SB
o u» >
0 0 5
o -.' 5
*
c ^ 5
i » *
Co CO >-•
3" ^ °
? * fr
a
33 33 1
IV (V
'< 1
<"•* C3 ^~ ff O i? O CT" **•
ai • fip * 2" c g JP '
*-• • >-•»--• 2 ™ ** *$ '
(-• >-r* »O >- •* _
t+Co r»a Oa g X»
is § " 3* H P a
"^"JP *^ § •"
x o *'5 n- 3 - j-i
• o • • <: g
."' ?§" "? * £.'
"^ V^S S"
CJ
o
^
5 S £ ^ 2
>» >• 5* vo >•
C KT M o •«} $p *^
P" & i o o ' Q
ji 0 CO o 0 is o
!* !* °
^1—4 00 9S O ^ rt
If 1 1 1 II
o
So o o oo
§§ -? i§l i i
*
es S f S s
25«= ? ^ f
>> ? o • - P
55 f 55 S 5
5 g c: ^8
> > 3 O ^ >
^•~
55 ?- o ^ 5
to •« n co t* <~>
jr M < t) < *--
r W 0 *•* 9 ^- C*
3 4 <* 0 r» V
H- c+ «< r*
3 CO
PO TO w K-* eP 3
- < CO 3 3 3 *
5 3 £ 3
* ^
§
5»t TJ
p 7 » >.. _
t-> r a — •
Bl W •- 3
-D 0 D
0. JD 3 — 3 - -
3e o » - 3 .1
• " 3 _ '
-•i r* r ^" ,
~) »J ft* - • V- f-
2 .7 I; Q D
Stephen's
Berryvlll
«
» o
•^ on
& C
» J
1 1
O W
* ?
r !
o —
OQ t-> <
O (* •
OH- - •
<*«< < «O
^« ^j
fco H
^ " y
5 5
Cn o n
586"
. £ •
0
M
1 1 D.
M
f-1 - — •
O B
a a o.
& 8 ^
f 5 |
^
c: a>
S- 5 *
• — -•
f 5 S
a p.
& 5 4
*"*"
^
c •
& 5 i
' ' -
" ?
a n
I '3
» <
e *
s
i I
i
i
1
i
n
[*
s
»
r+
i
1
c+
t
3
i
§§
M
o •->
?""?
O 33
0 O
3 5
f-*
^
3
n
i??
c*
g
r»
3-
r»
1
Receiving
Stl*«n:
r
i
t
I
o
r 3
H-
^ V-H
z
Cn S
r» H
H g
Co H
rr
S f
o. •-*
» 1
0
I
S
S
s
-------
<- *> •* s* p* ? e ••? sc sf of
s. 2 ? a« &• & 5 BE. il as is
S 2 5 3- ?M 5 £ If £f fi£ |£
5 r ? !? 5? £ i ?8 I* !} £3
I ?f I I
It 3
Q.
»
.M ii
? i
— * • K
8 8 ^ 8
if!
3; ?& a;
3 »
o P
I I
a. ?
9-^ K
h S
s s
ft- «r P- fc PH » ;a
| | S- S 5T8 8 t
__ o.«J- t-;J*f>3«
il i ? -s
S S
•"'S' yS1 7
v^» m • •
l
V
\J> Q
VJ> S
I .' t
to
IS
> > B1
M M S"
N
p O O P
S 2 8 §
c: cr c:
3 3 3 ~J
X TT yr O
c c c:
333
*• jr >r
O O p O
K-i o w (->
8 858
O OO OOOOO
f i 8 f 8 i I g
K< (?>
v*« Q CT\
O O -J
00
CD O
P P *
P 2 &
o o
8
- - I
M< V» M
o
i
Mr
•»
E
'?!
C C C
333
8
S £
c
9
XT
G C c
O
O
rr It
o n
\»i V» O
*
! r
•-•
I
OS
ii i i i i i
r
er tr
i I
O H-
* * B "
I «
I cf
*•*
a
9
V*' ^ <«
D> "- ^
" ° $
• • i
2
5 3
:3 "
c*
>*•
a
E E
z o
o —
Mlfi
•3 •• ?5
1 •
90 rr
*
S
o
D.
•
O
S 8
1 *i
^ x
-------
^» /->C4 -~>* — W H
CO. HI- H)7 M* C
f i" h II %
H m a t* o O 0 p
1 5? BS »2 S
rg ?» .•*» g1* '
• IE? fff *" S
r *& ».B- • g- '
S ^-» — KM-
^ o B
•^ * • J?
• -s— * O
fo
B B f S 8
f ! I t %
& A ft. *
O O 0 > >
lv iu to to i-1
O o o o o
sees 9
O O O v-> O
r i r , 5
S1 §"
O »f H- «-" OB
M CJ O
83 ? oo <*>K)KS K X ?£ ^^ ^joo wijDo g
fc- K- >J> \f O\ O O O O *^> vj>vn >j>\ji -~* 5< M
9X x->{o -~ «l •— K * -~~ f> HI -^ Co M *~- •<
» 1 9% 5"p 9J « ?f f jr.- f g?
0 »M-«H'*SrtBB' ft 9 P>&^
8 ? ^s fa if* & |a 3 5f tr e§
Dt> b r* *•< F* P- *fl P q CO
SB? | 1 g
. • JX O. & *
>» >> o o o >
til J t 1
t_l >_J ^ £. M f-1
*
o o o o o o
MOW H* b 00
858 8 S 8
ro
^ h* el c: o o
* » & & §• 5
^
V *-" !-•
» (^ O O O O
)_.,_.,_.
R 8 8 8 8 £
f
•rf
P.
sr
j,j
M K>
\J* O^ /- *J.
SC 06 O M O f
^ -J O M O 1
1 f f ' ? f f 1
a ». > > >- B1 J
JL. t t ^ ,L §• !
M
O O O O O f •
• • • • • ^2
o M o W J2 °* "
o o o o c^
-^ Ico
v«* ^-* ru & lo
X ui *• to v^> f> VO
> o •J' O M" *<
^t
w
fl
t
1
•
M
O
M
9
g r §
f* 9 M
si?
o W &
n| Vrf t-| t_>
5? 3 "•
* gw « ^8^ffp<
> <5 w o OD vj <* < F
• — . •
ij
afi OOQ ^Joo >(%ltnr
J* «Ll* «•*»
H
. S S C
[ o B
B " * H
M 53
f o
Sf
3
f
t- f
s I f
«* ft 3
5 * 5
f f I
o
f
ff
1
f
3
8
r
§
f
!
IH
>t
*<
f
C+
M.
9
V*
I
>H
3
£
**
H>-
8
r
i
t-> *a
H* J,
«* 5
«* •
»-• «5
i»
•* 2
•8 >
• w
f
H-
CO
It
o
1
b
*i
•0 00
ft
*f
*f
»-*•
*— *
W
g
tf
HI
i
o
It
M-
3
«+
f
i*
o
g
ex
to
i
ing
-------
* j
f *» *
If i
I
• I- f k
v tr ««•
„ fy f a ?• ,
9 ft« .* $f i a if j
• « s -S- 1 * -•• •
K s
- • K ?
*Pl!Pl!PP§§
E f r r r
- r P s
O o
XJ
5
!
^
!
5J
* i i
f f
if .» I
^
1
M
O
P
O
»-l •-•
ll
1
M
*-
§
>
»-"
o
8
X j
1 1
M K
O C
§ \
«• o
1 1
-1 ^v.
^ o
>
H*
o
8
o
i? 2
.a e
r a
g g c P g
OO o v* fr
§
8
II
f
ft
9
•
-------
-------
ar
D
O
tt
S
§
_
o
S
1
g
f
1
g
1
2
or
i
w
{
3
e
Uvirtoo School
VtUcy new Mobile
tact
« ?
? f
5 5
0 S
i g
1 i
f f
1 1
i i
g i
• •
2f ?
hint Cnek
b.-B»ll«n«e
•* • -
*•<•>
"* O
o » S S
ll ^ ^
o
•H 1
n
3|
f
•i
»f
11
S|
0
1
1
K
I
333 3
555 S
•^1
j
J
*
i
^
•
,
*
f
*
)
1
•i
f
1
•*
1
r
1
•1
f
f
V
T
^^
-1'
i
u>
•1
«
-------
-------
OS **^2B •"•* C *~% *ri 0 O
f ?f tl £? f?
d »- P P- 3 5 o * •
I £4 SS S3 £*
? ?•« $y 33 1?
M ft • H* O S A
< o**i o* OCA 0(1
• £* IF i| **
?« Pfl *8 ff£
* • - >- we
?4! J? * o$
^* "So
c
o-
M
1 S 9 9 99
f 1 ? £ F?
& »
> O M > > >
M Jr- vi, M MM
O O O O O
K b o b Co
& H 8 o a o
o MI M \/» 5r cp
•58" s *- SG
g. _.
S x 9 >-• S -o
CS G
OB g. M CP 2 Oo
xn ff ^ \ji ' ^^t
fc
8 W >-
10 ?• ?
U» K > I-1 K •-•
II I i II
9 if 9 $ 9$
$ § § 1 |1
P '* o ? M9
S 1
a ?
•
D
O
QffP (5 ?
?&2 s S
M A (f M A
;sl 1 ?
^r< * B
o 5- 0 ii n
£»£ '
? rr •'
> «•
M !-•»-•
*f § 8
M CO C/l W CO O
^.s se s z
u. • • • M
0 en
W > > > > 5*
II ll l D*
X
O O O «
• • • CL
G r\j C H* t-1 --^
ft 8 ft 8 «
^
5fc
SS S5 8 1
~
c c; "oT
^'oJ ft-V o f.
•• — 1-
G c: -»
*S ft-V C,1 A
*
C C D^
&^ g-^ ^ ^
^
«g Is 5! 1
^
oT
• i ii • ^
P H * O H
8 §• B 8 H
S n 88 cr
"B f S '
O 3 rt 0 p
33 o| §
IS
8 £
a
i
i
CO JO
I
ff
tn
2
rt
n
f 1" i
(» M
5 ^
g3 ^ £
0 ^ i 1-1
^ 8 n
« •»? a 5
S 5 "S 5 **
« ^ •< P <
•n *! i
^ r: ^
2 a *~
o -o i B
5 H
S3 jS w
OB <
HI if I
M. 3
33 S
•X
W
c*
O
^
30
(A A
'2
H-
£
i
*>*
-------