KN\ IKOMIKWU I'KOIK MON VU N< \
PROCEEDINGS
SEMINAR ON
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FECAL COLIFORM
IN INDUSTRIAL WASTES
MAY 4-5, 1972
EDITED BY
ROBERT H BORDNER & BOBBY J CARROLL
TR-3
DISTRIBUTED BY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
\TIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER.COLORADO
JULY 1972
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROCEEDINGS
SEMINAR ON
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FECAL COLIFORM
IN INDUSTRIAL WASTES
MAY 4-5, 1972
Edited by
Robert H. Bordner, Chief, Microbiological Methods, AQCL
Cincinnati, Ohio
and
Bobby J. Carroll, Chief, Microbiological Services Branch
Southeast Water Laboratory
Athens, Geo rg ia
U.S. EPA Region 8
Technical Library 8OC-L
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
TR-3
Distributed by
Office of Enforcement
National Field Investigations Center
Denver, Colorado
July 1972
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Summary vii
Statement of Problem
Thomas P. Gallagher 1
History and Background on Occurrences of Fecal Coliforms in
Industrial Wastes
R. Richard Bauer 4
Experiences with Coliform and Enteric Organism Isolation from
Industrial Wastes
Donald L. Herman 27
Observations of Selected Waste Discharges from Region IX
Kathleen Shimmin 42
Review of Research Regarding Coliforms in Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes
Dr. Martin Knittel , 54
Brief Literature Review of Klebeiella as Pathogens
Dr. Leonard Guarraia 94
The Detection and Significance of Klebsiella in Water
G. J. Vasconcelos 98
APPENDICES
Appendix A; Considerations for Permit Preparation Pulp and
Paper Industry A-l
Appendix B; Tables B-l
Appendix C; Experiences With Coliform and Enteric Organism
Isolations From Industrial Wastes C-l
Appendix D; Identification of Coliform Colonies D-l
Appendix E; Figures E-l
-------
CONTENTS
Discussion Pages
Coliform colonies on EMB and Endo agar 12-13
Treatment Methods - pulp and paper processing wastes 14-17
Nutrient Reduction 18-22
52-53
74
87
Regrowth of coliform organisms 23
58
Effluent quality criteria 25-26
Klebsiella Resistance to Antibiotics 39-40
Fecal coliform test results from environmental samples
and areas remote from civilization 41-43
Fecal coliform MF test for industrial wastes 46
Elevated temperature test 48-49
Total and fecal coliform values from industrial wastes -
reconciliation of results 50-52
Bacteriological standards for industrial wastes 52
Fecal coliform MF test - background growth 60-62
Pathogens - paper and pulp mill wastes 63
74-75
88
Fecal coliform test - incubation temperature 64-65
Coliform MF tests - time and temperature limits 66
Fecal coliform test - incubation temperature 67-68
Klebsiella 69
ii
-------
(Contents - cont'd.)
Pages
Indicators versus pathogens 70-73
Correlation of bacteriological and chemical parameters 76
82-86
Statement of proposal for monitoring permit program 78
Total-versus-fecal coliform tests - shellfish-harvesting waters ... 80
Research Needs - microbiology of industrial wastes 89
Standardization of Methods 92-93
Suppression of indicator organisms 97
102
Need for improved total and fecal coliform tests 103-104
Klebslella - Pathogenicity and public health hazard 124-125
Standardization of Methods 106-116
Standard Methods 117-119
Quality Control 113
115-116
120
121-123
Microbiology Meetings 116-117
127-129
Laboratory evaluation 119
126-127
iii
-------
iv
-------
EPA Seminar
The. Significance of Fecal Coliform
in Industrial Wastes
PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Richard R. Bauer
Acting Chief, Technical Studies Section
Surveillance Branch
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Region X
1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101
Dr. Gerald Berg
Chief, Virology, AWTRL, NERC
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Mr. Robert H. Bordner
Chief, Microbiological Methods
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
NERC
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Mr. Francis Brezenski
Chief, Technical Support Branch
Edison Water Quality Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Mr. Bobby J. Carroll
Chief, Microbiological Services Branch
Southeast Water Laboratory
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
Mr. Ralph Christensen
Microbiologist, Region V
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Mr. Howard S. Davis
Microbiologist, Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg, Room 2303
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Mr. Thomas P. Gallagher
Director, National Field Investigations
Center, Bldg. 53, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Mr. Edwin E. Geldreich
Chief Bacteriologist
Water Supply Research Laboratory, NERC
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Dr. Leonard J. Guarraia
Microbiologist, Office of Water Programs
Water Quality Protection Branch
Applied Technology Division
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Rm. 902
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Mr. Donald L. Herman
Microbiologist, National Water Quality
Laboratory
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Dr. Martin D. Knitted
Research Microbiologist
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
200 South 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
Mr. David N. Lyons
Sanitary Engineer
Office of Refuse Acts Program
Crystal Mall #2, Rm. 716
Washington, D. C. 20460
Mr. John P. Manhart
Microbiologist, EPA, Region VIII
Suite 900, 1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Mr. Louis A. Resi
Chief Microbiologist
National Field Investigations Center
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Mr. Courtney Riordan
Office of Technical Analyses
Crystal Mall, Building #2
Washington, D. C. 20460
Miss Kathleen Shimmin
Assistant Chief
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Technical Support Branch
620 Central Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Mr. William J. Stang
Microbiologist
National Field Investigations Center
Bldg. 53
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Mr. Murray Stein
Director, Enforcement Proceedings
Division
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Crystal Mall No. 2, Room 1116
Washington, D. C. 20460
Mr. G. J. Vasconcelos
Microbiologist
Northwest Water Supply
Research Laboratory
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
Mr. William H. Winders
Microbiologist, Region VI
Suite 1100, 1600 Patterson Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
vi
-------
Introduction and Summary
On May 4 and 5, 1972, at the invitation of the National Field
Investigations Center-Denver, a group of EPA microbiologists, sanitary
engineers, and other concerned participants held a seminar to discuss
the significance of fecal coliforms in certain industrial wastes and the
use of bacteriological parameters as effluent standards in the permit pro-
gram. Additional topics that were discussed at the meeting included the
relevance of Klebsiella as an indicator of sanitary quality, the need for
standardization of methods within EPA, and improved communication among
agency microbiologists.
The seminar included six formal presentations pertinent to the subject
of the meeting. Open discussion followed each presentation and a general
discussion period was held at the end of the seminar session. The par-
ticipants made specific recommendations for monitoring nutritive indus-
trial wastes and reached the following general conclusions:
1. The fecal coliform test is the most valid microbiological
parameter for industrial wastes presently available.
2. The excessive Klebsiella densities in fecal-coliform test results
from certain industrial wastes such as the pulp and paper, sugar
beet, and food-processor effluents are significant because they
reflect the high nutrient levels in these wastes. They can suppress
E. ooli detection, they can be pathogenic, and they are coliforms by
definition. In addition, Klebsiella pnewnoniae is found in the in-
testinal tract of approximately 30 percent of humans and 40 percent
of animals.
vii
-------
3. Nutrient-rich wastewaters provide the capability for bacterial
re-growth in the receiving streams.
4. Salmonella are recoverable from a number of high nutrient
wastes. They are also capable of re-growth and of producing a
potential public health hazard. However, pathogen detection
alone is not adequate for monitoring because no one test will
detect all possible pathogens that might be present, and
negative results do not ensure the absence of all pathogenic
organisms.
5. Effluent standards for highly nutritive, industrial wastes
shall be below 30 mg/1 and preferably in the range of 14-30 mg/1,
as measured by BOD or the equivalent TOG. A TOG level was
not recommended, pending the establishment of a value that
will correlate with the recommended BOD limits.
6. The fecal-coliform bacteria test shall be used to monitor the
nutrient reduction, by measuring the bacterial levels in the
treated wastes. A geometic mean density of fecal coliforms,
not to exceed 1,000/100 ml, was recommended as an index of
adequate treatment. Bacteriological analyses will be performed
on final effluents prior to disinfection, if disinfection is
required.
viii
-------
7. When the receiving waters are classified for contact sports
or shellfish harvesting, the bacteriological and chemical
limits shall be reduced in order to comply with the estab-
lished water quality standards.
8. The discharger has the primary responsibility for conducting
the required monitoring. EPA or other agencies may need to
provide analytical support for small industries. Preferably
EPA will conduct the initial monitoring in order to provide
basic data and to evaluate the performance of the proposed
system. At a later date the industries or other agencies may
assume the monitoring responsibility, with periodic checks
by EPA.
9. Sampling should be conducted initially at a higher frequency,
such as weekly or biweekly covering maximum flow periods. After
adequate baseline data have been attained, less frequent samp-
lings may be adequate.
10. High priority should be given to research devoted to the im-
provement of bacteriological and chemical parameters for in-
dustrial wastes. Improved tests for the indicator organisms
and methods for pathogen isolation are needed. Further research
should be conducted in order to define the public health risk
associated with Salmonella, Klebsiella, and other pathogens
in industrial waste discharges.
ix
-------
11. The importance of standardization of methods within the
agency was emphasized.
12. Better communication among agency microbiologists was whole-
heartedly endorsed. The seminar was in favor of periodic
meetings to deal with microbiological problems.
13. Suggestions were made for needed additions and supplementation
to Standard Methods.
x
-------
Statement of Problem
Thomas P. Gallagher
The National Field Investigations Centers (NFIC) have been
assigned the responsibility for preparing effluent guidelines that can
be used by the Permit Program in developing permits under either the
Refuse Act or, in the event of its passage, the new water pollution
legislation. We have had meetings with technical representatives of
some of the industries, namely the pulp and paper industry and the
canning industry. Many of the effluent guidelines that we are pre-
paring for the industries contain a fecal coliform or a coliform bac-
teriological constraint. The pulp and paper representatives as well
as the sugar beet people have questioned the sanitary significance of
fecal coliform and whether or not it can be required in developing a
permit. To them it has some very practical significance in terms of
the economics involved. Generally the industries have not been re-
qired to put in disinfection equipment and to hold down their coliform
levels with the kinds of rather expensive installations that would be
necessary if some of the standards in the effluent guidelines are
accomplished.
About two months ago in Corvallis the pulp and paper people pre-
sented at a seminar what has been reported to me as a rather strong
case against coliform standards for this industry. We felt that, be-
cause of the casethat had been made in Corvallis, it was necessary to
assemble the best people in EPA who had familiarity or experience with
this problem and aee whether there is sufficient evidence and sufficient
-------
-2-
technical rationale for requiring a. coliform or some kind of bacteriological
standard in the effluent guidelines that will be written into the permit
program. Now let me tell you this: it must be a technically defensible
standard and it must* be backed up by evidence. We've got to stay away from
things that are "desirable" or that "we would like to see." It must have
strong technical substantiation.
Now, on that basis, we have Murray Stein, who is the Chief Enforcement
Officer for Water Control and in charge of the Enforcement Proceedings
Division in Washington. He will have a lot to say about what happens with
this problem.
(Mr. Stein is recognized.)
I want to welcome you here, and if you need anything, just let either
Robert Schneider or William Stang know and they will accomodate you. We
want to have a real free-wheeling discussion. We have a tape recorder, but
it's not being used to inhibit anybody. As a matter of fact, we plan to
assemble the results of these discussions in a report and send it to you,
the active participants, for comment, and forward it to Headquarters for
recommendation on this whole problem, at least from the technical people
within EPA.
I'm going to get out of the way and Richard Bauer, from Region X,
who has had some experience in this particular problem, will moderate
this discussion. We'd like to hear presentations from the participants
and then we would like to have a rigid question-answer session and dis-
cussion back-and-forth on the particular information, and a decision on
whether or not you think what's been presented is defensible. Thank you.
-------
—3—
Bauer: Thank you. It's a real pleasure to be here today. I would
like to start by all of us introducing ourselves.
(Attendees proceed to introduce themselves. See preceding list of
participants and attendees.)
I hope personally that this is the first of a number of meetings of
this sort. I think that we can profit a great deal by, to use an old
cliche, " that cross-fertilization of having people who are working in the
field, discuss the kind of problems that they are facing," and, if this
turns out to be a profitable experience, I hope that perhaps we can make
this an annual affair.
In any event, we have a policy that was tentatively formulated by
the NEIC, and I believe copies of it have been passed out. [See Appendix A:
Considerations for Permit Preparation, Paper and Pulp Industry.] I feel
that the most important purpose of this meeting is to try to come to some
agreement as to whether this policy is relevant. If there are any diffi-
culties with it, will you point them out to Mr. Stein? Again, I agree
completely with Tom Gallagher that the policy can't be based upon personal
feelings; we should be able to back up what we say with numbers and some
hard data, because the industry is vitally concerned with this problem and
is willing to go to the wall concerning it.
If we can dispose of this issue in the next two days, or day and a
half, I think it would also be relevant while all of us are here, to enter
into some discussions on the adequacy of Standard Methods. There have been
some complaints made about it from various people. I think this would be a
-------
-4-
good opportunity to discuss that, and then perhaps a general discussion on
ideas that people in the field have, to help us in our enforcement. I know
a number of people are using new techniques in bacteriological analysis for
enforcement purposes like fluorescent antibody techniques, enteropathogenic
E ooli identification and that type of thing.
With that in mind, I would like to kick the meeting off with a little
historical background on the subject, "The Significance of Fecal Coliforms
in Industrial Wastes."
History & Background on Occurrences of Fecal Coliforms in Industrial Wastes
R. Richard Bauer
I first became involved with the questioning of the relevance of
coliform tests to pulp mills in about 1968 when I was assigned to NERC,
Corvallis. The State of Oregon had adopted a rather ambitious program for
waste treatment on the Willamette River. This included both municipal and
industrial wastes. It required an implementation plan that all the in-
dustry and municipalities be on-line with secondary treatment and with
adequate disinfection for the municipalities by 1972. The municipalities
had to have their treatment by 1968. All the municipalities complied, and
all the bacteriological standards were still fractured rather badly. We
were experiencing total coliform counts, in numerous places throughout the
river, on the order of 100,000/100 ml. Fecal coliform values were con-
siderably lower, by and large, and on the order of magnitude of approxi-
mately 50.
Coincidentally, about this time the National Council for Air and
-------
-5-
Stream Improvement (hereafter referred to as the National Council) had funded
some research. A gentleman by the name of Ching Chang, in a master's thesis
at John Hopkins, came to the conclusion that total coliform tests were not
relevant. I think that most of us agree that certainly there is some ques-
tion on its applicability. Mr. Chang recommended that we go to a fecal coliform
standard.
Since then the National Council has also challenged the fecal coliform stan-
dard, and the basis for their challenge is a series of studies they did on
these pulp and paper mills on the Willamette River. They selected mills in
which, they claimed, they completely separated all their domestic sewage.
They dumped dye down all the toilets, and checked all the plumbing, and
I am convinced that they tried quite hard; in all probability, domestic
sewage is being excluded from these plants.
Nevertheless, the coliform levels being discharged in the effluent
are extremely high. In one particular case, Crown-Zellarbach's sulfite
mill (Lebanon, Oregon), total coliforms were consistently 100,000,000/100 ml
and fecal coliform values are on the order of 100,000. They went further
to start IMViC-typing all these total and fecal coliforms. From the fecal
coliform plates, in all cases except Crown-Zellarbach, they claimed they
found absolutely no E coli. They will admit to having isolated some Type I
E aoli out of Crown-Zellarbach (Lebanon). They have done some additional
testing to try to isolate Salmonella out of the wastes. They were unsuccess-
ful, and came to the position at that time that the fecal coliform test is
not relevant.
-------
-6-
This was argued between the State of Oregon, the National Council, and
the EPA Water Laboratory (Corvallis). It was decided at that time to form
an ad hoc committee to see if we could shed some light on this problem. We
started getting together in October 1969 to try to coordinate our research.
Although not a researcher, I am capable of applying logic to some basic
bacteriological questions and I, with the concurrence of the National Council,
the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (we included them in this at this
time), and some of the food processors, put together a proposal to study five
mills on the Willamette River to see whether we could isolate any potentially
pathogenic organisms out of the wastes, to study the effect on the receiving
water, and to ascertain if we could define the areas that need further research.
I now refer to the data sheets which were passed out (See Appendix B)-
Please refer to Table I. We picked five mills, both sulfite and kraft process,
with various types of pulping techniques and various types of waste treatment.
The American Can kraft mill (Halsey, Oregon) is what I think we could call
the state-of-the-art in pulp mill waste treatment. There is a series of
area lagoons for secondary settling of kraft process mill wastes, and the
best equipment and engineering went into the plant. Likely, it is con-
siderably overdesigned. We looked at the mill effluent and then came up
with counts upstream and downstream.
I conducted a whole series of filtrations, picked individual colonies,
and confirmed their ability to ferment lactose with production of gas,
yielding confirmed total and fecal coliforms. We inoculated EC broth at
44.5°C, and fecal streptococcus KF agar. This number of Klebs-iella was cal-
culated based on a percentage of colonies identified as Klebs-iella from
-------
-7-
a percentage of the colonies that were picked. If they were Klebsiella, I
referred to the original count on the filter and got what I would consider
a semi-quantitative value for Klebsiella pnewnoniae, Criteria for iden-
tifying Klebsiella were —-H- IMViC test, lack of motility, and the ability
to decarboxylate ornithine. These results were confirmed by the National
Communicable Disease Center (NCDC), so I am confident that the numbers
are reasonably accurate; if anything, they are low.
Referring to the Crown-Zellarbach mill and the verified tests, note
the extremely high coliform counts. The fecal coliform counts are also
high. One thing that is worth noting on that page is the first value of
4^DOPOO/100ml I discovered that the waterbath was at 44.1°C, which was at
that time within the limits of the test (that was 44.5 plus or minus 0.5°C)
I then raised the temperature to 44.5; there was an apparent, significant
drop. I suspect that the drop has to do with an increase in temperature
of 0.4°C.
Note the high coliform, fecal streptococci, and Klebsiella counts for
Crown-Zellarbach mill effluents and for the S. Santiam River. Upstream,
there are a number of municipalities that are discharging treated wastes
into the river. Coliform counts increased significantly, and there was
a 9,000-fold increase in the concentration of Klebsiella pnewnoniae in
the area downstream receiving the effluents. The kraft mill at American
Can Company consistently had low concentrations of all indicators. With a
few exceptions, I could not isolate any Klebsiella there.
In attempting to isolate Salmonella out of these wastes, I took a
liter of sample and filtered it through diatomaceous earth. I inoculated
-------
-8-
the "plug" into an enrichment medium and tried to get a qualitive Salmonella
isolation. In all cases, including those of the effluent and receiving
water, I failed. This doesn't mean Salmonella weren't there; it just means I
couldn't get Salmonella as far as Im concerned.
Brezenski: Are the Klebaiella counts based upon total coliform plates?
Bauer: Correct.
Brezenski: What was your rule of thumb in terms of how many relative
percentages of your columns checked out?
Bauer: I assumed that the colonies were layed down on a filter in
a random manner. I would start at the upper, left-hand corner of the
plate, pick everything that looked like a typical coliform until I hit
20 or 30 colonies, calculate the percentage on that figure, and apply it
to the original number of colonies on the plate, then multiply that by the
correct figure.
Gallagher: You're only measuring process wastes?
Bauer: Absolutely.
Vasconcelos: You said you had a portion of these checked? They were
all confirmed by NCDC?
Bauer: I took the first 60 isolates and sent them to CDC. They came
back 60 positives (Kleba-iella). I'm convinced that the method used is, if
anything, conservative. I understand, for instance, that M-Endo Broth is
slightly inhibitory to KlebB^ella^ so some strains probably would not grow.
If anything, those results are low. I also excluded any culture that was
indole-positive, and approximately five percent of Klebsiella are; so again,
these results are low.
-------
-9-
Vasconcelos: Did they refer to this Klebeiella as Type I or a mixture?
Bauer: There are 77 serotypes of Klebs'iella. They gave me a specific
serotype where there was sufficient capsule to type. I can tell you right
now that you'll get every kind of colony morphology in the world: smooth,
rough, mucoid; on EMB agar you just cannot tell. There was no way I could
look at the plate and say, "That is Klebsielld* If there was a great big
mucoid colony, I was very suspicious, but I tried, at first, to differentiate
smooth from rough; it was completely hopeless. The biochemicals were the
only way I could tell.
Indicated in Table II are data that were prepared by Dr. Tom Aspertarde
at Crown-Zellarbach. The total-coliform bacteria numbers indicate that
either the MPN or/ the MF will give reasonably comparable data. Moving to
Table III, I then attempted to do frequency distribution of the IMViC
types from different isolates. Approximately 600 coliform and 300 fecal
coliform colonies are represented by these statistics. In most cases, the
—H- IMVic type is certainly predominant. With the exception of Crown-
Zellarbach, and I didn't calculate a percentage of -H—IMViC types, they
were negligible. I recall something on the order of three percent. I was
not satisfied that I really had enough colonies in order to put down a
number. That is what is represented in the column entitled, "all mills."
Those numbers represent approximately 500 isolates. I just lumped them
all together, 3.3 percent Type I E ooli. Bear this in mind: those all
came from Crown-Zellarbach. That was my particular experience.
From fecal-coliform bacteria plates [Table IV] the percentage producing
these IMViC types, which are Enterobaater types, is even higher — 89 percent
at Publishers, 100 percent at American Can, 87 percent at Weyerhaeuser
-------
-10-
(a biological treatment process); Crown-Zellerbach somewhat lower. In this
case for the fecal coliform, I came up with a healthy percentage of Type I
E ooli.
Then the next question arises: How many of these "aerogenes" IMViC
types were Klebaieltal It appears that most of them are. Combined data,
from all the mills (Table V), of all the "aerogenes" IMViC types, approxi-
mately 50 percent of everything, indicate 84 percent of these are Klebsiella
pneumoniae; from the fecal-coliform bacteria tests, 92.5 percent.
Then, I compared frequency distribution of IMViC types from my data
with some of the numbers that Ed Geldreich has in his publication "Signi-
ficance of Fecal Coliforms in the Environment." Certainly, there is a
significant difference in the IMViC type distribution (Table VI). The
majority of them are Enterobaate? IMViC types.
In Table VII is indicated, in the first column, a description of the
colonies from a very minimal effort I made. These colonies are the ones
that could be called fecal coliforms. The colonies were blue from edge
to edge, cream color with a blue center, or cream color with a light purple
center. The next columns (Table VII) indicate, respectively, the number
of colonies picked, the percentage of those that were lactose-positive,
the percentage of those that were subsequently positive at the elevated
temperature, and the percentage of Type I E ool-i. It does appear that
one can discriminate, at least to some extent, based on colony morphology,
on the MF membrane. Although there is a small number of colonies, you will
note the ones with the blue centers that are Type I E ooli. I should like
-------
-u-
to show you a few pictures of the plates which I photographed. (I am sure
you have all seen them a million times).
(Projection of color slides demonstrating total-and fecal-coliform
bacteria colonies on the membrane filter).
That is the kind of problem that we frequently run into in industrial
wastes. This was from Publishers Paper Company (Oregon City, Oregon).
which is a magnafite-process sulfite mill. At that time primary settling
was its type of treatment. Magnafite process involves a degree of chemical
recovery. The BOD of this waste would not be as high as that of an
ammonia-base sulfite mill. When JDU see something like that, you wonder
what you count. They are not all that bad. Standard Methods says: "Do
not count the gray colonies," and sometimes I am not sure I am seeing gray
or blue.
Geldreich: You have an overloaded membrane to start with.
Bauer: Yes, let us move on to the next one, a little cleaner plate
to count. This was Crown-Zellarbach (Lebanon) with 0.005 ml of inoculum.
These colonies were blue. They photographed as black, but this M-FC medium
with an agar base, a personal preference of mine, tends to make the colonies
a little darker. This (pointing to slide) is the type of thing that I
was calling blue center, somewhat mucoid in appearance. This is what I
was calling blue, edge-to-edge. Let us try another slide. This is again
Crown-ZeHarbach (Lebanon). The total-coliform bacteria membrane shows a
reasonably good sheen production. I should say that you would normally
identify those as being coliforms. Number 37 was the mill waste itself, and
-------
-12-
this is the downstream sample, 38: the filtration volume was 50 ml.
Next, these cultures were streaked on EMB agar. This is a fairly
typical plate (referring to slide). They are not all that way. Some will
give a nice green sheen. There is every kind of colony morphology you
can imagine. As I recall, Harold Jeter, National Training Center (Cincinnati,
Ohio), counsels you on the completed tests to streak them out on EMB agar^
turn the plates over, and look for a nucleated colony. Is that correct?
Geldreich: That is correct. There is one thing about EMB agar that
is not very well understood by most microbiologists. The textbooks have
never clarified EMB reactions. The differential characteristics of EMB
agar are pretty poor. Sheen colonies may or may not be E aoli. The fish-
eye colony may or may not be "aerogenes." The literature or textbooks give
you the impression that there is a sharp differentiation with this medium
between E ool'l being a metallic sheen organism and Enterobaotev looking
like this. In this case it is probably Klebs'iella..
Bauer: That is Klebsiella, by the way.
Geldreich: There is not that sharp a differentiation on EMB agar.
Bauer: I found every kind of IMViC type in the world, just by
streaking out "aerogenes" types on the EMB medium. After a while you
get a tremendous variety of colony morphology. One characteristic in
common is they are all nucleated. I just streaked them out to purify the
culture, by the way.
Geldreich: This EMB agar procedure is really nothing more than a
way to isolate colonies, a process you are going to carry through to a
completed test. There have been options made in Standard Methods to use
-------
-13-
EBM or Endo agar. In our country the textbooks, Standard Methods, up until
recently, (as well as Difco's or BBL's label), state that a colony is E ooli
if it produces a sheen colony on Endo agar. This is not true. Red colonies
are something else again. Endo agar will produce a sheen colony, if it is
properly made, but this is a misconception. When you sterilize Endo medium,
you destroy its capability for giving the sheen production with all coliforms.
What you are seeing is just a few of the coliforms with sheen colonies on
Endo agar. If colonies are picked from the membrane filter and streaked on
properly made Endo agar, all coliforms will have a sheen colony.
Riordan: You have percent "aerogenes" IMViC types, and then "aerogenes"
identified as Klebaiella pnewnan-iae', where would E ooli, be represented in
the data?
Bauer: In the frequency distribution tables that I referred to
earlier, the -H-— types.
Riordan: My basic question then is, can you make any inference? With
respect to the E <30Zij..can you say what percentage of the fecal coliform
are E oolil
Bauer: I think itds not in that table you are looking at, but it is
in this other data (Tables III and IV) under "all mills," indicating that
3 percent from a total coliform plate, and 15 percent from a fecal coliform
plate are E aoli. You can compare those with the different types of processes.
The percentages will vary depending on the pulping process and the treatment
type.
Riordan: Referring to earlier tables, could you break down the data
from Crown-Zellerbach to get E oolil
-------
-14-
Bauer: Yes, you could do that. This Is one of the Issues that we
have to come to grips with. Can we use straight fecal-coliform bacteria
tests, or is it necessary to go on to determine whether or not they are
E Qoli, and can we base the standard on E oo'iit This is going to be a
very controversial subject.
Stein: In addition to determining the kinds of organisms, did you
attempt to correlate the information with other chemical data and the type
of treatment?
Bauer: Yes. We measured the BOD, COD, and every kind of nutrient
Imaginable in the attempt! to correlate them with the count, without success,
Stein: The notion Is that no matter what type of treatment you are
thinking of for the pulp and paper business—and the assumption is that
the American Can plant is the pptlmum example of treatment today—we are
not going to obtain a significant reduction.
Bauer: That is correct. American Can has a beautiful effluent.
Stein: No, I mean on the coliforms.
Bauer: The coliforms were uniformly very low, less than 1,000.
In the final effluent, fecal coliform counts are, consistently, in the
range of 20.
Stein: But there are some high numbers here.
Bauer: The percentage may be high, but the number is low.
Stein: Let us assume that they are going to ask all the paper mills
to match the American Can standards. Will we, by that process, lower
the coliforms to such a low level that we may not have to think in terms
of disinfection?
-------
-15-
Bauer: That is precisely what should be recommended. May I expound
more as long as you have asked this question? Crown-Zellerhach had a micro-
fermenter in that particular biological treatment system which, as you know,
EPA subsidized, a situation that allows us to get in to sample it at any
time. The system has approximately eight days of detention time in it.
The counts in the intake waters are about 103 per 100 ml total coliforms,
7 9
and they come out anywhere from 10 to 10 . There is a lot of regrowth
going on in the plant process. American Can puts this material in a
microfennentor and lengthened the detention time to 18 days. The result:
the total coliform count is 9,000. The effluent looks beautiful.
In contrast, the effluent at Crown-Zellerbach is so viscous and
rancid that it might congeal momentarily. No more than 10 ml could pass
through a membrane filter. One can biologically treat these wastes to
low bacterial levels and, while doing that, one gets rid of the BOD.
The material finally starts to settle. One of the biggest problems in
biological treatment is the inability of the floe to settle, and the
tremendous wastage of solids. Increase that detention time to 18 days
and, naturally reduce the coliform levels to some reasonable level. The
result is stabilized waste; so stabilized that it is not going to cause
an added persistance of bacteria downstream from domestic wastes. If one
increases the nutrient level in the stream, then the persistence of
enteric bacteria in the receiving water will be increased. If one
stabilizes that waste, the metabolizable carbohydrate is removed.
There will not be any large re-growths of undesirable organisms that are
potentially deleterious to life.
-------
-16-
Stein: One can get these numbers down with a reasonable detention
time, whatever the treatment is (one has the American Can or its equivalent,
or one has your 18-day retention time, or physical-chemical treatment).
Obviously, when one uses physical and chemical treatment, there will be
a lot of resistance from the mill. Then, there is the other problem. Mills
are either going to own the land and be able to give us the retention time,
or with other mills, there will be a determined amount of resistance because
there is no space. We can talk about 18 days, but in large companies, we
are not going to get it. The question is: If one can get this treatment
from American Can, below 1,000 fecal colifortns, should we require these
companies to go below 1,000? Should we require them to do it any way they
want to do it—retention, physical and chemical, or disinfection—or would
it really make any difference? The point is this: If they are above 1,000,
what over-all significance will that have?
Bauer: I would prefer to see treatment to the level of 1,000 used
rather than to see disinfection employed. If the nutrient is still in
the waste, those organisms that survive, oftentimes re-grow, returning to
the level they were. One still has, in the waste, the unstabilized car-
bohydrate that is going to initiate re-growth in the stream, increase the
persistance of enteric bacteria, etc. If it is at all possible I would
recommend to biologically treat to a "reasonable" coliform level.
Stein: You're not saying biological?
Bauer: Well, no, physical chemical treatment. Polyelectrolytes
work beautifully on these wastes.
Stein: But if the industries do not have the space to give us
-------
-17-
biologlcal treatment, we should at least offer a counter proposal if we
are interested in coliform reduction. It is not clear whether we should
put a restriction on them. We have to answer the basic question: Is
there any pathogen problem from pulp and paper wastes, however high the
fecal or the general coliform count? If we answer that question, the in-
dustry may be faced with the problem of not enough land and with either putting
in physical and chemical treatment or disinfection.
Unless I'm wrong, there may be some other problem here. The price
difference may be so great that the companies may say, "If we're going to
be forced to, we want to disinfect and we are not going to put in physical
and chemical." If so, we should determine from a scientific point of
view just what we shbuld require. If we have massive resistance from
industries in getting them to put in something directed specifically
toward reducing the coliforms, we should have some very specific evidence
of the dangers before we can ask them.
Bauer; I hope people subsequent to me can shed some light on that
subject.
Lyons: From the engineering standpoint, when one is formulating
the rules, one is considering several trade-offs in retention time, in
microbiological concentrations, and in how they all affect the reaction
rate. With 18-day retention time there is quite a decrease in rate of
return as far as substrate removal is concerned because of less organisms.
The whole thing is the cost trade-off between doing biological treatment
or some form of physical and chemical treatment or disinfection.
-------
-18-
No one is going to look into it right now, but have these considerations
been investigated?
Bauer: Along the engineering line, I am convinced that it is tech-
nically feasible to treat them physically, chemically, and biologically—
some way to reduce those numbers without having to resort to disinfection.
Stein: It is our view that disinfection is not satisfactory, because
of the re-growth. That has nice implications, for disinfection is what
municipalities are doing along the Willamette River.
Geldreich: I have been giving Mr. Stein testimony for years that we
have a problem in this same area: nutrient removal. A case in point if
Wynopscot Bay. If the nutrients were lowered, this would then solve the
problem. It is necessary to recognize, somewhere, what is the value of
the downstream water use. Is that recognition going to be so important
that it is going to demand that industry treat its waste in order to
meet a certain limit? It may be shellfish we're talking about and that's....
Stein: That is another case.
Geldreich: Yes, but it is a case we have to recognize.
Stein: We shall come back to that specifically. I think that you
get the point with all these economic questions. The industry would be
much happier to spend money on nutrient removal or on removing the solids,
than to be tagged with bacterial removal, which of course, may mean that
they (the companies) are creating a public health hazard. If one can
give the rationale in order to put this another way, where we are going
to achieve this removal, and not really hit the industry head-on, then
it will be a great advantage, because the companies are going to fight
to the death to disprove that there are health hazards. If we can achieve
-------
-19-
these reductions with other benefits to the stream, this method is going
to be the more acceptable one.
Geldreich: We recognize this in the sugar beet industry. In the
reports, we are saying that if the industry achieved nutrient reduction,
say 85-90 percent BOD removal, in that area, we would very well accomplish
acceptable treatment.
Bauer: The State of Oregon requires coliform data from all the
municipalities, and the municipalities have considerable amounts of
correlative data with suspended solids, BOD, etc. If one measures the one
parameter, the coliform, as a monitoring tool, then a lot of inferences
from that can be made. Oregon has found, with municipal waste, that if
the total coliform value in the effluent is less than 1,000, and if
municipalities use a very high level of chlorination (1 mg residual
after 60 minutes detention time) the result is excellent correlation
with good treatment efficiency. Suspended solids are uniformly below
20 mg/1; BOD is uniformly below 20 mg/1. "Since I am in the surveillance
business now I am looking for tools like this. If I can tell our Permit
Compliance Division that if we look at coliforms and they are at a
certain level, I can give you reasonable assurance that the waste is
well stabilized—BOD is within this range, etc., we have a tool."
Stein: On the Missouri River it was unsatisfactory if they treated
wastes or if they didn't treat the wastes. When regrowth occurred it
has to be recognized that if we chlorinate and disinfect the wastes,
and if we are satisfied with what is being discharged from the outfall
coming out of that pipe, the effluent may not be enough to protect the
-------
-20-
stream downstream if regrowth occurs and something else happens.
I am trying to indicate one of the significant problems: Just
giving us a number, say X number of coli forms, after the waste comes
out of the effluent pipe, may or may not solve our problems. You have
to indicate to us a method and you have to specify a way of reducing
the nutrients, whether the preferred way is a retention time or a
physical-chemical method rather than disinfection. This is something
we should know about because we may require a company to spend several
million dollars and then we have to come back in a year or two because
that company has not cleaned up the stream. This should be the phil-
osophy we have to follow.
Again, let me make this last point because it is a big one. Suppose
we ask companies to put in a complete system, ie, similar to that of
American Can, and suppose their fecal count is higher than the EPA limit
so that the company is in violation. The firm says: "OK, now you
(EPA) tell us what to do." EPA is obligated to tell them something, and
something with some meaning. Maybe it is to be disinfection. Now, if
the policy suggested does not have any meaning after EPA has asked for
the treatment equivalent to that of American Can, there are going to
be more problems. Over the next few years as these better mills go into
operation, those are the alternatives.
Very soon it will be necessary to make a determination as to
whether we are going to ask for any kind of restriction in terms of
-------
-21-
bacteriological parameters, particularly In canning and sugar beet plants
and in several other industries. We have to assume that we will have to
require a certain amount of BOD and solids removal. The question is: If
we are go-ing to ask for removal, can we forget the coliforms? Can we ask
for a complete treatment system, including nutrient removal and disin-
fection? Uhat is the BOD of the American Can Comp'any, for example?
Riordan: With reference to American Can, what are they doing in
terms of BOD and suspended solids removal? What have we got, 10 pounds
per ton production-could it be less than that? I think the company wants
6 to 8 pounds per ton production at 30 mgl BOD in terms of effluent.
Knittel: In contrast—something which may come up later for dis-
cussion. We are trying to set American Can up as being the ultimate
in removal, and, especially, we are addressing ourselves to the aspect
of coliform removal. The firm is a relatively new mill (approximately
two years) whereas the other mills that we have been talking about,
during the date presentation, are older, well-established mills. These
older, established mills, over a period of time, have probably become
colonized with coliform organisms and they do not represent merely
domestic sewage contribution. What we need to do is to keep looking
at American Can from a certain standpoint: Do the processes become
colonized? The waters that they are using are fairly high in coliform
organisms. Over a period of time the system is going to look and act
somewhat like a continuous culture.
Lyons: To get back to Mr. Stein's point, what do we do initially?
-------
-22-
We have about two weeks to come up with some reasonable starting point.
Now, let us understand that this is not going to be hard and fast; in-
stead, it is going to be a reasonable working point—as were the other
limitations that were pointed out.
Bauer: Could we hold the discussions, please, until we get through
all the presentations and then we can start arguing about it.
The second handout (Appendix B) is a collection of analyses on a
variety of waste sources. The National Council has become convinced
that the only bacteriological parameter of sanitary significance is
E aoli, so we screened all these different places for the presence
of EC positive cultures (Table VIII).
Resi: Yes> but these are natural "elevated temperature bacteria."
Bauer: Right. In fact, the Council will not call them fecal
coliforms. The National Council refers to them as "elevated temperature
coliforms." Tables IX and X show some data that were recently obtained
out of the Snake River. Included are both effluent data, and data from
the receiving water, by the total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal
streptococci tests. These are not verified counts. (The normal Standard
Methods membrane filter technique was used).
A form of bacteriological mass balance was performed on all these
numbers. Known quantities were the flow in the river, and the contri-
bution of all the municipalities and industries; we computed the expected
concentration of coliforms. If one assumes complete mixing from all
these various sources, the predicted coliform concentration in the Snake
-------
-23-
River is about 11,000. Obviously, from some of these numbers in the
receiving waters, the counts are considerably higher than that. Note,
for example, the 260,000 average below the Idaho Falls sewage treatment
plant. You will notice, on these receiving waters, that the arithmetic
average for total coliforms in the upper Snake River is well within a
recreational water quality standard.
Downstream further, around Burley, Idaho, the regrowth of total
coliforms is very apparent. The averages were several hundred thousand.
There is no way to account for the presence of all these coliforms except
as a regrowth phenomenon.
In Table XI, I played the game with the frequency distribution of
IMViC types again, grouping together the various types of treatment
plants with food processing, meat processing, etc. With the exception
of fruit-packing plants, E ooli were present in all of them.
Brezenski: Would you summarize your presentation, Mr. Bauer?
Bauer: In summary, I think that some of the contentions of
the National Council that no E ooli are present are not completely
accurate. The percentages are low, but nevertheless, in most cases the
bacteria are there. (I think that Dr. Martin Knittel may be able to
corroborate that later). Klebsiella pneumoniae is present in sulfite
mills, consistently, in very large numbers. Whether or not that rep-
resents a potential health hazard I shall leave up to the medical
doctors, the epidemiologists, and so forth. These organisms will regrow
quite readily if you attempt to disinfect them, unless the BOD is re-
duced significantly. I am convinced that methods are available to
either biologically or physical-chemically treat all of these various
-------
-24-
types of industrial wastes to achieve a low bacterial content. In my
own opinion this is desirable. I would prefer treatment without having
to go to disinfection. I have not found Salmonella in any of these
wastes. Some of the other people here may or may rot have found these
organisms. The National Council says no bacteriological criteria should
be applied to their effluents. Are there any questions?
Brezenski: In general, you are telling us that on the whole,
your beliefs are compatible with what the NCASI states except that the
Center is saying it is not passing E. aoli in their effluents.
Bauer: My opinion is not compatible with theirs, to the extent
that I think that no bacteriological criteria should be applied to
their wastes.
Breaenski: No, looking at the data, not looking at the Council's
conclus ions.
Bauer: But that is the conclusion they come to. The inference,
if you say I agree, it is that I agree with their conclusions, and
positively, I do not.
Riordan: Why is there so much dependence on E soli? Are not
Entevobacter also found in the human intestine?
Bauer: Yes. Klebsiella pneimoniae are also present in the human
intestine; 20 co 30 percent of the people are carrying it all the time.
Riordan: Is E ooli more specific? If that is a much better in-
dicator, is that why?
Bauer: Uniformly, it can be found in the gut of warm-blooded
animals. There is a percentage of humans who do not carry Klebsiella.
-------
-25-
Kleb8i,el'Lat Enterobacter, Servatia, etc. are found in the environment,
in decaying vegetation, and in many sources, although the concentrations
are not particularly high.
Lyons: You said significant BOD reduction; what level are you
talking about?
Bauer: The waste at Crown-Zellerbach goes in at 800 and comes
out 300; that is not adequate. What is adequate, is as yet unknown.
Lyons: Are we going for percent removal?
Bauer: I would prefer not using percent removal.
Lyons: I would just like some rationale on which to set effluent
quality, because if we chose a quality of 30 mg/1 BOD, is this a level
that will greatly inhibit this regrowth?
Bauer: I can live with that; I do not know about other people.
That figure is certainly a vast improvement over the proposed policy
passed around today.
Lyons: I would like to comment on that. I wrote that permit
proposal based upon only my sanitary engineering background and about
three hours of microbiology. It was not intended as a final document,
but to be a basis for discussion on what can be written into permit
standards. The concentration is about 30 mg/1, using statistical
flows and unit operations. This sounds good except that I am wondering
if sulfite mills will be considerably higher because of the status of
treatment technology as applied to this particular waste. You said, too,
-------
-26-
that you restricted the presence of Klebs'ie'Lla to sulfite wastes.
Bauer: No, we are looking at kraft also. It is present there
but in low concentrations. The basic difference is related to the type
of sugars that are left. One has chemical recovery in the kraft, and
the sulfite process contains up to 15 percent pentosans, pentose-type
sugars. Likely they are responsible for the preponderance of that
particular type of organism. Kleba-iella can use pentoses, quite readily
with a large variety of enzymes. In the kraft process wastes there is
not nearly that level of sugar available.
Geldreich: With high nutrient waste of this type, 30-60 percent
removal is relatively poor.
Speaker from the floor: The elevated temperatures used in these
processes and the high bacterial populations certainly emphasize the
need for monitoring these wastes.
Geldreich: I think the figure of 30 mg/1 is reasonable, looking
at it from the research point of view. Some of the experiments that
we or others have done with fecal coliforms in highly treated sewage
effluents indicate that 14 to 30 mg/1 could very well control this
problem of nutrients, if we have to measure it by something as crude
as the BOD. Temperature certainly is important, but if you can throw
a block in one of these things—and these would be nutrients—the
temperature in the summertime would not be too much of a problem to
overrun what one is trying to do with nutrient removal. This makes
more sense than our older approach to the problem i-e. asking for 85
to 90 percent BOD removal.
-------
-27-
Lyons* This approach makes more sense, if it is technically attain-
able with the type of treatment available today, than to call for percent
removal.
Geldreich: Yes. What we are trying to remove here, in terms of
the nutrients—so those of the engineering group can understand— are
the nitrogen and carbon sources. Throughout this discussion we are not
talking about phosphates and nitrates, but about carbon and nitrogen
sources. These nutrients and temperatures, as well as the bacteriological
population, are very critical items to control,
Lyons: Actually, we are trying to control nitrogen and the com-
bination of materials that are in our treatment plants, and we would
just as soon have a bacterial monitor to do the work.
Geldreich: For a monitor, one needs a bacteriological measure-
ment to back up what your chemical parameters indicate. Two systems
are available to support a contention that this would do it.
Bauer: One of the issues Mr. Stein raised was: Are there other
things in these wastes that might be pathogenic? Therefore, I asked
Don Herman from National Water Quality Laboratory (Duluth) to go through
the data that has been working up during the last five or six years
and try to give us some insight into that.
Experiences with Coliform and Enteric Organism
Isolation from Industrial Wastes
Donald L. Herman
A lot of the industrial material which 1 shall be discussing was
collected prior to my affiliation with EPA except for the data from the
-------
-28-
paper and pulp mills and domestic secondary effluents. These few
slides from an area in Minnesota will demonstrate the problem.
(A series of slides depicted obviously high quality stream water
becoming progressively more polluted downstream. Areas below the entry
of pulp and paper mill wastes were shown. Recreation use was illustrated)
This stream headwaters in the Superior Forests. During an entire
siimmer we found a positive coliform count only from five to a dozen
times. One may find one fecal coliform count during the summer. This
water is very low in nutrients. As we go on downstream we observe the
effects of pollution. Some of this nutrient addition is due to the pulp
and paper industry. There is some water where we have complete dissolved
oxygen loss. Then there are some fish kills. Then down close to the
communities involved in various discharges, the river is merely devoid
of any form of life. On downstream we find floating material and sludge
development. We are involved, in most cases, with some recreational
uses at one time or another—fishing, swimming, and bathing.
(Slides show total and fecal coliform colonies on the membrane
filter).
These slides show the coliform colonies on the membrane and the
type of colonies we find. The fecal coliform membrane illustrates the
type of colony morphology. I will discuss this later. We picked any
colony that had any blue to it at all. Very often if we incubated these
plates a little longer, colonies picked up the blue color regardless of
morphology. As far as Klebaie'ila goes, I think we have to consider
-------
-29-
reduced metabolism of the lactose. The color addition results from
metabolism of that type of sugar. Here we made an isolation from EMB agar
and this one is Klebsiella. We found various types of morphology. It
shows some of the encapsulation you get around the cell.
I now refer to the handout sheets, page 7 in Appendix C. These
data were collected—before I became associated with EPA--when I was
working with the canning and food processing industry. Most of the work
was with treatment lagoons. During the initial treatment stages of
aerated lagoons in this industry, the BOD was approximately 1400 mg/1;
our range was 160-2400 mg/1. These data represent three different plants.
The survey extended over a two-year period. Flow rate averaged about
125,000 gpd. The total coliform bacteria level was 320,000/100 ml,
ranging from 2,000 to 1.5 million/100 ml. The fecal coliform was
15,000/100 ml and the range was 100 to 60,00/100 ml.
The fecal coliform work was performed using the MF and the
Salmonella work was with the MF on XLD medium. We tested -E ooli Type I
because most of the states we worked with did not care about E ooli but
wanted to know what we had in E ooli Type I. These effluents had 35
percent Type I. Klebsiella pneumoniae in any work we do is a nonmotile
organism and we key it on down to the pneumoniae organism because other
species of Klebsiella are involved in animal infections.
The Pectobaoteriwn was 6 percent. Salmonella species were running
0.7 percent. Now after post treatment, and this is after some twenty-one
days, the total coliform density was 3,000, the fecal coliform density
140/100 ml. E ooli was running. 32.1 percent, Klebsiella pneumoniae 42.9 percent,
-------
-30-
Enterobaater species 5 percent, Peotobacteriwn 9.3 percent, and in this case
we had an increase in the percent that now is going out, Salmonella 10.7 percent.
Bauer: Don, that's percent of what, samples analyzed?
Herman: No, in this case, I refer back to the fecal coliform factor there, 140.
Bauer: How about the Salmonella species? .1 percent of all the samples?
Herman: Yes.
Bauer: That's a qualitative result?
Herman: Yes.
Resi: One point here - I do not think this is the best way to recover
Salmonella; therefore, I think this point should be made.
Herman: I was just going to get to that.
Bauer: But, you can conclude that they were there in a certain percentage.
Herman: In the first few samples we could not even find a pair, then we
got into some bottom samples. In these cases you can go to the stream bottom
and find if the organisms are there. We ran XLD, SS, Tetrathionate and
various combinations of media to find them. On page eight are carbonated and
non-carbonated beverage waste data. We got very high reducing sugar levels here.
The initial BOD was 1600 mg/1 and we had a range of 800 to 18,000 mg/1. The
flow was not too high, about 36,000 gpd. Total coliforms were 7,500,000/100 ml;
fecal coliform, 50,000/100 ml. The types of isolation were: E ooli Type I,
fairly low, 5.6 percent; Klebsiella pneumonias 68 percent; Entevobaoter 15
percent; Peotobaoteriim 7.0 percent, and Salmonella 4.4 percent. On post
treatment, the persistence seemed fairly high on some of them.
I will proceed to discuss potato wastes. On the initial stage, BOD was
approximately 14,000 mg/1 and the range of 1500 to 25,000 mg/1. Flow rate was
-------
-31-
75,000 gpd. The total colifonn bacteria was 160,000,000/100 ml; the fecal
collforms, 265,000/100 ml, and in a range of 18,000 to 850,000/100 ml. In
this area, E ooli type I was only 0.9 percent; Klebeiella pneumoniae 81.1 per-
cent; Entevobaoteria 9.4 percent; Peatobaoterium 6.9 percent; and Salmonella
species were 1.6 percent.
Bauer: How many samples did you process to achieve this Salmonella
species percentage?
Herman: I would have to go back over my figures on that topic.
Put it this way: There is not any waste reported here that involves less
than 200 samples.
Bauer: O.K.
Herman: Regarding isolations, we have about 25,000—all types of isolations.
Most of them were recovered in a period of about two years. On post treatment
the total coliform was 1700/100 ml; fecal coliforms 45/100 ml. Isolations gave
E ooli Type I of 15.5; Klebsiella pneumoniae 60.1 percent; Enterobaater 8.9 per-
cent; and Salmonella at 15.5 percent. Note the shift of what is represented
within these ratios. We had confirmations hack from NCDC on the Salmonella
typhimurium and the 5". St. Paul.
Meat and slaughter wastes were just loaded (page ten). Initial BOD was 26,000
mg/1; flow rate, 28,000 gpd; and total and fecal coliform 670 and 6.5 million/100 ml
respectively. Results of the isolations were: E ooli type I of 56.9 percent;
Klebsiella pneumoniae 21.5 percent; Enterobaoter 13.8 percent; Peotobacterium
0.5 percent; and Salmonella was at 7.3 percent.
-------
-32-
After treatment, the BOD was reduced to 400 mg/1, a 98.5 percent
reduction. That is quite a high BOD for a discharge to receiving
waters. The retention time in the lagoon was thirty six days. Total
coliforms were 250,000/100 ml and fecal coliform 18,500/100 ml.
Isolations gave: E aoli- 65.8 percent; Klebsiella pnewnoniae 24.1
percent; Enterobaetev 6.9 percent; Peatobaoterium 0.9 percent; and
Salmonella at 2.3 percent. Initial random isolates confirmed as
Salmonella typhimurium and 5. St. Paul. Resampling—because there
was a question on these results—confirmed these findings, and added
the variety S. Copenhagen as well as Shigella sonnei and S. flexneri.
There were firm orders, from that time on, that one really did not
need any more sampling of this type. All that was required for both
Federal and State tests were total coliform counts; that was all that
the regulatory agencies were going to get.
Now, I refer to the paper and pulp wastes. This phase of
work resulted in some real challenges and the utmost use of tact
and diplomacy in order to obtain valid samples. It is still a
question of whether the samples represented full production stress
of the plants that were involved. The initial state was aerated
lagoons. They never would tell me the flow rate.
Question from the floor: What kind of mill was>:that, kraft or
sulfite?
-------
-33-
Herman: Two of these are sulfite and one is kraft.
The initial BOD was about 2200 mg/1; total and fecal coliforms
1.5 million and 8,000/100ml respectively. We made initial checks;
the correlation work was carried out by the State, and indicated
that this waste was extremely devoid of nitrogen content; in other
words we were looking at nitrogen. E ooli Type I was 4.4 percent;
Klebeiella pneumoniae 85; Entevobaoter species 9.5; Peatobaoterium
0.8, and Salmonella 0.3 percent, and we could only get Salmonella
when we got to the interface sample. If we took a sample out at
any other part of the lagoon we did not find Salmonella. For
post treatment discharge without chlorination, BOD was about 3,600 mg/1,
Retention time was two days in the lagoon.
The total coliform bacteria density was 57 million/100 ml and
fecal coliform ran 130,000/100 ml; E ooli. Type I was 0.4 percent;
Klebslella pneumoniae 92.3; Enterobaoter species 6.7; Pectobaaterium
0.6; and Salmonella species at 0.0008 percent. There were more than
200 samples.
For a lot of these wastes, one is talking about nitrogen de-
ficiency. A number of these organisms, especially Klebs-Lella employ
the nitrogen from air—a selective medium is created. There is no
reason why one should not have some selection of the microflora
response to these various kinds of wastes.
-------
-34-
We did conduct some additional field survey work on the re-
ceiving rivers. One river demonstrated fish kills due to lower
DO in 1969 and 1970. The CODs in the river ranged from 12 to 260.
That picture of the dead fish on all that high quality water was
taken during that period when we were out in the boat getting samp-
les. Total coliforms ranged from 10 to 171,000/100 ml and fecal
coliforms from 3 to 75,000/100 ml. Fecal streptococci /100 ml
ranged from 6 to 1350 and, in the course of events, eleven types
of pathogenic bacteria were found and confirmed by CDC including:
Klebsiella pneumon-iae, Shigella sonneij Salmonella typhimurium,
Staphyloaoaaus aureua, E. aoli, and Pseudomenas aeruginosa.
We found one isolate of Klebsi-ella pneumoniae among these
areas of major discharge while recovering types 14, 58, 21, 22,
31, 33, 35, 65, 7, 56, and 67, up to and including twenty seven
river miles below the outfalls.
Within the river we found active colonized zones of Klebsi-ella
pnewnoniae, types 14, 15, 21, 22, and 31. These types were tested
for mouse pathogenicity and were shown to be positive. Furthermore,
in this particular area, these types and some similar ones that we
obtained from clinical patients were analyzed biochemically, and were also
sent to CDC for typing. We exchanged cultures with Dr. John Matson, University
-------
-35-
of Minnesota School of Medicine. Clinically, we could not tell the
difference between the ones recovered from fatalities in patients versus
the ones we isolated but of the river. We got mouse fatality titers of
10 and 105 on patient strains; on the river strains it took titers of
10° to 10' to achieve the same effect on mice. Again, in the river, in
these zones of colonization we picked up bottom rocks where you could
see the cultures just growing right on them. These were taken to the
Minnesota State Board of Health. Quite a few of them turned out to be
pure cultures of Klebe'leVla pneumoniae growing on these surface edges.
The chemistry factors of interest were, of course, the decreased
dissolved oxygen. We had none for some seven miles. Also, we found
that as the pH decreased inthe receiving water the more the enteric
organisms there were present. There was a presence of reducing and
hexose sugars; this was found for the entire twenty-seven-mile stretch.
We found Salmonella once when fecal coliforms were 3/100 ml and con-
tinuously when the fecal coliform was more than 40/100 ml. The fecal
coliform-to-fecal streptococcus ratio was averaging 1:14.6. Then, on
downstream the ratio started to be 325:1. Bottom samples downstream
from that area of discharge ranged from 50,000 to 5,600,000 total coli-
forms /100 ml. Fecal coliform bacteria were from 300 to 23,000 /100ml.
In all bottom samples E ooli. Type I, Kleb'Siella pneumonlae, and
Salmonella typhimurium were demonstrated.
For comparison, we ask, "What does this mean for some other areas?"
In connection with some disinfection work we have some similar data on
-------
-36-
secondary effluents. We have disinfected with ozone, chlorinated, and
dechlorinated, and then we followed through on the raw effluent. (These
data are recorded over 2 1/2 years and 14,000 isolations). Total coli-
forms per 100 ml were 581,000; fecal coliforms 32,500. The E ooli Type
I was'62 percent, Klebaiella pnewnoni-ae was 18 percent. Dr. Matson and
co-workers report that, in cases of urinary tract infections over a ten-
year study, that Klebsiella pnewnoniae represent 18.6 and 18.7 percent
of the total urinary tract infection from humans. Are we talking about a
population factor being shown through here? It's curious. Peotobacter-ium
was 3.6 percent and Salmonella species 2.1 percent.
Tests were conducted for Pseudomonas aerugi-nosa. We found these
extremely difficult as compared to the other tests. The findings ranged
from3/100 ml to 6,700/100 ml. The bacteria were highest in the meat and
slaughter wastes. This area became a major workload to isolation and to
confirmation with a limited staff. We tried Hektoen agar, which is
suggested by King in a 1968 publication. Many times the results were
open to question—especially when we got into higher quality water, as to
what the colonies really indicated. Finally, we had to pick every colony
on the plate. We found Pseudomonas aeruginosa present in low numbers
where fecal coliforms were not detected. We also found fecal coliforms
and Salmonella when we could not find Peeudomanas aevuginosa. I agree
with the concern related to the organism, but prefer to think that it is
part of the total picture of the microflora and not just the only indicator.
-------
-37-
I have the results covering two pages from antibiotic sensitivity
analyses on randomly selected Klebsiella pneimoniae from the secondary
effluent, raw, chlorinated, ozone, dechlorinated, and back to the second-
ary. Then we have one from the Lake Superior and the Duluth water intake;
the remaining were isolates made by Dick Bauer. We were informed by
certain individuals, and especially the National Council, that all
Klebe-iefia isolated from their wastes were not resistant to any anti-
biotics. There were no factors involved. So I decided to take a look
at this. In summary, we will find that almost all of the Klebs-Lella
are resistant to ampicillin. Some articles state that all Klebsiella
should be sensitive to a Cephalothin. Clinically we have found this to
be the case. These result from the environmental samples. From the
clinical viewpoint angle we find that about 39 percent of the Kleba-Letla
are resistant to that antibiotic. We have the strongest antibiotic
resistance from the Isolates from the paper and pulp wastes. We have
one isolation of Ktebe-iella Type 33 that is resistant to every antibiotic
available. In checking with the local physicians, we find there are a
number of reported intestinal tract problems in the summer. Again, these
are secondary infections and often not reported. When we reviewed the
CDC reports, they confirmed the same thing.
To summarize quickly, my own experience indicates there may be a
relationship between the bacterial flora of receiving waters and the flora
of the intestinal tract, and to their behavior toward nutrients. In
addition, too much nutrient in the substrate can totally disrupt the normal
-------
-38-
human, natural flora balance. The high quality of water we sampled was
found to be extremely low in total coliforms and devoid, in many areas,
of fecal coliforms—except downstream from a beaver pond or shore birds,
and so forth. It just depends upon what other substrate is there. The
solution has been pointed out in expert investigations by Gallagher,
Anderson, and our FWPCA reports, the reports from the Red River of the
North—they are all talking about nutrients and waste addition.
From working with industry, I know that the technology is available
for better reducing of their wastes. If industry has the land available
and makes use of the more modern waste reduction techniques, this can be
accomplished.
Review of the E coli isolations revealed that 97.2 percent of these
are typical fecal coliforms, E aoli Type I. In all cases where the fecal
coliform counts were greater than 100/100 ml, Salmonella was recovered.
In 1972, Eickhoff, in his report to the Council, emphasizes the critical
need for epidemiological work on the Klebsiella pnewnoniae in relation
to recreational waters. A proposal of this type was recommended in 1971,
by Dr. John Matson. At last report, this proposal was completely lost in
Washington. For developing legal actions, we certainly will need additional
bacterial identification within these coliform counts. They are no longer
going to accept what we say ("We have found so many coliforms"), instead
they want to know which, specific organisms are found.
In conclusion, as microbiologists, we must become well organized,
work closely with the chemists and biologists, engineers, administration,
and fellow microbiologists. I hope more meetings of this type are forthcoming.
-------
-39-
Geldreich: May I ask what your explanation of the question: Why
did we have more resistance of Klebs-Lellas to antibiotic sensitivities
in paper mill wastes? I can see that doctors up in your area must be using
the shotgun technique, with gantricin, to treat all their patients, i.e.
a broad spectrum approach, but why it is we have so much resistance in
paper mill wastes? Is there a logical explanation?
Herman: I hope some data on the nutrients and trace elements in
this waste can come to light. On antibiotic resistance, in Anderson's
doctoral thesis, it was strongly emphasized that, in the presence of
sodium maganese and magnesium, there was a direct relationship to the
ability of the organism to develop stronger resistance to antibiotics.
My question is, do we have these trace elements in this type waste?
Bauer; That is a magnifite process where those isolates come from.
Magnesium oxide is involved. Another possibility is that that particular
mill is located downstream from a number of municipal discharges.
Herman: Some work by Buck shows strongly that in the laboratory
recovery of KlebB'lel'ia the encapsulation factor is important. If the
right carbohydrate nutrients are available, the capsulation becomes very
thick and mucoid. So, we are talking about nutrient conditions again.
Berg: Was not the question one of difference between antibiotic
sensitivity of free-living forms with that from those coming from patients?
Brezenski: I think there is another factor here that you are for-
getting about completely; it is the R transfer factor.
Herman: This is another factor, and please do not forget this area.
-------
-40-
We have strains of Klebeiella Type 33, from hospital patients who are
resistant to every antibiotic. We also have isolates of Klebsiella Type
33 from recreational areas that are resistant to every antibiotic that
we have. Review the literature on the R transfer. There are a number of
articles on the transfer of antibiotic resistance from Klebsiella to
E coli to Salmonella. In work by the Council, Klebsiella is found every-
where. The Council claims it found it on lettuce up to ICr/lOO ml. We
analyzed a number of samples of cabbage (from the grocery store) and,
out of some 200 samples, we got one Klebsiella isolation. Although it
is found in animal infections, it is usually not Klebsiella pneumoniae.
It would not be a surprise to find it there because Klebsiella pneumoniae
is considered to be a part of the normal flora of the intestinal tract.
Bauer: Some of the participants at this meeting have asked what
was discussed at the Corvallis Seminar. I will try to summarize. The
National Council has been spending large quantities of money for admittedly
defensive research, if they call it that, in order to try to discredit
the fecal coliform test. They had some data that if they are accurate,
taken on face value, are quite damaging. They would indicate that perhaps
the fecal coliform test is not applicable to industrial wastes. You have
heard very briefly, reference to some comments made by Dr. Razzel. He
used to be with the pulp and paper industry in British Columbia and is
a member of the ad-hoc committee. He and a technician went up into the
headwaters of a watershed in Vancouver, British Columbia, and took samples
of moss and various pieces of vegetation and then conducted fecal coliform
-------
-41-
tests on them. He spoke in generalities and did not give us any hard
data, but he alluded to the fact that they found EC positive Klebsiella
pneumonias in the order of 10 per gram. These are rather surprising
figures in light of the data that have been published by Bob Bordner,
Ed Geldreich, and others.
They did this same thing with some of the wastes from the wood products
industry in Canada. Essentially, the findings were the same. The one
statement that was his real psychological cruncher was that they went
down to the market in Vancouver and randomly picked a series of leafy
vegetables and root crops. They carried out fecal coliforms to the
Klebaiella identification, including EC. His statement that at any time
you eat a head of lettuce, and at any time you have a salad in Vancouver,
British Columbia, you're eating at least 40,000 EC positive Klebsiella.
All of the industry representatives said, "Hurray, hurray, we've
got 'em whipped." They went off with big smiles on their faces and we
did not have any data to refute it, at least not at that particular
moment; that was a frustrating experience.
Geldreich: You do not need to refute it, Dick. Data are in the
literature not only from our group. Bob Bordner and I have put out a
paper summarizing much of the work of the South Platte irrigation water
study. The data are not only on the South Platte but also cover areas
where I had been involved within other areas in Utah and Wyoming, and
Lou Resi also contributed data from certain areas, such as Snake River
and a few other places in the lower Colorado River. Plenty of data, not
only from our own organization, are available. There is plenty of data
-------
-42-
In the literature from the English, and also from Greek research that is
being done.
Bauer: Unfortunately, I wasn't sharp enough nor was anyone else
at that meeting to really hit them with it. I was very skeptical, but I
could not quote anything off the top of my head. It made us look pretty
bad.
Geldreich: I was going to ask you Dick; the vegetables they were
talking about, were they actually grown in Vancouver?
Bauer: I don't know. It was never stated.
Geldreich: You know I was wondering. If they came from Mexico4
they would be loaded. Was the study done in the winter? Obviously, the
vegetables were not grown in Vancouver, but it would have been interesting
to know more.
Bauer: I mentioned to you that these people were going to deliver
this coup de grace at the last American Society for Microbiology meeting.
I was hoping that someone here would have been sitting in on that par-
ticular presentation.
Vasconcelos: It was the worst session I had ever been to. It was
just before lunch and it was packed, right next to the lunch counter.
It was an open room and everybody was eating and I could not hear a word
they were saying. No one else could either. I don't think there were any
questions for that reason.
Bauer: I think that's the worst thing that could have possibly
happened. That will get into the record without being contested.
Geldreich: Another problem Dick, is that apparently they failed
to recognize, when they were discussing their results with you in that
-------
-43-
other meeting, that we do not live in an environment which is sterile in
terms of not discovering some fecal contamination. In the remote areas
we have a very high animal population about which people quite often
forget. We have rodents in remote sections. In some areas deer popula-
tions are high. These people who are reporting this material are failing
to recognize, intentially or otherwise, that animal populations could very
well contribute something to the particular site. They may have actually
gone to an area and sampled where they know these animials are going to
be coming to a water hole, or in an area where bacteria will colonize.
There certainly are reasons why you can occasionally find them.
Bauer: I think that we probably could have refuted every one of
Dr. Razzel's findings, but at that moment the rebuttal was not at hand.
He and his associates left a very definite psychological impression which
I hope that perhaps we can reverse today.
Our next speaker is Kathleen Shimmin from Region IX.
Observations of Selected Waste Discharges from Region IX.
Kathleen Shimmin
I would like to talk to you about some of the recent work that
we are doing. When Bill Stang called and told me that this presentation
was going to be forthcoming, we were in the process of verifying some
permits of discharges in the San Francisco region. There are data being
passed around right now that I am going to be talking from (Appendix D).
You will see that it is of a very limited nature compared with Mr. Bauer's
data or Mr. Herman's three-or-four-year observations. But, still it speaks
to the topic that we're talking about today, and so I would like to present
it to you. There are two main sections. One of them covers the data that
-------
-44-
were collected from sugar refinery and pulp mill discharges in the San
Francisco bay area. The second is data that were collected in 1968 from
a kelp processing plant in San Diego.
The data that you have here are gathered from total and fecal coliform
determinations by the membrane filter technique. The samples were processed
within three hours of collection. Colonies were then picked from the
membrane filters, streaked on EMB agar to isolate them, and transferred
to nutrient agar slants. They were then inoculated into Enterotubes,
EC broth, and Brilliant Green Bile broth.
The first page (Table I, Appendix D) is identification of selected
total-coliform bacteria colonies that appeared to be metallic green on
the M-Endo plates. We have indicated the numbers of colonies and the
numbers of types that were found by Enterotube identification. You will
see for the sugar wastes, that primarily the total coliforms were of the
KlebB'ie'lla.-Enterobactev group. These were very low in positives, as
revealed by the EC tests. All of them were confirmed in Brilliant Green.
In the pulp mill process water, the same outline was observed. The
total counts were as indicated: 8,000-11,000/100 ml for the sugar wastes,
23,000 total coliforms/100 ml, and greater than 60,000/100 ml fecal
coliforms by appearance on M-FC plates. For the fecal coliform colonies,
needless to say, that was the surprising result.
We looked then at selected colonies from the fecal coliform plates.
There we found that for the sugar processing plant wastes, the colony
appearance was primarily gray-white colonies and of these, the majority
were the Klebs-iella type. We looked at just a very small number of blue
colonies. As you can see in the sugar plant these were primarily of the
-------
-45-
Klebeieila Enterobaoter type also. In the pulp processing water, pink colonies
were distributed across the board as far as the Enterotube identification went.
A large proporation were of the rum-Enterobaoteraceae type. The blue
colonies in the process water from the pulp mill were, also, a large
majority of non-Entepobaateraaeae type, although they did turn out positive
so far as the brilliant green went. I think the difference between those
two findings is that the Enterotube is incubated for twenty-four hours
and the brilliant green, forty-eight hours. We picked up some slow
lactose fermenters. (If you want to compare the counts they are listed
on Table II.)
The conclusions that we made after viewing that data were that
the pulp mill blue colonies were, primarily, not fecal coliforms, as
would be identified by Standard Methods. Eighty-five percent of the
blue colonies were not fecal coliforms. In the sugar wastes 90 percent
of the gray-white colonies on the M-FC filters were the Klebsiella group;
only 3 percent of these were EC positive. In the same samples, again
very limited samples, 85 percent of the blue colonies were typical coliform
type, but were not positive in EC broth. Ninety percent of the total
coliforms found both in sugar and pulp wastes were from the Klebsietla-
Entevobaatev group. We have merely summarized the 1968 data. The plant
that was investigated was one that processed kelp for the purpose of making
alginate salts. The kelp process is one that would encourage the growth
of anything in the kelp. It was steeped in warm water, at about 35°C,
for up to about five days in this process; then the water was discharged
into the bay. There were some studies performed in which the investigators
found a very high coliform count, 32,000,000/100 ml. The count was also
-------
-46-
high for fecal coliform, an average of 580,000,/100 ml. Fecal strepto-
cocci were very low. Of the EC positive isolates, many were not typical
E ooli. We found 19 percent of the EC positive isolates were E. soli
Type I; 17 percent was E aoli Type II, and 74 percent not E ooli, based
on thirty-six different isolations. Many of the M-FC positive colonies
were also EC negative. Seventeen percent of the M-FC positive colonies
were EC positive and 83 percent, negative.
The conclusions that we came to after reviewing these data are that
if we continue to use fecal coliform by MF as a parameter, we are either
going to have to put in an extra step in order to verify the colonies
or we shall have to make the medium more specific. Secondly, we certainly
should consider choosing different parameters.
Geldreich: What do you propose?
Shimmin: Klebeiella might be a good possibility.
Herman: What did you give as your definition of E ooli Type II,
Miss Shimmin? Many people are confused when we speak of E ooli type.
Shimmin: Yes. Type I is -H— and Type II is either -\— or III!.
Herman: What about —H- and other IMViC types?
Shimmin: These are not data that I did myself. These are data that
were collected in our region in 1968. IMViC Type —H- was 0. This is kelp
process waste that was not mixed with domestic waste, but had the addition
of sea-gull droppings. When the processor brings the kelp 'out of the
bay, there are all kinds of fish and other materials caught in it. So,
when it is being chopped up and transferred
Herman: Did you say Type —H- was negative?
-------
-47-
Shimmin: Yes.
Herman: What Is represented then when you say Klebsiella-EnterobacteT?
Are you essentially taling about Enterabaoter and not Klebsiella?
Shimmin: No. I am talking about two different things. The first
section of data that I talked about from the San Francisco Bay is not
IMViC data; they are Enterotube data. That is when I was talking about the
Klebeie'lla-Enterdbaoter group. The second set of data were IMViC data
from the San Diego kelp processing.
Vasconcelos: Which Enterotube are you talking about? Was it the
new improved Enterotube with the ornithine?
Shimmin: It does not have ornithine.
Vasconcelos: They now have included ornithine. They solved the
Klebs'Letla problem; because, I understand the system was not working too
well for Ktebs-lella identification.
Shimmin: Right, that is why I called it Klebs-iella-EntevobaoteT.
Resi: Do you ever perform the biochemicals to check out what you got
with these Enterotubes?
Shimmin: We did not do it on this particular study because we only
gathered the data last week. But we have checked the Enterotube results
we have gotten with Salmonella isolations and they have always confirmed
exactly what we were getting in the data in the individual media.
Knittel: That Enterotube is designed for Salmonella and related work;
it is 100 percent in the isolation. When one starts digging into some of
the other Enterobaoteraceae3 one is going to be in trouble because the
percentage is not that high; I think it is something like 85 percent positive.
-------
-48-
Bauer: Excuse me, but I hope we do not get too involved right at
the moment in the details of what we are identifying. We are still
trying to come to grips with the problem: Should we apply a bacteriological
standard to the pulp mill wastes?
Herman: We are not talking about pulp mill wastes.
Bauer: Industrial wastes, more specifically, one that has domestic
sewage excluded. Are there any questions for Miss Shimmin?
Dr. Leonard Guarraia: Are all these out of sea water, Miss Shimmin?
Shimmin: These are effluents. There is sea water in the kelp effluent,
but the cooling water and all the source water in industries along San
Francisco Bay are primarily fresh water, I would imagine, because of the
location of the plants.
Riordan: Could you relate this to the elevated temperature fecal
coliform test?
Knittel: That is a misnomer. We had better put that to rest right
now. That elevated temperature coliform idea is the biggest bunch of
garbage they have come up with.
Riordan: But this is what they are saying.
Knittel: Just recently, I asked a representative of the Council,
"What is your definition of an elevated temperature coliform?" He said
that it is anything that grows on the FC membrane at 44.5°C. Well, there
is a lot of different bacteria that grows on there.
Questioner: Whether it is blue or not?
Knittel: Yes, whether it is blue or not. I said, "Now, what about
E aoUl" He said, "That is a different ball park." He began to back
off on this question. The only thing the National Council is really
-------
-49-
going to believe at this point in time is E ooli.
Bauer: May I ask Miss Shlmmin a couple of questions? On these
particular wastes we are dealing with, you mentioned that with the
kelp processors, there was evidence of rapid multiplication of
bacteria in the processing of kelp.
Shimmin: That was a hypothesis, because of the kelp processing
itself.
Bauer: Yes. Is there an indication of that type of thing
occurring in sugar processing, i.e. considerable regrowth through the
process water?
Shimmin: We have not checked it that far. There is a great reluc-
tance on the part of the industry to let us come in and sample. Therefore,
we were only able to sample at selected effluents.
Bauer: May I press the point a little bit further then? You said
that, with the kelp processing wastes, there was a good chance that
fecal contamination from sea gulls was mixed with the raw product as
it entered the plant. What would be your judgment with reference to
sugar cane?
Shimmin: Well, sugar cane, as it comes from Hawaii, is rather
dirty; it has been rinsed but it certainly is not sterile, so I would
imagine since in Hawaii they do use some sewage effluents to irrigate
the cane fields, that there is a possibility of contamination.
Bauer: They also have a large rat population. Isn't that somewhat
of a problem?
Shimmin: Yes.
Geldreich: I have a question, when trying to interpret this last
-------
-30-
page. Are these individual numbers, where you have "total and fecal
coliforms per 100 ml?"
Shimmin: These are averages.
Geldreich: What is bothering me is that you show total coliforms
less than fecal coliforms, after talking about lactose fermenters.
Shimmin: Yes, but this is according to the appearance on M-FC
plates when the value is greater than 60,000; these are blue colonies
that appear.
Geldreich: You mean to tell me then, that you found lactose fer-
menters, which are blue colonies on the M-FC plates, that were greater
in number than 60,000 and then, only 23,000 which will ferment lactose
at 35°C? This is very difficult to reconcile because we are talking
about lactose fermenters. Your lactose fermenters at 35°C are more
numerous than they are at 44.5°C.
Shimmin: That is true and that is why I made the remark when I
was reporting the data, i.e. that this was highly unusual. I believe
that those were all fecal coliform colonies that are appearing as
blue colonies.
Geldreich: What were the densities of organisms on these total
coliforms you used on the MF? Are we talking about numbers like 23
on the MF or 80?
Shimmin: We are talking about statistically significant values.
Geldreich: What was that?
Shimmin: On totals, that would be twenty-three colonies per
membrane.
Geldreich: What was your background count on these membranes?
-------
-51-
Did you have a problem? I wonder if we have an overloaded membrane
problem.
Shimmin: No.
Geldreich: You say that you do not have one. That is why I cannot
reconcile something that will not ferment in the same magnitude of pop-
lation at 35°C but it does at 44.5°C.
Guarraia: Did you try this with different lots of media?
Shimmin: No.
Vasconcelos: You say this was an average. Is that correct? One
could get some distortion if one has a high point, a mean in other
words. How much data....
Shimmin: I lifted the data myself and this is what I would consider
statistically significant.
Vasconcelos: Is it not skewed?
Shimmin: No.
Another question: What you are asking is, "Is it an arithmetic
or geometric mean?"
Vasconcelos: Right. When you say average, right away
Shimmin: It is an arithmetic average, but the range of counts was
not a great enough range that one would need to use the geometric mean.
Vasconcelos: It looks, you know, a little
Shimmin: It looks very strange, but that is my point. These things
are appearing on the M-FC plate.
Bauer: Have you experienced this frequently? Is this the only time?
Shimmin: This is when we first started running industrial effluents.
We did not experience it in any of the sea water or sewage types.
-------
-52-
Vasconcelos: You said the San Joaquin River.
Shimmin: This is the San Joaquin River, close to the intake, and
I have a feeling that there are other discharges from the pulp mill
coming down. I don't think you are looking at anything too much different
than from the pulp mill itself.
Bauer: I would like to cut this particular point off. Perhaps we
can bring it up again. Tomorrow I would like to talk about methodology
a little more. I am hoping now that we can continue to focus our atten-
tion on the question whether or not bacteriological criteria or effluent-
limiting criteria should be applied to industrial wastes.
Vasconcelos: Will the pulp mill companies agree on a bacteriological
standard?
Bauer: No, they will not. That is the whole problem. They say that
we are way out of line to even consider suggesting one.
Vasconcelos: I am talking about an Esoher-ichia eoli standard.
Bauer: They would agree to an Esoheriahia eoli but not fecal coliform.
Geldreich: If the difference is two million versus twenty
million; so what, we still have a problem. Taking your data, Dick,
where you might have EC as you partition it off, maybe two million on
some of them and your total fecal coliform or your Klebs-letla counts
were even higher, the magnitude is tremendous. We have to achieve re-
duction. This is a smoke screen the companies are throwing out.
They tried three different ways. They tried to get EPA to get around
using the word "fecal" because that is a nasty word. They won't look
-------
-53-
for Salmonella which I have asked them repeatedly to do. They do not
want to carry out this reduction, which is the problem, and they have
attacked the methodology in terms of an MF and MPN problem. Now they are
going on the idea of trying to throw a smoke screen on what we find in
our methods, like Klebs-iella versus other coliforms, not realizing of
course, that Klebs'iella, as we find, are found in some human intestinal
tracts and other warm blooded animals. It is a series of probes that
they are trying to put out to cast confusion over the real crux of the
problem: Have they got the nutrients down?
Riordan: I think that is the thing we have got to do. Sit down and
decide whether we have a method. I don't think one can obtain the de-
sired result on the basis of 30 mg/1. There will be some nutrient re-
duction, but we do not have the same experience with pulp and paper wastes
that one has with municipal wastes. Five-day BOD with paper wastes has a
ratio, I believe, of about 20 percent ultimately, rather than the 67 percent
that we have in municipal wastes. This means that even with 30 mg/1 one
is going to have the nutrient there.
Geldreich: To start with there are more sugars there.
Riordan: One may not be able to think even of 30 mg/1 as being
adequate nutrient reduction.
Geldreich: I think that number is the workable thing that we have
to look at really; it is between 14 and 30 mg, from our own experiences.
I would like to check it out more thoroughly.
I would like to let Dr. Martin Knittel present his data. Then per-
haps we can get down to some serious discussion about the points raised by
Mr. Stein this morning.
-------
-54-
Review of Research Regarding Colifortns in Pulp
and Paper Mill Wastes
Dr. Martin Knittel
I would like to give a progress report on research we have conducted
during the last eight months, on the presence of Klebsiella pneumoniae in
pulp and paper mill wastes.
We are interested in the ranges of Klebsiella pneumoniae in various
pulp mill and fiberboard wastes and in the local streams. From this data
we would develop a research^plan to meet the objectives of the program.
Our isolation technique is very easy because of the large numbers of
Klebsiella pneumoniae in pulp mill effluents. We have found that close
to 100 percent of the total coliforms appearing on the M-Endo agar can be
identified as Klebsiella pneumoniae. We picked these colonies and in-
noculated them into lactose broth and those that were positive for gas
in forty-eight hours were transferred into the IMVic media and ornithine
decarboxylation medium, checked for motility, and typed using pooled
sera. A representative number of these was sent to NCDC for confirmation.
Some brief observations on the Klebsiella pneumoniae that we have
isolated: They are usually late lactose fermenters, delayed forty-eight
hours. For some Klebsiella there is a temperature dependence on gas
production in lactose. Some are not positive at 35°, but will produce
gas in lactose broth when incubated for an additionalfour or five hours
at room temperature. Not all of them are encapsulated so not all of them
are typeable. They make up between 90 and 100 percent of the total
coliform colonies found in pulp mill effluents. We have been able to
-------
-55-
identify Klebsiella pneumoniae following any of the criteria for identi-
fication. Because there are a number of classification techniques, one
of the problems was to determine if the isolates were either Klebsiella
pneumoniae or some other Klebsiella.
Let us run through these slides. (A series of slides demonstrated
Klebsiella colonies and growth curves).
These are cultures that we received from the American Type Culture
Collection that we wanted to use as comparative organisms. We plated them
out to get some idea of colony morphology.
Geldreich: Notice that on overloading the membrane bigger colonies
occur toward the edges while the center ones are sometimes quite tiny.
Knittel: Right, we made no attempt to count these colonies. We
merely wanted to see what kind of reaction would result on M-Endo and
LES agars. The next slide is more typical of a pulp mill effluent. The
mucoid colonies show a variation in metalli sheen production, a rather
soupy type of colony. This is more typical of pure cultures than have
'i
been carried in the laboratory for some time.
Geldreich: Is the alcohol in that particular LES media? It would
keep down the confluency.
Knittel: Yes. This is a highly mucoid organism, difficult to count
on the plates because it spreads very rapidly. Let us go to some of the
data we have collected (Appendix E). On four successive days we sampled
the mill for total-and fecal-coliform bacteria determination (Figure I).
I do not have the fecal coliform data prepared, but they would present
-------
-56-
a similar profile with lower numbers. The intake water had low densities.
As we got into the primary settling ponds, the numbers came up. There
were day-to-day fluctuations in concentrations. When we looked at the
secondary pond effluents, the numbers of coliforms were higher showing
that regrowth was occurring during treatment.
The next slide (Figure 2) shows the comparison between the number of
total coliforms and percentages of Klebsisella in primary and secondary
influent-effluents. There is a large number of coliform organisms coming
^
into this primary, indicating that they are coming out of the mill some
place. Somewhere within the mill is the source of inoculum, in this waste,
which increases in numbers during treatment. There is a slight but re-
producible decrease owing to settling going through the primary settling
phase.
As the waste enters secondary treatment, which is merely an aerated
lagoon, there is an increase. There are more total coliform bacteria
than there are Ktebsi-ella. The higher numbers may represent the effect
of pH adjustment as the effluent goes in the secondary treatment system.
^
There is a long travel period from the primary to secondary. By the
time the effluent comes out of the secondary aeration, there is approxi-
mately a two-orders-of-magnitude increase in numbers, most of which are
Klebsiella.
Speaker from the floor: Is this the sulfite mill?
Knittel: Yes, this is the Crown-Zellerbach (Lebanon), one of the
easier mills to sample because we have money invested there. We have
-------
-57-
trouble getting Into the other places. I think if we could sample other
mills we could show some kind of relationship. We found it in kraft mills
and one other mill that we have sampled. There is a presentation, in fig-
ure 3 of the data on a grab sample of secondary influent, treated in
various ways to determine whether regrowth of these Klebsiella and fecal
coliforms could occur at the treatment temperatures the mill was using.
We took a portion of the sample, incubated it, and called these total
coliforms the indigenous cold form population. We compared this level
to the coliform increase in the waste itself; we did have an increase.
We sterilized the sample either by autoclaving it or by filtering it
through 0.45u membranes. We inoculated the autoclaved or filter-sterilized
wastes with an EC positive, Type I, E ooli or a Klebsiella pnewnoniae
which we had isolated from their system. We incubated it at 20°C, on a
shaker in a waterbath. We got good growth as one would with any standard
nutrient medium. We had a discrepancy with the filter-sterilized waste:
we did not have much growth or die-off. This result may be explained
on the basis that some of the nutrients that are available for growth
have been removed by filter sterilization. The particular material may
act to adsorb the nutrients onto the surface so that essentially they
have been removed.
Speaker from the floor: You can always break them down in the
autoclave, too.
Knittel: This is true. We may have solubilized the nutrients. These
results did convince us that we».when sampling the various waste streams
-------
-58-
in and out of the various treatment facilities, were seeing an overall in-
crease in coliforms and Klebsiella.
Geldreich: Did you try this with the Salmonella?
Knittel: No, we have not.
Geldreich: We have done similar experiments, and the Salmonella take
off just like that.
Herman: We compared maximum growth rates of E aoli and CDC-confirmed
Type 33 Klebsiella pneumoniae at 15°C and they followed the same pattern.
The Klebsiella grew faster than E ooli,
Knittel: These observations probably come back to what we have been
saying: Growth is really a function of nutrient availability. If these
coliforms can grow in the plant, and if the plant itself is contributing
nutrients, Klebsiella pneumoniae can grow. Then Salmonella^ Shigella, or
some of the other Klebsiella can also grow. This problem is not so much
that the wastewater represents immediate fecal contamination, but that growth
of the coliforms does occur. If these wastes can grow coliform, Salmonella
or other pathogens may also grow. This increases the chances of water-borne
infections. On the other hand, these large numbers of coliforms may mask
coliforms from other sources that are more of a health hazard.
As a result of the Corvallis meeting, and of the statements that were
made to the effect that Klebsiella could be found anywhere in the un-
civilized environment, we went to an experimental forest, on the campus,
which has limited access. We took samples of vegetation, pine needles,
leaves from trees and bushes, leaves on the ground, soil, and water from
a small stream. We found no total coliforms, fecal coliforms, or fecal
-------
-59-
streptococci (Figure 4). We did find some total coliforms in the water
samples after forty-eight hours incubation, none of which were lactose
positive. We did not carry them further but we hope to follow this up
at a later time.
The representatives of the pulp and paper industry at the Corvallis
meeting contended that they were willing to go along with E ooli and they
kept bringing up the "elevated temperature coliform" theory. They denoted
"elevated temperature coliforms" as those bacteria that are found on the
fecal coliform membranes, including typical and atypical colonies. I
find this term very confusing and suggest that EPA microbiologists de-
velop a statement to rid the future literature of this term and to de-
fine more precicely the term fecal coliform.
We investigated the effect of temperature on the growth of fecal
coliforms at elevated incubation temperatures. We shall proceed very
rapidly through these slides. This is an E ooli (National Center for
Communicable Disease, Atlanta, Georgia) plated at 44.5°C. It is a
typical blue colony, easily identifiable as a fecal coliform. Next is
the same organism incubated at 45°C. There is not much difference. The
counts go down a little, but they will survive at 45°C. Next at 45.5°C
the colonies are larger.
The next slide shows a Klebsiella pneumoniae culture from NCDC plated
on M-FC medium at 44.5°C. This is the reason the pulp and paper people
have been after this coliform problem. These organisms are the ones
they are calling "elevated temperature coliforms." They are lactose-
fermenting, thermal-stable Klebsiella pneumoniae that will look just
-------
-60-
like E ooli at 44.5°C. They do grow at 45°C. At 45.5°C they do not grow.
This colony appearance is not true of all Klebsiella. The culture from
the American Type Culture Collection that I showed before were plated
in a similar manner and incubated at those same three temperatures.
They do not survive. We had no colonies appearing on the medium.
Next, we see the fecal coliforms from a mill effluent. This is the
appearance of the colonies when the plates are incubated at 44.5°C.
There are some dark blue colonies typical of fecal coliforms intermixed
with some atypical colonies of various colors from white to pink and
those with blue-centers. The next slide is a close-up one to emphasize
the high numbers of atypical coliforms that crowd the membrane and obscure
the actual numbers of fecal coliforms.
The next MF was incubated at 45°C; the background growth has been
decreased and the colonies are countable. The problem is to demonstrate
the presence of fecal coliform colonies intermixed with the atypical
smaller colonies. A close-up of the previous plate shows that the
suppression of the atypical colonies by a 0.5°C temperature increase
makes the dark blue typical colonies more distinct. On the next plate
incubated at 45.5°C, the number of atypical fecal coliform colonies has
been suppressed further. When light blue or blue-centered atypical
colonies are examined in culture they are found to be slow lactose-
fermenting, thermal-resistant Klebaiella pnewmoniae. The large, dark
blue colonies isolated are about 100 percent E aoli Type I and follow
all the criteria set forth for typical fecal coliforms. At 45°C and
-------
-61-
and 45.5°C one notices that the number of atypical colonies has been
suppressed, and it is easier to define the fecal coliforms. The next
close-up of the previous membrane shows atypical white, blue, blue-
centered, and cream-colored colonies that are not E aoli3 when we com-
pare them with typical dark blue, somewhat irregular E ooli Type I
colonies which gave the typical -H— IMViC reaction.
The next membrane is more typical of the mill effluent, a very
crowded membrane. We can pick atypical colonies without contamination.
If we use a higher dilution we do not have a countable plate, just one
or two blue colonies.
Geldreich: That is an overloaded membrane, though.
Knittel: If we go to the next highest dilution, we lose the E coli.
Geldreich: What is the next highest, five-or ten-fold difference?
Knittel: One-tenth, a decimal dilution. For example, this would
-1 9
be 10 and the next one 10" . The next membrane was incubated at
45°C. We immediately have eliminated many of the interferring atypical
background organisms in the same sample dilution. The next slide is
a close-up of the previous plate. We suppressed the growth of the
slow lactose-fermenting Klebsiella, and exposed the typical type I E coli..
The size of the blue colonies, the fecal coliforms, is larger
when the membranes are incubated at 45.5°C. Temperatures above 45.0°C
inhibit cell division of E aoli\ however, cell growth continues and
the cells become filamentous.
This is an interesting organism represented on the next slide.
Of course, we are not going to count this one as a coliform at all
-------
-62-
because of its green color on this media. We have pLcked several of
these colonies and performed several biochemical tests on them. They
turn out to be Enterobaeter hafnia. A close-up will reveal colonies
with a blue center. They are slow lactose fermenters and will turn
blue after longer incubation. At 45°C this organism still survives
very well. At 45.5°C we have definitely lost some of those atypical
colonies but the larger E hafnia colonies survive.
We took an average of several runs at these incubation temperatures
on three different effluents. We plotted the numbers of fecal coliforms
that appear versus the temperature of incubation (Figure 5). There
really is not a lot of difference between the numbers that survive at
44.5°C and 45°C. However, with the increase of the incubation tem-
perature to 45.5°C, only about 50 percent of the fecal coliform popu-
lation survives.
The first 2 columns in Figure 6 represent a comparison of the two
types of colonies appearing on membranes incubated at 44.5°C. We picked
representative numbers of colonies and recorded the results from a set of
biochemical and cultural tests. From the wastewater examined 89 percent
of the dark blue colonies tested were EC positive. Further in this table
we reported the typical and atypical colonies that appeared at the three
incubation temperatures and compared those two types of colonies on a
variety of media. The dark blue colonies gave the classical reactions
for E ooli. The light blue colonies were a mixture of Klebs-iella and
other Enterobaotev species, usually hafnia, once or twice l-iquifaciens.
The same picture remains at 45°C. At 45.5°C the fecal coliform count
went down, but those that did appear were definitely E coli. The back-
-------
-63-
ground colonies were Peeudomonae of various kinds.
We have also attempted on a limited basis to use the enrichment
technique for Salmonella but have not been successful. On every occasion
that we have tried to enrich for Salmonella we have been very successful
in isolating Pseudomonas aeruginosa from the same wastes.
Guarraria: Have you ever tried to use internal control for seeding?
Knittel: No, we have not. i would like to conclude my remarks with
what I consider to be two important recommedations:
1. In any survey a confirmation procedure should be followed for the
coliform bacteria that appear on either the M-Endo or M-FC media. For
example, since pulp and paper industries personnel have stated that
E aoli* type I is their main concern, confirmation of colonies from these
industrial wastes is particularly important. This information will pro-
vide a firmer foundation for legal action.
EPA needs a central bacteriology laboratory devoted to classification
and confirmation not only of members of the coliform group but also of
other problem-causing microorganisms. We have been depending upon the
good nature of NCCD to confirm enteric pathogens. We must develop our
own expertise.
2. EPA needs to develop a document that clearly states the correct
classification of the members of the family Entevobaateviaceae. (Some
microbiolegists are still using the outdated taxonomic keys of Bergey's
Manual). EPA must refute the term "elevated temperature coliform" that
is being proposed by the industries. This term is confusing and does not
have a sound foundation.
Gallagher: Let me ask you this one question. You indicated that at
-------
-64-
the symposium in Corvallis about two months ago, the industry said it
would be amenable to accepting E aoli. Did the representatives say that?
Knittel: I do not think that they said that directly, but that was the
way they were pushing it; they put great emphasis on the presence of
E ooli type I as being significant.
Bauert There were certain members of industry, such as Matthew Gould
of Georgia-Pacific, who indicated that, in trying to clarify the sig-
nificance of the elevated temperature tests. They believe E aoli is a lot
more acceptable than fecal coliforms.
Bauer: I think the representatives would accept the presence of
E aoli as evidence of fecal contamination, with all that that implies.
Geldreich: I am very much impressed with what you're doing here on
temperature. I should like to give you a little background on elevated
temperature tests. When we began to work on the elevated temperature
concept and looked through the literature, we found elevated temperature
tests recorded back as far as when Eichmann was playing with the prin-
ciple using glucose broth. Through the history of elevated temperature
tests there have been many choices made as to what temperature to use.
We finally settled on lactose broth and we started incubating at 45.5°C.
We were much concerned that we were very close to the upper limit where
we would get a sudden and very sharp kill-off if the water-bath deviated
very much. We were also aware of the World Health Standards which were
set at 44.5°C. We began a series of experiments with the environmental
waters in our area at 44.5°C, 45.0°C, and 45.5°C. We found that when
we reached 45.7°C, we had just about wiped out everything. If we found
a colony growing at 46°C, it was one of these oddballs, a huge colony.
-------
-65-
Therefore, we had a real problem to face in the laboratories that
were going to do this test. We know that many of the laboratories did
not have a reliable waterbath (a temperature deviation +0.5 tenths or
less). We felt that if we put out this procedure at 45.5°C we would run
a very good risk of having people come up with negative answers because
waterbaths would not be performing correctly. We set the incubation
temperature of the test at 44.5°C to be sure that waterbaths, at that
time, would be able to cope with this test (it is really very sensitive
to temperature).
The World Health Organization is using, at this time, 44.5°C in its
standards. I had the opportunity to talk with the water laboratory
directors of twelve European countries last month in Belgium on another
assignment and discovered they are all using 44.5°C. They may call it an
E ooli. test; it is actually the MPN version with a confirmation very
much like we perform. They are using a different medium, but I am sure
if we made measurements under similar conditions, we would get identical
answers. We have done some parallel tests with MacConkey broth and
other media. We are talking about the same numbers and the same pop-
ulation worldwide.
In the light of your findings, it might be desirable to elevate
the temperature of the test to 45.0°C now that we have more labora-
tories using better waterbaths. I do not want to go to 45.5°C because
I am afraid of the results. We have to recognize a trade-off here.
-------
-66-
Knittel: You can see from that curve that there is a plateau
between 44.5°C and 45.0'C. The results are going to depend a lot upon
the kind of population present other than E ooli.
Geldreich: You made one interesting observation, that if one would
incubate the membrane filter for the total plate count at 35°C for the
normal time, but then set the plates out at room temperature for a few
hours, one would see more sheen colonies which one would then pick. Am
I reading this right?
Knittel: I was not referring to the colonies that appear on the total
coliform plate, but to the isolates from the colonies growing in lactose broth.
Geldreich: This is a very critical thing when we are looking at this
whole problem. For instance, on an elevated temperature test we must
place the membranes in the incubator within thirty minutes and then we
must take them out and get them counted within thirty minutes. On this
particular test I have had many people tell me they leave the plates
setting on a work bench for several hours—while perhaps they are having
lunch, etc.—and then they count them.
Knittel: They might as well throw them away. They do not have
typical blue-centered colonies. They immediately are released from the
inhibition of temperature and they're going to grow very rapidly. Within
an hour and a half to two hours they will change.
Geldreich: This also occurs on a total coliform test. The counts
become excessively high because you suddenly get the slow lactose fer-
menters occurring in such populations. Instead of having 20 or 30
-------
-67-
coliform colonies when you count, you might have 100. I do not think
this is well understood.
Knittel: I do not believe people are following the procedures that
strictly. I believe that there has to be precise quality control of
media use, sterilization, and techniques to reproduce results within
defined limits.
Geldreich: Both tests involve a transient reaction. With the total
coliform test actually the Enterobaoter aerogenes and Klebsiefla will
grow very fast. I was wondering whether those plates that you made had
been out on the work bench for a while.
Knittel: Yes, by the time they were photographed, they had been out
a while.
Geldreich: I have had this problem. I was going to photograph some
colonies like this, and they had lost their sheen. They have completely
consumed all the lactose. They have now started to attack the aldehyde,
and then the color turns gray. They were originally sheen colonies and
coliforms.
Brezenski: On the question of 45.0°C as an incubation temperature,
this is also being perpetuated by FDA right now. At the last shellfish
meeting in Washington, this was one proposal which came up regarding
44.5°C and 45°C incubation.
Geldreich: I do not think that you are going to find much difference
in coliform IMViC patterns between 44.5°C and 45°C. If the higher in-
cubation temperature will clear up the background of confusing organisms,
I am all for it. I have looked at this very carefully, and I do not
-------
-68-
th ink that changing 0.5°C is going to upset anything we have done in the
past or will do in the future. If it will help in paper mill wastes, I
would be all for just making a standard across-the-board change to 45.0°C,
in the next edition of Standard Methods. We had originally set the tem-
perature to be compatible with World Health Standards and to recognize
the problem with incubators at the time. We have reliable equipment now,
and perhaps we ought to raise the temperature to 45.0°C.
Brezenski: I think that is a good point.
Knittel: We use Blue M Magniwhirl waterbaths, cover the tops, keep
an extended scale thermometer on them, and check them two or three times
a day. As well as I could judge, these plates were within 0.2°C variation.
The temperature ranges from 44.9 to 45.1°C, but it averages out that the
length of time at 45°C is greater than at the two extremes provided one
keeps the waterbaths covered.
Geldreich: The important point to remember also is that this is
still a fecal coliform test and not and E ool-L test. We are going to
find Klebsiella pnewnoniae even at 45°C and it is important. Also, the
members of the fecal coliform populations may differ even within one
individual. For a period of time a fecal coliform with one IMViC
pattern may predominate, and then, three or six months later the popula-
tion may shift into another pattern. That those organisms are all
elevated temperature positives, is the important thing.
Bauer: I would like to bring this discussion of methodology to
a close here if I may. If you are in agreement, let us start the
discussion of the question at hand: "Is a bacteriological limitation
-------
-69-
necessary in industrial wastes where municipal waste is excluded?"
Brezenski: This is not a Separate question. This question is tied
very closely to the one we are talking about. This is methodology, also
definition: what organisms we are talking about. Apparently, there is
not complete agreement on the significance of some of these intermediate
types or of Ktebs-Lefia. I do not think we can make a decision on one
problem without considering the other. I think this interpretation is
important.
Bauer: Let me be more specific. Do you feel that fecal coliforms
at 44.5°C are a relevant parameter to apply to industrial wastes?
Brezenski: 1 think that is the more pertinent question.
Howard Davis: What do you mean by fecal coliform?
A speaker from the floor: Any coliform that will produce gas at
44.5°C.
Bauer: We are talking about how one definition fits on top of
another. Coliforms that will grow and ferment gas at 44.5°C regard-
less of IMViC type, are good fecal coliforms.
Geldreich: Klebs-iella is a coliform, a lactose fermenter. Sometimes,
some of us forget this.
Brezenski: I agree.
Gallagher: Maybe you can be a little more specific. Some of the
material that has been prepared by the NFIC, to go to the regions as
guidelines for the permit program, has "organisms isolated in the fecal
coliform test and associated with pathogens shall not exceed 1000/100."
Is that a defensible statement? Do the processed wastes have sanitary
-------
-70-
significance? Secondly, if so, are the fecal coliforms or the organisms
isolated in fecal coliform tests valid indicators of health hazards in
these wastes?
Geldreich: This is a loaded statement.
Gallagher: I know that it is.
Bauer: Can we take them one at a time then? Are we to be concerned
about the high bacteria counts in industrial wastes, per se; do they have
potential pathogenicity associated with them? If we can agree to that,
then what kind of a test do we apply to it to determine that point?
Alright, anyone willing to give his opinion?
Geldreich: First of all, if we are talking about fecal coliforms,
regardless of whether there are 3,000 or 20,000, we are talking about
fecal pollution. This is what we are trying to measure. We are trying
to measure fecal hazard where there is no pathogen test that will
guarantee that one can recover all possible pathogens that will be
present.
Now as far as Salmonella is concerned, it is great when you get an
answer. However, when one does not get an answer, first of all, it does
not mean Salmonella are not there. I had a project, in the Northwest
Laboratory, in which we had been looking at serotype recoveries in many
different kinds of media and determinations for Salmonella. It is
most frustrating because you cannot be sure they are not there when you
get a negative result. Secondly, Salmonella is only one pathogen we
ought to be concerned about. We have a man here interested in virology,
-------
-71-
and we have enteroviruses. I am also Interested in enteropathogenic
E oot'i, which is a fecal coliform. There are also Shigellae and Leptospira,
if we were to talk about feedlots. The one thing that we can correlate
best with this concern for pathogen hazards is the use of some procedure
that will measure fecal pollution. The only thing we have in bacteriology
is a fecal coliform test that correlates between 90 and 95 percent of the
time with this type of pollution.
Brezenski: Let me stop you right here. The question that was put to
me by the Council at that point was, "Yes, you can show data. Mr. Geldreich
has shown us in the literature that one arrives at 95 percent correlation
when one is working with sewage and human excreta. However, this fecal
coliform test was not developed for use with industrial waste, and one will
not come up to a 95 percent value in such wastes."
Berg: The problem here is that one is talking about two different
things. One is talking about organisms as indicators on the one hand,
but that is not what the issue really is here. The question here is:
What kind of organisms....(interrupted, mixed talking).
Stein: As many of you know, I am kind of an amateur scientist and
I am very sympathetic to what you are doing here. Let me tell you how
difficult this is. We are going to have to determine whether there is
a pathogenic significance (and we might want to stretch pathogens if you
do not think we cover viruses) in the pulp and paper mills and sugar beet
wastes. If there is a pathogenic significance, then there has to be a
measurable limit, and this is probably going to be a coliform test.
The point is: Are we going to say a high fecal coliform count in these
-------
-72-
wastes is a hazard to health? This is the hurdle we have to get over.
I think we can back you all with the kind of test you set.
Geldreich: What you really want is definite, positive evidence
of the pathogens present in an effluent as some of the states do....
Stein: No sir, we do not.
Gallagher: We want to have some evidence that there is a hazard
associated with process wastes from the industries.
Lyons: If you cannot establish that, everything else is a lot of
good scientific significance, but in the enforcement field we are
trying to build a house without a foundation, and we have to have that
foundation.
Geldreich: Now, you have fecal coliforms present, indicating a
fecal contamination. What you want is to correlate it with potential
pathogen occurrences if possible.
Gallagher: We would like to have what evidence is available.
Stein: Let me read this. (It is a very good and accurate expla-
nation of the industry's position). "Pulp and paper industry research
has shown that Klebs-iella is often found in process waste waters that
are completely isolated from the domestic wastes; it has no sanitary
(fecal) significance." The statement is credited to Mr. Blosser. To
me it is unacceptable. A waste does not necessarily have to be asso-
ciated with sewage or packing house waste to have significance. Let
us assume that we have an industrial waste like sugar beet or pulp
and paper effluents where the process wastewater is completely isolated
from domestic wastes. Do we have to control these waters in any way
-------
-73-
to keep the fecal count down? What significance do they have for man?
Geldreich: It is to tell them something they do not want to realize:
There is so much nutrient present that those organisms are multiplying out
of proportion. There are two things we are getting out of this indicator
concept: One, there is fecal pollution there, and two, industries are
magnifying the hazard because the nutrients are there.
Stein: Right. You made that point very clear. If we can convince
the industries to keep the nutrients down, the industry will buy that
and spend a lot more money than to keep pathogens down.
Geldreich: There is a method, the fecal coliform, to measure whether
or not they are reducing the nutrients, because coliform counts are going
to go down after adequate treatment.
Stein: If the right policy is to keep the nutrients down and we
have some measure for nutrient reduction, we can put in a tight control.
If, by controlling the nutrients, we are automatically going to get the
bacterial and virus count down, I think we can push for a much harder re-
striction. If we put the control on the nutrients, and if we can get the
industry to accept it, we are on firmer ground, particularly if we get
into the area of arguing about the effects of the microorganisms.
Geldreich: There is one thing, one cannot rely on the chemistry
test alone to be sure that nutrients are down. One has to have a back-up
test in order to show that the coliforms are there in smaller numbers.
We cannot be sure that the BOD or some other chemical measure is that good.
-------
-74-
Stein: We are talking in terms of nutrients and we figure that the
nutrients provide a medium for bacteria to grow. We just want the nutrient
level down. Let me try to oversimplify: I think a company might get ex-
cited if I were to say they are pouring a test tube of bacteria in the
water and contaminating the stream. But if I tell them they are dumping
into the water some molasses which is relatively benign although it will
provide a good medium for the bacteria to grow on, I can tell them to cut
down on the molasses. If we say we want to keep these nutrients down and
we are using this coliform level as a check, this may be a way of getting
around first base.
Berg: May I raise a question here? I still think there is something
very wrong with these arguments. Unless we can show that the Klebsi,e11a
are pathogenic and should be kept out for that reason, the question that
is going to be asked in the situation where one is obviously getting am-
plification is: "How many organisms of fecal origin did you have originally
since you now consider them such a problem?" Are the nutrients also
bringing about the multiplication of pathogenic forms? If they are not,
you are dead.
Geldreich and others: They are. They are.
Berg: I mean pathogenic forms.
Geldreich: Ralph Christienson has found Salmonella in paper mill wastes,
Berg: Then it is based upon the pathogens; what are you worrying about?
Geldreich: We are trying to establish, if we can, a policy from the
standard procedures that we use. If we spend our time searching for
-------
-75-
pathogens all the time, we are really going to have some great problems.
Lyons: Are the nutrients you are talking about not soluble substrate
levels or are you talking about this total group?
Geldreich: I am talking about a nitrogen and carbon source. I am
vague because I do not know how else to put a handle on it.
Lyons: Because you could have it in either a solid or soluble form.
Knittel: Well, the nutrient has to be soluble and degradable, in
usable form. A. W. Anderson, at Oregon State University, carried out some
research related to slim growth control in pulp and paper mill wastes.
This was a very sophisticated gas chromatographic analysis and it was
beautifully done. He was able to point out that the six carbon sugars
were very rapidly removed during the first portion of the treatment
process. The five carbon sugars were left. They are a very good substrate
for most of the Entevobacteriaeeae including E aoli and Klebsiella, so that
we have really developed a selective medium for them. There is a tre-
mendous amount of nutrients in these wastes. He calculated that five
pounds of carbon sugars were going over the weir daily, based upon the
flow. The number in tons was fantastic. A seven-day retention time is
apparently not long enough to reduce them.
Geldreich: Other people have tried to measure nutrient levels
with a chemical test. Lou Resi, Lois and Carl Shaddix, and others have
tried to find some chemical test that will relate to this nutrient prob-
lem. We have not yet found one that is completely reliable. That is
why I am cautious. Use the best chemical measurement whether it is
-------
-76-
CCE, BOD, total carbon or another. However, we still need a bacterial
test as a back-up in case that one system is not measuring all the nu-
trients that might be degradable. That is my only concern.
Stein: Assuming the complete separation of these industrial wastes
from the domestic ones, we have always had doubts about whether we could
relate the microorganisms present to a pathogenic hazard. We want to
stress practical treatment in the permit program. As far as I can see,
likely this is going to be the treatment that the industry is going to
use between the years 1976 and 1981. At this stage, we may be able to
get a big start on this program if we talk about keeping the nutrients
to the minimum, with the exception that the five-day BOD test is, at best,
a very rough operation. We can get more definitive results by having a
bacteriological test. This may very well be the fecal coliform test.
In one sense the fecal coliform test may be in a research stage for the
job of relating it to the presence of a health hazard in these wastes.
Still, we have to use this test as the only certain back-up that we have
to be sure that we have controlled the nutrients coming from the plant.
We may have to adjust the numbers if we use the test for this purpose.
If the statements made here today are correct, treatment technology is
available to reduce the nutrients in these wastes and also lower the
coliforms. The correlation is pretty good and we will not have these
coliforms in the effluents.
Geldreich: I think we have a two-pronged problem. One is to keep
the nutrients and the bacteriological counts down, and the other is
the problem of the downstream user. If the industry started out with
-------
-77-
poor source water, let us say 1,000 fecal coliforms, and they knock them
down and still come out with 1,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml, we have some
problems.
Stein: The point is, what we are doing here is not going to solve
every problem. In the permit system we cannot hold the industry resp-
onsible for what they take in from a poor source water if that water comes
from the same stream. We probably have a better line-up on holding them
responsible if they take it from an underground water supply. For example,
we could never hold an industry responsible for mercury in the water when
they picked up the mercury in the intake water.
Geldreich: You are hoping that what goes into the system at least
comes out no worse.
Stein: Yes, no worse than they take in. This regulatory permit pro-
gram is what we are going to have to live with for the next decade unless
there is a tremendous change in thinking.
Geldreich: If there are polluters upstream of an industry we can get
a hook on them.
Stein: That is different. But if an industry takes in water with
1,000 coliforms/100 ml, they are going to be able to put out 1,000. We
just hope the industry runs the mill right.
Bauer: In pulp mills some of the sources of large inputs of coliform
organisms into the treatment system are the barker wastes, the white water
from the paper mill, and so forth.
Knittel: You experience this tremendous proliferation of the organisms
-------
-78-
once they get into the biological treatment systems or in the primary
clarifier.
Bauer: Industry has rather expensive water treatment systems for
intake water at most of these mills.
Herman: They do not consider these costs?
Bauer: Yes, industry does, but it is forced to live with them.
Stein: It's a 'production' cost.
Herman: Why is not nutrient removal in waste a 'production' cost?
Stein: The answer is obvious. The industry went into that plant
knowing what they had to pay for the raw materials. They consider water
as a raw material. They consider cost of getting that raw material into
shape a 'production' cost. However, once the industry gets the water in,
they have a blind spot for spending a nickel to clean it up before they
dump it into the receiving stream.
Gallagher: A proposal has been put forward to form the rationale
for the permit system on the basis of reducing the nutrients and making
the industries measure this reduction by some test, presently undefined,
and to use the fecal coliform test as a monitoring device to be sure
that fecal coliform values are being reduced to prevent the regrowth.
That is the proposal. Is there any problem in using that kind of rationale
in the permit program?
Davis: We seem to be talking about two things. One part of the prob-
lem is using the tests as a monitor. We are trying to institute a civil
suit against a paper company and show damages. The other part of the
problem we have been discussing is the sanitary significance. We are going
-------
-79-
for an injunction and maybe treatment later.
Gallagher: I think we all feel that there is sanitary significance
involved here. The problem is a real logistical one in having to prove
that in every case if we are going to get a permit. If one is going after
a civil suit, one should have to prove that. But we are talking about
hundreds of permits that have to be written, and about trying to keep the
major logistical problem away from the Surveillance and Analysis Division,
not having to prove it in every case. We are looking for a rationale to
get the results and to put to the industry in a rational way.
Shimmin: I think concomitantly, if we are going to talk about nu-
trient removal and using fecal and total coliforms as indicators, we
should have a statement in there about not allowing disinfection. If
one is using total coliforms and fecal coliforms to indicate whether or
not the nutrients have been removed, and the industries have added these
dumps of chlorine, the indicators just might be temporarily wiped out.
Another speaker: Who is chlorinating? I do not think most of these
industries are disinfecting.
Shimmin: My point is, if we do not have some other way of testing
the amount of nutrients in there besides growing these organisms....
Stein: I know of no pulp and paper industry that chlorinates their
waste, do you? Now, if you are going to open some shellfish beds, this
is a specialized problem as I indicated to you before. If you get over
70 coliforms, you have the shellfish beds closed. If the pulp and paper
plant or anyone else is putting in something that goes in the shellfish,
you have a damage case, and you are going to have to work that out in special
terms. I think your point is well taken. It might be possible to get your
-------
-80-
sample before you put in the chlorine for monitoring purposes.
Riordan: If you have a control on BOD, and you have a control on
organisms, how is the industry going to escape? If they chlorinate, it
is not going to bring the BOD down.
Speaker from the floor: You chemically oxidize the wastes with the
chlorine.
Geldreich: I should like to forget about total coliforms. I do not
think we are getting any additional information out of that test. Let
us stick with the fecal coliform test. I think we are moving out of that
area in the development of drinking water standards and in the develop-
ment of the new water quality criteria. We are going to the fecal con-
cept that we are phasing out of total so let us not continue to carry
it on the books.
Gallagher: Do you think you can sell it to the shellfish people?
Geldreich: We are working on it. It is hard.
Stein: I agree with you, but you see what you are up against with
shellfish. I have not been able to get the shellfish monitoring people
to change. Here is the problem. We are going to be able to approach
every paper mill with this concept except the paper mills upstream of
shellfish areas.
Geldreich: In relation to the shellfish, let me give you something
you may not have seen. This letter is dated April 24 to Mr. Kelly in
our Office of Water Programs from Robert Schneider, Chief Biology Branch
NFIC-D, who is chairman of a committee on shellfish testing. The point
-------
-81-
is that the committee is not going to total coliforms. That is rather
interesting.
Gallagher: Yes, but the Food and Drug Administration is our problem.
Geldreich: My problem with them is that they call their test a test
for E aolij rather than fecal coliforms. For shellfish we probably need
another paragraph that zeros in on this specific problem in the permit
policy.
Stein: We have that paragraph. With the shellfish we are going
along with the total coliform parameter. The real test will be to see
whether they are representing the shellfish concept. I do not think there
are too many paper mills upstream of shellfish areas.
Speaker from the floor: What kind of tests, other than the fecal
coliform test, would you suggest could be used to control nutrient levels?
Total organic carbon?
Bauer: That was the chemical parameter that showed some correlation
with bacteriological levels in the mills that I investigated.
Gallagher: The objection that the industries have to total organic
carbon (TOC) has been "who owns the stock in Beckman and why do they
want us to buy these $9,000 instruments?" That is the problem; they are
not equipped for TOC work and they do not want to make that investment in
instrumentation. They suggest they will live with the COD. There are
a lot of problems there, too. Why do you not discuss what kinds of tests
would be the best technically? We need a rationally defensible test for
accomplishing this.
Geldreich: Looking at the data that we have obtained from field surveys
over the years where the chemistry tests were run in parallel, we find
-------
-82-
difflculty in zeroing in on any one test like TOC or BOD. I cannot give
you that answer right now.
Stein: One of the problems here is cost. Some of the larger com-
panies will do these tests, but if you expect that of a canning plant, for-
get it. That plant does not even want to spend the money for labor costs
to send an employee out to the end of the lagoon to take a sample and return.
The possibility of really securing s sophisticated test into all these per-
mits is practically nil. If you include as a requirement for this permit
that these sophisticated tests be carried out, you are going to get a
tremendous complaint, and my bosses and yours are going to sympathize
with them.
Geldreich: The only thing that we can do then is to emphasize that
the fecal coliform level input and output be identical and base it on
that arrangement.
Stein: And have them check it?
Geldreich: No, I would not have them check it.
Stein: No, I would not give that up. This is perhaps one of the
more useful things that we can do.
Lyons: May I invite comment from the S & A Division people as to
what that would mean if they had to check all of these parameters, i.e.
the fecal coliform and the TOC?
Bauer: I do not see the TOC as a big problem because it takes perhaps
a 10 ml sample, which can be acid stabilized, placed in-a bacteriological
mailing tube, and tossed into the mail. It is a very quick analysis. I
would not be at all adverse to all S & A Divisions being required to run
TOC's.
-------
-83-
Lyons: Is It a part of their regular monitoring?
Bauer: Yes.
Geldreich: That is the answer then. It would be the kind of infor-
mation we would need. It would provide a ball park number, and we would
back it up with a bacteriological test.
Lyons: Now, of course, the next question is that there is not suffi-
cient data base on TOG. What number do you choose for the effluent? It
will not be a monitoring tool until there is a number.
Stein: We agreed at least in the pulp and paper industry on that.
The paper industry would be ready to use TOG instead of BOD or any other
test if we could find the correlation.
Bauer: I do not think it would be too difficult to do it. Again, I
relate back to the microfermeter work that was done at Crown-Zellerbach.
You could pei'form TOG analysis using instrumentation, together with bac-
teriological tests on various kinds of mills, and see whether you can get
a decent correlation.
Stein: The industries will not buy the principle that they have to
put out the same water quality that they take in. Do they not add something
in the plant?
Knittel: Can we go with a net increase type of statement?
Geldreich: That is the best way.
Knittel: A net increase that would be equal to the water quality
standard for the water that they discharge into, or something like that.
-------
-84-
Geldreich: The quality should not be any worse than what they took in.
Knittel: What I meant was a net increase through the plant. Is it
entirely possible not to get any increase of fecal coliform through the
plant? With adequate in-plant controls and best practicable technology?
Geldreich: I would certainly think it is possible.
Question from the floor: How is it possible to control within the mill?
Bauer: You can establish the kind of BOD level, TOG level, or whatever,
that you consider acceptable and, which is indicative of best practicable
treatment.
Remark from the floor: That has been done.
Question from the floor: Yes. What is the bacteriological level that
would be associated with that?
Remark from the floor: That has not been done.
Lyons: Let us say that 30 mg/1 might be the upper limit for substrate
concentration.
Geldreich: It is somewhere between 14 and 30 mg/1.
Herman: I would consider 30 mg/1 the maximum.
Lyons: This fits nicely except for the canning industry. The rationale
in both the pulp and paper and the sugar industries is based generally
upon 30 mg/1 in the processes which are most used. We can ask them to go
to bat with the TOG as a monitoring tool to develop a data base and with
the fecal coliform as a back-up for monitoring. Do both of these tests
have to be run by EPA?
Stein: For industries other than the pulp and paper industry, you
-------
-85-
are going to have to do the testa. I think the reason is obvioun. The
pulp and paper industry is a big business and they have a scientific
staff. I do not think you are going to find that in the canning or in
the sugar beet industry.
Herman: I have had seven years in canning, International Gartners'
Association. I know that when the Qanners wanted to treat, they did.
From waste effluents between 1,600 and 2,000 BOD they produced a final
effluent which routinely for over three years held at eight. They can
do it.
Stein: Well, let us try them.
Speaker from the floor: That can be backed up. I do not think there
is any problem. They will admit they just have not designed facilities.
Herman: They will recognize that they can do it.
Bauer: I am hesitant to give my complete blessing to having EPA
perform all these fecal coliform tests, recognizing what it will take
to get them done. The TOC tests can be punched out quickly on the in-
strument, but fecal coliform tests will require time.
Knittel: Fecal coliform samples cannot be preserved for later
analysis.
Geldreich: How about state agencies?
Stein: That is what we may be able to do. The question is, who
is responsible? This is the basis of the problem. I have been out in
the field and looked at these canneries, big and small. These are seasonal
operations, small plants. Some companies may cooperate with us and do
the fecal coliform tests. The canning associations and some of the pulp
-------
-86-
and paper mills will. With other plants, we should probably indicate
that we are going to monitor on a spot-check basis. As a regulatory de-
vice we do not have to do this with every plant.
Geldreich: I think once you have established a baseline to deter-
mine the TOG number, you will not have to do very much bacteriological
work; it will diminish.
Stein: If we had the TOG we could go ahead. We do not have the
baseline.
Gallagher: This would be set up as a monitoring device. When they
feel the data base is sufficient, maybe two years from now, the permit
program would amend the permits to incorporate the baseline which we are
talking about. This is a way of getting at this whole problem of bacteri-
ological distress.
Herman: We should have the authority to make this check when we
choose.
Gallagher: That is taken for granted as part of the monitoring
program.
Herman: That was not the case when I was with industry.
Stein: I would not give any industry a permit unless they would
agree that any authorized representative can come in at any appropriate
time and take a sample. Otherwise the firm does not receive the permit.
Berg: Are you talking about one TOG level for all industrial wastes?
Gallagher: No, we are establishing TOG as an indicator for all wastes
-------
-87-
but different levels for different kinds of wastes.
Herman: The National Canners Association was bucking some of these
coliform tests; so was the National Council and the potato and sugar
industries. You will have a united effort from all of these industries.
Gallagher: That is right. That is why we are having this meeting.
Stein: Do not feel bad about the Corvallis meeting. In my opinion
it would have happened anyway. Every time we finish a meeting with an
industry, their associations are going to get together. It was inevitable.
It is Very easy to talk with these industry representatives when you are
discussing research. When you are talking about regulations, the situ-
ation is different.
We have this fecal coliform testing problem with all these industries.
It appears to me that we are going to have a very hard time selling this
permit policy on the basis of pathogen effect, viral effect, or health
hazard, where we have a segregated waste. If we push the pathogen approach,
the natural reaction would be to disinfect, and I am not sb sure we want
that because of the regrowth problem. I think the two alternatives may
dovetail if we can push these guidelines to remove the nutrients. We may
get the same results and be five to ten years ahead in cleaning up the
water. It may be a blessing in disguise, to approach it the other way.
Gallagher: We are going to ask the regional programs, with their
monitoring programs, to examine for pathogens and see if they can get a
data base on them.
Geldreich: If you get positives, it is great, but when you get ne-
gative answers, you are just spinning wheels.
-------
-88-
Another speaker: That is right - look at the Snake River Report.
Herman: In the 1966 meeting of the National Canners* Association
many of these points were discussed. At least some people within the
industry felt then that the Federal Water Pollution Control measures
within three years would be what you are suggesting today. This would
not be any shock to them.
Stein: I think that is right. When representatives of these in-
dustries go to a scientific meeting with you, they are constructing and
testing a case that they throw at us when we meet with them. They have
all our arguments before we put them out. The way they get those ar-
guments is by going around with their scientific contacts. After all,
where do we get our arguments, but from fellows like you. If they have
tapped you fellows at the source, then when we have all the arguments,
they have the rebuttal all lined up. I am not against free scientific
information exchange with anyone, but please remember what they do with
this information.
Bauer: Are we satisfied with the proposition that Mr. Gallagher
has summarized? Are there any violent disagreements with that?
Knittel: Since we do not have a baseline, I am looking for areas
of research to support this. Perhaps we need microbiological research
to support these tests with regrowth studies and correlations of coli-
form content with nutrient level. Will this kind of information help
the permit program?
Geldreich: You need authorization, and that has been on the books
-------
-89-
for a long time.
Stein: If you can pass up some of the bureacracy to get such re-
search through, we shall back you.
Lyons: You will have the support, at least from our programs to
highlight points with which we are involved, and problem areas that
need more exploration and definition.
Knittel: We do not need a lot of money or a million dollars worth
of equipment to do it. We do need people, but if we cannot find the
people, we shall do it anyway, If we can get the support from the top
level, we shall do as much as we can.
Stein: We can break through this impasse. We need your help. If
you have a project that you think will go, just keep pushing it. When
we have problems which are partly biological or microbiological that
an engineer cannot solve, we will need an aquatic biologist or a micro-
biologist. When it comes down to the real expertise in your areas, you
are going to have to make the judgments yourselves, because the engineers
and ourselves are something like educated amateurs. By the time we had
the second enforcement case years ago, we dragged Harold Clark (deceased)
from the Taft Center because I recognized that we could not move without
this information. I think that essentially the next law suits are going
to be in the area where the people, in this room, who have the expertise
are going to lead us. This is one of the areas where we are going to need
some monitoring and sensitive tests. We have a pretty good record with
-------
-90-
with the engineers and with the fish biologists. Now we are going to need
some of the more sophisticated testing. We have to depend more and more
upon the kind of information we have discussed here today. We shall have
to work together in identifying the problems.
Let me say one last thing on this subject. No lawyer or engineer
or aquatic biologist can tell you what you should do. You have to de-
termine it yourself. I picked up more ideas by watching your presen-
tations here today than I ever did from meeting with people who are not
working in your particular field. You have to identify these research
needs yourself and put them forward.
Gallagher: Let me say specifically, that if any of you people in
Office of Research and Monitoring (ORM) has a particular project that
could be of benefit to the permit program or in the enforcement program
generally, let us know about that project. If you need the external
support, and it is compatible with the enforcement program, we shall
try to get you that support.
Shimmin: Could we hear again the statement that you are going to
make about the coliforms?
Gallagher: We are not going to make any statement. We are pro-
posing to summarize what has been said to you, and write up a statement
based upon our understanding of the discussion. We will very quickly
put it back out to you to see whether or not you think that is what you
said. Then we shall make a recommendation to Headquarters.
Speaker from the floor: In other words, we shall all see that state-
ment.
-------
-91-
Gallagher: Well, I do not know whether you will all see the state-
ment, but the summary will be sent out. We want to do this very quickly.
Stein: There will be no surprises in the statement.
Shimmin: Is this statement under the "Considerations for Permit
Preparation" on coliforms going to be deleted?
Gallagher: Yes. This is one that was set up with the pulp and paper
industry for the permit proposal to which they strenuously objected at
the Corvallis meeting. I would think that this would be replaced, except
for the last paragraph on receiving waters which are classified for shell-
fish harvesting.
Lyons: That was a sanitary engineer's poor attempt to set a number
on bacteriological significance. We are looking for recommendations.
Stein: The real problem we have to face is that although we are
going to have lawyers and engineers drafting permit and enforcement policy,
we will have to work with these other professional groups, aquatic biolo-
gists, bacteriologists, and specialists in other fields. You, the micro-
biologists, are going to have to give us the formulation that we are
going to sell. We are not going to have any lawyer or engineer or any
specialist in Washington who is going to sell this policy and then face
the rebuttal. We are dealing with your field, bacteriology, and the
rebuttal is going to come from bacteriologists. We are never going to
make it unless we get the formulation from you people.
Bauer: There are a few things we ought to discuss tomorrow —
additional research needs, problems with Standard Methods, and this type
of thing. Another question we have talked around all day today is whether
-------
-92-
or not we should be concerned about the presence of Klebs'iella. in large
numbers. Are they potentially pathogenic?
Stein: I can find another problem for you when you need it. I sensed
it today, and it was proven by several other people in the room. We are
going to have a lot of problems unless someone can get the methodology
lined up so that it is uniform. I do not suppose you would want such
tests as you are coming up with now in Standard Methods. I do not know
whether you can split samples, or how you do it. I do not want to pre-
sume to tell you how to do your work. However, from what we have cut
out for ourselves here today, the sooner you get at this problem of
uniformity the better off you are going to be. Perhaps you can do this
while you are all here, or perhaps you are going to set up committees.
Even if you are all agreed now on what you are doing, when you go back
to your various laboratories, carry out these tests, and start to get
different results, you will wonder why the results are so disparate.
Unless the microbiology checks out very closely, we are going to have
another meeting like this six months from now to discuss these differ-
ences. Then we are going to have to get Mr. Gelreich and a committee
of four others to go around from laboratory to laboratory to pull you
together, and this is a wasteful activity. This is approximately six
months off and unless you have coliform methods, you have problems.
t
Geldreich: I have some encouragement for you, Mr. Stein. Several
of us in this room are on Standard Methods committees. I was on the
committee for the last edition and we can handle getting it into the
-------
-93-
next edition of Standard Methods which we are now preparing.
Stein: In the interim this is the problem we are dealing with.
Geldreich: Right.
Stein: The point is, if you go away today and do not. have your
methods standardized, you will have problems. For example, one man
may work for the next four months and come in with all those beautiful
counts, but his results are a little different from those of another
laboratory. So you decide he is not doing the tests exactly right.
He is going to complain loudly because he has that tremendous invest-
ment in this data.
Geldreich: I do not think you will have that problem.
Stein: I hope not, but if not, this will be the first professional
group not to have that problem.
Geldreich: We will discuss this more tomorrow, but I do not think
we shall have any problem. We are closer to solutions than you think.
Gallagher: I should like to thank all of you for coming today because
we are over a tough problem. I think that we have something that we
can defend, and call upon you for, in our confrontations with industry —
our search is after truth with the industries.
Bauer: One of the questions we have been touching on at this
session is whether or not Klebai-el'ia is considered potentially pathogenic.
Bill Stang asked Leonard Guarria to do a brief literature research for us
in preparation for this meeting. To kick off the discussion of possible
pathogenicity of Klebsiella, I should like him to review this literature
for us.
-------
_94-
Brief Literature Review of Klebsiella as Pathogens
Dr. Leonard Guarraia
Briefly, I think it is important to distinguish bacterial infection
from disease. Infection merely seems that an organism is capable of
living within a host. We are infected by many organisms - E ooli,
streptococci, staphlococci, and so forth. When the organism causes a
disease, that is a pathogenic condition; it becomes important in terms
of human health. Klebeiella pnewnoniae infects approximately 30 percent
of the human population. It has also been isolated as a saprophyte from
soil. It probably is more significant as a human-related organism; at
least this is my feeling from my search of the literature.
Klebsiella is a gram-negative asporogenous, non-motile rod which
ferments lactose. That is the definition in Sergey's manual and in all
the textbooks. As a disease organism it was first recognized as
Friedlander's bacillus, and it was associated with upper respiratory
distress, pneumonia. It causes approximately 2 percent of the total
cases of bacterial pneumonia, and about 60 or 70 percent of the mortalities
of all bacterial pneumonia are related to Klebsiella pneumoniae. This
organism is resistant to many antibiotics and is so encapsulated, so
slimy,that normal defense mechanisms of the host break down.
The Klebsiella have been associated with liver absesses, infant
diarrhea and urinary tract infections. Many healthy people (10 to 20
percent) have been found to shed Klebsiella pnewnoniae in their urine.
The organisms are not in the kidneys, but occur on the way out. They
have been associated with urinary tract infections and with oculitis,
-------
-95-
eye Infection. Klebaiella have been cultured with increasing frequency
in certain hospitals in human blood cultures. This is a rather serious
finding by medical microbiologistH.
KLebs-Lella have also been implicated in bovine infections, rnnrtltis.
Many healthy cows have antibodies to Klebsiella antigens in their blood.
Many healthy animals (about 30 to 40 percent) have Ktehsiella pneumonias
in their gut.
An a medical problem, Klebsiella penwmoniae certainly does present
some concern. As an indicator of pollution, it is a legitimate one. One
cannot say, a priori, that because we have Klebsietla pneumonias occurring
as a high temperature organism, that it invalidates a test. That is an
erroneous assumption. The elevated temperature test is still a very
valid test in my opinion. Klebsiella pneumonias certainly is associated
with the gastrointestinal tract. As to whether or not Klehniella comes
as a normal habitat of the stream, or the soil, is really not relevant.
The data are not strong enough to suggest that Klebaiella would lie there
in quantity as it would be from a sanitary source. That sums up xvhat
I have found on Klebaiella.
Herman: According to some medical and veterinary texts, there is
some question as to whether many of these organisms would be classified
as Klebaiella pneumonias.
Vasconcelos: At present there are nine binomials (genus and species
names) and the rest are referred to as Klebsiella serotypes up to 72.
Herman: Out of the 72 serotypes, we now have 68, in the culture
bank at Duluth, that come from environmental sources. I am convinced
that we shall find them everywhere, depending upon concentrations present.
-------
-96-
Knittel: In reviewing the literature, what is your opinion of the
validity of the mouse test in proving or disproving pathogenicity? This
is one point that has been rather salient with the industry people.
Guarraia: I think we have to look at the reason for using this test.
They have used it for Diploaoaaus pneumonia; if it will kill them it is
a pathogen. This is then related to encapsulation. 1 guess in lieu of
another test, it is all right. It is very dangerous to extrapolate from
a mouse to any other animal because they are exquisitely sensitive to
this type of organism.
Bauer: I think from talking to people who do it that we are on
particularly shakey ground with mouse pathogenicity test.
Geldreich: As a further insight into this problem, a closely
related study was carried out in Argentina in 1956 (Revista de Obras
Sanitarios de la Nacion, Vol. 20, p 169-172). It was on bacteria of
the,Klebsiella genus in water, particularly of the La Plata River, which
empties near Buenos Aires. They found 61 serotypes of Klebsiella. The
author cites 14 serotypes from urinary tract infections, 17 from sputum,
2 from fecal material, 9 from abscesses, and 7 from blood infections.
He also found them in the La Plata River. This organism is found in
feces. It is potentially pathogenic from some people, not everyone,
but we certainly have to be concerned about it.
We are concerned about some of these organisms such as Klebsiella,
PseudomonaSf and Flavobacteviian in drinking water; all three are secondary
invaders. They do cause problems in hospitals. We have had a lot of re-
ports around the country that the potable water in hospitals from the
-------
-97-
organisms get in the whirl baths, the aspirators, the respiratory materials,
and patients' wounds. Some very nasty infections result.
Our concern is that as we get higher and higher on the standard plate
count, our ability to detect coliforms starts to tail off. It relates to
competition from other organisms. I have asked two of our laboratories,
in addition to our own, to look at this problem not only in problems of
potable water but also in those of paper mill wastes. I want you to be
aware that we have some limitations. If you get enough Klebsiella in the
water, your chances of finding total and fecal coliforms may be suppressed,
may be inhibited, or may be reduced significantly so that some of these
counts that we get, for instance in paper mill wastes of fecal coliforms,
may only represent part of the total number present. I do not want to
discuss drinking water here, but this will give you an idea of how we got
interested in the problem. We have found in experiments and some few
papers in the literature that Paeudomonas aemginosa in certain densities,
between 1,000 and 10,000, and upward, actually does suppress the detection
of total coliforms in water. Klebeiella is apparently another organism
that can cause this suppression.
Guarraia: I should like to add one more thing about Klebsiella.
The reason that these organisms have had a decided growth advantage in
pulp and paper wastes is because Klebeiella has a very extensive complement
of extracellular enzymes. They are able to break down complex carbo-
hydrates that are found in these types of wastes. This is why Klebsiella
will overgrow so rapidly and other organisms probably can not compete.
Also, the data are not available to make the correlation on how many
Klebeiella you need to cause infection.
-------
-98-
Geldreich: Mr. Vasconcelos do you want to pick up the discussion
on suppression of indicator organism and describe the work at the
Northwest Laboratory?
The Detection and Significance of Klebsifilla in Water
G. J. Vasconcelos
We got interested in Klebsiella from the standpoint of potable
waters. Our next step was to go into the influence of the waste liquors
on this balance between Klebsiella and E. ooli. I tried first to expose
a wild strain of E. ooli isolated from a river source to a Klehr.iella
strain. I had to have a label.
I needed a rapid way of differentiating F,. aoli from Klvbsiella.
I ran across esculin hydrolysis that is unique for members of the
Klebsiella-Entevobaatev-Servatia group. They apparently possess the
ability that 77. ooli does not, to hydrolyze esculin, producing dehydroxy-
coumarin which reacts with ferric ions to form a black compound. With
this medium I could differentiate Klebsiella from F,. coli. rapidly. Also,
E. ooli is motile and Klebsiella is nonmotile. I had pure cultures of
E. coli, a wild strain which I had isolated, and .Klebsiella Type 22, that
was isolated from the stream off the membrane filter. It would have been
counted as E. ooli or fecal coliform by that method. I lypholized the
cells so that, in my experiments, I used the same cultures, and they
would not have any variation. Before the experiments, I grew the cells
in a carbohydrate medium, washed them, and re-suspended them in phosphate
buffer. I then determined the cell concentration photometrically. In
three flasks, in a shaker bath maintained at 18°C, I had two controls,
one containing a concentration of E. ooli, another a concentration of
-------
-99-
KLebeiella, and then the two of them together in the experimental flasks.
I tried these at three different Klebeiella levels, maintaining
my E. ooli level at approximately 100 organisms/ml. I had to have a
fairly high concentration of E. ooli because I was working with quite a
2
differential in counts. 1 was working with 10 E. ooli, as opposed
sometimes to 10 Klebaiella, I had to have a way of picking them out
in the same petri dish. In the first experiment I tried them at compar-
able levels, 100/ml of E. ooli and 100/ml of Klebsiella. With these
levels I obtained good results; I could differentiate E. coli from
Klebeiella without any trouble. The same thing was true on M-Endo.
When I used bile esculin there was no question which was E. coli. and
which was Klebeiella.
In the second experiment I increased the level of Klebaiella to
5 2
10 as opposed to 10 /ml of E. coli. I could recover E. coli fairly
well by the M-FC, but on the M-Endo the E. ooli- was completely overrun
by the Klebeiella. By increasing the concentration of 10 Klebsiella
2 '
or 10 E. ooli, I could in no way detect E. ooli with the M-Endo;
however, with the M-FC I could. In fact the levels remained almost
equal to the control, E. ooli.
In the last experiment I went on and compared the MF with the MPN
method in recovering E. ooli in the presence of 10 Klebsiella. I did
a correlation based on a ratio of the number of E. ooli recovered by
the MF method, as opposed to the number of E. ooli recovered by the
MPN method. In this first experiment with the Klebsiella Type 22 the
MPN method appeared to be a little better in recovering E. ooli. If
unity is one, the ratio with the MF method gave a mean of 0.3; with the
-------
-100-
MPN method the mean was 0.9. I did not draw any definite conclusions,
because I wanted to include other serotypes. It is a good thing I did,
because it did not work out that way. However, the other two experiments
showed that the MF method used with the fecal collform medium was better
with the MPN method of recovery of Klebsiella Type 38. I intended to
get the results for the base difference between the two. I started
getting higher counts with EC in the tubes containing Klebs-iella as
opposed to the control with the MPN method. I did not get this result
as much on the MF method, using the M-FC medium.
Bauer: The Klebsiella you had were EC-negative?
Vasconcelos: There are three types of Klebsiella: non-aerogenic
at 48 hours with good growth, aerogenic strains in EC, and this particular
Type 22 which was not aerogenic after 48 hours. Klebe-iella Type 2 and
Type 38 were aerogenic. I differentiated by motility- I inoculated
each tube into motility agar; if the stab was all motile, I counted it
as E. ooli. This is how I arrived at my MPN. Basically, it seems that
the MF method, with the use of the fecal coliform medium under these
experimental conditions, tends to inhibit the Klebeiella more than the
MPN or the M-Endo medium. The reason for this is not quite clear. I
have not explored it, but I presume that it is because the cells were
under stress and at this period perhaps E. aoli, could compete more
successfully than Klebsiella in this medium.
Mr. Bauer, I noted on the data that you presented yesterday that
downstream, the Klebaiella tend to die off, or one did not recover as
many Klebsiella as E. ooli. Now, this may be a consideration. Under
-------
-101-
stress maybe the cell does not proliferate. I have not carried out any
survival studies, but I plan to include some.
As far as differentiating E. eoli from Klebeiella, I think it can
be performed easily if this is what the pulp-mill people are interested
in. This bile esculine medium works very well with every strain 1 have
ever worked with. They are all esculin-positive. You can almost dif-
ferentiate EnterdbaQter from Klebsiella by motility: one is motile and
the other is not.
Geldreich: What is the length of incubation that you use with the
bile esculin agar?
Vasconcelos: You can get esculin hydrolysis within one hour. I
incubated these for 18 to 24 hours.
Geldreich: Do you think a medium could be developed for a membrane
filter procedure?
Vasconcelos: I was thinking about that. I tried taking the filter
containing both E. aoli- and Klebsiella and placing it on an agar plate
containing bile esculin. Within an hour, there was a blackening of the
medium; that indicated KlebBiella were predominant. With a pure culture
of Klebsiella placed on the medium, within four hours the colonies had
grown out. Another consideration with esculin is that it absorbs in
the UV range. If one eliminates the ferric ion from the medium and puts
it under a black light, the black zones showing esculin hydrolysis appear
distinctly. There is no question about it; whereas, the rest of the
medium is fluorescent. There is an article — in the January 1971 issue
of Applied Microbiology, indicating that 99 to 100 percent of the E. ooli
were found to be esculin-negative, whereas the Klebaiella-Enterbacter-
-------
-102-
Serratia were all positive. I have not subjected this to a comprehensive
examination, but to differentiate E. coli. from Kle'osiel'la. shows promise.
Guarraia: Have you tried the urease test for this purpose?
Vasconcelos: I have tried that and found too much variation in the
strains I tried. Motility and ornithine decarboxylase are the other two
tests that are fairly consistent in addition to this esculin hydrolysis.
Knittel: Where do you obtain your esculin?
Vasconcelos: It is available from Difco; I think it is a nutritional
biochemical. I found the prepared bile esculin medium that is used for
streptococci to be slightly inhibitory to Klebsi'-clla, so I used a modified
formula with onepercent lactose.
Geldreich: There are two points of interest in what you have presented.
One is that we may have a tool to use in work with K'tebsie'Lla. It may be
very helpful for field investigation work because it is not to complicated
and could be used in mass sampling field surveys. Secondly, your are
beginning to demonstrate that Klebsie'lla in the excessive numbers that we
arc worried about Is actually suppressing our ability to detect •indicator
systems which in thnm«elvns may reprfiBont some hazardous situation,
whether it is in stream pollution or potable? waters, which are obvi.our.lv
not chlorinated.
We need a better indicator system for these tests. We arc running
into problems with laboratory results around the country, in stream
pollution work, potable waters, and source waters. We are running into
problems in the southwestern and southeastern parts of our country where
there are excessive backgrounds of organisms on the M-Endo MF that are
interferring with coliform detection. Frankly xje need a better ff-Flndo
-------
-103-
MF medium or a better indicator system than the Schiff reaction of l>asir
fuchsin and sodium sulfite. The problem is occurring In these -irons
because they have warm water temperatures all the time. I have also
known of this problem in the tropics, Puerto Rico, and in the Virgin
Islands. In San Paulo, Brazil, some water supplies and surface waters
are producing an excessively high background of organisms. We need a
better way to suppress these background organisms in order to let the
coliforms grow and be differentiated. They are there, but we are
losing them.
The problem is not just with the MF methods. The. Florida Health
Department, for example, has been getting some wildly erratic MPN data
in estuarine areas and in some of their fresh water streams in northern
Florida. These results relate to the problem that excessive numbers of
some of these organisms are actually suppressing coliforra detection.
Skips in the MPN data and unusual results occur. The most critical
problems are with 10 ml and 1 ml inoculations where more of the original
sample is present, and oddball results occur like 2, 5, 3, 1 positive
tube combinations. Sometimes, they have actually streaked out some of
these unusual combinations of negative tubes, at the highest sample
amount used, and found a coliform, but it is difficult to isolate. T
wanted you to be aware that this problem is occurring not only in the.
MPN methods but in the MF method because we need some better media.
Actually we need chemically defined media, which are more uniform.
Bauer: I should like to direct the conversation back to this
pathogenicity aspect and to suggest a person to contact who has been
-------
-104-
very helpful to us, Dr. John Matsen, (School of Medicine, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.) who is extremely knowledgeable about the
clinical aspects of infections due to Klebsielta as an etiological agent.
Dr. Matsen is very cooperative and helpful. He gave a presentation at
the meeting in Corvallis and made a couple of important points with
respect to whether or not we should consider Itf-ebaifilla environmental
isolates to be potentially harmful. The laboratory at the University
of Minnesota Medical School periodically experiences what amounts to
localized epidemics of Klebsiella. He documented one case recently in
the nursery in which 12 infants acquired infections where Klebsiella
Type 33 was isolated as the causative agent. The sites of infection
were quite varied, but eight of those children died. The investigators
performed stool isolations from all of the children in the nursery.
Upon entering, none of them had Klebsietla and shortly thereafter,
approximately 89 percent of all these infants were carriers of the
organism. They were also able to isolate the organism off the hands of
the attending nurses. So, although the rate of infection ir> low,
Kleb3'ie11ai can be a very virulant organism.
Dr. Matsen described another interesting investigation, lie and
his co-worker, routinely screen the stools of a number of incoming
patients and they find approximately 20 percent are carriers of the
organism. Then they compare the number of people who develop a Klebs-iella
infection while they are in the hospital. The people who are pre-
colonized prior to entrance run four times the risk of acquiring a
hospital-acquired Ktebs-iella infection as those people who are not
colonized. Let me emphasize that if these organisms are allowed to
-------
-105-
proliferate in the environment, we may see an increased rate of coloni-
zation among the public, and persons under conditions of stress in the
hospital, e.g., antibiotic chemotherapy, catherization, etc., run an
elevated risk of acquiring infection.
Guarraia: Another point he brings out is that when you have an
anitbiotic regimen even at home, the Klebsiella can supplant the normal
bacterial flora, because they are not as susceptable.
Geldreich: May I read into the record here a comment Dr. Matsen
wrote on this subject, dated June 16, 1974: "Klebsiella is a normal
flora bacterium in humans although certainly not in the same numbers or
to the same extent found with E. ooli. In spite of being found in the
normal flora of fewer individuals than are E. ooli, Klebsiella is more
often a cause of septicemia, pneumonia, and serious post-operative
infections. Klebsiella is the second most common organism, next to
E. cotif as a causative organism in urinary tract infections. One of
the features of Klebsiella which makes it a particularly troublesome
organism is its propensity to become resistant to anitbiotics. In
this regard it is probably our most troublesome hospital bacterium
and indeed we have strains at the present time that are resistent to
every antibiotic but gentomycin. This worries me as we know that
resistance to this particular antibiotic can also occur. I would not
recommend that anyone swim, drink, or bathe in water as heavily con-
taminated as you described. (This is in reference to a problem of
paper mill wastes). That Klebsiella can cause a primary pneumonia and
the aspect of creating a human population with an increased incidence of
-------
-106-
Ktebs'ie'Lla colonization are both worrisome to me." These are the
critical points which were made and they back up your comments.
Herman: I am curious why that proposal which was requested by
Region X and others and which Dr. Matsen submitted to Project Coordination
in Washington was not acted upon.
Geldreich: Dr. Johnstone, with the State of Washington, has been
very interested in a grant in this particular area also. He has not
been able to get funded either.
Knittel: Dr. Johnstone has submitted a grant proposal to study
the pathogenicity of Klebsiella, cultural comparison of environmental
isolation and disinfection techniques. The disposition of the proposal
was not known for a long time; it was not funded. I think this is
ridiculous. When we got out into the field and meet capable people
like this we are continually in the posture of apologizing for the
inadequacies of this agency-
Geldreich: "Credibility gap" is the word.
Knittel: Really, it's embarassing.
Herman: It has been more than a year ago that Dr. Matsen submitted
his proposal. It is unfortunate that these people with recognized
reputations submit proposals to EPA and they wind up lost. Dr. llatsen
wants a straight answer. This makes it very embarrassing.
Vasconcelos: In Streptococcus work we use the blood agar as an
indication of pathogenicity and for staphylococci we use the coagulase
reaction. How about Klebsiella pneumoniae on DNase medium?
Knittel: Negative
-------
-107-
Vaflconcelos: IB it negative? Huve you trir"l nil tlui.'!i- environ-
mental strains?
Knittel: Yes, this is one of our cultural screens. We ran eleven
of our strains through the DNase and we have had all negatives up to
this point. We did some pathogenicity work x^ith some of our environmental
isolates on a very limited basis and we thought we should process them
through this capsule medium. If one increases the capsule, one should
get increased pathogenicity. Unfortunately they were all negative. •
However, in a very close observation of the mice during the time they
were post inoculated, one could t«ll they were not feeling too prc.-it.
bauer: 1 should like to discuss the memoradum, on standardization
of methods, that originated with Sid Verner, Office of Monitoring. Are
we as microbiologists satisfied with Standard Methods, or what are the
areas of dissatisfaction?. I should like to poll the group individually
as a means of discussing this request and ask whether or not you respond
to the memorandum and if you did, what areas you were dissatisfied with.
Geldreich: I will give you the background. A meeting was called
by the Office of Monitoring in Washington, on February 10, 1972, to
explore the need to develop guidelines in microbiological methods.
Kathleen Shimmin had written, under Mr. DeFalco's signature, a strong
request to take a look at the needs that we might have for some micro-
biological methods book within EPA. (Mr. Balllnger might like to prefer
to call it an EPA .Standard Methods.) The outcome of this meeting war;
that it was decided to circulate through the Office of Monitoring a
memorandum asking each of the Regional Laboratory Directors, each of
-------
-108-
the Regional Offices, all of the NERC's and anybody we knew within EPA
at the supervisory top level to designate one person who would be their
leading microbiologist, and ask him/her to respond. Some questions were:
What do you see as weaknesses in Standard Methods, are you satisfied with
it, and if there are weaknesses, what are they?
We were hopefully going to get this information. I have not received
any as yet. It would all be sent to Sid Verner in the Office of Monitoring
and he, in turn, would send it out to me. I would separate the comments
covering different areas. I would give it to other scientists in the
community who are very closely associated with certain aspects in order
to collate this material. We would form some sort of a report and then,
from there, we would decide what we are going to do. For example, we
decided we would ask Dr. Chang to review and collate any comments on
protozoans, Gerald Berg on viruses, Francis Brezenski and Bernard Kenner
on fecal streptococci, Donald Spino on Salmonella, Rocco Russamanno on
Salmonella, Victor Cabelli on PseudomonoB3 Richard R. Bauer on Klebsiella,
and I see, I am also on coliform. Some of you don't even know you have
been put on the committee because I did not have any material to send
you yet and I did not want to generate something that has not happened.
The idea was to put this in a collated form and then call this some-
what of a "blue ribbon" committee if you want, to make following decisions:
first, is there a need for a microbiological-guidelines manual to be
circulated among EPA, and secondly, should we try to incorporate the
necessary material where it differs from the potable water needs into
Standard Methods?
-------
-109-
Standard Methods is supposed to cover the needs both for potable
water and stream pollution analyses. In the last edition we began to
spell out the differences in some of the paragraphs wherever there were
divergencies of needs. I hope we continue this in the 14th edition,
where there is a definite need to have some separate procedure included,
or to perform a test differently because there are problems with bacterial
floras, etc. The problems of stream pollution and marine waters are not
characteristic of potable waters. Since I am on Standard Methods com-
mittee — as well as Bob Bordner, in this particular group, we should see
whethere there are some weak spots (there are always areas for improve-
ment in Standard Methods), and we should certainly try to eliminate them
in the development of the 14th edition. I believe you are also on the
bathing water committee, Mr. Brezenski?
So, this in the background material. I personally would like to
find out which of you have received this assignment, and briefly, what
your comments were.
Guarraia: I never received the memorandum.
Comment from the floor: I think it went to the Regional Adminis-
trators .
Another comment: It took mine a full month to get to me. It went
to the Regional Administrator.
Herman: All I can say is I never saw it.
Bauer: Mr. Davis, can we go on with you?
Davis: First of all, I received the memorandum. My comments were
that we have to stick to the routine total and fecal coliform, etc.
We don't have any trouble as far as Standard Methods go. I hardly ever
-------
-110-
read the book. Sometimes things come up, like sample handling procedures.
There is a statement in the introduction of Standard Methods, 13th Edi-
tion, which says something to the effect that we are not recommending a
time condition, but more specific information is given on page 659 of
Standard Methods.
Geldreich: I do not recall seeing that. I think that we are going
to have to search through this 13th edition. If any of you find areas
with which you are dissatisfied, please send them to us. We shall submit
proposed changes to the committee for consideration and review. We are
asking for your input. Believe me, you are doing as, as well as your-
selves, a favor. If possible, we shall try to make Standard Methods more
suitable for your needs, as well as more accurate, and have it give us
the kind of data we want.
Davis: We are concerned, basically, with sample-handling procedures
and quality control. We want to get as valid results as possible. Other
than that we have to stick basically to 'tried and true1 methods. We
have no problems there.
Brezenski: I received the letter and we responded. We have diverse
opinions, among the microbiologists in the region, concerning a need for
an additional manual besides Standard Methods. Some people felt that
Standard Methods was adequate, for the routine parameters, the way it was.
We have another faction that felt EPA should have a manual just for the
sake of having a manual. My opinion, with respect to this point, was
that we really do not need another manual if we are going to just dupli-
cate Standard Methods and put the EPA name on it. I think this is a waste
of money and time.
-------
-111-
On the other hand, I feel that we need standardization in some
critical areas, and whether we do it in EPA or accomplish this in
Standard Methods is something to be worked out. I think we need it.
This need affects the following areas: (1) bacteriological sampling
of sediments, (2) sediment analysis — what types of samples, sample
volumes, and methods should be used, and (3) the dearth of material
in Standard Methods concerning the marine environment. These are main
areas where we feel that we need some standardization.
The final point here was that if an EPA manual is written, in
addition to standard Methods, it should be a representative of new
people coming in who have been absorbed from industry, from food, from
beverages, etc., and not only the people who have been set in the order
for a number of years. We are saying that we need standardized; we do
not care whether it is done through Standard Methods or a separate EPA
Manual. If we are going to go to an EPA Manual, we should like to have
representation from a greater number of people. If we are going to stay
with Standard Methods, then I feel Standard Methods is Inadequate, as it
is, for sediment sampling from the bacteriological point of view and also
for the marine environment.
Shimmin: I responded to the effect that I felt that Standard
Methods was inadequate as it stands because (1) it certainly lacks in
methodology, which I shall go into, and (2) it has to appeal to a wider
range of laboratories than we in EPA should have to address ourselves to.
For example, it has to include considerations from states that receive
their samples in the mail. So, I think Standard Methods needs to be a
-------
-112-
11ttie less precise than perhaps EPA procedures should be. As far as
the methodology goes, I agree with Mr. Brezeuskl In the marine area of
sediments; there is nothing in there for air; there Is certainly a lack
in pathogen methodology, e.g., Vibrio, Shigella* and Leptospira; proto-
zoan methodology is not addressed. In the Southwest (particularly Indian
reservations) we have need for such special procedures. Also in
Micronesia and in American Samoa, within Region IX, we have great prob-
lems with amoebic dysentary. Standard Methods does not concern itself
with techniques like fluorescent antibody tests. We need some type of
round-robin procedures, something on the order of those used for testing
chemical methods. Analytical quality control, including sample handling,
is not adequately addressed to in Standard Methods either. I do not
think Standard Methods should be discarded; I think it should be
separate reference.
Christensen: I have not received the memorandum.
Carroll: We received it two weeks after it was due. We fully
intend to respond to it. I think all the points that have already been
covered, mainly the one of sample handling time, were an issue among
the people in our region. Also they would like to see an expansion of
the area of pathogen identification and a section on the fluorescent
antibody application. We felt no real critical need for a new manual
if it simply would be a duplication of Standard Methods. There are some
feeling that Standard Methods was not updated frequently enough and
could be supplemented with round-robin tests, as suggested a while ago.
-------
-113-
Manhart: Primarily, I have gotten the impression that we should
just as well leave Standard Methods pretty much as it is because pro-
cedures are covered in a broad spectrum. There were a few places, for
example, in the time element for sampling handling where we would stipu-
late a firmer statement. If a sample is too old, say so, and throw it
out. We should leave it like it is, because if we start putting all
this information in we have another bacteriological journal. We feel
you can go to other texts or literature sources for such information.
Resi: I responded. I feel that Standard Methods is adequate for
routine use. It is accepted as having precedence for enforcement. No
manual that can be put out would totally meet our needs as far as
enforcement goes because we have to play it off the cuff and many times
we have to improvise. No methods that could be published could ever
fulfill our needs totally.
There is a real need for analytical quality control in EPA. We
should have a group that surveys laboratories, as Mr. Geldreich does
the state laboratories. The purpose is to help our people in our own
organization to make sure that we all comply with Standard Methods
especially in the enforcement area.
Winders: Our region received the request and we did reply to
the memorandum. I think we agree that the credulance supplied by
Standard Methods is something we would not like to see changed by
another EPA manual. In our opinion, however, it does not address itself
to the areas we work in. We do not work with water supplies. We work
with industrial effluents. Invariably, we are trying to locate coliform
and fecal coliform bacteria in industrial effluents of very complex
-------
-114-
mlxtures and compounds. Neither the literature nor Standard Methods
address themselves in any way to the interpretation of the data we
obtained. We realize that there is an influence of these compounds
on our data, but we do not know how to interpret the data. We need
some help in this respect. I am not sure that there is an answer.
Also, we are very much opposed to the lengthening of the time of
sample storage. We would prefer to see testing performed in the field
or at small local laboratories. If we do this, of course, we need
some sort of quality control techniques. I think our biggest point is
that we felt that Standard Methods did not address itself to the types
of waters we were working with.
Geldreich: I agree with you we have to work on this area and expand
it more in wastewater, which is the second part of Standard Methods.
You have got a point.
Brezenski: For example, when you get samples from a meat-packing
house they are loaded with grease, fat globules, etc. You treat these
samples differently from a normal water sample.
Stang: I did respond in four or five categories, but not in much
detail. One specific problem was that there is no recognized standard
procedure for sea water (FDA does not even recognize the MF procedure),
while there is a standard for the MPN. Another point was that the MF
procedure for chlorinated wastewater is specifically denied in Standard
Methods. I think everybody uses this. I agree that we do need a more
detailed procedure for pathogens, specifically for the people in EPA.
My other point was the industrial wastewater guidelines — we are
working on these now.
-------
-115-
Bordner: We feel quite strongly about the need for some type of a
manual, but I would like to make it clear that we at the Analytical
Quality Control Laboratory are not talking about another Standard Methods
and I would like to dispel this idea. Any manual of methods and quality
control should recognize and closely reference Standard Methods, but I
think we could supplement it and really help ourselves by going beyond
what Standard Methods offers. The primary objective would be to create
a greater uniformity of methodology within our agency. For example,
there are certain specific instances where we would like to direct
microbiologists to the MF procedure as opposed to MPN; Standard Methods
offers both alternatives but does not show this direction or guidance.
We would consider this type of manual as a guideline for bench methodology
rather than a repetition of Standard Methods.
For pathogens, I think that it might be possible to indicate common
procedures that we In the agency could follow but not to the extent that
we would restrict ourselves from recognizing natural variation in samples.
Some of us have very good information on which of these media work best
in water and other samples. How else are we going to get this information
than through some type of written communication and more frequent meeting
of microbiologists. Perhaps an interim manual could accomplish much
along this line. Another point, which we picked up from field personnel,
is that microbiologists who are in rather remote areas feel isolated and
need a laboratory bench type of commentary that would go beyond Standard
Methods and indicate common practice in testing routine and special
types of samples. Treatment of industrial effluent samples is a good
example of this type of problem.
-------
-116-
It seems to me that the reason we really came here today, to discuss
the special problems with fecal coliforms and KlebsieHa. in industrial
wastes, is a good example of a subject that requires such guidelines.
There will be a need for uniformity in methods, for the identification
and differentiation of Klebsiellat that are certainly not going to be in
Standard Methods for some time. Quality control is a big area where we
could get together and build such control into an additional or supple-
mentary guideline manual for EPA. Lastly, because EPA's authority goes
way beyond water, there may be microbiological involvements in solid
waste or air; perhaps we should share information with these areas. We
are thinking about a broader scope of manual of guidelines — call it
what you will, that would complement and not replace Standard Methods.
Can the microbiologists who have not had a chance to reply to the
memorandum still do so? Do they have to have an official invitation or
can they just go ahead and address a reply to Mr. Verner?
Geldreich: I was in hope that they would volunteer. The bench
people are working with these problems and they are certainly having
experiences about which we would like to hear.
Brezenski: That is the point I make before. We should have a
greater representation.
Resi: We have a basic meed for a list of microbiologists; I am
talking about all of EPA — I do not care who they are or where they
are. I think that this is one of the ways we can have better communication.
Winders: For instance, we have some microbiologists at Research
Triangle, but there is not one of them here.
-------
-117-
Brezenski: A directory could be circulated listing several people
with their areas of special knowledge or experience. I received such a
listing of specialists in solid wastes. They assembled a list of names
and* if you have problems in solid wastes, or a particular type of oil,
organic compound, or some process, for example, you can contact these
people, who are very helpful.
Bordner: That is a great idea. That information could be included
in a manual and updated from time to time to help them people who need
such contacts.
Bauer: I received the letter and have not responded to it. I will.
In general, 1 agree that if the manual would do nothing other than to
reproduce Standard Methods, it would be a waste of time. I must confess
that, up until now, I have not given it too much thought, but in coming
up last in this discussion and listening to the other points that have
been brought up, I shall have to agree with what appears to be a need
for a supplemental manual that addresses itself specifically to the
problems that are peculiar to this agency, our responsibilities, and our
abilities to meet those responsibilities. I would favor something on
that order as a supplement to Standard Methods. We certainly need a
vehicle in order to get some of this new technology into the hands of
the people who need to use it.
Mr. Geldreich, would you like to respond to the questions that have
been raised?
Geldreich: There are things that appeared in the 13th Edition
which I did not like at all. What bothered me the most were the comments
-------
-118-
on the MF being used on chlorinated effluents. We wanted to spell out
a limitation on using the membrane filter in chlorinated primary
effluents. You just cannot use the MF on primary chlorinated effluents.
The membrane filter method works very well on chlorinated secondary
effluents or other combinations of treatment, but it is not worded this
way in Standard Methods. I have had a series of phone calls from state
Health Departments and from private industries selling sewage treatment
package plants to the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army and to various
cities. All had the same comment: They did not buy this idea that
the MP does not work on secondary effluents; I do not eithe*. The
method works, and I am sure all of you who have worked with the MF in
this better quality of wastewater will agree.
The problem can be demonstrated another way. If one blends the
primary effluents sample one will find that one can actually get an
Increase in coliform count. Part of the reason we are getting erratic
results is a gelantlnous mass of material plugging the pores. When one
blends secondary effluents one does not have these micrope1lets; one
does not have these erratic counts. The MF gives one reproducible
results because the secondary is a better quality effluent. We are
hoping that we can really show where the limitations on the MF are and
make it clear that the MF is applicable to secondary effluents.
The section on swimming waters has a series of Pseudomonas tests
in it that absolutely do not work. I repreatedly wrote to Archibald
Greenburg, even while Standard Methods was in manuscript, and told him
about the data collected by our Laboratory and others revealing that the
-------
-119-
methodology on Pseudomonas in the existing Standard Methods is inadequate.
(I was not on that subcommittee.)
The Standard Methods committee is divided into several subgroups.
Some of the members are from the academic world, some from Federal groups,
some from state groups, and some are from city and county health depart-
ments. Microbiologists are divided into areas where they have particular
experience. For example, Mr. Brezenski may be working on the swimming
waters and marine waters and I may be working in another section — on
standard plate count that has to be expanded, or perhaps in this MF
section. Mr. Bordner may be working on another part, too. We have
specific responsibilities, but we do not have the final decision all the
way around on everything that goes into that microbiology section. We
are going to try hard to incorporate much of these comments that you arc
giving us today and those of others who, we hope in the future, will
reply to a second invitation.
There are areas on pathogens that need more work. The 13th Edition
was the first that had anything on pathogens In that book, and we are
hoping to expand that area, certainly for enteropathogenic E, coli. We
need something on Leptospira because we have problems in feed lots. As
we have all been saying, we have a need for more expanded methods in
wastewater treatment.
A meeting was held April 7, in our office in Cincinnati, with people
from the Office of Research and Monitoring. The group included Tom
Stanley, Gordon Roebeck, Norm Clark, Earl McFarren, and Robert Clark and
took up discussion of the water quality control program. There is a
need for a laboratory evaluation program of the EPA laboratories that
-------
-120-
are involved with field investigations. Many of the data collections
that you are making are going to be involved in court actions, in hear-
ings, and in determinations that will affect particular pollution
problems. We want to be sure that the data are reliable and that the
quality of the laboratory work is beyond reproach. We do not want any-
body casting any comments that EPA laboratories are turning out inferior
data. We have to protect and update ourselves so that we are all using
what we think are the best procedures in order to obtain the most
accurate and the most reliable data.
The Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, where you are working,
Mr. Bordner, should become involved with the evaluations of the media.
For example, we have problems with the commercial medias that are
becoming very noticeable around the country. The commercial manufacturers
do not turn out a uniform quality media at all times. All of you have
seen this problem from time to time. Years ago we tried to set up some
kind of a certification program on medium, but we could not do this
because, in the Federal Government, it would in a sense be endorsing a
product. However, NCCD has found some mechanism whereby they have some
control on the serological materials that some of us are using. The
center has been able to at least have some quality control worked out.
I think this is something that should be included in your program if
you have enough man power to do these things.
Bordner: Yes, how do you get a standard madiura by which you can
test other media? Does any one have any suggestions?
-------
-121-
Geldreich: This is one of the problems that we are going to have
to solve. In the final analysis if we cannot handle them this way, we
are going to have to come up with chemically defined media that will
meet our needs in coliform and other tests. For example, we use bile
salts; they are variable. Difco makes them one way; BBL makes them
another; Oxoid in England makes them a different way. Peptones involve
trade secrets. One company makes a peptone one way and goes to a certain
point, stops, and calls it Peptone X, while another company boils a
little longer, adds a little more of something, and calls it Peptone Y.
They are not quite the same, but they use them in our media. As a
result, the quality of some of the medias we have developed fluctuates,
depending upon which product was used.
We certainly need evaluation of the procedures and equipment. There
is going to be more and more instrumentation forthcoming. We need back-
ground information which could very well be developed out at your shop,
Mr. Bordner, that would help all of us. If we are going to buy some of
this equipment, we should like to know what are the desirable specifi-
cations; you have been doing it on membrane filters for us since I got
out of that area some years ago. You have performed analysis on the
waterbath recently and supplied this Information. This could be expanded.
Brezenski: You brought up the question about what is a standard
medium. Is there a possibility of setting up specifications based on
what we think the specifications should be? For example, total coliform
media should have a recovery of a given percent using certain organisms.
Suppose we have a list of specifications that, we say, have to be met by
-------
-122-
a medium. If the medium meets these specifications, this is the quality
control provided. For example, NCDC has a problem with dye concentrations
used in the fluorescent antibody test for beta hemolytic strep. This is
creating a big problem in the different diagnostic laboratories. NCDC
issued a publication when they evaluated a number of different dyes.
They found out that some of the dyes have 10 percent dye and 90 percent
inert material — in others, 30 percent dye. When you make up a 20
percent solution of this dye, it really may not be the same as Allied
or some other product. The Center is specifying that the dye must meet
this percent concentration, and then, the quality control program is
more effective.
Geldreich: This is one of the troubles we have in getting a decent
sheen on M-Endo medium. The dye content of the many different lots of
basic fuchsin range anywhere from 80 to 99 percent. The inert material
is a great unknown; it could be toxic. The concentration of the active
ingredients varies. Since we are doing a sulfite-basic fuchsin titration
to arrive at the proper proportion to put in the medium for sheen develop-
ment, it is very important to know the concentration. I do not believe
that the manufacturers, once they establish the proportion, continue
the quality control. They cut corners because of costs. The quality of
these materials fluctuates. We need some way to correct this situation.
Bordner: We have written to BBL and Difco on two occasions about
their quality control procedures. BBL provided a detailed description
of the Company's quality control. It stated that the firm uses a series
of organisms in order to test the water quality media. Difco carries
out quality control procedures on all lots of their products, but the
-------
-123-
Company did not send prepared descriptions of them. We are suggesting,
here, that if we determine the cultures that should be used, it would
be a more directly controlled program for which we have some input.
Geldrelch: We need to develop specifications or guidelines that
we could circulate among EPA laboratories for review and comment.
Resi: They still certify dyes for staining, but certification for
our needs is rather fuzzy.
Shlmmin: Something else that we need to do is to establish some
stronger contacts with Dlfco and BBL than we have at present. We dis-
covered that the manufacturers slightly changed the formulation of
brilliant green agar and did not bother to inform anyone.
Herman: Dr. Gordon with the EPA Laboratory. College Station, Alaska
and I found a marked difference among lots of Difco and BBL M-FC media.
We wrote both BBL and Difco. We got quick, straight-forward answers
back from BBL, but none from Difco.
Resi: We find that we do not achieve the same responses from the
organisms, owing to differences in the water characteristics in different
geographical areas. There are differences within the medium, but there
are also differences in the samples that we are testing.
Herman: 1 am talking about the same sample in our area versus the
medium; not the medium versus various samples.
Brezenski: I feel that we are not really talking about any water
that is different in a major way. For example, I would say that when
we are testing different types of water, be it fresh or salt water, we
have to look at the flora. This is probably the biggest variable that
-------
-124-
is going to affect our testing for indicator or background organisms and
it is going to continue to vary.
We have been receiving reports that a lot of organisms grow, on the
M-FC medium, that are not fecal coliforms, when one checks the blue
colonies. This is particularly true in warm marine waters and in shell-
fish areas. We do not see this in temperate waters, for example, off
the New Jersey coast in the Atlantic Ocean, where we investigated this
problem with the shellfish people. We did some work with the people at
the Needham Laboratory to confirm pink and blue colonies on M-FC medium.
We obtained a high recovery of fecal coliforms in terms of the blue
colony characteristics. The shellfish people say that they get a high
percentage of pink colonies that turn out to be fecal colifortn and yet,
a high percentage of the blue colonies are not fecal coliforms. I think
the problem here is the microflora, the indigenous flora in one area.
Geldreich: Part of this relates to the rosalic acid. If the
rosalic acid solution is made up and put into that medium within a
few minutes, that indicator does cause some color additions to the
colonies. It is not an indicator system in a sense, but it produces
some non-fecal coliform colonies that yield other colors, such as yellow
and red. Rosalic acid should be evaluated.
Periodically the manufacturers come up with a new gadget. One of
these gadgets is called the Coli Counter. Of course, I immediately was
flooded with requests from our regional offices: "What do you think of
this product?" Pan American Health called me and commented: "Say, this
looks great. We can send it down with our engineers and they can monitor
-------
-125-
the (potable) water." The Coli Counter only takes one mlllillter, and
this la not enough volume to look at potable water; so they recognize
immeidately that they cannot use it for that purpose. It does have
some crude application as a quick-and-dirty test to determine the
density in a stream. Do not use this method when you are trying to
establish reliable data. It would give you a rough answer on some
surface waters.
I think that you have evaluated these, Mr. Bordner, and I have too.
Your data and mine indicate that the Counter has considerable limitations.
The service you render in taking a look at some of these products would
be of help to the rest of us for use as background material in order to
answer questions on this type of subject.
Bordner: The brochures are very appealing, and a lot of people
have asked about it.
Geldreich: There are some comments made in the brochures that
imply that it is a standard method.
Bordner: They say it is a "standard material," but the implication
to some readers is that it is a standard method; it is not!
Winders: We use the Coli Counters when the engineers go into the
plants for pre-plant surveys before we do industrial waste surveys. The
results tell which outfall stream has sanitary wastes in it. We do not
use them as a quantitative method but only to show the presence of that
type of bacteria.
Geldreich: If one had to use those results as support data in some
court hearing, one certainly is going to have a problem.
-------
-126-
Winders: We do not record it as data at all. When we go back in,
we sample these streams to run a quantitative analysis,
Bordner: So, we are saying, "Use it, but do not use the data."
Winders: Well, let us say one plant has 15 outfalls; it is better
to use this method than to swamp our laboratory with 15 different micro-
biological analysis samples every day. We find that coliforms are in
only two outfalls; then, we concentrate on those.
Bordner: I think that is the type of rough testing that was
originally proposed for the Coli Counters.
Geldreich: As a final comment, some of you may have seen a manual
called Evaluation of Water Laboratories, which we produced for the
evaluation of state and other laboratories that test potable waters.
The manual has tied in with the Standard Methods book and with what we
considered to be the best operating practices. We are now in the process
of rewritting this manual to include not only the bacteriological exami-
nation but also the chemical examinations of potable water. Earl McFarren
has finished his part. I am expanding the bacteriology to cover not
only the needs for potable water testing but also to give the rationale
of water quality testing for stream pollution or recreational waters.
The manual is about 60 percent finished; it will be about 150 to 200
pages. I hope to finish it by the end of the year. We shall circulate
it and we hope that this manual will be of some value, to give you some
additional information at the bench level and to explain material that
is only vaguely referred to in Standard Methods.
Actually. Standard Methods is a cookbook approach; it does not
explain the background for the procedures. We are hoping between this
-------
-127-
interest in a guidelines' approach that many of us have mentioned here
and this new second edition of an Evaluation of Water Laboratories, that
we shall be able to give you the supplemental reference material to go
along with Standard Methods and that it will be a greater help to you
than is Standard Methods alone.
When we do laboratory evaluations, we have a form which we follow,
based not only on Standard Methods, but also on our best laboratory
practices. We analyze the procedures the laboratories are doing, their
equipment needs, the kinds of equipment they have, and the media. We
even get into areas involving stream pollution and recreational work
now because I have sections in the evaluation form that cover methods
for pathogen detection, etc. This type of material is very helpful
when we do a laboratory evaluation. The check list is a starting point
that we use to make a lot of notes. We then come up with a report
covering the capabilities of that laboratory in order to examine not
only potable waters but also recreational water. I wanted you to be
aware of the manual; it may fit into your concerns about Standard Methods.
We hope that we can come out with some material in the future that will
be more helpful.
1 understand there are 125 EPA facilities scattered around the
United States —• not only in the continental area but also in Alaska
and other areas of our control. We certainly have to know where these
mlcroblologists are. We would like to identify them, offer our
assistance to them, and ask them for ideas from their experiences.
I think we are making a start with this meeting and I hope somehow we
-------
-128-
can find a way to have this kind of meeting once a year. Mr. Bauer, do
you have any thoughts on how we can do this?
Bauer: I talked to Mr. Gallagher before the meeting started, and
he indicated a certain willingness on the part of the NFIC to sponsor
this type of meeting on a regular basis. I certainly think that a meet-
ing of this sort is in order if Field Investigations is willing to assume
the responsibility. I intend to talk to Mr. Gallagher about this again
if you are in agreement with that approach.
Brezenski: There is only one problem. I attended a meeting on
methods in Washington with Mr. Verner's and Mr. Stanley's groups. They
may have some ideas along these lines; at least it was made evident at
that meeting. I think someone will have to touch base with them. I
think we should make it definitely known that if they do not identify
people and sponsor such meetings, we will.
Guarraia: I think this purpose is a little different from theirs.
You were talking here of addressing problems of microbiologists
inclusive...
Brezenski: They would cover the same thing.
Guarraia: Yes, but would all the microbiologists be attending
this meeting?
Brezenski: They would make it open to all the microbiologists
whom the regions will let go. For example, the region will not let go
of every microbiologist they have, but I think it is up to the region
or the microbiologist to express his/her desire, to make it important
enough so that the administrators are willing to let them go.
-------
-129-
Geldreich: We need some sort of a strong recommendation from who-
ever Is going to sponsor the meeting to the people in charge of the
mlcrobiologists so that we get the change to go. Some of us may find
It rather difficult to convince our supervisors, but if we get the
letter from somebody requesting our specific services and explaining
the program needs and its value, I think many of us will get the
opportunity.
Bordner: This approach from a Washington office would help along
that line, would it not?
Geldreich: It worked in this particular instance.
Bordner: Would this invitation be coming from the Office of
Monitoring and include microbiologists who are specifically research
people or would it include all microbiologists?
Brezenski: It includes both th NERC groups and regional people.
Bordner: If this is going to be a periodic meeting would it be
advantageous to meet in different geographical areas of the country,
as the large organizations do, to give a better chance for attendance
in local areas? Should this be a consideration?
Brezenski: Yes, as they do for chemistry.
Bauer: The permit people do that same thing. They hold meetings
in different regions each time. I would like to wrap up the meeting at
this time; there are a number of people who have planes to catch and I
should like you all to have the opportunity to meet any individuals whom
you have not met thus far. I should like to thank you for attending and
thank the National Field Investigations Center-Denver for organizing and
sponsoring this meeting.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERMIT PREPARATION
PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
-------
A-2
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERMIT PREPARATION
PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
Effluent Limits
1. Production Basis. The average permitted effluent level, in
pounds per day, shall be computed based on maximum daily production,
in air-dry tons, as determined at the time of application.
2. Schedule Selection. A permittee with existing abatement
program should be at least achieving Attachment B levels and should be
put on a schedule to achieve Attachment A levels prior to January 1,
1976. A permittee that is presently without an approved pollution abate-
ment program should be required to expeditously achieve Attachment A
levels.
3. Coliform. This is a significant parameter for admixtures of
industrial wastewater and sewage. Because of the complex sewering of
most mills the absence of sewage must be established by sampling and
analysis for fecal coliform organisms. If sewage is present the follow-
ing effluent limit shall be imposed:
"Organisms isolated in the fecal coliform test and associated
with pathogenes, shall not exceed 1000 organisms per 100 ml (1).
(1) Where receiving waters are classified for shellfish
harvesting or contact recreational sports, the effluent limits
shall be reduced to comply with the established water quality
criteria.
4. Toxic Materials, Oil and Grease. These parameters should be
considered to determine their significance on an individual basis. If
they are determined to be significant then the appropriate "Special
Conditions" should be applied.
5. pH. The pH shall be maintained between 6.0 and 8.5 unless un-
usual receiving water considerations necessitate a variance (i.e., the
natural pH is outside this range).
6. Other Limits. The following may be significant parameters
depending on production and receiving water characteristics:
Color
Turbidity
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
TABLES
-------
B-2
TABLE I
PULP AND PAPER MILLS STUDIED
Company
Publishers
Boise Cascade
Crown-Zellerbach
American Can
Weyerhaeuser
Location
Oregon City.
Ore.
Salem, Ore.
Lebanon, Ore.
Halsey. Ore.
Process
groundwood
unbleached sulfite
magnesium base
bleached sulfite
ammonia base
unbleached sulfite
ammonia base
bleached kraft
Springfield, Ore. unbleached kraft
RESULTS
PUBLISHERS-OREGON CITY, ORE.
Treatment
primary settling
primary settling
aerated lagoons
aerated lagoons
secondary settling
aerated lagoons
Source
Mill effluent
Willamette River
upstream of
Publishers Co.
Willamette River
downstream of
Publishers Co.
Mill effluent
Willamette River
upstream of
Boise Cascade
Willamette River
downstream of
Boise Cascade
Date
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
4/6/70
4/20/70
5/4/70
Verified Verified
TC/100 ml FC/100 ml FS/100 ml K. pneumoniae/100 ml
120,000
70,000
82,000
240
500
1,400
1,200
200
1,700
BOISE
16
200
60
1,000
2,800
2,200
2,400
1,400
1,700
3,400
2,200
2,000
4
4
90
50
16
380
CASCADE-SALEM, ORE.
<2
i 2
<2
2
8
90
1,100
4
90
4
6
<2
2
10
<2
10
<2
2
10
<2
<2
40
2
6
60,000
40,000
57,000
60
<100
600
500
<100
1,000
<2
120
20
500
1,200
1,100
200
300
1,000
-------
TABLE I (Cont'd.)
B-3
WEYERHAEUSER-SPRINGFIELD, ORE.
Source
Mill effluent
McKenzie River
upstream of
Weyerhaeuser Co.
McKenzie River
downstream of
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Mill effluent
Willamette River
upstream of
American Can Co.
Willamette River
downstream of
American Can Co.
Date
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
Verified
TC/100 ml
4,800
460
2,000
<2
210
32
12
37
45
AMERICAN CAN
30
33
1,000
10
100
210
100
61
300
Verified
FC/100 ml
10
80
10
<2
24
14
2
28
6
CO.-HALSEY, ORE.
6
<10
<10
2
56
40
10
54
20
FS/100 ml
<10
<10
10
<10
<2
4
10
2
8
<10
<2
<10
10
2
8
10
2
8
K. pneumoniae/100 ml
2,700
400
1,100
<2
4
<2
8
20
10
6
<10
<1,000
<10
<20
<60
20
<10
60
CROWN ZELLERBACH- LEBANON, ORE.
Mill effluent
S. Santiam River
upstream of
Crown Zellerbach
S. Santiam River
downstream of
Crown Zellerbach
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
4/13/70
4/27/70
5/11/70
17,000,000
26,000,000
160,000,000
44
160
740
140,000
160,000
260,000
4,200,000
90,000
30,000
2
98
20
19,000
940
140
30,000
200
48,000
<10
87
28
140
6
180
5,700,000
14,000,000
130,000,000
<10
40
20
70,000
100,000
120,000
-------
B-4
TABLE II
COLIFORM DATA - EFFLUENT FR.OM POND I
Date MPN*/100 mis. MF**/100 mis.
6/11/69 10,300,000
6/12/69 3,900,000
6/13/69 8,400,000
6/16/69 24,000,000 19,000,000
6/18/69 24,000,000
6/23/69 8,300,OpO
6/24/69 2,200,000 3,600,000
7/10/69 9,200,000 11,000,000
7/14/69 2,100,000 1,400,000
7/16/69 1,400,000 16,000,000
7/21/69 24,000,1000 4,800,000
7/22/69 1,400,000 1,500,000
•J/^/Ao 350,000 400,000
7/24/69
*MPN - Most Probable Number of organisms/100 mis.
by the multiple tube method.
**MF - Actual count ojE organisms/100 ml. as-deter-
mined by the membrane filter (MF) techniques.
-------
TABLE III
TOTAL COLIFORM
iMViC TYPE DISTRIBUTION IN PULP & PAPER
MILL EFFLUENTS
%
-------
B-6
TABLE IV
FECAL COLIFQRM
IMVIC TYPE DISTRIBUTION IN PULP
AND PAPER MILL EFFLUENTS
iMViC Types Publishers
0
— + 0
— +- 0
-+-- 0
+— 0
++-- 0
--H-- 0
---H- 89.4
-+-+ 0
+--+ 0
+-+- 0
I [ i n
1 i r ™ \j
-H--+ 0
+--H- 8.5
_-i t 1 ^
Mil 0
Boise-Cascade
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Crown Z.
0
0
*
10.8
0
37.8
0
37.8
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
American Can
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i-oo.o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weyerhaeuser
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
All Mills
*
*
*
4.1
*
15.3
0
68.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
4.1
*
0
* Insufficient data.
-------
B-7
TABLE V
PERCENTAGE OF AEROGENES
IMViC TYPES IDENTIFIED AS KLEBSIELLA pneumoniae
IN PULP AND PAPER MILL EFFLUENTS
Source
Publishers
Oregon City, Ore.
Boise-Cascade
Salem, Ore.
Crown Zellerbach
Lebanon, Ore.
American Can
Halsey, Ore.
Weyerhaeuser
Springfield, Ore,
Combined Data
* Insufficient culti
MF Total
Aerogenes
IMViC Types
64.3
30.8
48.6
57.1
69.6
52.9
jres examined
Coliform Test
Aerogenes
Identified
as
K. pneumonia
94.4
100
100
0
68.8
84.4
MF Fecal Coliform Test
Aerogenes
% Identified
Aerogenes as
IMViC Types K. pneumoniae
89.4 90.5
* *
37.8 100
100 75.0
87.5 100
68.4 92.5
-------
TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF TOTAL COLIFORM iMViC TYPE
OCCURRENCE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
to
CO
7., From
Pulp Mill *
IlMViC Types Effluents
-H— 3.3
— H- 52.9
-+--
--+-
-+-+ 12.4
-+++ 9.9
++++ 5.8
+-++ 4.1
-H--+ 5 . 0
+
H
-- H—
+--+
+-+-
-H-+-
% From
Animal £./
Feces
91.8
2.8
1.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.1
1.9
7. From
Foliage £/
13.7
29.6
4.6
1.4
13.3
2.4
24.4
1.4
4.0
4.2
0.8
0.2
-
0.2
7. From
Flowers —'
8.4
12.6
1.7
14.5
2.9
24.0
11.6
13.7
9.4
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
7. From
Insects £/
12.4
10.4
30.6
2.6
23.4
4.2
10.9
3.9
0.8
0.7
% From
Undisturbed —'
Soil
5.6.
18.8
3.3
2.3
48.1
7.7
6.8
2.9
3.7
0.2
0.3
0.3
70 From
Polluted — '
Soils
80.6
2.0
0.2
13.0
0.7
3.3
0.2
* Combined data from five mills.
a/ Geldreich, E.E., Sanitary Significance of Fecal Coliforms in the Environment.,
U. S. Department of the Interior - Publication WP-20-3.
-------
TABLE VII
CZ Lebanon, Ore. Fecal Coliforra Confirmations
Colony Description
All Blue
Blue Centers
Light Purple Center
Picked
71
16
11
Lactose +
94
81
100
B.C. +
83
12
27
Type I E. Coli.
60
9
0
w
VO
-------
B"10 TABLE VIII
BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES AND SUftfflCE
DATE
2-18-71
2-18-71
2-18-71
2-11-71
1-20-71
2-18-71
2-23-71
7-23-71
7-23-71
2-23-71
7-18-71
2-18-71
2-18-71
2-18-71
2-10-71
2-22-71
2-22-71
1-19-71
1-19-71
1-20-71
1-28-71
SOURCE
Jefferson STP Influent
Lebanon STP Influent
Sweethome STP Influent
STP Effluent & Rec. Waters
Wapato STP Effluent
U.S. Plywood Log Pond
Overflow
Idaho Frozen Foods(Potato)
ORE- IDA
Simplot
ORE-IDA
IDA Frozen Foods
ORE- I DA
Simplot
IDA-Frozen Foods
ORE-IDA
Independent Meats
Independent Meats
H & H Packing Inf.toLagoon
H & H Pacing Effluent
Northwest Packers
Kummer Meats
TC/100 ml
67,000,000
10,000,000
4,200,000
340
1,400
190
220,000
53,000,000
24,000,000
16,000,000
6,200,000
480,000
12,000,000
2,000,000
13,000,000
2,000,000
250,000
1,400,000
270,000
600,000
1,100,000
No.
Colonies % %
Picked Lactose E.C.-t
20 75 27
20 95 37
20 90 67
19 50 .0
14 79 0
19 84 31
19 74 0
20 70 27
20 45 0
20 40 0
12 100 42
15 87 15
20 95 0
8 88 14
20 95 5
7 57 0
20 75 33
20 55 55
20 80 63
19 100 0
11 100 91
-------
DATE
2-11-71
2-11-71
2-11-71
2-11-71
1-19-71
1-28-71
1-28-71
2-5-71
2-3-71
2-3-71
2-3-71
2-3-71
1-28-71
1-28-71
SOURCE
Fruit Packing Effluent
Fruit Packing Effluent
Fruit Packing Effluent
Fruit Packing Effluent
U & I Sugar
Alpenrose Dairy
Tillamook Dairy
Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge
Shadybrook Dump
Columbia Slough
TC/100 ml
900,000
6,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
8,000,000
2,500,000
1,200,000
400
400
400
400
1,500
13,000
12,000,000,
TABLE VIII (cont'd) 1*11
No.
Colonies % X
Picked Lactose E.C.+
14 64 0
20 100 0
20 90 0
14 79 0
20 100 5
20 100 0
12 92 67
20 65 23
20 85 6
20 90 40
20 80 18
20 10 0
13 62 8
12 100 100
-------
TABLE IX
BACT1MOI.OGICAU AXALYSKS OF REC.KIVINC VMIY.US
October It Survey
Total Co]lform
Sea. No.
+ Sampling Location
River Mile
Arithmetic
Avg/100 ml
Range/100 ml
Fecal Cnliform
Arithmetic
Avg/100 ml
Range/100 ml
w
1
!-•
N>
Fecal Streptococci
Arithmetic
Avg/100 ml
Ranr,p/100 ml
Snake River Above; American Falls
150051
153035
153061
153036
153060
150050
153059
153058
153057
153.056
153037
153055
150047
153053
Above Idaho Falls Upper
Power Plant
At Grandview Drive,
Idaho Falls
At Broadway Bridge,
Idaho Falls
At 17th Street Bridge
p .L-|r| <:. .-U
Below Idaho i-^l-ts-S^P „,.
Pull* iff "£-
Above Shelley at
Bcimut Bridge
2 Miles West of Shelley
Near Firth
2 Miles North of Blackfoot
Near Blackfoot
At Blackfoot
5 Miles Above Tilden Bridge
At Tilden Bridge
6 Miles Below Tilden Bridge
RM
RM
R>I
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
804
801
799
799
795
792
785
780
764
764
763
755
751
745
.7
.2
.9
.4
.0
.3
.5
.2
.7
.0
.8
.6
.0
.0
170
310
460
550
260,000
34,000
31,000
83,000
22,000
24,000
36,000
17,000
36,000
17,000
40-300 (4)
190-500 (4)
100-800 (4)
100-1000 (4)
4,100-1,000,000
A
13,000-58,000 (4)
16,000-42,000 (4)
7,000-20,000 (3)
10,000-38,000 (4)
16,000-35,000 (4)
21,000-45,000 (4)
5,400-34,000 (4)
20,000-60,000 (4)
5,400-34,000 (4)
13
12
13
10
(4) 42
87
98
57
77
180
60
83
440
83
< 4-20
5-20
4. 10-20
(3)
(3)
(3)
10 (3)
< 4-90 (3)
< 10-140
25-160
30-80
20-120
30-350
40-80
20-200
320-590
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
20-200 (3)
W
92
220
410
1000
420
1,700
770
5,300
5,800
2,800
120
1,300
120
5-45 (3)
25-130 (3)
40-500 (3)
340-480 (2)
150-3,6(10 (3)
120-1000 f4)
200-5000 (A)
150-2000- (3)
220-19,000(4)
160-17,01)0(3)
100-7,000 (4)
60-210 (4)
100-4,100 (4)
60-210 (4)
-------
TABLE X
BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF WASTE DISCHARGES
October 1971 Survey
1
2
3
4
Total Collform
ta. Ho8.000,000
600,000-2.600.000
37,000.000-92,000.000
> 31 ,000 ,000->flO ,000 .000
3,500-5,000
28,000(1)
No data
3.900(2)
10,000(2)
160(2)
<10(1)
10(1)
6
Coll Corn
Range/100, ml
One sample
-
310-7.400
10-20.000
20-300
One sample
One sample
7
Fecal
Arithmetic
Avs/100 nl
24,000(1)
Ho data
71.000.000(1)
1,000.000(2) 1
200.000(2)
80.000(2)
990(2)
8
Streptococci
RniEf/100 r>l
One maple
-
• One sample
,000,000- 1,000,000
25,000-370,000
41,000-120,000
80-1,900
53080 U 4 I Sugar Co.
3.6
14.000(3)
2,200-43,000
100(2)
10-200
600(2)
400-800
+ Storet Station Number
* Estimated flow
I
\->
u
-------
I
M
.t-
TABLE X (cont'd)
October 1971 Survey
. No.+ Sampling Location
067 A & P
RM 648.4
065 Amalgamated Sugar
RM 646.9/8.7
1201 Paul STP
RM 646.9/7.2
X>57 Main Drain
RM 646.9/1.8
1
Average
Flow,
MOD
0.81
8.9
0.09*
10.7
2
Receiving
Stream
Snake R.
Main Drain
Main Drain
Snake R.
3
Total Coliform
Arithmetic
Avg/100 ml
15",000, 000(2) 5,500
320,000(1)
260,000(1)
19,000,000(4} 7,000
4
5
6
Focal Coliforiu
Rango/100 nl
,000-25,000,000
One sample
One sample
,000-47,000.000
Arithmetic
Avg/100 ml
10(1)
772
No data
44,000(1)
Range/100 ml
* One saziple
One sample
-
One sample
7
Fecal
Arithmetic
AvR/100 ml
350,000(2)
110,000(1)
5,600(1)
150,000(4)
. 8
Streptococci
R*nge/100 nl
1,000-710,003
One sample
One •aaple
20,000-430,000
* Estimated flow
-------
TABLE XI
COMPARISON OF TOTAL COL IFORM INViC TYPE
OCCURRENCE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
% from % from % from % from
Sewage Treatment Plants Potato Waste Meat Packing Effluent Fruit Packing Processes
IMViC TYPES (data from 5 plants) (data from 9 sources) (data from 4 plants) (data from 4 studies)
++..
-H.
-+--
~+-
-+-+
-+++
++++
+-++
++-+
— +
4-
-H--
+--+
19.2
19.2
2.7
1.4
13.7
19.2
8.2
i"5.5
1.4
-
-
8.2
1.4
2.9
19.1
4.8
0.9
21.0
23.8
0.9
14.3
9.5
1.9
-
-
0.9
35.3
13.2
7.4
19.1
4.4
5.9
5.9
4.4
1.5
-
1.5
-
_
—
1.8
1.8
-
3.5
57.9
7.0
1.8
-
-
-
26.3
—
+-H-- - - 1.5 - w
(Jl
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
EXPERIENCES WITH COLIFORM & ENTERIC
ORGANISM ISOLATIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTES
-------
C-2
EXPERIENCES WITH COLIFORM AND ENTERIC ORGANISM ISOLATIONS FROM
INDUSTRIAL WASTES, Donald L. Herman, Research Microbiolegist
National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
For: Environmental Protection Agency Seminar, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
FECAL COLIFORM IN INDUSTRIAL WASTES, Denver, Colorado, May 4-5,
1972.
A. Introduction and Review of the Coliforms:
Aquatic microbiologists are presently faced with pertinent, direct,
and challenging questions regarding the use of "coliforms" in water quality
surveillance relating to standards. Messrs. Geldreich, Butterfield, Wattle,
Clark, Kabler, Brezen.ski, Bauer, and many others have faced these questions
in the past, resulting in numerous publications. The microbiologist in
EPA is now faced with .taking a critical review of oneself, one's work,
results, and questions if the "coliforms" can indeed survive the enduring
test of time. New microbiologists in our agency must aquire a working
knowledge of the literature review (past, present and future needs). They
must have a fundamental understanding of chemistry, metabolism, engineering,
biology (including fish and other aquatic organisms), and a practical
understanding of bacterial survlvial. All microbiologists should have
field experience and openly exhange information with other EPA micro-
biologists in order to gain self-confidence. All other parts of the EPA
team can be of considerable aid to the microbiologist who is not scared
to ask questions. He must be able to define "coliforms" and certainly
what bacterial types generally make up the group called "coliforms." The
days of "just a coliform count" are not enough when one may be faced with
a possible court action.
-------
C-3
Brecher and Nestle. (1970) in their book entitled ".Environmental Lav;
Handbook" state that contamination of water by disease-producing organisms
is always a distinct possibility. Bacteriolectistr. look for organisms
that inhabit the human intestine, since these arc the type that breed
the most dangerous diseases. Then, these bacteriologists make the state-
ment "Coliform bacteria are harmless organisms that also inhabit the
intestine." This is a comment we hear many times from the parties not
wanting to face the possibility of having a high coliform count resulting
from their discharge. It is for this reason that a quick review of the
"Coliform Group" should be made to refresh our minds. Smith (1969),
Morgan (1965), Burrows, and Moulder, Lewert and Rippon (1969), and Merchant
(1950) all define the coliform group as Escherichia coli, Enterobacter
aerogenes (Aerobacter), Kelbsiella pneumoniae (Friedlander's bacillus),
Paracolobactrum, Knterobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae and Merchant
(1950) adds Proteus.
A more prer.Lne .literature review results In the following facts about
each of these "harmless organisms."
E. coli - is unabashed as an opportunist when out Its natural settling.
It is one of the most common causes of pyelonephritis and urinary tract
infections and is an important cause of epidemic diarrhea in nurseries
for newborn infants. It is in the intestinal tract of practically all
vertebrates and some invertebrates (Geldreich, et al, and Snoddy (1971).
Causes "White scours" in calf dysentery (Merchant 1950) and infantile
diarrhea (0rskov 1951). Rail (1970) reports E. coli in swine; in house-
hold pets, as reported by Meyer, et al (1971), Mian (1959) and Hackel,
et al (1960). Pfuhl (1902) reported survival in contaminated soil for
101 days and Kokolios et al (1971) reported survival of E. coli in soft
agar for 41 years.
-------
C-4
Enterobacter aerogenes (aerobacter)- Found frequently in the same
environment as IS. coli and is also found on grain, plants and soil
(Smith 1969 and Geldreich,et.al.). Simonds (1915) used the term
"foamy organs" when involved in some types of human infections.
KLebsiella pneumoniae (Friedlander's bacillus)- This organism is not
new to the water quality field since it was adopted as a fecal indicator
organism in water surveillance in England in the late iSOO's (Heukelekian,
et.al. 196^). It is considered normal flora of the intestinal tract
(Kendall 1916, Morgan 1965 and Hentges 1967). Klebsiella pneumoniae
has become known as serious infection when involved in pneumonia with
mortality rates reported in humans from 12^ to as high as 90% in untreated
cases resulting in concern for the young and the aged patients (Baehr 1937>
Morgan 19&5i an^ Branson 1968). Blazevic, et.al. (1972) ranks Klebsiella
as number two in urinary infections (18.8%) with E_. coli being number one
(33.995). Matsen (1970) states that Klebsiella comprise 18.7% of all
urinary tract bacterial isolates and the disturbing "propensity" to
become resistant to antibiotics which is also confirmed by Burrows,et.al.
(1969). Montogomerie, et.al. (1970) review Klebsiella in fecal flora of
renal-transplant patients and from other environment sources. He cites
cases of infection related to milk shakes having Klebsiella present at
the level of 10 and finding the organism in potato salad, luncheon
sausage, brawn, curry, bacon, porridge, cheese and vegetable mixture,
egg custard and in milk shakes thirteen times. Montogomerie states
"These results differ from other studies of hospital infections in which
predominant Klebsiella serotypes were isolated within an institution and
which implicated predominant strains of Klebsiella in the environment as
-------
a source of these infections". Burrows, et.al. (1969) cites Klebsiella
as paralytic disease of moose and metritis of marcs; however, Merchant
(1950) states the same cases but clarifies that _K. genitalium is found
in mares, _K. paralytica is related to the moose transfered by ticks and
also pathogenic for the bull, sheep and chicken.
Proteus- Proteus morganii is thought to cause infectious diarrhea in
infants, Proteus mirabilis is ranked second in urinary tract infections
by Smith (1969) and third by Blazevic, et.al. (1972).
Paracolobactrum- Smith (1969) includes the Bethesda-Ballerup group,
Arizone group, Providence group, and the Hafnia group which may be
associated with the intestinal disease area.
This review then would seem to make a different picture than the
one of coliforms being referred to as "harmless organisms", however, one
should also remind themselves that almost any bacterial agent in the
wrong place at the right time could lead to a infection within the human
or animal body.
Mr. Bauer asked that I include the organism Pseudomonas aeruginosa
in my discussion, therefore, I have also made a short literature review
of this organism.
-------
C-6
Ringen, et.al. (1952) found PsGudomonas aoruginosa present in
of healthy humans and considered the normal habitat of this organism
to be the human intestine. He also found aeruginosa in 90$ of sewage
samples, 2$> of stable manure samples, ~5% in soil samples and none in
natural waters. Reitler (1957) concluded that this species should be
taken into account, as well as E. coli in assessing the suitability of
water for drinking and also cited finding 10^ present in normal health
persons. Hoadley (1968) states concern of aeruginosa in recreational
use water related to outer ear infections and suggest that numbers
in excess to 100/lOOmls in swimming waters should be in suspicion.
Hoadley further indicates no correlation between populations of E_. coli
and P. aeruginosa in drinking waters. Hunter, et.al. (19^+7) cites a
epidemic of diarrhea in a new-borne nursey caused by P_. aeruginosa resulting
in 9 deaths related to contaminated milk supply.
B. Experiences with Coliform and Enteric Organism Isolations from
Industrial Wastes and Secondary Effluent:
The majority of the information reported in this section was data
collected prior to the time I joined EPA, except the data on domestic
secondary effluent and part of the data on paper and pulp. Since I
become involved in water pollution in 1962 my interest developed around
the enteric survival and isolation both from industry and clinical cases.
Since I joined the National Water Quality Lab we have also had a chance
to obtain results from some of the nations highest quality natural water.
-------
I must admit it was a rude awakening when one roalizeu how little
"mother nature" haa paid attention to both the clinical and engineering
text books regarding survival of the enterics in natural receiving waters.
The engineering courses I had covered the coliforms very quickly and from
that point on we discussed the bacterial biological mass related to loading,
flows, retention times and general disinfection (usually in % reduction).
The types of industrial waste I became involved with includes the
following- Canning and Food Processing, Beverage- carbonated and non-
carbonated , potato waste, Meat and Slaughter Waste, Paper and Pulp Waste
and finally Domestic Secondary Effluent. I was soon to find out that
the controling parities did not want to know what levels of enteric
organisms may be present in their waste but wanted strictly just "coliform"
counts, if at all. It was not until the states involved or Federal action
was indicated that the enteric information was wanted and then they wanted
a years study done in 30 days with no written reports unless it was in the
favor of the industry concerning their final discharge. I am glad to report
that this was not the case concerning all industries I worked with but the
majority can be included.
The following tables show the levels of enteric and indicator
organisms we found in these various waste. The improvement in isolations
from water relates directly to the improved methods resulting from the use
of the membrane filter and media developed in the more recent years as
understanding of the microbes within the aquatic environment improved.
The items that are strongly indicated is the type of nutrient addition,
colloidal suspension, .»!.• bottom sludge development and seed organisms.
-------
C-8
1. Canning and Food Processing Waste:
a) Initial stage of aerated lagoons
Initial BOD, mg/1 - 1,400 (range: 160 - 2,400)
Flow rate - 125,000 gpd
Total coliform/100 ml - 320,000 (range: 2,000 to 1,500,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 15,000 (range: 100 - 60,000)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
.E. coli, type I - 35.0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 55.0
Enterobacter species 3.3
Pectobacterium 6.0
*Salmonella species 0.7
b) Post-treatment effluent - discharged without chlorination
Final BOD, mg/1 - 30 (range: 6.0 - 180), 97.8% reduction
Retention time in aerated lagoons - 21 days
Total coliform/100 ml - 3,000 (range: 800 - 7,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 140 (range: 20 - 500)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
£.• coli, type I 32.1
Klebsiella pneumoniae 42.9
Enterobacter species 5.0
Pectobacterium 9.3
*Salmonella species 10.7
* Random isolates were confirmed as Salmonella typhimurium and
12 isolates, confirmed of Shigella sonnei.
-------
C-9
2. Beverage Waste-(carbonated and non-carbonated):
a) Initial stage of aerated lagoons
Initial BOD, mg/1 - 1,600 (range: 800 - 13,000)
Flow rate - 36,000 gpd
Total coliform/100 ml - 7,500,000 (range: 15,000 - 64,000,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 50,000 (range: 2,500 - 750,000
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
IS. coli, type I 5.6
Klebsiella pneumoniae 68.0
Enterobacter species 15.0
Pectobacterium 7.0
*Salmonella species 4.4
b) Post treatment effluent - discharged without chlorination
Final BOD, mg/1 - 75 (range 6.1 - 160), 95.3 % reduction
Retention time in aerated lagoons - 14 days
Total coliform/100 ml - 4,500 (range 15 - 230,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 1,700 (range 5 - 75,000)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
!• coli, type I 20.6
Klebsiella pneumoniae 67.0
Enterobacter species 4.7
Pectobacteriutn 5.8
*Salmonella species ].9
* Random isolates were confirmed as Salmonella typhimurium.
-------
C-10
3. Potato Waste:
a) Initial stage of aerated lagoons
Initial COD, mg/1 - 14,000 (range: 1,500 - 45,000)
Flow rage - 75,000 gpd
Total coliform/100 ml - 160,000,000 (range: 2,500,000 - 750,000,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 265,000 (ranpc: 18,000 - 850,000)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
E_. coli, type I 0.9
Klebsiella pneumoniae 81.1
Emterobacter species 9.4
Pectobacterium 6.9
*Salmonella species 1.6
b) Post treatment effluent - discharged without chlorination
Final COD, mg/1 - 140 (range: 170 - 3,500), 99% reduction
Retention time in aerated lagoons - 41 days
Total coliform/100 ml - 1,700 (range: 220 - 13,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 45 (range: 7 - 11,000)
(1) Results of Fecla Coliform Isolations
percent
JL- coli, type I 15.5
Klebsiella pneumoniae 60.1
Enterobacter species 8.9
*Salmonella species 15.5
* Random isolates were confirmed as Salmonella typhimurium and
Salmonella St. paul.
-------
C-ll
A. Meat and Slaughter Waste:
a) Initial stage of aerated lagoons
Initial BOD, mg/1 - 26,000 (range: 2,600 - 45,000)
Flow rate - 28,000 gpd
Total coliform/100 ml - 670,000,000 (range: 3.5 mill. - 8.5 bill.)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 6,500,000 (range: 1.5 mill. - 1.2 bill.)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
£• coli, type I 56.9
Klebsiella pneumoniae 21.5
Enterobacter species 13.8
Pectobacterium 0.5
*Salmonella species 7.3
b) Post-treatment effluent - discharged without chlorlnation
Final BOD, mg/1 - 400 (range 150 - 2,200), 98.5% reduction
Retention time in aerated lagoons - 36 days
Total coliform/100 ml - 250,000 (range 17,000 - 1,300,000)
Fecal coliform/100 ml - 18,700 (range 7,800 - 65,000)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
JL- coli., type I 65.8
Klebsiella pneumoniae 24.1
Enterobacter species 6.9
Pectobacterium 0.9
*Salmonella species 2.3
* Initial random isolates were confirmed as Salmonella typhimurium and
St. paul. Resampling confirmed these findings and added var. Copenhagen
as well as Shigella sonnei and flexneri. Orders were then passed that
no more Salmonella or Shigella isolations should be done because of
reports to NCCD.
This was a interesting case in that wind draft carried organisms from
the aeration lagoons at times into the plant resulting in loss of finished
goods and contamination of entire areas of the plant to allow processing
to continue.
-------
C-12
5. Paper and Pulp Waste:
This phase of work resulted in some real challenges with the utnost
use of tact and diplomatic relationship in order to obtain valid samples.
It was a question whether any of the samples representing full production
stress.
a) Initial stage of aerated lagoon
Flow rate - unknown, Initial BOD, mg/1 - 2,200 (ranker 35-4,500)
Total Coliform/100 ml - 1,500,000 (range: 500,000 - 5.7 nail.)
Fecal Coliform/100 ml - 8,000 (range: 10 - 87,000)
(1) Results of fecal coliform isolations.
percent
—• co^i» type i 4.4
Klebsiella pneumoniac 85.0
Enterobacter species 9.5
Pectobacterium 0.8
^Salmonella species 0.3
b) Post-treatment - discharged without chlorination.
Final BOD, mg/1 - 3,600 (range: 400 - 6,000), approx. 64% increase
Retention time in aerated lagoon - 2 days (claimed), 4' discharge pipe
Total Coliform/100 ml - 57,000,000 (range: 2-79 mill.)
Fecal Coliform/100 ml - 130,000 (range: 60 - 750,000)
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
,E. coli, type I 0.4
Klebsiella pneumoniae 92.3
Enterobacter species 6.7
Pectobacterium 0.6
*Salmonella species 0.008
* Random isolates confirmed as Salmonella typhimurium.
-------
C-13
Field survey work has been done on one of the rivers used by
the industry for discharge of the paper and pulp waste. This resulted
in demonstrated fish kills due to lowered DO in 1969 and 1970, COD from
12 to 260, Total Coliform/100 ml ranges from 10 to 171,000 with Fecal
Coliform/lOOml ranged from 3 to75,000 and Fecal Strep./100 mi ranged from
6 to 1,350. Eleven type of pathogenic bacteria were found and confirmed
by CDC including Klebsiella pneumonia, Shigella sonnei, Salmonella typhirmurium,
Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
We found one isolate of Klebsiella pneumonia above the major discharge area
while recovering types 1^, 58, 21, 22, 31, 33, 35, 65, 7, 56 and 67 up to
and including 27 river miles below the outfall. Within the river we
found active "colonized" zones of Klebsiella pneumonia types 1^, 58, 21,
22, .and 31• These types were tested for mouse pathogenicity and were shown
to be positive. In the zones of "colonization" bottom rocks were recovered
that had pure cultures of Klebsiella pneumonia growing on the surface edges.
The chemistry factors of interest in these areas were- decreased DO, none
for some 7 miles, decreased pH of the water and presence of reducing and
hexose sugars. Salmonella was found once when the fecal coliform was
3/100 ml and always when the fecal coliform was above ^0/100 ml. The
fecal strep, to fecal coliform ratio-ranged from 1:1^.6 to 325'1- Bottom
samples below area of discharge ranged from 50,000 to 5i600,000 in total
coliform; fecal coliform ranged from 300 to 23,000, both test related to
100 mis of interface water samples. In all bottom samples E. coli, type I,
Klebsiella pneumonia and Salmonella typhirmurium were demonstrated.
-------
C-14
6. Secondary unchlorinated effluent:
Total coliforms/100 ml 581,000
Fecal coliforms/100 ml 32,500
(1) Results of Fecal Coliform Isolations
percent
!E. coli, type I 62.0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 18.0
Enterobacter species 14.3
Pectobacterium 3-6
Salmonella species 2-1
This waste has been used in disinfection and fish effects from tanks
receiving the various effluents. Presently the data is being processed
and reviewed for publication by staff members at a later date.
7. Antibiotic Sensitivity Results on Random Selected Klebsiella pneumoniae
Isolates are shown on the attached tables.
Pseudcmonas aeruginoaa - Test were conducted for this organism
resulting finding in all cases ranging from 3/100 mis. to 6,700/100 mis.
This area became a major work load due to isolation and confirmation with
a limited staff. Hektoen Agar (King 1968) was used which many times
resulted in a coin toss as to what the colony was really indicating. We
have found Pseudomonas aeruginosa present in low numbers where fecal
coliforms were not detected and also have found the fecal coliforms and
Salmonella when Ps. aeruginosa was not found. I agree about some concern
related to this organism but prefer to think of it as a working part of
the total picture and not just the "only" indicator.
-------
ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY RESULTS ON RANDOM SELECTED KLebsiella pneuinoniae ISOLATES, NWQL, EPA
Isolation
Source
# 36>d-3
Sec. Effl.ST
# 363-e-3
Sec. Effl.ST
# 365-b-3
Cl.Sec.Effl.
# 365-h-3
Cl.Sec.Effl.
# 366-k-3
DeCl.Sec.Effl.
# 371-C-3
DeCl.Sec.Effl.
# 426-g-3
Ozone Sec.Effl.
# 426-h-3
Ozone Sec.Effl.
# 429-C-3
Sec. Effl.
# 489-3
Lake Superior
Duluth Intake
# 1-6
Paper & Pulp
# 24-7
Paper & Pulp
# 24-12
Paper & Pulp
# 31-15
Paper & Pulp
# 31-16
Paper & Pulp
KLeb. Type
(if known)
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
19
19
33-35
47
^7
Sulfathiazole
0.25 rag
S
s
S
s
I
I
I
I
s
s
s
R
R
R
S
Streptomycin
10 meg
I
S
R
R
S
S
I
S
S
I
R
R
R
R
R
Gantrisin
2.0 mg
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Ghlorampenicol
5 meg
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
s
Furacin
100 meg
S
S
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
R = Resistant, I = Intermediate and S = Sensitive
i
i—'
Ul
-------
Continued-
ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY RESULTS ON RANDOM SELECTED KLebsiella pneumonia ISOLATES, NWQL, EPA
n
Isolation
Source
# 363-d-3
Sec.Effl.ST
# 363-e-3
Sec.Effl.ST
# 365-b-3
Cl.Sec.Effl.
# 365-h-3
Cl.Sec.Effl.
# 366-k-3
DeCl.Sec.Effl.
# 371-C-3
DeCl.Sec.Effl.
# ^26-g-3
Ozone Sec.Effl.
# ^26-h-3
Ozone Sec.Effl.
# 429-C-3
Sec. Effl.
# 429-X-3
Sec. Effl.
# ^89-3
Lake Superior
Duluth Intake
# 1-6
Paper & Pulp
# 2^-7
Paper & Pulp
# 2^-12
Paper & Pulp
# 31-15
Paper & Pulp
# 31-16
Paper & Pulp
KLeb. Type
(if known)
.
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
at CDC
19
19
33-35
^7
47
R
Polymyxin B
300 units
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
R
R
I
I
R
= Resistant, I =
Neomycin
30 meg
NT
I
I
I
S
I
I
S
S
S
I
R
R
R
R
R
Intermediate and
Cephalothin
30 meg
S
S
LA
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
S
S
S
S = Sensitive
Tectracycline
30 meg
I
S
I
S
S
S
S
S
I
S
I
LA
R
R
I
I
Ampicillin
10 meg
R
S
I
R
R
R
S
S
R
I
R
R
R
R
R
R
-------
C-17
Summation;
Our experience seems to indicate that the bacterial flora of receiving
waters and the behavior of intestial track flora may have some interesting
relations. The addition of too much nutrients and substrate can totally
disrupt the normal human natural flora balance. Infants and adults when
fed cheese or apple cider in excess have resulting problems. Kendall(l9l6)
discussed this nutritional effect. High quality water is also extremely
low in total coliforms and void in many areas of fecal coliforms, except
below beavor ponds, shore bix-ds, etc. These enterics found usually do not
survive long in cold, high quality fresh water without proper substrates.
The adverse effects by nutrient and waste addition are clearly shown
by Gallagher, et.al. (1970), Arthur,et.al.(1969), Anierson, et.al.(197l),
USDI.FWPCA (1967), US HEW,PHS (1966 & 1965) relating to waste in Puget
Sound, Slime Growth in Pulp Waste, Combined Waste, Pollution of Mobile
Bay and Pollution on the Red River of the North. One must remember that
these are just some of the numberous reports already published.
The coliform areas have been well reviewed and tested since 190^
by Geldreich,et.al. (some 16 major articles in my file), Van Donsel,
Gordon (1970), Smith and Twedt (1971), Senn, et.al. (1963) and many
others. Tho text entitled "Sanitary Significance of Fecal Coll forms
In The Environment by Geldreich (1966) continues to answer questions
each time I review this reference.
We are presently under planned, well organized criticism by some of
the major industrial and other large volume effluent nources. Tho time
for EPA microbiologist to become well organized ic long overdue. We must
work together, exchange information, have a excellent working knowledge
-------
of literature reviews and above all obtain facts with a cool head.
Review of J3. coli isolations showed that 97.2 % of these were E_. coli,
type I. In all cases when fecal coliform counts were greater than 100 per
100 mis. Salmonella was recovered. Eickhoff (1972) on KLebsiella points
out the critical need for epidemiology work on PCLebsiella pneumonia in
recreational waters. A proposal of this type was submitted by Dr. John
Matsen in 1971, #HMA and has been lost in Washington. The need for such
is present even greater now.
The developing legal actions across the nation seem to indicate the
need for a bacterial identification unit in EPA. We must be able to
determine more often what constitutes many of the organisms found in
the various coliform counts.
The plain fact remains at present microbiologist must become well
organised and work closely with the chemist, biologist, engineers,
adminstration and ourselves. I basically believe EPA has the start
of a great team therefore we should make full use of any and all facilities
and talent at our finger tips.
-------
C-19
References for "Experiences with Coliforra and Enteric Organismo
Isolations from Industrial Wastes", presented in Denver, Colo.
on May 4, 1972 by Donald L. Herman, NWQL, HPA.
1. Agee, James L. (1969)» "Federal Role In Pollution Control", Jour.
American Water Works Association, Vol. 61, No* 10, p. 499-503.
2. Adams, J. C. (1972), "Unusual Organism which gives a Positive Elevated
Temperature Test for Fecal Coliforms", Applied Microbiology, Vol. 23,
No. 1, p. 172-173.
3. APHA, AWWA, WPCF (l97l), "Standard Methods- For the Examination of
Water and Wastewater", 13th Edition, 874 pages.
4. Anderson, Herbert W., et.al. (1968), "SALMONELLOSIS TRACED TO HOUSEHOLD
PETS", Salmonella Surveillance Report No. 79, National Communicable
Disease Center, HEW/PHS, Atlanta, Georgia.
5. Anderson, A. W. and G. A. Beierwaltes (1971), "SLIME GROWTH EVALUATION
OF TREATED PULP MILL WASTE", Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA, No. 12040-DLQ, 08/71.
6. Andrews, Jr., Wallace H. (1969), "EFFECTS OF POLYMYXIN AND TETRACYCLINE,
SINGLY AND COMBINATION, ON THE CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM OF KLEBSIELLA
pneumoniae", PhD Dissertation, Univ. Mississippi.
7. Arthur, John W. and William B. Horning, II (1969), "THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL
SUBSTRATES IN POLLUTION SURVEYS", American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 82,
No. 1, p. 83-89.
8. Aserkoff, Bernard (1968), "SALMONELLA SURVEILLANCE", National Communicable
Disease Center, HEW/PHS, Atlanta, Georgia, No. 79.
9. (1970), "BACTERIA IN FAECES AND FOOD", Lancet, Vol. 2, p. 805.
10. (1970), "PROPHYLACTIC ANTIBIOTICS", Lancet, Vol. 2, p. 1231.
11. Baehr, George, Gregory Shwartzman and Edward B. Greenspan (1937),
"BACILLUS FRIEDLANDER INFECTIONS", Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol.
10, pp. 1788-1801.
12. Bardsley, Doris A. (l93'+), "THE DISTRIBUTION AND SANITARY SIGNIFICANCE OF
B. coli, B. lactis aerogenes and Intermediate Types of Coliform Bacilli
In WATER, SOIL, FAECES AND ICE-CREAM", Jour. Hygiene, Vol. 3^, p. 38-68.
13. Barry, A.L., K.L. Bernsohn and L.D. Thrupp, "RAPID IDENTIFICATION OF
ESCHERICHIA, KLEBSIELLA AND ENTER03ACTER BY USE OF A NEW UREASE TEST",
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherpy, 1968, pp.
-------
C-20
]A. Blazevic, Donna J., Joanne E. Stemper, and John M. Matsen (1972),
"ORGANISMS ENCOUNTERED IN URINE CULTURES OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD",
Applied Microbiology, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. kZL-k22.
15. Branson, Dorothy (1968), "TIMELY TOPICS IN MICROBIOLOGY: ENTERICS",
Am. Jour, of Medical Technology, Vol. 3*f, No. 2, pp. 120-12?.
16. Brecher, Joseph J. and Mannuel E. Nestle (1970), "ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
HANDBOOK", California Continuing Education of the Bar, 3^3 pages.
Library Congress Catalog Card No. 78-632528.
17. Brezenski, F.T. , R. Russomanno and P. DeFalco, Jr. (1965), "THE
OCCURRENCE OF SALMONELLA AND SHIGKLLA IN POGT-CIILOKINATI-JD AND NON-
CHLORINATED Sh'WAGE EF'FLUENTS AND RECEIVING WATERS", Health Laboratory
Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. ^0-4?.
18. Brown, M.R.W. and J. H. Scott Foster (1970), "A SIMPLE DIAGNOSTIC MLLK
MEDIUM FOR Pseudomonas aeruginosa", Jour. Clinical Pathology, Vol. 23,
p. 172-177.
19. Browning, G. E. and F. R. McLaren (1967), "EXPERIENCES WITH WASTEWATER
DISINFECTION IN CALIFORNIA", J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed., Vol. 39(8),
p. 1351-1361.
20. Bullock, Graham L. (1961), "PSEUDOMONADALES AS FISH PATHOGENS",
Developments In Industrial Microbiology, Vol. 5, pp. 101-108.
21. Burrows, William, James William Moulder, Robert M. Lewert and John
W. Rippon (1969), "TEXTBOOK OF MICROBIOLOGY", 19th Edit., W. B. Ganders
Co., The Enteric Bacilli, p. ^79-^9^.
22. Cooke, E. Mary, R. A. Shooter, Sheila M. O'Furroll and Diana H. Martin
(1970), "FAECAL CARRIAGE OF Pseudomonaa ao£u^ino::a by Newborn liable r;",
The Lancet 2:10^5-10^6.
23. Cowan, S.T., K.J. Steel, Constance Shaw and J.P. Duguid (I960),
"A CLASSIFICATION OF THE KLEBSIELLA GROUP", J. Gen. Microbiol.,
Vol. 23, p. 601-612.
2k. Diehm, R. A. (1962), "MICROBIOLOGY OF PULP AND PAPER", Libby, Vol. 2,
Pulp and Paper Science Technology, McGraw-Hill, p. 352-372.
25. Dixon, R.A. and J. R. Postgate (1971), "TRANSFER OF NITROGEN-FIXATION
GENES BY CONJUGATION IN KLEBSIELLA PNEUMONIAE", Nature, Vol. 23^, No.
5323, P. ^7-^8.
26. Eickhoff, Theodore C. (1972), "KLEBSIELLA PNEUMONIAE INFECTION: A
REVIEW WITH REFERENCE TO TH;C WATER-BORNE EPIDEMIC-LOGIC SIGNIFICANCE
OF K. PNEUMONIAE PRESENCE IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT", NCASI, Tech.
Bull. # 25*+.
27- Eller, Charles and Fitzroy F. Edwards (1968), "NITROGEN-DEFICIENT
MEDIUM IN THE DIFFERENTIAL ISOLATION OF KLEBSIELLA AND ENTEROBACTER
FROM FECES", Applied Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 6, p. 896-899.
-------
28. Gallagher, T.P., F.J. Silva, L.W. Olinger and R.A. Whatley(19?0) ,
"POLLUTION AFFECTING SHELLFISH HARVESTING IN MOBILE BAY, ALABAMA",
USDI, FWPCA, Southeast Water Laboratory, Tech. Programs, 56 pages.
29. Geldreich, E. E. (1966), "SANITARY SIGNIFICANCE 0? FECAL COLIFORMS IN
THE ENVIRONMENT", USDI, Cincinnat, Water Pollution Control Research Series
Publication No. WP-20-3, 122 pages.
30. Gordon, Ronald C. (1970), "DEPLETION OF OXYGEN BY MICROORGANISMS.,IN
ALASKAN RIVERS AT LOW TEMPERATURES", FWQA, Northwest Region, Alaska
Water Laboratory,
51. Grabow, W.O.K.(1970) /'LITERATURE SURVEY: THE USE OF BACTERIA AS INDICATORS
OF FAECAL POLLUTION IN WATER", National Institute for Water Research
Council For Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR Special Report
0/WAT 1, p. 1-2?, UDC 5*0.39:628.19, Pretoria, South Africa.
32. Greening, Elaine 0. (1971), "MICROBIAL INDICATORS FOR BIOLOGICAL QUALITY
OF TREATED WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS", MS Thesis, Univ. Illinois.
33. Hentges, David J. (1967), "INHIBITION OF SHIGSLLA FLEXNERI BY THE NORMAL
INTESTINAL FLORA, I. MECHANISMS OF INHIBITION BY KLEBSIELLA", Jour- Bact.
Vol. 93, No. if, p. 1369-1373.
3*f. Hoadley, Alfred W. (1968), "ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PSEUDOMONAS aeruginosa
IN SURFACE WATERS", Jour, of the New England Water Works Association,
p. 99-111.
35. Hunter, Charles A. and Paul R. Ensign (19^7), "AN EPIDEMIC OF DIAHRHSA IN
A NEW-BORN NURSERY CAUSED BY PSEUDOMONAS aeruginosu", American Journal o.f
Public Health, Vol. 37, No. 9, p. Il6^-Tl697"^
36. Kendall, Arthur I. (1916), "GENERAL, PATHOLOGICAL AND INTESTINAL
BACTERIOLOGY", Lea & Fibieger, Philadelphia, 651 pages.
37. Kenner, Bernard A., G. Kenneth Dotson and James E. Smith. (1971) ,
"SIMULTANEOUS QUANTTTATION OF SALMONELLA SPECIES AND PSEUDOMONAS
AERUGINOSA", EPA, NERC Cincinnati, Ohio, 36 pages.
38. King, Sylvia and William I. Metzger (1968), "A NEW PLATING MFDIUM FOR
THK ISOLATION OF ENTERIC PATHOGENS", App. Micro., Vol. l6, No. ^, p. 579-
581.
39. Kokolios, H., D. Kyrkanidis and A.P. Georgopoulos (197].), "ESCHERICHIA
COLI- SURVIVAL IN SOFT AGAR", Hsmha Health Reports, Vol. 86, No. 9,
p. 791-792.
-------
C-22
40. Mackel, Don C., Robert E. Weaver, Lorreine F. Langley and Thelma M.
DeCapito (I960) , "OBSERVATIONS ON OCCURRENCE IN CATS 0? ESCHKRICHIA
COLI PATHOGENIC FOR MAN", Am. J. Hyg. , Vol. 71, p- 176-178.
4l. Mahl, M.C., P.W. Wilson, M.A. Fife and W.H. Ewing (1965)1 "NITROGEN
FIXATION BY MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE KLEBSIELLEAE" , J. Bact., 89(6) :1482.
42. Matsen, John M. (1970), "TEN-MINUTE TEST FOR DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN
KLEBSIELLA AND ENTEROBACTER ISOLATES", Appl. Micro. 19(3) : 438-440.
43. Merchant, Ival Arthur (1950), "VETERINARY BACTERIOLOGY AND VIROLOGY",
Iowa State College Press, 4th Edit., 885 pages.
44. Montgomerie, J.Z., D.E.M. Taylor, P.B. Doak, J.D.K. North and W.J. Martin
(1970), "KLEBSIELLA IN FAECAL FLORA OF RENAL-TRANSPLANT PATIENTS", The
Lancet, Vol. 2, p. 787-792.
45. Meyer, R.C., H. E. Rhoades, S.P. Saxena and J. Simon (1971), "ESCHERICH.IA
COLI ISOLATED FROM DOMESTIC ANIMALS PATHOGENIC FOR GNOTOBIOT EC PIGLETS",
Infection and Immunity, Vol. 3i No. 6, p. 735-738.
46. Mian, Khurshid A. (1959), "ISOLATION OF ENTEROPATHOGENIC ESCHERICHIA COLI
FROM HOUSEHOLD PETS", Jour. AMA, Vol. 171, No. 14 , p. 149-153.
47. Morgan, Herber R. (1965), "BACTERIAL & MYCOTIC INFECTIONS OF MAN",
Edit, Lippincott, edited by Dubos and Hirsch, p. 610-617-
48. National Communicable Disease Center (1969) , "FOOD30RNS OUTBREAKS-
January through June 1969", US Dept. HEW/PHS. 33 pages.
4-9. National Communicable Disease Center (1968) , "SALMONELLA SURVEILLANCE-
Annual Summary, 1968), US Dept. HEW, PHS, pp. 27-
50. National Communicalbe Disease Center (1968) ,"FOODBORNE OUTBREAKS-
Annual Summary", U.S. Dept. HEW, PHS, pp. 40.
51. National Communicable Disease Center (1969), "SHCGELLA SURVIELLANCE
REPORT- Third Quarter 1969", US HEW, PHS, Report No. 21, pp. 16.
52. National Communicable Disease Center (1969) ,"SHIGELLA SURVEILLANCE
REPORT- Second Quarter 1969", Report #20, US HEW, PHS, p. 24.
53. Nunez, William J. and Arthur R. Colmer (1968), "DIFFERENTIATION OF
AEROBACTE R- KLE BS IELLA ISOLATED FROM SUGARCANE", Applied Microbiology,
Vol. 16, No. 12, ~p. 1875-1876.
54. 0rskov, F. (195D, "THE OCCURRENCE OF ESCHERICHIA COLI BELONGING TO
0-GROUP, 26 CASES OF INFANTILE DIARRHEA AND WHITES SCOURS", Acta Path.
Microbiol. Scand., Vol. 29, p. 373-378.
-------
q-23
55. Pfuhl (1902), "DYSENTERY BACILLI IN SOIL", X.tochr. f. Hyg. , Vol. XI.,
p. 555.
56. Price, D.J.E. arid J.D. Sleigh (1970), "CONTROL OF INFECTION DUE TO
KLEBSIELLA ASROGENES IN A NEUROSURGICAL UNIT BY WITHDRAWAL OF ALL
ANTIBIOTICS", The Lancet 2:1213-1214.
57. Rail, Gloria D., Arietta J. Wood, R.B. Wescott and A.R. Dommert (1970),
"DISTRIBUTION OF BACTERIA IN FECES OF SWINE", Applied Microbiology,
Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 789-792.
58. Read, Babara E., Robert Keller and Victor J. Cabelli (1957), "THE
DECAPSULATION PHENOMENON OF KLEBSIELLA PNEUMONIAE", Jour. Bact.,
Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 765-769.
59. Reitler, R. and R. Seligmann (1957), "PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA IN DRINKING
WATER", J. Appl. Bact. 20(2):1^5-150.
60. Ringen, L.M. and C.H.J. Drake (1952), "A STUDY OF THE INCIDENCE OF P."KU-
DOMONAS AERUGINOSA FROM VARIOUS NATURAL SOURCICE", J. Bact. 64, p. 84l.
61. Schiff, L.J., S.'M. Morrison and J.V. Mayeux (1970), "SYNERGISTIC FALSE-
POSITIVE COLIFORM REACTION ON M-ENDO MF MEDIUM", Applied Microbiology,
Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 778-731.
62. Senn, Charles L.,et.al. and David P. Discher (1963),"COLIFORM STANDARDS
FOR RECREATIONAL WATERS- Progress Report and Literature Review", Jour.
of Sanitary Engineering Div., American Society of Civil Eng. , Vol. 89,
No. SA 4, p. 57-94.
63. Simonds, Monograph V (1915), "HISTORICAL REVIEW OF BACILLUS AEROGENES
CAPSULATUS", Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.
64. Smith, Alice L. (1969), "PRINCIPLES OF MICROBIOLOGY", C.V. Mosby Co.,
6th Edit., pp. 669.
65. Smith, Beamer, Vellios and Schulz (1959), "PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN PATHOLOGY",
Oxford Press, New York. Lib. Congress Catalogue Card No. 59-9815-
66. Smith, R.J. and R.M. Twedt (1971), "NATURAL RELATIONSHIPS OF INDICATOR AND
PATHOGENIC BACTERIA IN STREAM WATERS", Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.,
Vol. 43, No. 11, p. 2200-2209.
67. Snoddy, Edward L. and John R. Chipley (1971), "BACTERIA FROM THE INTESTINAL
TRACT OF SIMULJNUM underbill! (Deptera: Simuliidae) AS A POSSIBLE INDEX TO
WATER POLLUTION", Annals of the Entomological Society of Americaj.Vol. 64,
No. 6, p. 1467-1468.
-------
C-24
;68. Stein, M. (1970), "ENFORCEMENT LIMITATIONS IN WATER QUALIT^ CONTROL",
Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. k, pp. ^73-^75, AMICl-591*.
69. Thorn, B.T. (1970) ."KLE3STET.T.A IN FASCES", The Lancet 2:1033.
70. USDI, FWPCA and Washington State Pollution Control Commission (1967),
"POLLUTIONAL EFFECTS OF PULP AND PAPER MILL WASTES IN PtJGET SOUND",
kjk pages.
71. US Dept. HEW,PHS (1966), "REPORT ON BACTERIOLOGICAL POLLUTION FROM
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES ON THE RED RIVER OF THE
NORTH", Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
72. US Dept. HEW,PHS (1965), "REPORT ON POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF
THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH (Minnesota-North Dakota)'/ Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
73. Van Donsel, Dale J. and Edwin E. Geldreich (1971), "RELATIONSHIPS OF
SALMONSLLAE TO FECAL COLIFORMS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENTS", Water Research,
Vol. 5, pp. 1079-1087.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
IDENTIFICATION OF COLIFORM COLONIES
-------
TABLE I
Identification of Total Coliform Colonies
Selected Industrial Wastes
7
NJ
Concentration Colony Identification
Enterotube
Colony" Total Klebsiella- Other Non
Coliforms*/100 ml Descrip- No. Enterobacter Entero- Entero- EC
Source Total
Sugar Waste
Bone char filter
Washings 11,000
Sugar Waste
Treatment Plant 8,000
Fecal tion Colonies JjjcnxLfaciens bacteraceae bacteraceae (+)
Metallic
<67 Green 24 18 4 22
Metallic
<67 Green 23 21 0 21
BGBL
24
23
Pulp Mill
Process Water
23,000 >60,000 Metallic
Green
24
23
24
Typical colonies on M-Endo and M-FC Agar
M Endo Medium
-------
TABLE II
Identification of Various Colonies
From the Fecal Coliform Membrane Filter Test
Selected Industrial Wastes
Concentration
Goliforms*/100 ml
Source Total Fecal
„
Sugar Waste
Filter Washings 11,000 <67
Sugar Waste
Treatment Plant 8,000 <67
Sugar Waste
Treatment Plant
Pulp Mill
Process Water 23,000 >60,000
Pulp Mill
Process Water
San Joaquin R.
Stagnant Area <67 >6,000
Pulp Mill
Cooling Water <67 <67
* Typical colonies on M-Endo and M-FC
0 M-FC Medium
Colony0 Total
Descrip- No.
tion Colonies
Gray-white 18
Gray-white 14
Blue 7
Pink 24
Blue 22
Gray-blue 24
White 23
Agar
Colony Identification
Enterotube
Klebsiella- Other Non
Enterobacter Entero- Entero-
liquifaciens bacteraceae bacteraceae
15 3 0
14 0 0
6 1 0
7 1 16
3 3 16
1 3 20
0 18 5
EC BGBL
C+) (+)
1 18
0 14
: 7
4 15
5 19
0 8
0 3
a
OJ
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E
FIGURES
-------
E-2
FIGURE I
6
10
. 10
CO
cr
10
_J 10
o
o
10
DAILY VARIATION IN COLIFORMS
(NFLUENT
EFFLUENT
(INTAKE)
'0/18 10/19 10/20 10/21
DATE SAMPLED
-------
FIGURE 2
Composition of Total Coliform Population Found in Pulpraill Wastes
COUNTS per 100 ML
oro
Phmary influent- total colifoms
primary influent Klebsielia
primary effluent total conforms
primary effluent Klebsielia
secondary influent tofal coh'forms
secondary influent Klebsielia
.secodary effluent total coliforms
secondary effluent Klebsielia
-------
E-4
FIGURE 3
kl
incubation
temp. 2O c
K?
24 36
HOURS
43
-------
E-5
FIGURE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL
COLIFORM COUNTS
7100 Ml.
Sample
lettece
pine need
leaves
leaves
soil
water
Total
conform
0
0
0
0
0
Ixl03i
Feceal
coliforrr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fe cea 1
strep
0
0
0
0
0
0
I DECAYED LEAVES
2 48 HOURS INCUBATION, NOME FERMENTED
LACTOSE AFTER 48 HOURS
-------
E-6
I
13
O
§
rt
r-H
•H
U.
(U
10
8-1
3
(H
0)
o
(U
tu
O-
D-
-D
-V
44.5 45-0 45-5
TEMPERATURE
-------
INDOLE
M.R.
V. P
CITRATE
GLUCOSE
LACTOSE
SUC ROSE
MANNI.TOL
ACETATE
LYSINE
ARGIMINE
ORNITHIh/E
UREA
MOTJUTYl
LACTOSE
(4.45 C)
FIGURE .
dork blue
i.ob3
100
0
M
100
100
—
~ -- _--
—
88
' —
•*~
—
—
89
light blu
------- |