-------
REPORT ON POLLUTION OF
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF
BOSTON HARBOR
United States Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northeast Region
Boston, Massachusetts
May 1968
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
1
SUMMARY 1
RECOMMENDATIONS 5
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS 8
INTRODUCTION 12
BACKGROUND 12
DESCRIPTION OF AREA Ik
POPULATION AND ECONOMY ik
HYDROGRAPHY ........... 16
SOURCES OF POLLUTION 18
MUNICIPAL WASTES . . 18
INDUSTRIAL WASTES 21
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS ...... 21
TRIBUTARY STREAMS 22
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS 22
Boston Naval Shipyard 23
South Boston Naval Annex 27
Navy Ships Berthed in Boston Harbor ....... 27
Coast Guard's Base Boston .27
Nike Ajax Site B-36 (Hull) 28
WATERCRAFT WASTES 28
DEBRIS AND REFUSE ..28
OTHER SOURCES 29
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON WATER USES 30
SHELLFISH HARVESTING 30
Official Control of Shellfish Harvesting 30
Production of Shellfish 35
Economic Value of Shellfish 39
RECREATIONAL BATHING Ill
RECREATIONAL BOATING 1*3
SPORT FISHING ..... M*
ESTHETICS hk
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING U5
WATER SUPPLY -. 1*6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PRESENT1 WATER QUALITY
BACTERIA ....................... 1*7
DISSOLVED OXYGEN ................... 50
BEHTHIC LIFE ............. ... ..... 52
NUTRIENTS ................ ...... 53
BENTHAL DEPOSITS ......... . ......... 5^
SURFACE WATERS .................... 55
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES 56
STATE AGENCIES %
Metropolitan District Coanission 56
Metropolitan Area Planning Council ........ 56
Division of Water Pollution Control 57
Division of Waterways 57
Department of Public Health 58
FEDERAL AGENCIES 58
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration . . 58
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 59
U.S. Coast Guard 59
U.S. Public Health Service 59
OTHER AGENCIES 60
New England River Basins Conmission 60
New England Regional Commission 60
APPENDICES 62
APPENDIX A. National Shellfish Sanitation Program,
Growing Area Survey and Classification 63
APPENDIX B. Federal Construction Grant
Projects, Boston Harbor .... 75
STUDY AREA Follows Page 79
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows Page
1 Boston Harbor 77
2 Major Wastes Discharges and Average
Coliform Densities 18
3 Classification of Shellfish Areas 3k
U Volume of Clams Treated at Newburyport
Shellfish Treatment Plant, 1935-196?. ... 38
5 Monthly Volume of Clams Treated at
Newburyport Shellfish Treatment
Plant, 1967 38
6 Dissolved Oxygen Pattern, Boston Harbor . . . 52
7 Polychaete Worms, Boston Harbor ....... 5k
8 Phytoplankton, Boston Harbor 5^
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Communities Discharging Sewage to the
Metropolitan District CcMnission
Sewerage Facilities 19
Federal Installations, Boston Harbor 2k
Shellfish Areas, Boston Harbor 32
k Master and Subordinate Digger Permits,
Northern Massachusetts Coast . . « ...... 36
Geographical Distribution of Processed
Clans, Newburyport Shellfish
Treatment Plant 36
Estimated Annual Icononic Damage to the
Shellfish Industry in Boston Harbor 42
iv
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
As a result of pollution of the waters overlying the shellfish
growing areas of Boston Harbor, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has issued orders prohibiting, or otherwise restricting the harvesting
of shellfish for human consumption in certain areas in order to protect
the public health and welfare. These restrictions, as of April 1, 1968,
are summarized below:
Shellfishing prohibited 1,560 Acres 35 percent
(since 19Ul)
Shellfishing prohibited 1,113 25
(since June 196?)
Shellfishing restricted 1,319 29
Shellfishing approved 500 11
ktkS& Acres 100 percent
Pollution in the Boston Harbor area results from the following
waste discharges and activities:
Municipal Wastes
Metropolitan District Commission's Deer Island
sewage treatment plant
Metropolitan District Commission's Nut Island
sewage treatment plant
City of Boston's Moon Island facility
Town of Hull
-------
Industrial Wastes
Combined Sever Overflows
Tributary Streams
Federal Installations
Boston Naval Shipyard
Navy Ships Berthed in Boston Harbor
Coast Guard's Base Boston
Nike AJax Site B-36 (Hull)
Watercraft Wastes
Debris and Refuse
The areas of the Harbor in Boston, Hull, Quincy and Weymouth
recently closed to shellfish harvesting cover 25 percent of the available
shellfishing growing areas. These same areas accounted for 79 percent
of the shellfish harvested from the Harbor during the year July 1, 1966
to June .30, 1967, according to records of the Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries. This 79 percent, or 7,800 bushels of shellfish,
represent a basic shipper aarket loss of $78,000 a year. In terms of
the economic value to the food industry, the maximum annual loss is
estimated to be $1,300,000.
In addition to causing the restriction of shellfish harvesting,
pollution has resulted in restricted, or otherwise limited, recreational
bathing, recreational boating and sport fishing activities and has
reduced the esthetic value of the water, beaches and adjoining areas
of Boston Harbor.
-------
The predcninant factor in restricting the harvesting of shellfish
is the presence of coliform bacteria. Although most are harmless in
themselves, coliform bacteria are always present in waters polluted
by warm-blooded animal wastes and are considered indicators of the
probable presence of pathogenic bacteria. Oaring 1967* excessive
coliform bacteria, as great as 520,000 per 100 ml of water, were
found in the Inner Harbor area. In general, very high numbers were
found in the northern section of the Harbor, while Quincy, Hingham
and Hull Bays in the southern portion probably satisfy the coliform
standards for Massachusetts Class SB waters. Class SB waters are
generally considered acceptable for water contact activities and
shellfish harvesting with depuration.
Water Quality Standards adopted by Massachusetts require that
for Class SB water the dissolved oxygen be "not less than 5 mg/1 at
any time" and for Class SC water, the lowest classification of salt
water, "not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour
period, nor less than 3 mg/1 at any time." Of the eighteen stations
sampled during July and August of 1967, only six met this Class SC
standard.
Wide fluctuations of dissolved oxygen values occurred in Boston
Harbor, apparently caused by large numbers of phytoplankton. Such
fluctuations, with resulting serious oxygen depletions, are often caused
by rapidly expanding phytoplankton populations in waters having very
high nutrient concentrations.
-------
The paucity of kinds of organisms associated with the benthic
deposits,''Show that all reaches of Boston Harbor and each of its
tributary streams, except the inland marine reaches of the Weir and
Weymouth Back Rivers, were polluted. Based upon the biological conditions
about seven square miles, or 30 percent of the Harbor, were grossly
polluted. Chemical analysis of harbor sediments for carbon and nitrogen
support the biological findings of organic enrichment. Extensive
deposits, some greater than three feet deep, of decaying organic matter
and incorporated oily residues covered much of the Harbor.
Substantial economic injury results from the inability to market
shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of
pollution caused by sewage, industrial waste and other waste sources
discharged to the navigable waters of Boston Harbor and its tributaries,
and by the action of State authorities. Accordingly, the pollution of
those navigable waters is subject to abatement under procedures
described in Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for abating the existing water
pollution and for ensuring the adequate water quality required for
legitimate water uses, including shellfish harvesting, of Boston Harbor.
These recommendations are designed for the present conditions. Any basic
alteration in the harbor's condition, either natural or caused by man,
may necessitate a review of the requirements.
1. All waters in Boston Harbor shall meet the water quality
standards, including the implementation and construction
schedules, submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. These
standards are at the end of .this reconmendations section.
2. a. The Deer Island sewage treatment facility shall be
fully staffed and operation continued.
b. A technical committee shall be established to
determine if the standards of water quality are
being met. The committee shall report its findings
to the conferees in six months.
c. An evaluation of the effect of the treated discharges
of both the Deer Island and Nut Island facilities on
the harbor waters shall be completed as soon as
possible. If needed, a survey should be undertaken to
determine what additional pollution abatement measures
are necessary.
-------
d. The evaluations and studies snail also consider the
need for discharging all wastes, including dry weather
flows and combined sewer overflows, to waters other
than those of Boston Harbor.
e. A proposed plan to accomplish any additional measures
shall be reported to the conferees by June 1969.
3. a. The City of Boston shall formulate and implement the
complete phasing out of the Noon Island facility.
b. As an interim measure, continuous disinfection of all
discharges from Moon Island, in accordance with orders
established by the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, shall be provided.
k. a. Appropriate local, State and Federal agencies shall
adequately control the dumping of garbage or refuse
along the shores and in the waters of the harbor.
b. Material in existing dump sites, sunken vessels,
dilapidated piers, wharves and other structures,
and other sources and sites of debris and rubbish,
•hall be removed and the appearance of the bank
restored to an esthetically acceptable condition.
5. The problem of pollution from vessels in Boston Harbor is
serious. A technical committee, including State and Federal
representatives, shall be established to consider the vessel
pollution problem and provide the conferees with recommendations
in six months.
-------
6. Industry and local, State and Federal agencies shall
complete and implement contingency plans for the most
appropriate aneU effective methods of preventing and
.handling oil pollution.. ••'•'"
7. All municipalities, industries and the Metropolitan
District Commission shall continue immediate remedial
action, including repair or replacement, as needed,'
of all storm overflow structures and tide gates to
eliminate backflow from the harbor and its tributaries
into the sewerage system. *
8. All Federal facilities shall construct and operate treatment
facilities required by Executive Order 11288.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Division of Water Pollution Control acting under the authority
of Section 27 (k) of Chapter 21 of the General Laws held a public
hearing on February 17, 1967, relative to the establishment of standards
of water quality for the waters of the Commonwealth. The hearings
were held in accordance with the provisions of the State Administrative
Procedures Act (Chapter 3QA of the General Laws). The standards were
approved by the Water Resources Commission, the Commissioner of Public
Health, and adopted by the Division on March 3, 1967, and were filed
with the Secretary of State on March 6, 1967. The standards were
approved by the Secretary of the Interior on August 10, 1967.
1. General - To achieve the objectives of the Massachusetts Clean
Water Act and to assure best use of the waters of the Comnonwealth,
the following standards are adopted and shall be applicable to all
waters of the Commonwealth or to different segments of the same waters.
The Classes shall be assigned by the Division of Water Pollution Control.
In the classification of waters due consideration will be given to
all factors involved including public health, public enjoyment, propagation
and protection of fish and wildlife, and economic and social development.
Classifications are not intended to permit indiscriminate waste disposal
or to allow minimum efforts of waste treatment under any circumstance.
When an effluent is permitted to be discharged to the receiving waters,
cognizance shall be given both in time and distance to allow for mixing
of effluent and stream. Such distances required for complete mixing shall
not affect the water usage Class adopted.
Recommendations on other waste parameters will constitute a portion
of the continuing effort of the Division as improved standard methods
are developed or revisions consistent with the enhancement of the waters
of the Commonwealth are justified.
Water quality parameters not specifically denoted shall not exceed
tfce recommended limits on the most sensitive and governing water class
mae. In areas where fisheries are the governing consideration and approved
limits nave not been established, bio-assays shall be performed as
by the appropriate agencies.
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
Coastal and Marine Water Standards of duality
I. Dissolved Oxygen
2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse-
floating solids-oil-grease-scull
3. Color and turbidity
l+. Colifora bacteria per
100 ml
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
in :rease
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
10. Total phosphate
11. Ammonia
Class SA - Suitable for any high
quality water use including
bathing and water contact
sports. Suitable for
approved shellfish areas.
Not less than 6.5 mg/1 at
any time.
None allowable
Class SB - Suitable for bathing
and recreational purposes
including water contact
sports; industrial cooling;
excellent fish habitat; good
aesthetic value and suitable
for certain shellfiaheries
with depuration.
(Restricted Shellfish Areas).
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at
any time.
None allowable
Clas« SC - Suitable for
aesthetic enjoyment; for
recreational boating;
habitat for wildlife and
common food and game
fishes indigenous to the
region; industrial cooling
Not less than 5 mg/1 during
at least 16 hours of any
2H-hour period nor less
than 3 mg/1 at any time.
None except that amount
that may result from the
discharge from a waste
treatment facility providing
appropriate treatment.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically assigned to this class.
Not to exceed a median value
of 70 and not more than
lOl of the samples shall
ordinarily exceed 230 during
any monthly sampling period.
None allowable
6.8 - 8.5
Not to exceed a median value
of 700 and not more than
2300 in more than 10% of the
samples during any monthly
sampling period.
None in such concentrations
that would impair any
usages specifically assigned
to this class.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages
specifically assigned to this class and none that would
cause taste and odor in edible fish or shellfish.
6,8 - 8.5
6.5 - 8.5
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the most sensitive water use.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or
which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or shellfish or their propagation, impair
the palatability of same, or impair the water for any ether usage.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life
for the appropriate water use. None in such concentrations which would result in radio-nuclide
concentrations in aquatic life which exceed the recommended limits for consumption by humans.
Not to exceed an average of 0.07 mg/1 as P during any monthly sampling period.
Not to exceed an average
of 0.2 mg/1 as N during any
monthly sampling period.
Not to exceed an average
of 0.2 mg/1 as N during
any monthly sampling period.
Not to exceed an average
of 1.0 mg/1 as N during
any monthly sampling period.
NOTES:
1. Coastal and marine waters are those subject to the rise and fall of the tide.
2. Appropriate treatment is defined as the degree of treatment with disinfection required for the receiving
waters to meet their assigned state or interstate classification and to meet the objectives of the
water quality standards. Disinfection from October 1 to May 1 may be discontinued at the discretion
of the Division of Water Pollution Control.
3. The water quality standards do not apply to conditions brought about by natural causes.
U. The waters shall be substantially free of pollutants that will:
(1) unduly affect the composition of bottom fauna
(2) unduly affect the physical or chemical nature of the bottom fauna
(3) interfere with the spawning of fish or their eggs
5. The standards shall apply at all times in coastal and marine waters
6. The amount of disinfection required shall be equivalent to a free and combined chlorine residual
of at least 1.0 mg/1 after 15 minutes contact time during peak hourly flow or maximum rate of pumpage.
-------
Hater Resources Caanission
Division of Water Pollution Control
BOUNDARY
Boston Harbor Inside a
line frcn the southerly
tip of Deer Island.to
Boston Light House to
Point Allerton in Hull
except as noted below
Boston Inner Harbor
westerly inside a line
from the southerly tip
of Governor's Island to
Port Independence including
the Charles, Mystic and
Chelsea (Creek) Rivers and
Fort Point Channel
Quincy Bay in Quincy fron
BroBfield Street near the
Wallaston Yacht Club
northerly to buoy C "1"
southeasterly to the
"Willows" sonetlaes known
a* Lord's Point on the
northerly shore of Houaha
Neck in Qulncy
Hingham Harbor in Hingham
inside a line fron Crows
Point to World's End
Weyaouth Fore River in
Quiney and Wejnaouth
BOSTON HARBOB WATERS CLASSIFICATION*
:-...-..., CLASSIFICATION
. •• PRESENT
PRESENT AND ANTICIPATED
FUTURE USB •
Bathing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Fishing .
Shellfishing
AsslMlation .
Fish and wildlife-propagation
Fishing
Industrial Processing and
Cooling
Bathing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Fishing
Shellfishing
Bathing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Fishing
Shellfishing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Shemfshlng, Industrial
processing and cooling
SC
FUTURE
SB
SC
SC
SA
SA
SA
SB
SA
SB
Weyaouth Back River in
Weyaouth and Hingbaa
Heir River in Hull and
Hingham
Beponaet River in Boston,
Milton and Qulncy
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Fishing
Shellfishing
Industrial processing and
Cooling
Bathing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Fishing
Shellfishing
Industrial cooling and
Processing
Recreational boating
Fish and wildlife propagation
Flailing
Shellfishing
Industrial cooling and
Processing
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
•Subject to the rise and fall of the tide
LOCATION
Boston
Hull
SOURCE
MDC
Deer Island
MDC
Nut Island
Municipal
COASTAL WATER
CLASSIFICATION
PRESENT PROPOSED
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SA
TREATMENT
PRESENT REQUIRED
Primary Adequate
Primary Adequate
None Primary*
(C) Combined sewers
*To be completed by March 1972
-------
8RAINTREE
/ WEYMOUTH ,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
BOSTON HARBOR
CLASS if iHtlON
WATER USE CLASSES - (SA) (SB) (S?)i
— CHANGE CLASSIFICATION
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
As a result of pollution of the waters overlying the shellfish
growing areas in Boston Harbor, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
issued orders prohibiting, or otherwise restricting the harvesting
of shellfish for human consumption in certain areas in order to
protect the public health and welfare. These restrictions are
summarized below:
February 13, 1937 - Harvested shellfish from the Slate Island
area of Hingham and Weymouth must receive
appropriate treatment prior to consumption.
May 5, 19^1 ' •' - Shellfishing. prohibited in Boston Harbor,
- . except for designated areas. As a result,
a. Shellfishing is prohibited in
approximately 1,560 acres,
b. Shellfishing is restricted in
approximately 2,U32 acres, and
c. Shellfishing is unrestricted in
approximately 500 acres.
June 1, 196? - Shellfishing prohibited in the Old Harbor -
area. First closure since
April 1, 1968 - Since June 1, 1967, 1,113 additional
acres have been prohibited. As a result,
a. Shellfishing is prohibited in
approximately 2,673 acres,
b. Shellfishing is restricted in
approximately 1,319 acres, and
c. Shellfishing is unrestricted in
approximately 500 acres.
12
-------
The only unrestricted or open areas are located along the southern
shores of the Harbor. These areas are under observation by the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health to determine whether or not
they should also be restricted.
As provided in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
"The Secretary shall also call such a conference
whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies,...
he finds that substantial economic injury results from
the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products
in interstate commerce because of pollution..." "... and
action of Federal, State, or local authorities."
The Secretary of the Interior has called a conference of the navigable
waters of Boston Harbor.
Numerous personnel from the following agencies assisted in
the collection of data or report preparation: United States Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service; United States
Army, Corps of Engineers; Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
Division of Sanitary Engineering; Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, and Division of Water Pollution
Control; Massachusetts Department of Commerce, Metropolitan Area
Planning Council, Boston; and Metropolitan District Commission,
Sewerage Division. The cooperation of all is gratefully acknowledged.
13
-------
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
The area, as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health for shellflshlng purposes, is "...the waters and flats of
Boston Harbor, including all its anas and tributaries, vest of a line
drawn from Windmill Point in Hull to the southeasterly point of Deer
Island...to Point Shirley and including the shores of Lovells,
Gallops and Georges Islands..." and is shown in Figure 1. These areas
have been defined and established as shellfish grounds as far back
as 1937 and have been periodically reevaluated. This area, known
as Boston Harbor, includes Boston Inner Harbor, Boston Outer Harbor,
Winthrop Harbor, Dorchester Bay, Quincy Bay, Hingham Bay and Hull Bay.
It has a surface area of approximately twenty-four square Biles.
Boston Harbor receives the drainage, including waste discharges,
. ' • • . i
from four major coastal streams—the Mystic, Charles, leponset and
Weymouth Fore Rivers; the entire waterfront and minor tributary areas
extending from Wlnthrop to Hull; and all of the municipalities which
are part of the Metropolitan District Commission sewerage system. This
area, containing 66k square miles and supporting a population of
approximately 2 million, lies completely within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. It contains forty-eight cities and towns in their entirety
and significant portions of eleven others.
i
POPULATION AMD ECONOMY
In 1965 the total population of the Boston Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA) was 2,600,000, one-half of the state population
-------
and one-quarter of the population of New England. Although the
core city of Boston declined in population from 723,000 in 1955 to
620,000 in 196^, the population of the SMSA increased 6.1 percent.
The population of Massachusetts had a slightly higher percent increase
in the sane period, 7.U percent. Within New England, the Boston
area's role as the cultural, commercial, industrial and financial
leader is unchallenged.
Employment in the area is growing at a slightly faster rate than
in the state as a whole. Total employment in Massachusetts advanced
9.5 percent between 1950 and 1960, while employment in the Boston
metropolitan area increased 12 percent.
Compared to the rest of the state, the employment pattern in
this area is centered somewhat less on manufacturing and more on
service industries, particularly insurance, education, medical services
and government. Of those employed in the state, 53 percent and 35 percent
are engaged in service and manufacturing activities, respectively.
In the Boston SMSA, 63 percent and 29 percent of those employed are
engaged in service and manufacturing activities. Manufacturing employment
is concentrated mainly in electrical machinery, apparel, and food and
kindred products.
The Port of Boston, with an annual total volume of over twenty
million short tons of cargo, is the largest seaport in New England, both
in its extent of waterfront facilities and in its volumes of waterborne
trade. Boston ranks as the fourth largest seaport in the North Atlantic
15
-------
area after New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia. In the last decade,
the Port of Boston has increased in cargo and passenger transport,
but its growth has lagged in relation to other North Atlantic
ports.
HYDROGRAPHY
Boston Harbor, which opens to Massachusetts Bay, is approximately!
twenty-four square Biles in area. More than three-quarters of
the harbor has a mean low water (NUT) depth of ten feet or less.
Two major shipping channels serve Boston Harbor; President Roads,
with an NUi depth of forty feet, and Nantasket Roads, with an MLW
depth of thirty feet. There are approximately one and a half miles
of effective harbor connections with Massachusetts Bay.
The maximum current velocity in the main channels is 2.0
knots, occurring near Deer Island Light three hours after the
beginning of flood tide. In terms of flow and circulation, the harbor
may be divided into sections. The northern section is comprised
of President Roads, Dorchester Bay and Inner Harbor; the southern
section is comprised of Quincy Bay, Hingham Bay and Hull Bay. In
both sections the tidal fluctuation is approximately nine and a half
feet.
16
-------
On a volume-flow relationship, the residence time is slightly
under two complete tidal cycles—approximately twenty-four hours.
However, the harbor is not completely flushed out every twenty-four
hours, for there"are many sections where backwaters and poor circulation
result in much greater residence times.
The total flow from the tributary streams ranges from 20 cfs to
1,800 cfs, averaging 350 cfs during the summer. This flow is very
low compared to the daily inflow of salt water, which averages 320,000
cfs for a six-hour period.
Annual precipitation for the area averages forty-three inches.
Approximately sixty-five percent of this precipitation occurs in the
winter and spring.
17
-------
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Boston Harbor receives the discharge of municipal wastes from
1.5 aillion people served by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
sewerage system and municipal wastes from parts of Hull and Boston.
Degradation of water quality in the harbor also results from industrial
waste discharges; combined sewer overflows; streams tributary to the
harbor; Federal facilities discharges; watercraft wastes; debris and
refuse contributed by barging operations, shoreline refuse dumping
and dilapidated piers and wharves; and other sources.
MUNICIPAL WASTES
The greatest source of pollution to the waters of Boston Harbor
is the discharge of municipal wastes. Approximately k6o million gallons
per day (mgd) of raw or partially treated sewage from the Boston
metropolitan area are discharged through two major sewerage systems
operated by the MDC.
The South Metropolitan system serves twenty-two cities and towns (Table l)
and transports the waste to the Nut Island sewage treatment plant. At
Nut Island, primary treatment (except for sludge disposal) with seasonal
chlorination is afforded before discharge. The average volume of sewage
entering the Nut Island facility is 110 mgd. Approximately 30 percent of the
oxygen demanding material is removed through treatment. The treated sewage
is discharged through two five-foot diameter outfalls as shown in Figure 2.
One outfall, at a depth of thirty feet, extends 6,000 feet from the plant;
18
-------
MAJOR MUNICIPAL
DISCHARGES AND
AVERAGE COLIFORM DENSITIES
BOSTON HARBOR
AVG. COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOml)
July-August 1967
Total Coliforms 0,000
Fecal Colitorms 000
MAJOR DISCHARGES
Location A
Sewage Outfall -.-.-
Sludge Outfa
FIGURE 2
-------
TABLE 1
COMMUNITIES DISCHARGING SEWAGE TO THE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
SEWERAGE FACILITIES
(See Figure l)
North Metropolitan System —
Arlington
Bedford
Belnont
Boston*
Burlington
Cambridge
Chelsea
Everett
Lexington
Maiden
Medford
Melrose
Reading
Revere
Somerville
Stoneham
Wakefield
Wilmington
Winchester
Winthrop
Woburn
South Metropolitan System —
Ashland
Boston*
Braintree
Brookline
Canton
Dedham
Framingham
Hingham
Milton
Natick
Needham
Nevton
Norwood
Quincy
Randolph
Stoughton
Walpole
Waltham
Watertown
Wellesley
Westvood
Weymouth
^Discharges to "both syst
19
-------
the second out flail extends l,taO feet from the plant at a depth of
twenty feet. Digested sludge is discharged through a twelve-inch,
k.2 mile pipe in the President Roads area. This discharge of sludge
greatly reduces the overall effectiveness of the treatment plant in
terns of bacteria, oxygen demanding Material, nitrogen and phosphorus
removed.
Twenty metropolitan communities contribute wastes to the Morth
Metropolitan system (Table l). Approximately 350 mgd of sewage from
this system is conveyed to Beer Island, the site of a new primary
treatment plant which we understand has just become operational. The
plant is designed to provide primary treatment (except for sludge
disposal) or approximately 30 percent removal of the oxygen demanding
material. Digested sludge and seasonally chlorinated effluent will
be discharged to the harbor. 'The discharge of this sludge will
greatly reduce the overall treatment effectiveness. Currently we
understand that temporarily no sludge is being discharged with a
resulting removal of M) percent.
Sewage treated in a properly designed and operated primary
treatment facility is capable of removing 30 to 35 percent of the oxygen
demanding materials. However, unless the nutrients present in waste
discharges are also removed, phytoplankton activity, such as that
occurring in Boston Harbor, will produce oxygen depletions that will
continue to endanger the aquatic life of the harbor. Adequate secondary
treatment of sewage can reduce the nutrient content of the waste
discharge and is capable of removing from 85 to 95 percent of the
20
-------
organic natter and greatly reducing the coliform bacteria. Disposal
of the digested sludge into the receiving waters increased the amount
of nutrients and oxygen demanding material in those waters and reduces
the orerall efficiency of primary or secondary treatment facilities.
The Federal Government has not granted funds to the MDC for
construction of the Deer Island sewage treatment facility because of
the MDC method used for the discharge of sludge.
In addition to the above major sources of municipal waste, untreated
sewage is still discharged at the City of Boston's Moon Island facility.
In the Town of Hull, untreated sewage is discharged at three locations
within the harbor.
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
The majority of the industries in the Boston area discharge to
municipal sewerage systems. Complete listings of sources of industrial
waste discharging directly to the waters of Boston Harbor are not
available. Partial listings are in various stages of development by
Federal, State and local agencies.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Portions of many of the cities and towns in the Boston Harbor
drainage basin have combined sewer systems. During periods of heavy
rainfall, when major interceptors reach their capacity, the local sewers
overflow directly into the harbor and tributary streams. In some
21
-------
instances, this overflow occurs during normal dry weather flow. There
are more than 200 points of sewer relief in the Boston area which
produce a significant bacterial, grease, solids and organic load in
wet weather. Over ninety of the overflows discharge directly into
the harbor.
TRIBUTARY STREAMS
The Chelsea, Mystic, Charles, Neponset and Weymouth Fore Rivers
are severely degraded as they enter Boston Harbor. The Charles, Neponset
and Mystic Rivers are the greatest contributors. Combined sewer overflows
constitute a major source of pollution to the tributaries. Significant
amounts of oil are added to the harbor from the Chelsea, Mystic and
Weymouth Fore Rivers. These streams are major commercial waterways
with many tank farms located along their shores.
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
Executive Order 11288 requires heads of Federal departments, agencies
and establishments to provide leadership in the national effort to
Improve water quality through the prevention, control and abatement of
water pollution from Federal activities in the United States. The
Order requires that the Secretary of the Interior provide the necessary
review, coordination and technical advice for all Federal departments,
agencies and establishments. These, in turn, are required to cooperate
with the Secretary, State and interstate agencies, and municipalities,
insofar as practicable and consistent with the Interests of the United
22
-------
States and within available appropriations. Water pollution control
requirements must be considered and included in the initial stages
of planning for each new installation or project. Phased and orderly
plans for installing water pollution abatement facilities at existing
installations must be developed and periodically revised as required.
The Secretary of the Interior has assigned the responsibility of
implementing the Executive Order to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
The Federal installations in the Boston Harbor area ,are listed
in Table 2. Also included in this table are the present;sanitary
and industrial waste flows and their disposition at each installation.
A brief description of the waste disposal practices of the major
sources of sanitary and industrial wastes from Federal installations
follows:
Boston Naval Shipyard
All sanitary wastes from the Boston Naval Shipyard (Charlestown)
shore facility (average flow 0.3 mgd) are discharged to the Boston
City Sanitary Sewer System. Cooling water (average flow l.U mgd) is
discharged to Boston Harbor. Approximately 770 gallons per day of
wastes from machine shop and tank cleaning operations are discharged
directly to the Harbor. This discharge of industrial wastes is not in
conformance with the requirements of Executive Order 11288 and corrective
action is recommended.
23
-------
TABLE 2
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS—BOSTON HARBOR
NAME AGENCY
Boston Amy Base Army
Family Housing Area Army
Nike Ajax Site B-36 Amy
Windmill Point Coast Guard
Lifeboat Sta.
Point Allerton Sta. Coast Guard
Deer Island Light Coast Guard
Sta.
Boston Station Coast Guard
LOCATION QUANTITY IN G.P.D.
SANITARY INDUSTRIAL
Boston 100,000
Winthrop 2,960
Hull 6,000
Hull 6kO
Hull 1,920
Boston 2kO
Boston 20,000
TREATMENT COMMENTS
Boston
City
Sewer
Winthrop
City
Sewer
Septic Remedial action to
tank & comply with E.O. 11288
Chlor. is recommended.
Discharge
to Hingham
Bay
Hull
Town
Sewer
Hull
Town
Sewer
None Remedial action to comply
with E.O. 11288 is
recommended.
Boston
City
Sewer
Base Boston
Coast Guard Boston
18,000 None
Cooling water for machinery
and dynamometer.
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
NAME
AGENCY
LOCATION QUANTITY IN G.P.D.
SANITARY INDUSTRIAL
TREATMENT
COMMENTS
Base Boston
Base Boston
Vessels in Port
Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Boston
Boston
Harbor
150
None
22,000
None
Naval Hospital
Naval Shipyard
Naval Shipyard
Navy
Navy
Navy
Chelsea 102,500
Boston 3^5,000
Boston
770
Boston
City
Sewer
Boston
City
Sewer
None
None
Two urinals on pier
discharging directly to
Boston Harbor. Plans are
underway to eliminate.
Construction of a shore
sewer line to collect
sanitary wastes from
berthed ships is scheduled
for completion in late
1969 or early 1970.
Cooling water and
wastes from machine shop and
tank cleaning operations.
Remedial action to comply
with E.G. 11288 is rec.
South Boston
Naval Annex
Navy
Boston
9,000
Boston
City
Sewer
South Boston
Naval Annex
Navy
Boston
3^2,000
Boston
City
Sewer
Water for generation of
steam and in captive
systems (hot water heating,
cooling tower, etc.).
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
NAME AGENCY
Naval Shipyard & Navy
South Boston Naval
Annex (Berthed Ships)
Naval Station Navy
Squantum Gardens Navy
Naval Terrace Navy
Boston Motor Pool G.S.A.
U.S. Appraisers G.S.A.
Stores
G.S.A. Stores G.S.A.
Food & Drug Admin. H.E.W.
LOCATION
Boston
Harbor
Boston
Squantum
Point
Squantum
Point
Boston
Boston
Hingham
Boston
QUANTITY IN G.P.D.
SANITARY INDUSTRIAL
UO,500
1*9,500
3^,800
10,100
Hoo
5,200
2,100
3,600
TREATMENT COMMENTS
None Remedial action to ecu
with E.O. 11288 is
recommended.
Boston
City
Sewer
Quincy
City
Sewer
Quincy
City
Sewer
Boston
City
Sewer
Boston
City
Sewer
Hingham
Town
Sewer
Boston
City
Sewer
-------
South Boston Naval Annex
All sanitary wastes from the shore facility (average flow 9,000
gallons per day) are discharged to the Boston City Sanitary Sewer
System. Cooling water (average flow 0.3 ngd). is discharged through
the Boston City Storm Drains to Boston Harbor.
Navy Ships Berthed in Boston Harbor
The sanitary wastes from all Maval ships berthed in the Harbor
are discharged without treatment. The total flow discharged varies
with the sizes and numbers of ships in port but is estimated to average
1*0,500 gallons per day. The Navy is engaged in a program to abate
pollution from its vessels, and as part of this program has installed
a treatment device on board a destroyer based in Boston. This device
is currently undergoing testing and evaluation. Corrective action is
recommended to eliminate pollution by naval vessels.
Coast Guard's Base Boston
Sanitary wastes from two urinals located on one of the piers, all
sanitary wastes from Coast Guard ships berthed at Base Boston and
cooling water from the Base are discharged directly into the Harbor.
All other sanitary wastes from the facility are collected by the Boston
sewer system. ,
Flans for the removal of the urinals and for a sewer to collect
sanitary wastes from berthed ships with discharge to the Boston sewer
system are nearing completion. The project is scheduled for completion
in late 1969 or early 1970.
27
-------
Nike A.1ax Site B-36 (Hull)
Six thousand gallons per day of sanitary wastes are passed
through a septic tank and chlorinated before discharge to the Harbor.
This is not in conformance with Executive Order 11288. Secondary
treatment is recommended.
WATERCKAFT WASTES
Sewage from almost all vessels using boston Harbor is discharged
without treatment; these watercraft contribute to the pollution
problem. Recreational boating activity is centered in waters also
used for bathing and recreational fishing. As boating use in the
harbor increases, greater pollution will result, unless steps are
taken to prevent raw sewage discharges.
Approximately 80 percent of the cargo transported through the
port of Boston are petroleum products. The discharge of oil and oil
materials from watercraft is a serious pollution problem, whether it is
an accidental spill or oily waste waters from ballast tanks, bilges or
washing operations. Boston Harbor had a total of twenty-nine oil
spills reported in 1966 and 1967.
DEBRIS AND REFUSE
Floating debris and refuse are esthetically unpleasant and a
danger to shipping; they can also be a source of organic waste. The
major cause of the debris problem in the harbor is dilapidated piers
and wharves. Refuse dumped along the shore, litter contributed by
vessels, and garbage spilled during barging and burning operations are
the main sources of solid waste.
28
-------
OTHER SOURCES
Water quality nay be adversely affected by a variety of other
land and water activities. For instance, urban runoff from streets and
parking lots can add significant amounts of organic and suspended
materials. The disturbance of bottom muds by dredging operations can
result in a resuspension of accumulated organic sludges and silt and
the smothering of shellfish.
The City of Boston sewerage system was constructed in the late
l800's. Frees past experiences in large cities, it is likely that soae
local sewers, for which there are no records, have never been
intercepted and are presently discharging sewage directly to the
harbor and tributaries.
29
-------
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON WATER USES
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Records at the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Marine Fisheries, disclosed that the commercial shellfish
production from Boston Harbor and certain other areas has played a
small but significant role in the economy of the shellfish industry
in the Bay State. For the purpose of this report, the shellfish
production is confined to the harvesting and preparation for marketing
of the soft-shelled clam (Mya areoaria) available in the intertidal
waters of Boston Harbor. As a result of pollution of the growing
areas, most of the shellfish harvested commercially in Boston Harbor
may be marketed for human consumption only after an effective method
of treatment has been applied.
Official Control of Shellfish Harvesting. Commercial and private
harvesting of shellfish in Boston Harbor is controlled by two
means—the classification of shellfish beds by Massachusetts in order
to protect the public health, and the issuance of permits by the towns
to individuals for either commercial or sport digging of shellfish.
The shellfish harvest areas are defined by the State Department
of Public Health as the waters and flats of Boston Harbor, including
all its arms and tributaries inside of a line drawn from Windmill
Point in Hull to the southeasterly point of Deer Island and through
30
-------
Deer Island to Point Shirley and including the shores of Lovell,
Gallops and Georges Islands. These areas have been defined and established
as shellfish:grounds as far back as 1937 a?^ have continuously been
redefined and surveyed. Table 3 lists the shellfish areas in Boston
Harbor.
The commercial harvesting of shellfish is based on the quality
of the overlying waters in the shellfish beds. Under the law, the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health is held responsible for the
classification of all shellfish beds through a series of sanitary
and bacteriological surveys. As a cooperating member of the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program for interstate shipment of shellfish,
the state must also abide by Federal regulations. The coastal waters
of Massachusetts, therefore, are divided into distinct bacteriological
classifications in accordance with the Shellfish Sanitation Manual
requirements) of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. This
program is a cooperative partnership between the State, other cooperating
member states and the United States Public Health Service. In general,
the overlying waters of the shellfish beds are delineated under the
following three bacterial classifications:
1. Approved areas; waters with a coliform median MPN
(most probable number) not to exceed 70 per 100 ml.
Shellfish may be harvested and sold from approved
areas for direct marketing.
31
-------
TABLE 3
SHELLFISH AREAS
BOSTON HARBOR
Area Harvesting
Classification
City or
Town'
Prohibited
iU9«. Closure)
General Location
'Boston Harbor
Area
Code
Total
Acres
1,560
Prohibited
(Since June
1967)!
Restricted
Approved
Boston Logan Airport, southeast
Boston Logan Airport, northeast
Boston Logan Airport, northwest
Boston Old Harbor
Boston Pleasure Bay
Hull Allerton Harbor
Hull Hog Island
Hull ' Sunset Point
Quincy Germantown Point
Quincy Neponset River, Squantum Point
Quincy Town River Bay
Weymouth Eastern Neck, Wessagusset Beach
Boston Orient Heights
Hingham Bumpkin Island
Hingham Crow Point, west
Hingham Weymouth Back River
Hull Sunset Point
Hull Weir .River
Hull Weir River
Hull Weir River
Quincy Hough's Neck
Quincy ' Hough's Neck, east
Quincy Quincy Bay
Quincy Squantum
Quincy Town River Bay
.Weymouth Eastern Neck, Wessagusset Beach
Weymouth Grope Island
Weymouth Kings Cove
Weymouth Mill Cove, east
Weymouth State Island
Weymouth Weymouth Back River
Winthrop Point Shirley, west
Hingham Hinghaui Harbor
Hingham • Weir River, west
Hull ' Hull Bay
Quincy • Quincy Bay •
BB A
BH B
BH C
BH k
BH kA
BH 13
BH 1?
BH Ik*
BH 8B
BH 5
BH 8A*
BH 9*
BH D
BH 12
BH 11
BH 9A
BH
BH 15
BH 19
Weir River
BH 7
BH 8
BH 6
BH 5B
BH 8A*
BH 9*
.BH 18
BH 9B
BH 9C
BH 10
BH 16
BH 1
1,113
1,319
500
TOTAL
-^Indicates a partial closure. Part of the area is classified
prohibited and part restricted.
-------
SHELLFISH AREA
CLASSIFICATIONS
BOSTON HARBOR
APRIL, 1967
FIGURE 3
-------
In an ordinary year, about twenty Master and 180 Subordinate
Digger permits are Issued by the Division of Marine Fisheries for the
harvesting of shellfish in Boston Harbor and in other areas along
the northern Massachusetts coast. Table k lists the number of permits
issued to Master and Subordinate Diggers by individual cities and
towns from 1963 to 1967.
Records of the number of harvesting permits issued for the period
1963 to 196? showed that there was a general decline in the Subordinate
!•
Diggers group, while the,Master Diggers group showed .only a slight
reduction in numbers. The data indicated that only 36 percent of the
licensed Master Diggers and over 71 percent of the Subordinate Diggers
harvested shellfish in Boston Harbor. The remaining diggers harvested
in areas on the northern coast of Massachusetts. Forty-one percent
of the Subordinate Diggers were licensed in Quincy and 26 percent in
Boston. Quincy also had the most Master Diggers, 35 percent;
Weymouth had 23 percent. The records do not tell whether the permits
are used by the harvesters for full-time or part-time employment.
Production of Shellfish. The number of outlets available to the Master
Diggers is estimated to be 100 wholesale dealers, 60 eating establishments
and lUo retail outlets and markets. Additional outlets are located
in New Hampshire. Since all of the shellfish taken out of Boston
Harbor, except those dug in the few open areas, must be treated
at the Newburyport shellfish treatment plant. A record of the plant's
activity serves as an indicator of shellfish production in Boston Harbor.
35
-------
TABLE It
MASTER AND SUBORDINATE DIGGER PERMITS1
NORTHERN MASSACHUSETTS COAST
1963-1967
'ermit Issued
Jy
Boston Harbor
Boston
Chelsea
Everett
Hingham
Hull
Maiden
Milton
Quincy
Somerville
Weymouth
Winthroc
SUB -TOTAL
Boston Harbor
Von-Bostpn
Harbor
TOTAL
JL963
M
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
9
9.
12
21
S
39
1
1
3
7
0
0
58
0
3!+
"n
156
156
59
215
1964
M
0
0
0
1
0
0
)
2
0
2
^
8
8
12
20
S
51
1
0
2
1
1
0
58
0
17
1-]
144
ill
48
192
1965
M
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
2
1
8
8
12
20
S
50
8
0
2
2
0
0
61
0
19
15
-57
L57
60
-1?
1^66
M
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
4
k
11
15
S
0
3
0
1
2
1
1
42
1
18
5
74
74
40
114
1967
M
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
5
5
13
18
S
29
3
0
1
0
1
1
47
1
18
5,
106
106
42
148
AVR.
M
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
1.6
1.4
6.8
6.8
12ro
18.8
S
33.8
3.2
0.2
1.8
2.4
0.6
0.4
53.2
0.4
21.2
10.2
127.4
127.4
50.6
178.0
Percent
M
5.9
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.3
0.0
23.5
20.6
100.0
36.2
63.8
100.0
S
26.5
2.5
0.2
1.4
1.9
0.5
0.3
41.8
0.3
16.6
8.0
100.0
71.6
28.4
100.0
M=Master Digger Permit
S=Subordinate Digger Permit
1. Source: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
2. Non-Boston Harbor: Gloucester, Lynn, Newbury, Newburyport, Peabody,
Revere, Rowley, Saugus and Scituate
36
-------
The plant also serves six other communities. These coanranities, not
located within the Boston Harbor area, have contributed about 18
percent of the annual amount of the shellfish processed at the plant
'over the past seven years, while the communities within the harbor,
accounted for 82 percent. Of the Boston Harbor portion, Boston and
Quincy produced almost 8U percent of the total, or 69 percent of the
total number of class processed at the plant (Table 5).
The volume of shellfish treated at the Newburyport plant from
193? through 1967 is shown in Figure k. By dividing the twenty-eight
years of record into quartiles of seven years each, the average annual
rate of clam treatment and the resulting percent gain or decrease from
the period 19^0-19^6 can be shown as follows:
Years of Annual Bate of Eat. Boston Harbor
Record Treatment (bu.) Rate (82% of Total) Percent
19110-19146 hi,100 39*000 Base Line
19^7-1953 5^,700 Ul,000 +16.1
195H-1960 37»600 31,000 -25.5
1961-1967 1U,600 12,000 -66.1
A definite decrease in shellfish production is shown during the last
ten years. The peak production was in 1951 when 93,700 bushels were
processed, which 7.8 times,the 1967 rate of 12,000 bushels. For the
last seven years, the production from Boston Harbor has averaged
12,000 bushels.
Monthly, processing records for the plant at Newburyport are
shown in,Figure 5, and indicate that 65 percent of the shellfish are
treated from May to September, inclusively.
37
-------
TABUS 5
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROCESSED CLAMS
NEWBURYPORT SHELLFISH TREATMENT PLANT
1961-1967
Volume of clams in bushels
City or Town
Boston Harbor
Boston
Hinghatt
Hull
Quincy
Weymouth
Winthrop
SUB-TOTAL
Boston Harbor
Non-Boston Harbor11
TOTAL
1961
3,722
1*37
0
3,839
2,086
1,326
ii,4io
11,1*10
1,996
13.406
1962
5,346
0
718
5,143
1,1*65
144
12,816
12,816
1,422
14.2^8
1963
7,902
315
926
5,175
1,484
308
16,110
16,110
2,697
18.807
1961*
6,258
209
381
4,125
535
583
12,091
12,091
3,522
15. 6l^
1965
1*,832
154
132
6,114
565
0
11,797
11,797
3,990
15.787
1966
3,787
90
131
5,198
859
• 0
10,060
10,060
2,225
12.285
1967
4,763
113
411
4,417
229
0
9,933
9,933
2,085
12.018
Total
36,605
1,318
2,699
34,011
7,223
2,361
84,217
84,217
17,937
102.154
Percent
43.5
1.5
3.2
40.4
8.6
2.8
100.0
82.4
17.6
100.0
Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury, Newburyport, Revere and Saugus.
-------
0)
o
o
o
_J
UJ
T
QD
100-H
90-
80
70
60
50
40
30
20-
10-
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 1965 1970
VOLUME OF CLAMS TREATED AT NEWBURYPORT SHELLFISH TREATMENT PLANT, 1935-1967
-------
CO
-J
LU
X
(ft
CD
2000
1600'
1200'
O
800
400'
-J
O
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTHLY VOLUME OF CLAMS TREATED AT
NEWBURYPORT SHELLFISH TREATMENT PLANT, 1967
-------
Economic Value of Shellfish. On the wholesale market, the
shellfish are sold and delivered in 65-pound bushel units. The
prices of soft-shelled clams are seasonal. During the winter months,
the market demands are small; however, as warmer weather and the
tourist season approach, the prices inevitably rise. Prices vary
from a low of eight dollars to a high of twelve dollars per bushel.
Using an annual shellfish production rate for Boston of 12,000
bushels, the rate in recent years, it can be estimated that the basic
shipper market value of the shellfish at $10 a bushel would amount
to $120,000 a year.
Shellfish sanitation control official* estimated that over 90
percent of the shellfish processed at the shellfish treatment plant
is generally consumed as steamer clams. By allowing one quart of
shellfish to a person, the annual production of treated Boston Harbor
shellfish would reach well over 410,000 consumers. Of the more than
90 percent shellfish confined to the steamer market, it was estimated
that 30 percent is consumed at commercial picnic clam-bakes «r in
restaurants and the remaining 70 percent is sold in the retail markets
as shellstock over the counter.
39
-------
Records of the Division of Marine Fisheries show that daring
the period of July 1, 1966, to June 30, 196?) 12,000 bushels of clams
were treated at the Hewburyport shellfish treatment plant. Eighty-two
percent, or 9,900 of the 12,000 bushels were harvested from Boston
Harbor. A review of Master Digger records for the same year indicates
that 7,800 bushels, 79 percent, of the treated Boston Harbor shellfish
were taken from the twelve areas closed by the State Department of
Public Health since June 1, 1967.
The economic damage resulting from pollution caused the production
loss of 7,800 bushels of shellfish, representing an annual shipper
market loss of $78,000 and a general retail loss of $530,000 to
$1,300,000. The result of the closure of these shellfish growing
areas is summarized in Table 6.
Several factors other than the closing of shellfish beds add to
the economic loss. Shellfish beds may be damaged or destroyed by
dredging or landfill operations or by the toxic effects of waste
discharges. Physical damage or "market refusal" may result from oil
spills. The economic damage from such factors is not calculable. Should
the water quality of Boston Harbor become further degraded, the State
would have no choice but to impose additional limitations.
RECREATIONAL BATHING
Water, polluted by sewage, contains enormous amounts of coliform
bacteria that occur typically in the excreta of warm-blooded animals.
-------
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED ANNUAL ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO THE
SHELLFISH INDUSTRY IN BOSTON HARBOR
Item
No. of areas
Acreage
1967 Shellfish
Production
Landed Market
Value
Minimum Value to the
Pood Industry
Maximum Value to the
Pood Industry
Before
June 1, 1967
33
2,932
9,800 bu
(100*)
$98,000
$670,000
$1,670,000
Amount of
Loss
9 (plus 3
partial)
1,113
7,800 bu
(79*)
$78,000
$530,000
$1,320,000
After
April 1, 1968
21
1,819
2,000 bu
(21*)
$20,000
$138,500
$350,000
Production based on year ending June 30, 1967.
Ui
-------
These bacteria, while not usually harmful in themselves, are used as
indicators of fecal pollution and of the possible presence of pathogenic
bacteria. Pathogens, if ingested, can cause gastrointestinal diseases.
In order to protect the public health and to maintain a high degree of
water quality, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has established a
limit, based upon the presence of coliform bacteria, to differentiate
between "safe" and "hazardous" swimming waters. A median total
coliform value of less than 700 per 100 ml is used to classify coastal
waters as SA or SB. (Pages 8, 9 and 10 contain the Massachusetts
classifications.) These waters are considered to be safe for swimming
and other water contact activities.
In the harbor, bacteria from human wastes constitutes a major
water pollution problem. Beaches in Winthrop hare been closed to
bathing since 1962 as a result of bacterial pollution. Investigations
have indicated that the MDC municipal waste discharge at Deer Island
is the major source of bacterial pollution of the Winthrop-East Boston
section of Boston Harbor. Several other bathing areas in the harbor
have been threatened with closure.
In the Boston regional area the bathing beaches are overcrowded.
In 1965 *11 of the Boston swimming areas combined could only accommodate
11,100 bathers. The number of persons on an average weekend in the
summer desiring access to swimming areas will reach 1*9,000 by 1970.
-------
There are ten public beaches, operated by the MDC, and several small
municipal beaches in the harbor. The MDC beaches cover an area of
640 acres, including over 5-k idles of shore.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council has recently completed an
open space and recreation study of Boston Harbor. The Council considers
the harbor a major recreational center for the Boston area and recommends
a program of open space acquisition and development. The recreation
plan includes substantial increases in bathing and sport fishing areas
and the establishment of additional boating facilities. The MAPC, however,
points out, "No improvement or recreational development of the harbor
is possible without an end to pollution."
RECREATIONAL BOATING
Recreational boating in the harbor.has been limited by the
appearance of the .water. The discharge of suspended solids to the
receiving waters imparts a gray turbidity to the waters. Sense
growths of unsightly attached marine plants stimulated by nutrients
are prevalent throughout the harbor at most buoy, pier and marine
facilities. Floating debris in the harbor is esthetically unpleasing
and a safety hazard, having caused damage to recreational boats.
The demand for recreational boating has increased rapidly
in recent years and presently exceeds the supply of launching and
mooring facilities. Within the harbor there are twenty-eight recreational
43
-------
boat launching facilities. In addition to trailered boats, there are
approximately 5,000 pleasure boats moored in the harbor. Thirty-five
private yacht clubs and thirty-two commercial marinas provide these
mooring facilities.
SPORT FISHING
Sport fishing is an important water use in Boston Harbor. Surf
fishing is particularly popular off the beaches of Hull, Quincy and
Winthrop. Pier fishing is heavy in the South Boston area. In
addition, there are several professional charter boat operators
who cater to fishing parties.
ESTHETICS
Nutrients and suspended solids have caused undesirable odor
problems to certain areas of Boston Harbor.
Extensive growths of sea lettuce are prevalent in three tidal
flat areas of Boston Harbor, Winthrop Harbor, Squantum Bay and along
the shores of Nut Island. These growths have been stimulated by very
high concentrations of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous contributed
by sewage discharges. During low tide, the sea lettuce becomes exposed
to air and sun and the plants decompose, producing hydrogen sulfide
odors. There are reports that Winthrop Harbor residents have been
forced to leave their homes to .escape the smell. . Hydrogen sulfide
emissions from decaying sea lettuce has dip colored' homes. A contributory
cause of the s
-------
Upon discharge of suspended solids, the heavier solids settle
to the harbor bottom in the vicinity of the points of discharge and
form sludge deposits. The organic material in the sludge undergoes
a decomposition which utilizes the dissolved oxygen in the overlying
waters. When complete depletion of oxygen occurs, the further
decomposition of organic matter produces obnoxious hydrogen sulflde
gas which bubbles to the surface. Masses of the deposited sludge rise
with the gas to the surface, where they appear as gray or black odorous
clumps and rafts. Sludge deposits in the Fort Point Channel in South
Boston are over three feet deep as a result of several combined sewer
overflows. The dissolved oxygen is seriously depleted, resulting in
undesirable odors from the anaerobic decomposition of the sludge.
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING
The Boston port facilities are concentrated along the Boston
Inner Harbor and the Mystic, Chelsea and Weymouth Fore River areas.
The main ship channel has a controlling depth of forty feet; other
channels range from fifteen to forty feet.
In 1965 there were 10,57^ inbound trips of commercial vessels
into the harbor and 10,60k outbound trips. Passenger and dry cargo
vessels constituted 5k percent of the trips, tankers constituted 2k
percent and the remaining 22 percent were attributed to tugboats or
or towboats. Movements of freight within the confines of the harbor
numbered lU,95U, of which 72, 15 and 13 percent were from passenger
and dry cargo vessels, tankers and tugboats, or towboats, respectively.
45
-------
WATER SUPPLY
Harbor water is used by coastal industries for cooling and
processing. In 1965 several million gallons of harbor water a day
were used. Over 99 percent of this total was for cooling purposes.
46
-------
PRESENT WATER QUALITY
The stannary of water quality parameters bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, benthic life, nutrients and benthal deposits, presented in
this report are based upon a survey of Boston Harbor conducted during
July and August 1967 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Data obtained during the field investigations are available from tvo
reports: "Chemical and Physical Aspects of Water Quality, Charles
River and Boston Harbor, Massachusetts," February 1968; and "Biological
Aspects of Water Quality, Charles River and Boston Harbor, Massachusetts,"
January 1968, United States Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration.
BACTERIA
Water polluted by wastes from warm-blooded animals, including
humans, frequently contain pathogenic bacteria., Ingestion of these
pathogens by drinking polluted water or by eating raw or partially
cooked shellfish grown in these waters can cause gastrointestinal
diseases such as typhoid fever, dysentery and diarrhea. The infectious
hepatitis virus, as well as other enteric viruses, may also be present.
Body contact with water polluted by bacteria can also cause eye, ear,
nose, throat or skin infections. Therefore, bacterial pollution
presents a health hazard, not only to those who cone in contact with
polluted waters, but also to those who may eat shellfish taken from
the waters.
-------
and some industrial wastes also contain bacteria of the
colifonn p.roup which tynicfiJly occur in excreta or feces of warm-blooded
animals and are readily detectable. Although most are harmless in
themselves, coliform bacteria are always present in waters polluted
by warm-blooded animal wastes and are considered indicators of the
probable presence of pathogenic bacteria. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
evaluates water quality on the basis of sanitary survey findings and
total coliform content. Recently, refined methods for isolation and
detection of Salmonella organisms have made it practical to test for
these specific pathogenic bacteria.
The coliform group usually is designated as total coliforms, and
most bacterial standards are set using total coliform limits. Included
in the total colifonn bacteria are fecal coliforms. A separate test
can be performed on a water sample to determine the number of fecal
coliforms present. Since fecal coliforms can only come from warm-blooded
animals, they are considered proof of fecal pollution. The results of
the determinations are expressed in terms of coliforms per 100
milliliters of water. One hundred milliliters is approximately one-
half cup.
The chain of disease transmission by pathogenic bacteria from
human waste through shellfish which are eaten raw or insufficiently
cooked, has been well established. In an attempt to control such disease
transmission, the National Shellfish Sanitation Program was established
in 1925. This is a cooperative program between the States, the Public
48
-------
Health Service, and the shellfish industry, with the goal of safely
utilizing this valuable natural resource. The Massachusetts Department
of Public Health uses the guides set forth in the National Shellfish
Sanitation Manual of Operations, Part I, to properly classify the
suitability of estuarine waters for shellfish harvesting. The water
quality standards adopted by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission
follow similar guides for the bacterial quality of Class SA, SB and SC
waters. However, the water quality classifications do not necessarily
mean that the shellfish beds, under the guides of the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program, will be classified in the sane manner.
The guides are summarized below.
Shellfish Bed
Classification
Water Quality
Classification
Bacterial Water
Quality Requirements*
Approved or
Open Beds
Restricted
Class SA
Class SB
Prohibited or Class SC
Closed Beds
Coliform bacteria not
to exceed a median
value of 70 per 100 ml.
Coliform bacteria not
to exceed a median
value of 700 per 100 ml.
Coliform bacteria exceeds
that of the restricted
areas.
*Refer to Appendix A for the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program requirements, and pages 8, 9 and 10 for the Massachusetts
water quality standards.
Licensed, commercial diggers, harvesting from shellfish beds
classified as approved, are permitted to sell directly to the wholesale
49
-------
and retail market. A restricted classification requires that the
harvested shellfish be treated in an approved shellfish treatment
plant to remove the excess bacteria. This process of cleansing
shellfish is called depuration. (For Boston Harbor the depuration
facility is located in Newburyport, Massachusetts.) No harvesting
of shellfish for human consumption is permitted from prohibited
shellfish beds.
During the 196? study of Boston Harbor, excessive counts of
coliform bacteria were found. Total coliform counts as great as
520,000 per 100 ml were found in the Inner Harbor area. In general,
very high counts were found in the northern portion of the harbor,
while Quincy, Hingham and Hull Bays in the southern portion would
probably meet Class SB water quality criteria for bacteria. One
station in western Quincy Bay would probably satisfy the coliform
standards of Class SA waters. Average total coliform concentrations
found during July and August of 1967 are shown in Figure 2.
Tests for pathogenic bacteria of the genus Salmonella were conducted
in Boston Harbor. Three of the five sampling swabs placed in the
harbor to collect these organisms were positive for Salmonellae.
Since almost all serotypes of Salmonella are known to be disease-
producers in warm-blooded animals, including man, their presence in
these waters is proof of a continuing health hazard.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The oxygen demand of sewage and industrial wastes, as measured
by the biocneaLcal oxygen demand test, indicates the waste's potential
50
-------
for reducing the dissolved oxygen content of the receiving water.
Adequate levels of dissolved oxygen are necessary to support fish
and other aquatic life. If dissolved oxygen becomes totally depleted,
obnoxious odors, mostly from hydrogen sulfide gas result, causing an
unpleasant environment for persons living or working nearby.„ The nu
hydrogen sulfide given of f may turn nearby houses, bridges or other
painted structures black. .
Water Quality Standards adopted by Massachusetts require that
for Class SB water the dissolved oxygen be "not less than 5 mg/1
at any time" and for Class SC water, the lowest classification of salt
water, "not less than 5 mg/1 daring at least 16 hours of any 2^-hour
period, nor leas than 3 "8/1 at any time." Of the eighteen stations
sampled during July and August of 1967, only six met the Class SC .
standard. Furthermore, only two stations met the tentative, recommendations
of the National Technical Advisory Committee, that "Dissolved .oxygen
concentrations in estuaries and tidal tributaries shall not be less
than 4.0 mg/1, at any time or place..." "...for the protection of marine
' ' i' " '•*'•''•,.
resources..."
Excessive phytoplankton activity is suggested by the wide
fluctuation of dissolved oxygen during the latter portion of the 1967
survey (Figure 6). Under normal conditions, phytoplankton, primarily
algae, produce oxygen by photosynthesis and utilize oxygen by respiration.
However, when excessive nutrients and sunlight are present, the
phytoplankton population can rapidly expand, resulting in high dissolved
51
-------
oxygen caused by an accelerated photosynthesis. During night or
heavily clouded periods of daylight, the respiration of this
expanding population can overtax the dissolved oxygen supply of the
water, resulting in serious oxygen depletions.
BENTHIC LIFE
The benthic organism community is a convenient Measure of the
degree of organic pollution. If the water is not grossly polluted,
the benthic population would be comprised of several kinds of organisms,
each with a relatively low population. Certain clams, crabs, nematode
worms, starfish, shrimp, sowbugs and mussels would normally be present.
Grossly polluted areas would normally have a few kinds of organisms
in great abundance. Organisms such as polychaete worms and scuds would
be dominant. ,
All reaches of Boston Harbor and each of its tributary streams,
except the inland marine reaches of the Weir and Weymouth Back Rivers,
were polluted. This was evidenced by a paucity of kinds of organisms
associated with benthic deposits. Polychaete worms were found in all
harbor sediments; in fact, they were the only life-forms found at three
stations. Scuds were also found at a majority of the sample points.
These two groups of benthic organisms were dominant in kind and number
over the few sowbugs, shrimp, snails, neraatode worms and starfish
found at the other stations. Polychaete worms were considered
sufficiently common to show areas and degrees of organic over-enrichment,
52
-------
151
12-
. 9H
UJ
o
>-
X
o
6 -
o
UJ
3
O
Cfl
2 *4
0 !
i
12 14 16
l
18
I I I I i I l i I I I T I T > ' T 1 T I i
20 22 24 26 28 30 I 3579
i i i i F r i
II 13 l'5 17
JULY
DISSOLVED OXYG
BOSTON H
AUGUST
PATTERNS
96e
-------
A density of polychaetes greater than 200 per square foot is
considered indicative of excessive enrichment. This density was
exceeded in all of Boston Harbor except those waters associated with
the inland sectors of Quincy Bay and those seaward along a relatively
narrow course through Hantasket Roads to the southern mouth of the harbor
at Massachusetts Bay (Figure 7). Abomt seven square miles, or 30
percent of the harbor inland front Massachusetts Bay, were grossly
polluted based upon polychaete worm densities in excess of 200 per
square foot.
NUTRIENTS
The average values of ammonia nitrogen and soluble phosphorous
were equal to or greater than 100 and ^0 micrograms per liter,
respectively, in all areas of Boston Harbor inland from its mouth near
Massachusetts Bay. Such high concentrations of nutrients caused overly
enriched conditions that stimulated dense populations of phytoplankton
which exceeded 1,000 per mllliliter in about sixteen square miles, or
66 percent of the harbor. Areas of excessive nutrient concentrations,
as Indicated by phytoplankton, are shown on Figure 8.
In addition to causing excessive phytoplankton populations, the
nutrients stimulated dense growths of attached marine plants. Observations
throughout Boston Harbor disclosed such growths on most buoy, pier and
marine facilities. Several intertidal and shallow areas of the harbor
and certain reaches of Winthrop Bay supported dense growths of attached
53
-------
marine algae. These caused noxious conditions in Winthrop Bay,
unsightly growths at marine facilities and increased maintenance
costs associated with buoys and piers. In Winthrop Bay, decomposing
masses of sea lettuce have caused hydrogen sulfide emissions sufficient
to discolor paint on nearby dwellings.
BENTHAL DEPOSITS
Municipal and industrial wastes discharged into the receiving
waters of Boston Harbor resulted in extensive deposits of decaying
organic matter and incorporated oily residues covering much of the
harbor bed. Oily sludge deposits in the Fort Point Channel were more
than three feet deep. Hydrogen sulfide gas bubbles effervescing from
the sludge in this reach, rose to the surface and burst, creating the
odor of rotten eggs. Although not as deep, sludge with similar oil
composition and hydrogen sulfide odor was found in several other areas.
The presence of high percentages of organic carbon and organic
nitrogen is an indication of sludge deposits resulting from the
discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, while sludges low in these
organics may be considered inorganic, or "natural" deposits. The
highest percentages of organic carbon (23.5) and organic nitrogen (1.29)
associated with harbor sludges were found in the Fort Point Channel.
This reach was intensively polluted and septic. Such values are similar
to those associated with raw wastes from packinghouses, sewage or
rapidly decomposing sludge. In samples from the remaining harbor stations,
organic carbon varied from O.k to 5.5 percent, and organic nitrogen
varied from O.C4 to O.kl percent.
-------
POLYCHAETE WORMS
BOSTON HARBOR
JULY-AUGUST,1967
POLYCHAETE WORMS P£ R SQUARE FOOT
< 200
200-1000
IOOO-5OOO
> 50OO
FIGURE 7
-------
WINTHROP HARBOR
PHYTOPLANKTON
BOSTON HARBOR
AUGUST, 1967
PHYTOPLANKTON PER MILLILITER
< 1000
IOOO-I50O
> 1500
FIGURE 8
-------
SURFACE WATERS
Sewage-like solids, other assorted rejectamenta, and oily slicks
also were observed in the surface waters of aost portions of Boston
Harbor. Such Materials were abundant near the Deer Island sewer
outfalls at the mouth of Boston Harbor, near Moon Island, the north
end of Long Island and the inland reach of Quincy Bay.
55
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
Several Federal, State and local agencies, departments and
organizations are presently involved in developing or implementing
actions relating to the water quality of Boston Harbor. The primary
State and Federal agencies and their responsibilities are briefly
outlined below.
STATE AGENCIES
Metropolitan District Commission. The Metropolitan District Commission
(MDC) is a regional organization, created by the Legislature, serving
the Metropolitan Boston area. Through the several divisions of the
MDC, the metropolitan area is served with roads, water, sewerage, parks
and recreation facilities.
The Sewerage Division maintains and operates two collection
systems which eventually discharge to Boston Harbor. This system
serves forty-two towns or 1.5 million people. A primary sewage
treatment plant at Nut Island provides primary treatment for the south
sewerage system. At Deer Island a primary plant is under construction
to serve the north sewerage system.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Metropolitan Area Planning
Council, Department of Commerce and Development, was created by the
Legislature to serve as a planning agency for the 110 communities in
the Metropolitan Boston area. A comprehensive plan is being developed
that will include land use and sewerage, water and transportation
needs.
56
-------
Division of Water Pollution Control. The Division of Water Pollution
Control, Department of Natural Resources, is under the direction
of the Water Resources Coamission. This division, which was established
in September of 1966 and has primary pollution control authority orer
all surface waters of the Commonwealth, is directed "to enhance the
quality and value of water resources and to establish a program for
the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution." Under
this authority, the division sets, implements and enforces water quality
standards and is charged with carrying out a comprehensive plan of
water pollution control.
In compliance with the Federal Water Quality Act of 1963, the
Division of Water Pollution Control submitted water quality standards
to the Secretary of the Interior on June 20, 1967. After review by
the Department of the Interior, these standards were approved on
August 10, 1967. A copy of the portion of the standards that pertains
to Boston Harbor is presented in pages 8, 9 and 10.
Division of Waterways. The Division of Waterways, Department of Public
Works, has been given charge of the lands, flats, shores and rights
in tidal waters of the Commonwealth. This division is empowered with
the general care and supervision of the harbors and tide waters.
Supervisory powers are exercised over the transportation and dumping
of all materials dredged from tide waters and any other material to
be disposed of in these waters. The division supervises the dock-side
57
-------
loading of such barges and the ultimate disposal operation; however,
inspectors from the Department of Natural Resources observe the
transportation of these and other materials to the burning site.
Control of any building projecting into the harbor, the filling
of tidelands, and the abandonment and removal of wrecks, hulks and
shore structures is vested in the Department of Public Works.
State legislation provides for a five hundred dollar fine to be
levied against anyone found guilty of discharging such an amount of
crude petroleum or any other oils or bilge water into the waters or
onto the tidal flats of the Commonwealth that it causes pollution or
contamination.
Department of Public Health. The Department of Public Health is
responsible for the health aspects related to water pollution. This
department takes regulatory action against polluted bathing and shell-
fishing areas in order to maintain the public health, while the
Division of Water Pollution Control is responsible for the investigation
and. the abatement of the pollution. To perform its role, the Department
of Public Health carries out a water sampling program at the various
beaches and shellfish beds in the harbor.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA), U.S. Department of the Interior,
has the primary federal responsibility for pollution control as provided
58
-------
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Programs
are maintained in the areas of sewage treatment plant construction
grants, enforcement, water quality standards, comprehensive programs,
research and other studies and grants. Since the beginning of the
aid program, the Federal Government has furnished $3.8 million to
help build thirty-eight projects, costing a total of $16.6 million in the
Boston Harbor area (Appendix B).
The Oil Pollution Act of 192U is administered by the Secretary
of the Interior. This responsibility has been delegated to the FWPCA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Department of Defense, under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, has
Jurisdiction over the discharge or deposit into navigable waters of
any refuse matter other than that flowing in a liquid state from
streets and sewers. This Jurisdiction has been exercised primarily
in the interests of navigation. In addition,-the Secretary of the
Army has control over any structure extending into, onto or over the
navigable waters of the United States.
U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation,
cooperates with the Department of the Interior in handling oil discharges
in navigable waters and cooperates with the Army Corps of Engineers
in carrying out the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 in cases involving
interferences with navigation.
U.S. Public Health Service. The Public Health Service (PHS), U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, is consulted by the FWPCA
59
-------
on all pollution problems affecting health over which the Public
Health Service has administrative responsibility, such as shellfish
growing areas, as required by the Water Quality Act of 1965. The
PHS can exert pressure in shellfish sanitation through a cooperative
agreement. Under the terms of this agreement, no State will accept
shellfish from another State unless the shipper has a PHS approved
shipper's number and the state shellfish sanitation program is endorsed
by the PHS.
OTHER AGENCIES
New England River Basins Commission; The New England River Basins
Commission has been established under the provisions of the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1963 and is designated "...to serve as the
principal agency for coordination of Federal, State, interstate, local
and nongovernmental plans for the development of water and related
land resources in its area..." The commission program is currently
in the process of formulation.
Mew England Regional Commission. The New England Regional Commission
was established under the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 196^ and is composed of the governors of the six New England States
and a Federal co-chairman. A comprehensive economic plan with emphasis
on promoting recreation, tourism and foreign trade and on the impact
of water and air pollution is being developed.
60
-------
61
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A. National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Growing Area
Survey and Classification
Appendix B. Construction Grant Projects, Boston Harbor
62
-------
APPENDIX A
63
-------
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM, MANUAL OP OPERATIONS
PART 1: Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas
Section C
GROWING AREA SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION
1. Sanitary Surveys of Growing Areas.—
A sanitary survey shall be made of each
growing area prior to its approval by the
State as a source of market shellfish or of shell-
fish to be used in a controlled purification or
relaying operation. The sanitary quality of
each area shall be reappraised at least biennially
and, if necessary, a resurvey made. Ordinarily,
resurveys will be much less comprehensive than
the original survey since it will only be neces-
sary to bring the original information up to
date. Records of all original surveys and re-
surveys of growing areas shall be maintained by
the State shellfish control agency, and shall be
made available to Public Health Service review
officers upon request.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. A sanitary survey has been made of each
growing area in the State prior to initial ap-
proval of interstate shipments of shellfish from
that area. A comprehensive sanitary survey
shall include an evaluation of all sources of
actual or potential pollution on the estuary and
its tributaries, and the distance of such sources
from the growing areas; effectiveness and reli-
ability of sewage treatment works; the presence
of industrial wastes, pesticides, or radionuclides
Avhich would cause a public-health hazard to
the consumer of the shellfish; and the effect of
wind, stream flow, and tidal currents in dis-
tributing polluting materials over the growing
area.2 The thoroughness with which each ele-
ment must be investigated varies greatly and
will be determined by the specific conditions
in each growing area.
b. The factors influencing the sanitary qual-
ity of each approved shellfish growing area are
reappraised at least biennially.3 A complete
resurvey should be made of each growing area
in an approved category at least, once every ten
- In making the sanitary survey consideration should lie
given to the hydrogrnphie and geographic characteristics of
the estuary, the bacteriological quality of the growing area
water and bottom sediments. and the presence and location
nf small sources of pollution, including tioats. which might
••ontribute fresh sewage to tin- aica.
3 The purpose of this reappraisal is t" determine if there
have been changes in stream (lo«, sewage treatment, popula-
tions, or other similar factors which might result in a change
in the sanlt.ury quality of the growing area. The amount of
years; however, data from original surveys can
be used when it is clear that such information
is still valid.
c. A file which contains all pertinent sani-
tary survey information, including the dates
and results of preceding sanitary surveys is
maintained by the State shellfish control agency
for each classified shellfish area.
d. The State agency having primary respon-
sibility for this element of the national pro-
gram develops a system for identification of
growing areas.
Public-health explanation.—The positive re-
lationship between sewage pollution of shellfish
growing areas and enteric disease has been
demonstrated many times (13) (14) (16) (16)
(17) (18) (63) (64) (65). However, epidemi-
ological investigations of shellfish-caused dis-
ease outbreaks have never established a direct
numerical correlation between the bacteriologi-
cal quality of water and the degree of hazard
to health. Investigations made from 1914 to
1925 by the States and the Public Health Serv-
ice—a period when disease outbreaks attribut-
able to shellfish were more prevalent—indicated
that typhoid fever or other enteric disease
would not ordinarily be attributed to shellfish
harvested from water in which not more than 50
percent of the 1 cc. portions of water examined
were positive for coliforms,4 provided the areas
were not subject to direct contamination with
small am mints of fresh sewage which would not
ordinarily lie revealed by the bacteriological
examination.
Following the oyster-borne typhoid outbreak
during the winter of 1924-25 in the United
States (If)) the national shellfish certification
program was initiated by the States, the Public
Health Service, and the shellfish industry (9).
Water quality criteria were then stated as:
a. The urea is sufficiently removed from ma-
jor somv.es of pollution so that the shellfish
would not be subjected to fecal contamination
in quantities which might be dangerous to the
public, hwilth.
Held \\ork assoeiatcd with such a reappraisal will depend upon
the arc..-i nniler consideration and the magnitude of the
changes which have taken place.
4 An JII'N of approximately 70 per 100 ml.
64
-------
b. The area is free from pollution by even
small quantities of fresh sewage. The report
emphasized that bacteriological examination
does not, in itself, offer conclusive proof of the
sanitary quality of an area.
; c. Bacteriological examination does not or-
dinarily show the presence of the coli-aerogenes
group of bacteria in 1 re. dilutions of growing
area water.
The reliability of this three-part standard for
evaluating the safety of shellfish-producing
areas is evidenced by the fact that no major out-
breaks of typhoid fever or other enteric disease
have been attributed to shellfish harvested from
"waters meeting the criteria siutoe they were
adopted in the United States in 1925. Similar
water quality criteria have been in use in Can-
ada with like results. The available epidemio-
logical and laboratory evidence gives little idea
as to the margin of safety, but it is prob-
ably considerable as indicated by the virtual ab-
sence of reported shellfish caused enteric disease
over a comparatively long period of time (IS)
(20) (21) (65) (69) from waters meeting this
criteria.
The purpose of the sanitary survey is to iden-
tify and evaluate those factors influencing the
sanitary quality of a growing area and which
may include sources of pollution, potential or
actual; the volume of dilution water; the effects
of currents, winds and tides in disseminating
pollution over the growing areas; the bacterial
quality of water and bottom sediments; die out
of polluting bacteria in the tributaries and the
estuary; bottom configuration; and salinity and
turbidity of the water. Sources of pollution in-
clude municipal sewage discharged into the es-
tuary or inflowing rivers; sewage brought into
the estuary by tides or currents; surface runoff
from polluted areas; industrial wastes; and dis-
charges from pleasure craft, fishing boats, naval
vessels, and merchant shipping.
Bacteriological examination of the growing
waters is an important component of the sani-
tary survey. In many instances the bacterio-
logical and related salinity data will also pro-
vide valuable information on the hydrographic
characteristics of an area.5 6
• Bacteria In an unfavorable environment die out in such a
way that following an Initial lag period there is a large per-
centage decline during the first few days. Descriptions of
studies on bacteria dleout have been published by Greenberg
(22) and Pearson (23). Dleoff has also been Investigated
Ideally, a large numlwr of water samples for
bacteriological examination should bo collected
at each station. However, in most instances
this is not practical because of time and budget
limitations, and accordingly only a limited num-
ber of samples can be collected. Therefore,
sampling stations should be chosen which will
provide a maximum of data, and which will be
respresentative of the bacteriological quality of
water in as wide an area as possible. Sample
collection should be timed to represent the most
unfavorable hydrographic and pollution con-
ditions since shellfish respond rapidly to an in-
crease in the number of bacteria or viruses in
their environment (%5) (2f!) (70) (71) (72)
(78).
There is no specified minimum number of
sampling stations, frequency of sampling, or
total number of samples. Sampling results ob-
tained over a period of several years can be used
as a block of data provided at least 15 samples
have been collected from each of a representative
number of stations along the line separating ap-
proved from restricted growing areas and there
have been 110 adverse changes in hydrographic
or sanitary conditions. Only occasional bac-
teriological samples are necessary from areas
which are shown to be free from pollution.
Experience with the shellfish certification pro-
gram indicates a tendency to omit or de-empha-
size some components of the sanitary survey
unless a central State file of all shellfish sanitary
surveys, reappraisals, and resurveys is main-
tained. This is particularly true where re-
sponsibility for shellfish sanitation is divided
between two or more State agencies. Mainte-
nance of a central State file for all shellfish sani-
tary survey information will'also simplify the
endorsement appraisal of State programs by
the Public Health Service and will help prevent
by the Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory
at Woods Hole, Mass., and Pensacola, Fla. Application of
this principle may be helpful In predicting the quantity of
pollution which will reach an area, and In establishing objec-
tive effluent quality criteria (24)..
6 In connection with the evaluation of sampling results, it
should be noted that the MPN determination Is not a precise
measure of the concentration of bacteria (4). Thus, In re-
peated sampling from waters having a uniform density of
bacteria varying MPN estimates will be obtained. The use
of the tolerance factor 3.3 (applicable only to 5 tube decimal
dilution MPN's) Is one method of recognizing this variation.
For example, in a body of water in which the median con-
centration of coliform bacteria is 70 per. 100 ml., 95% of
observed MPN's will be between 20 and 230 per 100 ml. ; i.e.,
70/3.3 = 31 and 70X3.3 = 230.
65
-------
loss of old data which may be useful in evaluat-
ing the sanitary quality of an area.
Periodic reappraisals of the sanitary quality
of shellfish producing areas are necessary to
determine that environmental conditions are
such that the original conclusions are still valid.
A resurvey should be made within 1 year if the
reappraisal shows a significant detrimental
change.
2. Classification of Growing Areas.—All
actual and potential growing waters shall be
classified as to their public health suitability for
the harvesting of market shellfish. Classifica-
tion criteria are described in sections C-3, CM,
C-5, C-6, and C-7 of this manual. Except in
emergency any upward revision of an area clas-
sification shall be preceded by a sanitary survey,
resurvey, or reappraisal. A written analysis
of the data justifying the reclassification shall
be made a part of the area file.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. All actual and potential growing waters in
the State are correctly designated with one of
the following classifications on the basis of sani-
tary survey information: Approved; condition-
ally approved;- restricted; or prohibited? *
b. Area classifications are revised whenever
warranted by survey data.
c. Classifications are not revised upward
without at least a file review, and there is a
written record of such review in the area file
maintained by the State shellfish control agency.
d. All actual and potential growing areas
which have not been subjected to sanitary sur-
veys shall be automatically classified as pro-
It ibited.
Public-health explanation.—The probable
presence or absence of pathogenic organisms in
shellfish waters is of the greatest importance in
deciding how shellfish obtained from an area
may be used. All actual and potential growing
waters should thus be classified according to the
information developed in the sanitary survey.
Classification should not be revised upward
without careful consideration of available data.
7 Closures may also he based on presence of Marine Toxins
or other toxic materials.
•States may use other terminology In describing area
classifications ; provided, that the classification terms used
nre consistent with the intent and meaning of the words
"approved", "conditionally approved", "restricted", or
"prohibited".
Areas should be reclassified whenever warranted
by existing data. A written justification for the
reclassification simplifies Public Health Service
appraisal of State programs.
A hypothetical use of the four recognized
area classifications is shown in figure 1. This
idealized situation depicts an estuary receiving
sewage from two cities, "A" and "B." City "A"
has complete sewage treatment including chlori-
nation of effluent. City "B" has no sewage
treatment. The estuary has been divided into
five areas, designated by roman numerals, on
the basis of sanitary survey information:
Approved
Area I. The sanitary survey indicates that
sewage from cities "A" and "B" (even with the
"A" sewage plant not functioning) would not
reach this area in such concentration as to consti-
tute a public-health hazard. The median coli-
form MPN of the water is less than 70/100 ml.
The sanitary quality of the area is independent
of sewage treatment at city "A."
Conditionally Approved
Area II. This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I; however, the quality varies
with the effectiveness of sewage treatment at
city "A." This area would probably be classi-
fied prohibited if city "A" had not provided
sewage treatment.
Restricted
Area III. Sewage from "B" reaches this
area, and the median coliform MPN of water is
between 70 and 700 per 100 ml. Shellfish may
be used only under specified conditions .
Prohibited
Area IV. Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited because of raw sewage from "B."
The median coliform MPN of .water may exceed
700/100 ml.
Area- V. Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited because of possible failure of the
sewage treatment plant. Closure is based on
need for a safety factor rather than coliform
content of water or amount of dilution water.
66
-------
3. Approved Areas.—Growing areas may
be designated as approved wh,en: (a) the sani-
tary survey indicates that pathogenic micro-
organisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful in-
dustrial wastes do not reach the area in dan-
gerous concentration, and (b) this is verified by
laboratory findings whenever the sanitary sur-
vey indicates the need. Shellfish may be taken
from such areas for direct marketing.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the three following criteria are
met:
a. The area is not so contaminated with fecal
material that consumption of the shellfish might
be hazardous, and
b. The area is not so contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous
(see section C, item 7, regarding toxins in shell-
fish growing areas), and
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily ex-
ceed an MPN of 230 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
decimal dilution test (or 330 per 100 ml., where
the 3-tube decimal dilution test is used) in those
portions of the area most probably exposed to
fecal contamination during the most unfavor-
able hydrographic and pollution conditions.
(Note: This concentration might be exceeded if
less than 8 million cubic feet of a coliform-free
dilution water are available for each population
equivalent (coliform) of sewage reaching the
area). The foregoing limits need not be ap-
plied if it can be shown by detailed study that
the coliforms are not of direct fecal origin and
do not indicate a public health hazard (19)
(20).8
Public-health explanation.—A review of epi-
demiological investigations of disease outbreaks
attributable to the consumption of raw shellfish
reveals that two general situations prevail ° in-
sofnr us pollution of growing or storage areas
:iro concerned.
(1) Gross sewage contamination of a grow-
ing or wet storage area. (A report of a 1910
outbreak of typhoid fever involving 41 per-
sons notes that raw sewage from a city with
a population of 30,000 was discharged only
a few hundred feet away from clam beds and
floats (#7) (28). In 1947 a case of typhoid
fever was attributed to clams harvested 200
yards from the outlet of a municipal sewage
treatment plant (89). In the latter case, the
coliform MPN of the harbor water exceeded
12,000 per 100 ml. and the area had been
posted as closed to shellfish harvesting.)
(2) Chance contamination of a growing or
wet storage area by fresh fecal material which
may not be diffused throughout the entire area
(14) (16) (17) (10) and therefore not readily
detectable by ordinary bacteriological pro-
cedures. The possibility of chance contami-
nation was noted by Dr. Gurion in his report
on a 1902 typhoid outbreak, and who is quoted
in Public Health Bulletin No. 86, as "there
is a zone of pollution established by the mere
fact of the existence of a populated city upon
the banks of a stream or tidal estuary which
makes the laying down of oysters and clams
in these waters a pernicious custom if per-
sisted in, because it renders these articles of
food dangerous at times, and always suspi-
cious". The 1956 outbreak of infectious
hepatitis in Sweden (691 cases) attributed to
oysters which were contaminated in a wet
storage area is an example of such contami-
nation (16). Similarly in 1939, 87 cases of
typhoid were attributed to fecal contamina-
tion of a storage area by a typhoid carrier
"This MI'N value Is based on n typical ratio of colifonns
In pathogens and would not lie applicable to any situation in
which an abnormally large number of pathogens might be
present. Consideration must also be given to the possible
presence of industrial or agricultural wastes in which there
is an atypical coliform lo pathogen ratio (HO).
•There Is a third general consideration in'which shellfish
may be contaminated through mishandling. This is not re-
lated to growing area sanitation and is considered in part II
of this manual.
It is well established that shellfish from
water having a median coliform MPN not ex-
ceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and which is also pro-
tected against chance contamination with fecal
material, will not be involved in the spread of
disease which can be attributed to initial con-
tamination of the shellfish. This is not surpris-
ing since a water MPN of 70/100 ml. is equiv-
alent to a dilution ratio of about 8 million cubic
feet of coliform-free water per day for the fecal
material from each person contributing sewage
to the area. This tremendous volume of water
is available in shellfish growing areas through
6?
-------
oo
COND/T/ONALLY
APPROVED
AREA
PROHIBITED AREA
RESTRICTED AREA
Sewage
treatment
plant
APPROVED AREA
I
I
I
FlGt'UK
-------
tidal action which is.constantly bringing un-
polluted water into the area.8 .
Areas which are approved for direct market
harvesting of shellfish which will be eaten raw
must necessarily meet one general test; i.e,
sewage reaching the growing area must be so
treated, diluted, or aged that it will be of neg-
ligible public-health significance. This implies
an element of time and distance to permit the
mixing of the sewage or fecal material with the
very large volume of diluting water and for a
major portion of the microorganisms to die out.
Studies of the natural die-off of microorganisms
in an unfavorable marine environment have
been summarized by Greenberg (SSSS).
The effectiveness of sewage treatment proc-
esses must be considered in evaluating the san-
itary, quality of a growing area since the bacte-
rial and viral content of the effluent will be
determined by the degree of treatment which is
obtained.(2) (73) (74) (75).' The results of
bacteriological sampling must also be correlated
with, -sewage treatment plant operation, and
evaluated in terms of the minimum treatment
which can be expected with a realization of the
possibility of malfunctioning, overloading, or
poor, operation.
The presence of radiortuclides in growing
area waters may also have public-health sig-
nificance since shellfish, along with other marine
organisms, have the ability to concentrate such
materials (31) (SB) (33) (34). The degree to
which radioisotopes will be concentrated de-
pends upon the species of shellfish and the
specific radioisotope. For example, it has been
reported that the Eastern oyster has a concen-
tration factor of 17,000 for Zn65 whereas the
concentration factor in soft tissues for Sr89 is
approximately unity (31) (33). The distribu-
tion of the radioisotope in the shellfish and the
biological half-life are also variable. Sources
of radioactive materials include fall-out, indus-
trial wastes, and nuclear reactors. Limiting
maximum permissible concentrations of radio-
active materials expressed in terms of specific
radioisotopes and unidentified mixtures in
water and food have been established (35) (36).
The current standard should be consulted in
evaluating the public-health significance of de-
tected radioactivity in market shellfish.
See footnote 8 on page 13.
The bacterial quality of active shellfish will
ordinarily be directly proportional to the bac-
terial quality of the water in which they grew;
however, considerable variation in individual
determinations may be expected. The coliform
MPN's of the shellfish usually exceed those of
the overlying water because shellfish filter large
quantities of water to obtain food, thereby con-
centrating the suspended bacteria. This rela-
tionship will depend upon the shellfish species,
water temperature, presence of certain chemi-
cals, and varying capabilities of the individual
animals.
4. Conditionally Approved Areas.—The
suitability of some areas for harvesting shellfish
for direct marketing is dependent upon the at-
tainment of an established performance stan-
dard by sewage treatment works discharging
effluent, directly or indirectly, to the area. In
other cases the sanitary quality of an area may
be effected by seasonal population, or sporadic
use of a dock or harbor facility. Such areas
may be classified as conditionally approved.
State shellfish control agencies shall establish
conditionally approved areas only when satisfied
that (a) all necessary measures have been taken
to insure that performance standards will be
met, and (b) that precautions have been taken
to assure that shellfish will not be marketed
from the areas subsequent to any failure to meet
the performance standards and before the shell-
fish can purify themselves of polluting micro-
organisms.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. The water quality requirements for an
approved area are met at all times while the area
is approved as a source of shellfish for direct
' marketing.
b. An operating procedure for each condi-
tionally approved area is developed jointly by
the State shellfish control ajrency, local agencies,
including. those . responsible for operation of
sewerage systems, and the local shellfish indus-
try. The operating procedure should be based
on an evaluation of each of the potential sources
of pollution which may affect the area. The
procedure should establish performance stand-
ards, specify necessary safety devices and meas-
ures, and define inspection and check proce-
dures. (These procedures are described in
69
-------
more, detail in the following public-health
explanation.)
c. A closed safety zone is established between
the conditionally approved area and t,he source
of pollution to give the State agency time to
stop shellfish harvesting if performance stand-
ards a re not met.
• d. Boundaries of conditionally approved,
areas are so marked as to be readily identified
by harvesters. , .
e. Critical sewerage system units are so de-
signed, constructed, and maintained that the
chances of failure to meet the established per-
formance standards due to mechanical failure
or overloading are minimized.
f. There is a complete understanding of the
purpose of the conditionally approved classifi-
cation by all parties concerned, including the
shellfish industry.. Successful functioning of
the concept is dependent upon the wholehearted
cooperation of all interested parties. If such
cooperation is not assured the State should not
approve the area for direct harvesting of mar-
ket shellfish.
g. Any failure to meet the performance
standards is immediately reported to the State
shellfish control agency by telephone or messen-
ger. In some instances States may find it de-
sirable to delegate the authority for closing a
conditionally approved area to a representative
of the agency located in the immediate area.
h. The State immediately closes condition-
ally approved areas to shellfish harvesting foh
lowing a report that the performance standards
have not been met. The area shall remain
closed until the performance standards can
again be met plus a length of time sufficient for
the shellfish to purify themselves so that they
will not be a hazard to the public health. (See
section i)-l, "Belaying," for information on the
length of time required for self-purification of
shellfish.)
i. The State shellfish control agency makes at
least two evaluations during the shellfish har-
vesting season of each conditionally approved
area including inspection of each critical unit
of the sewerage system to determine the general
mechanical condition of the equipment, the ac-
curacy of recording devices, and the accuracy of
reporting by the operating agency.
j. It is discovered that failure to meet per-
formance standards have not been reported by
the operating agency, or if the performance
standards are not met, the area will imme-
diately revert to a rextr/ctf,d or prohibited
classification.
k. All data relating to the operation of a
conditionally approved area, including oper-
ation of sewerage systems, are maintained in a'
file by the State shellfish control agency.
Public-health explanation.—The condition-
ally approved classification is designed • pri-
marily to protect shellfish growing areas in
which the water quality might undergo a signifi-
cant adverse change within a short period of
time.1" .The change might result from over-
loading or mechanical failure of a sewage treat-
ment plant, or bypassing of sewage at a lift
station.
Water quality in many growing areas in the
more densely populated sections of the country
is, to some degree, dependent upon the operation
of sewage treatment plants. For example, the
boundaries of an approved shellfish area might
be determined during a period when a tributary
sewage treatment plant is operating at a satis-
factory level. If there is some interruption in
treatment it follows that there will 'be some deg-
radation in water quality in the growing area,
which may justify a relocation of the bound-
aries. The degree of relocation would depend
upon such items as the distance between the pol-
lution source and the growing area, hydrog-
raphy, the amount of dilution water, and the
amount of pollution. ' i
The concept is also applicable to other situa-
tions in which there may be a rapid or seasonal
change in water quality. Examples of such
situations include—
a. A growing area adjacent to a resort com-
munity. During the summer months the
community might have a large population which
might have an adverse effect on water quality.
However, during the winter when there are few
people in the community the water quality
might improve sufficiently to allow approval of
the area. In some States this is known as a
seasonal closure.
b. A protected harbor in a sparsely settled
area might provide anchorage for a fishing fleet
10 A natural disaster may also cause many sewage treat-
ment plants to be out of service for an extended period of
time. The conditionally approved area concept is not ordi-
narily concerned with such emergency situations.
70
-------
several months a year. . When the fishing fleet is
in, the harbor water would be of poor sanitary
quality; however, during the remainder .of the
year the quality of the harbor water might be
satisfactory. The area would be approved for
shellfish harvesting only when the fishing fleet
is not using the harbor.
c. The water quality in an area fluctuates with
the discharge of a major river. During periods
of high runoff-the area is polluted because of
decreased flow time in the river. However, dur-
ing periods of low ruiioft" the area might be of
satisfactory quality and thus be approved for
shellfish harvesting.
The establishment of co-ndit'ionaUy approved
areas might be considered whenever the poten-
tial for sewage contamination is such that the
limiting water quality criteria for an approved
area might be exceeded in less than one week
due to a failure of sewage treatment, or other
situations as described above.
The first step in determining whether an area
should be placed in the conditionally approved
classification is the evaluation of the potential
sources of pollution in terms of their effect on
water quality in the area. Potential sources of
pollution include the following:
(1) Sewage treatment plants.
(a) Bypassing of all or part of sewage
because of mechanical or power failure,
hydraulic overloading, or treatment over-
loading.
(b) Reduced degree of treatment due to
operational difficulties or inadequate plant.
(2) Sewage lift stations.
(a) Bypassing during periods of maxi-
mum flow due to inadequate capacity.
(b) Bypassing because of mechanical or
power failure.
(3) Interceptor sewers or underwater out-
falls.
(a) Exfiltration due to faulty construc-
tion.
(b) Leakage due to damage.
(4) Other sources of pollution.
(a) Sewage from merchant or naval
vessels.
(b) Sewage from recreation use of area.
The second step in establishment of a condi-
tionally approved area is the evaluation of each
source of pollution in terms of the water quality
standards to be maintained, and the formulation
of performance standards for each installation
having a significant effect on the sanitary qual-
ity of the area. Examples of performance
standards might include:
(1) Bacteriological quality of effluent from
sewage treatment plants. This might be
stated in terms of chlorine residual if the
bacteriological quality of the effluent can be
positively related to chlorine residual. The
following is an example of a performance
standard (37) : ''The median coliform MPN,
in any one month, shall not exceed 500 per
100 ml., based on. not less than 16 composite
samples per month, and not more than 10 per-
cent of the samples shall have an MPN in ex-
cess of 10,000 per 100 ml. Determinations of
the chlorine residual of the effluent should be
made hourly and recorded in the permanent
plant records."
(2) Total quantity of sewage which can be
discharged from any given unit, or from a
combination of units, without causing the
basic water quality standards to be exceeded.
(3) Amount of shipping in the area and
the amount of sewage which can be expected.
Design criteria which rnay be useful in formu-
lating an. opinion on the quantity of sewage
which can be discharged into an area without
exceeding the desired water quality standards
include: Population equivalent (coliform) of
sewage; predicted survival of coliform in sea
water, effectiveness of chlorination, and the total
quantity of clean dilution water in an area. Re-
sults of many studies on the survival of bacteria
in sea water have been summarized in An In-
vestigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Seioage and Sludge; Publication
No. 14, California State Water Pollution Con-
trol Board, 1956.
The mechanical equipment at critical sewage
treatment or pumping units should be such that
interruptions will be minimized. Wherever
possible operations should be automatically re-
corded on charts. Examples of the require-
ments which might be imposed, depending upon
the importance of the unit in terms of water
quality, include:
(1) Ample capacity for storm flows.
(Storm water should ordinarily be excluded
from the sanitary system.)
71
-------
(2) Standby equipment to insure that
treatment or pumping will not be interrupted
because of damage to a single unit or to power
failure.
(3) Instrumentation of pumps and equip-
ment to allow the regulatory agency to de-
termine that performance standards have
been met. 'Examples include:
(«) Recording scales to indicate rale of
chlorine use. Chlorine flow can be inte-
grated with hydraulic flow to establish a
ratio.
(b) Liquid level recording gages in over-
flow channels of sewage treatment plants
and wet wells of lift stations lo indicate
when overflow takes place. Charts should
be dated and initialed by the operator..
Gages should be calibrated so that dis-
charge can be estimated.
•(c) Automatic devices to warn' of fail-
ure or malfunctioning at self-operated
pumping stations Or treatment 'plants.
(4) The effect of storm sewage can be cal-
culated by multiplying the total estimated
flow by the observed coliform content. The
result can be expressed in terms of popula-
tion equivalents (roll form,).
Design and operation' of equipment should bo
such that, closure provisions should not have to
be invoked more than once per year under
ordinary cireumstances.
A closed safety area should be interposed
between the conditionally approved area and (.he
source, of pollution. The size of such area should
be based on the total time it would take for the
operating agency to detect a failure, notify the
State shellfish control agency, and for -the bitter
agency to stop shellfish harvesting. T; is recom-
mended that the area be of such size that the
flow time through (lie safety area be af least
•'twice that required for the notification process
to become effective. Due consideration should
be given to the possibility that closure actions
might be necessary on holidays or at. night.
The type of marking which will be required
for conditionally np/n'm nl ureas will vary from
State to State depending upon the legal require-
ments for closing an urea.
The length of time a condii tonally approved
area should be closed following a temporary
closure will depend upon several factors includ-
ing the species of shellfish, water temperature,
purification rates, presence of silt or other
chemicals that might interfere with the physio-
logical activity of the shellfish, and the degree
of pollution of the area. (See section D-l of
this manual for additional information on the
natural purification of shellfish.)
5. Restricted Areas.—An area: may be.clas-
sified as restricted when a sanitary survey in-
dicates a limited degree of pollution which
would make if unsafe to harvest the shellfish
for direct, marketing.. Alternatively the States
may classify such areas as prohibited.. (See
section C-0, this manual.) Shellfish from such
areas may be marketed after purifying or re-
laying as provided for in section D.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the following water quality cri-
teria are met in areas designated by States as
restricted." ' =
a. The urea is so contaminated with fecal
materials that direct, consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and/or
1). The area, is not so contaminated with radio-
nuclides or industrial wastes that consumption
of the shellfish might be hazardous, and/or
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 700'per 100 ml. and not more
than 10 percent of the samples exceed an MPN
of 2,300 per 100 ml. in those portions of the
areas most probably exposed to fecal contami-
nation during the most unfavorable hydro-
graph ic, and pollution conditions. (Note: this
concentration might be exceeded if less than
800,000 cubic feet of a coliforiii-free dilution
water nre available for each population equiv-
alent (coUfonu) of sewage, reaching the area.)
d. Shellfish from restricted areas are not
marketed without, controlled purification or
relaying.
PuW-'M'-lx'tdth explanation.—In many in-
stances it is difficult.to draw a clear line of de-
marcation between polluted and nonpolluted
areas. In such instances the State may, at its
"It is not. iniinilittory that States use tills classifn-aliciii.
Areas mil me- tintf the fi/>/>ror
-------
option, classify areas of intermediate sanitary
quality as restricted and authorize the use of the
shellfish for relaying, or controlled purification.
6. Prohibited Areas.—An area shall be clas-
sified prohibited if the sanitary survey indicates
that dangerous numbers of pathogenic micro-
organisms might reach an area. The taking of
shellfish from such areas for direct marketing
shall be prohibited. Relaying or other salvage
operations shall be carefully supervised to in-
sure against polluted shellfish entering trade
channels. Actual and potential growing areas
which have not been subjected to sanitary sur-
veys shall be automatically classified as
prohibited.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when:
a. An area is classified as prohibited if a sani-
tary survey indicates either of the following
degrees of pollution:
(1) The area is contaminated with radio-
nuclides or industrial wastes that consump-
tion of the shellfish might be hazardous
and/or
(2) The median coliform MPN of the wa-
ter exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than 10
percent of the samples have a coliform MPN
in excess of 2,300 per 100 ml. (Note: This
concentration might be reached if less than
800,000 cubic feet of a coliform-free dilution
water are available for each population equiv-
alent (coliform) of sewage reaching the
area.)
b. No market shellfish are taken from pro-
hibited areas except by special permit as de-
scribed in section D.
c. Coastal areas in which sanitary surveys
have not been made shall be automatically
classified as prohibited.
Public-health explanation.—The positive re-
lationship between enteric disease and the eat-
ing of raw or partially cooked shellfish has
been outlined in section C-l. Prevention of
the interstate transport of shellfish containing
sufficient numbers of pathogenic microorga-
nisms to cause disease is a primary objective of
the National Program. Therefore, areas con-
taining dangerous concentrations of microor-
ganisms of fecal origin, or areas which may be
slightly contaminated with fresh fecal dis-
charges, should not be approved as a source of
shellfish for direct marketing.
7. Closure of Areas Due to Shellfish
Toxins.—The State shellfish control agency
shall regularly collect and assay representative
samples of shellfish from growing areas where
shellfish toxins are likely to occur. If the
paralytic shellfish poison content reaches 80
micrograms per 100 grams of the edible portions
of raw shellfish meat, the area shall be closed
to the taking of the species of shellfish in which
the poison lias been found.13 The harvesting of
shellfish from such areas shall be controlled in
accord with the recommendations of sections
E-l and E-2 of this manual.
The quarantine shall remain in effect until
sucli time as the State shellfish control agency is
convinced the poison content of the shellfish in-
volved is below the quarantine level.14
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will l>e
satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control agency collects
and assays representative samples of shellfish
for the presence of toxins from each suspected
growing area during the harvesting season.
(See section B-2 for assay methods.)
b. A quarantine is imposed against the taking
of shellfish when the concentration of paralytic
shellfish poison equals or exceeds 80 micrograms
per. 100 grams of the edible portion of raw
shellfish.
Public-health explanation.—In some areas
paralytic poison is collected temporarily by bi-
valve shellfish from free-swimming, one-celled
marine plants on which these shellfish feed. The
plants flourish seasonally when water conditions
are favorable.
Cases of paralytic poisoning, including sev-
eral fatalities, resulting from poisonous shell-
fish have been reported from both the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts. The minimum quantity of
poison which will cause intoxication in a sus-
ceptible person is not known. Epidemiological
investigations of paralytic shellfish poisoning
in Canada have indicated 200 to 600 micrograms
of poison will produce symptoms in susceptible
13 This value Is based on the results of epldemiologlcal in-
vestigations of outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poison In
Canada in 1054 and 1057 (38) (S»).
" The provisions of this item apply only to shellfish which
will be marketed as a fresh or frozen product as. properly
controlled heat processing will reduce the poison content of
the shellfish.
73
-------
persons and a death lias been attributed to the
ingestion of a probable 480 micrograms of poi-
son. Investigations indicate that lesser amounts
of the poison have no deleterious effects on hu-
mans. Growing areas should be closed at a
lower toxicity level to provide an adequate mar-
gin of safety since in many instances toxicity
levels will change rapidly (38) (39). It has
also been shown that the heat treatment af-
forded in ordinary canning processes reduces
the poison content of raw shellfish considerably.
. A review of literature and research dealing
with the source of the poison, the occurrence
and distribution of poisonous shellfish, physi-
ology and toxicology, characteristics of the poi-
son, and prevention and control of poisoning
has been prepared (40).
In Gulf coast areas, toxicity in shellfish has
been associated (IS) (76) with Red Tide out-
breaks caused by mass bloomings of the toxic
dinoflagellate, ffynrnodinium breve. Toxic
symptons in mice suggest a type of cigudtera
fish poisoning rather than symptoms of para-
lytic shellfish poisoning.
74
-------
APPENDIX B
75
-------
APPENDIX B
BOSTON HARBOR
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
April 1968
Project
NuBber
102
1*8
10
30
1*0
1*5
73
161
59
100
110
136
159
121*
68
126
158
91
Naae of
Applicant'.
Bedford
Boston, City
Boston, MDC
Boston, MDC
Boston, MDC
Boston, MDC
Boston, MDC
Boston, MDC
Braintree
Braiatree
Braintree
Braintree
Braintree
Canton
Hingha*
Hingha*
Hingaaa
Lexington
Status
3
of 3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Descrip
tion
7
5
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
l*
V
1*
3
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
Eligible
Cost
$ 185,501*
33^,560
2,136,725
930,709
1,11*9,253
.608,11*1*
2,672,1*50
2,3i*l*,963
17,973
1*26,215
115,1*01*
71,9^1
141,000
212,607
105,619
1*3,706
80,900
1*81*,189
WPG
Grant
$ 55,650
100,368
250,000
250,000
250,000
182,1*1*3
250,000
773,830
5,391
127,861*
34,621
21,582
1*6,530
63,782
31,685
13,110
26,697
11*5,256
76
-------
STUDY AREA
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
•
F7V / //~7\ — NORTH SEWERAGE SYSTEM
V7////777/77A — SOUTH SEWERAGE SYSTEM
X --.. BOSTQfi-'-
OUTER
'HARBOR
MILTON
BOSTON HARBOR
Scale In Miles
FIGURE I
------- |