BROOKLYN
N. Y.
STATEN ISLAND
N. Y.
LLJ
z
VOLUME 3
RARITAN BAY
Pollution of Raritan Bay
and adjacent Interstate Waters
THIRD SESSION
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
JUNE 13-14, 1967
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-------
C 0 N T E-N T S
STATEMENT OP; PAGE:
Benjamin Karmatz 972
Stanley Meseroll 975
Albert S. Kachic 989
Hon. Robert F. Kennedy (By Carter Burden) 994
Robert D. Hennigan 1008
Maurice M. Feldman 1017
Martin Lang 1018
David H. Wallace 1046
Frederick F. Richardson 1056
Charles C. Johnson, Jr. 1075
Mrs. Virginia Yuhasz 1079
James R. Pfafflin 1083
Brian A. McAllister (written statement) 1087
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein 1088
-------
971
Third Session of Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of Raritan Bay and Adjacent Interstate Waters,
convened at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, New York,
on Wednesday, June 1*1, 1967, at 9:15 a.m.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner
for Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Department of the
Interior
CONFEREES:
(As heretofore noted.)
-------
972
B. Karmatz
PROCEEDINGS
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
As indicated yesterday, there are two more state-
ments from New Jersey, so we will call on Dr. Kandle for these
presentations, following which we will go to New York.
Dr. Kandle?
DR. KANDLE: We would like to hear first from
Mr. Benjamin Karmatz, who is going to speak for the New Jersey
State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN KARMATZ, DELEGATE,
NEW JERSEY CENTRAL COUNCIL OF SPORTSMEN'S
CLUBS-, HIGHLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY
MR. KARMATZ: I am Ben Karmatz from Highland
Park, New Jersey.
I am a member of the Fact-Finding Committee of the
Central Jersey Council of the Sportsmen's Federation, sub-
stituting for Mr. Ronald Spevack of Perth Amboy, the scheduled
speaker for the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's
Clubs.
What I am about to say I will preface with these
remarks, that neither I nor our organization have any personal
-------
B. Karmatz
973
animosity to any particular body or persons in the State of
New Jersey, especially those involved in water pollution and
in the area of the cleansing of the waters of the State, to
be made fit for human use, whether it is salt water or fresh
water.
I will start off with the preface of a question:
Is it in the public interest to have legislators who are
members of law firms that are defending industries charged
with pollution of State and interstate waters? These legis-
lators may influence water pollution legislation.
What action will be taken by the State of New
Jersey against industries and power companies that discharge
thermal water, devoid of oxygen, into the State and inter-
state waterways?
Two and a half million dollars of Green Acres'
funds have been spent in the Middlesex-Somerset-Monmouth
County areas in the Raritan Valley. Yet, we have a daily flow
of 90 million gallons of sewage into the waters of the
Raritan River by permission of the State Department of Health.
$58 million have been spent building and maintain-
ing the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority. An additional
$30 million is needed for a secondary treatment plant. This
money will be wasted if the pollution laws of the State are
not enforced.
-------
974
B. Karmatz
There has been very little legal action in this
area in the past ten years. Water pollution, the discharge
of deleterious wastes, have increased by 15 percent in five
years in the State of New Jersey.
Reports to the Fish and Game Division and other
State agencies showing pollution of waterways in the State
only have met with what I call "bafflegab" action —
"bafflegab" — which means procrastination and double-talk.
The polluted water,flows in the Raritan Bay, an
interstate water, as you know.
The New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
urge the Federal Government to maintain a strict surveillance
on Federal funds allocated for water pollution control to
prosecute polluters without procrastination, the desecrators
of our precious commodity. It is not a luxury; it is a
necessity.
We urge the Federal Government to take immediate
action to prevent the worsening of water pollution before the
1970 deadline.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any further comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Dr. Kandle?
-------
975
S. Meseroll
DR. KANDLE: We would now like to hear from
Mr. Meseroll, who will be speaking for the Raritan Valley
.Clean Water Association.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY MESEROLL, CHAIRMAN,
RARITAN VALLEY CLEAN WATER ASSOCIATION,
HIGHLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY
MR. MESEROLL: With your kind permission, I
would like to make a statement, and then just ask two
questions.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Meseroll, may we have your full
name for the record?
MR. MESEROLL: Stanley Meseroll of Highland Park
New Jersey, Chairman of the Raritan Valley Clean Water
Association.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. MESEROLL: The statement I am about to make
represents the views of more than 50,000 citizens in the
Raritan Valley area, and some 70 civic organizations and
sportsmen's clubs that we represent.
Our association would first like this conference
to know that we're pleased to see that some progress is
being made with pollution in the Raritan Bay. This progress
-------
976
S. Meseroll
seems to be mostly in research. This progress, to us laymen,
seems uncommonly slow, since this conference was originally
scheduled to be held two years ago. However, we feel that
efforts are needed not so much in the scientific field, but
rather in the field of enforcement of present anti-pollution
laws, especially in regard to the entire — not just the lower
— Raritan River.
Study after study, test after test, survey after
survey, report after report/ all-reveal what we all know —
have known for years — that these waters are horribly
polluted. Indeed, our own association has reported some 30
cases of pollution in the Raritan Valley to the State Depart-
ment of Health. We have seen little action to end this
pollution to date. Stopping a large percentage of this
pollution, as we see it, is not a complex problem. It is
just a matter of enforcing existing laws. Despite cajoling,
pleading, letter writing, bona fide testing of water, requests
of officials from the local boards of health all the way up
to Senator Case, almost every industry we have named — even
small trucking firms whose waste problems are not complex nor
costly to correct — is still allowed to violate present
pollution laws. Only five industries in this area have been
taken to court by the State since the last conference was
held. One of these plants has been polluting since 1958.
-------
977
S. Meseroll
And a Superior Court judge has given them another eight months
to correct their pollution. This is almost farcical.
While the State has finally issued timetables
for construction of waste treatment plants for 10 industries
on the lower Raritan, who is to say that these timetables
will not be extended again — as all timetables to date seem
to have been — in 1968 and 1970. This is the pattern for
pollution in New Jersey.
We know that treatment of industrial waste is
expensive, difficult, time-consuming. We also know that to
shut down industries — or even certain manufacturing
processes within a plant — can be costly but costly to whom?
To the industry, of course. But we submit that the economic
losses due to this "pollution by permit" far transcends —
amounts to far more — than the losses that would be incurred
if our anti-pollution laws were enforced. Why do we even
have such laws if they are not enforced ?
We do not mean to minimize the importance of
research. But we do feel that more progress might be made if
similar concerted efforts were made to enforce existing laws
on the Raritan River as have been made in research and the
study of sources of pollution. Such efforts should be made on
the entire river — not just the lower end of the Raritan.
Which brings us to our two questions:
1. Can anything be done by this conference or
-------
978
S. Meseroll
the Federal Government to encourage or force the State of
New Jersey to take further action against polluters along
the lower Raritan River and in the Arthur Kill area?
2. The Raritan Bay will still be seriously
polluted, even with all pollution in the Arthur Kill and the
lower Raritan stopped, as long as industries on the upper
Raritan are allowed to continue dumping improperly treated
waste into the Raritan River. No effective directives, to
our knowledge, have been given industries such as American
Cyanamid's Calco plant to improve their treatment facilities.
I notice by your summary that they have been given
some orders, what I have referred to as appropriate orders
to have some facilities completed by 1966. They have not
complied with these orders. It is a year and a half since
then and we still hear nothing.
The question is: Is there anything that the
Federal Government or this conference can do to stop industry
from polluting the upper Raritan River?
Just as an addenda, in reading over your summary
of the conference report, I notice on Page 1 that they refer
to the problem being on the western section of the Raritan
Bay as municipal waste. I suggest that they add the words
"industrial waste."
Thank you.
-------
979
S. Meseroll
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, let me try to make a comment
on your questions.
No. 1, I hope we are working for the State of
New Jersey, and we are going to encourage them. I don't
think we have to force them. You have to put this problem in
persecptive.
New Jersey is not polluting those waters. We are
at the conference stage dealing with New Jersey. If we have
to go to the next stage of the Federal Enforcement action,
and I hope we won't because we have done that very seldom —
but if we have to go to the hearing stage, the Federal
Government proceeds against the individual polluters, that is,
the industries and the municipalities involved.
There is also a tendency to talk in terms of a
State, but you have to recognize that New York State and
New Jersey are not the polluters here. They are municipali-
ties and industries. These are the people whom we would
proceed against. If there were any mandatory regulatory
action, it would be directed against these groups and not the
Statesk
As far as I can see, we have worked very closely
with both States and the Interstate Agency, and we would hope
-------
980
S. Meseroll
to continue to work with them.
In the past, we and several States have had to
take regulatory action against individual polluters, and in
all these cases we have worked in concert with the States
involved. I don't think you are going to find a real
difference between the States and the Federal Government.
Among the professional staffs, as you can tell
here, there are always some differences, but I think what we
are trying to do is get a methodology where we are going to
have clean water. We are operating in a very delicate area,
and this is why we have these conferences. There should be
a Pederal-State-local relationship.
Our object here is not to force anyone, but to
try to get all people to agree on a cooperative schedule,
which will be carried forward.
Again,. I cannot speak for your area here, but it
has been my experience in dealing with cities and in talking
with city officials and knowing the industries involved,
that once we have agreed on what has to be done, on a schedule
to be followed through, we find that those cities and
industries have, in almost all cases, complied.
When you talk about the schedules, you have to
remember one thing. We look at this as we are operating in
a democratic society. Whatever the field, including water
-------
981
S. Meseroll
pollution, whatever the issue, every man has to have his
right to appeal to court. That applies to everyone, and I
don't care what you say he did or whatever the situation is.
In our system of government, it would be a really
terrible thing if the people representing the Executive
Departments in either the States or the Federal Government,
had the last say.
If we assume, as we hope we can under our system,
that everyone has the right to go to court, then you have to
expect that the court very often may modify the judgment of
the Executive agency. If the court gives an -extension, this
is the court's reason for doing it.
Again, let me give you just an example of what
we do in the problem we are discussing. When we deal with
water pollution control, as you perhaps have heard from
several of the groups, we are dealing with public works or
industrial works of tremendous magnitude. Our experience
has been that it is easier, because of the nature of the
beast, for industries, no matter how large the job is for
the industries, to keep on a time schedule more easily than
a city.
The reason for that largely is that the industry
deals with private financing, and sometimes the industry's
treatment works may run into the magnitude of three, four
-------
982
S. Meseroll
or perhaps five million dollars.
On the other hand, when we deal with a munici-
pality, we are dealing with public financing. You have to
have voter approval or have approval of your budget by a
Board of Estimate; you have a lot of land acquisition; and
these projects take a long time.
Our experience has shown that if a project takes
a year to build, it takes about a year to plan. If it takes
• s
two years to build, there are two years of paper work before
you can get to work. In other words, you can double the time
it takes to build before you are in operation, and this takes
a long time.
There are many pitfalls in putting through a
public project which you have to wait for. This isn't just
true with a waste treatment project. Look at any large pub-
lic project, such as the roads or other projects.
Again, in dealing with a public works program, I
think we have to be reasonably sensible about this operation
and reasonably flexible about it.
This does not mean that year after year after
year you give extensions and have delays. If you have
examined the record, at least of the Federal-State conferences
we have had involving some 1,200 cities and some 1,200
industries, by an large, the very, very vast majority are on
-------
983
S. Meseroll
schedule.
We have not set a schedule for New Jersey yet.
We have not agreed on a schedule among the conferees on the
Raritan Bay.
In other words, these are the Federal schedules.
That is what we hope we are going to try to do at the con-
clusion of this conference. However, where we have had this
in other areas, we have moved ahead.
I also think you have to recognize that there
have been places where the issue has come before the voters
and the voters vote it down. Then we have to readjust. This
is something we have to do.
This just does not happen on a local level.
There have been places in the States where the State has not
got the money, or, as you heard yesterday, people were saying
that they would like a little more money to come from the
Congress. Sometimes this does not happen. However, taking
those into account, I think by and large we have set a
schedule.
Again, this is one of the recommendations made by
our investigators. This is one of the techniques we have
used, and I hope the conferees will give these careful con-
sideration.
What we do is, after one of these is set, we
-------
984
S. Meseroll
schedule six-month periodic progress meetings, which are
open so that everyone, interested groups like yourself, the
press, the radio, your congressional delegations and State
legislative delegations, can judge how we are doing our job
when we lay the problem out.
The question of pollution control, because we
are dealing with a public works program, and being so long,
Just starts once we get on a schedule. After we get that,
it is going to take hard work and tremendous diligence
working on this from time to time to get this through.
As far as I can see, I am very hopeful that we
will be able to work out an amicable State-Federl-local
program.
In the past few years, working with an inter-
state problem here, I know of no problem that has come up
between the interstate agencies and the States and the Federal
Government and localities that was not amenable to reasonable
solution, and where we have not been able to sit down around
the table and work something out.
Obviously, there are always going to be some
differences, but I think we see the makings of a pollution
control program.
Of course, we are in the business so long, as I
have said. We have been here quite a long time. The reason
-------
985
S. Meseroll
we are here largely is because of the complications and the
complex nature of the problem.
When we started in 1961, I was not sure we could
see daylight, see where we were going, and that we had the
makings of a pollution control program. The way we are
sitting here today, I think we are dealing with relatively
minor technical differences. I see the makings of a program.
This is a question of putting this together and all operating
with good will, and giving full faith and credit to the
industries, the cities and the local officials involved, to see
if we can do it. This is the only way we are going to handle
that program.
Mat Adams pointed out yesterday what one of the
major difficulties is. In order to be equitable, we have to
be uniform. For example, we can't proceed against that little
trucker because he has an easy problem, while a tremendous
polluter upstream or downstream is pouring his wastes in un-
treated.
They all have to move in concert and together.
In order to move in concert and together in a complex metro-
politan area like this, it is going to take the vigilance and
the good will of all the parties. When I say "good will,"
I don't mean uncritical good-will. You have to watch this
very closely.
-------
986
S. Meseroll
However, I think we are on the brink of putting
together the makings of a major pollution clean-up program
In the Rarltan Bay area. I would hope that if we do that,
we can elicit the support of all of you so that it can become
a reality.
MR. MESEROLL: Well, as we see it, and we are
just laymen, there should be a time — some kind of an upper
limit — on the extensions and extensions and extensions.
MR. STEIN: I could not agree with you more. But
this is the question of setting a time schedule and seeing if
they are moving ahead.
Again, I want to state this: There has been a
tremendous amount of activity, as you can see here, in working
and putting this together.
This is always the problem. As I told you, if
we have a four-year program, for two years we do not throw
any dirt because we are Just fooling with papers. That is
just as important, because if we don't do that work care-
fully, you are not going to have a system that works.
Even when you begin throwing dirt, until you
throw the switch on the plant in the pollution business, you
are not going to see an improvement in the water.
I recognize for people who are not full-time
-------
987
S. Meseroll
professionals in this area, when we are in that stage of
making plans and specifications, getting the financing lined
up, getting the contracts let, acquiring the sites and the
right to them, you are apt to be very impatient.
MR. MESEROLL: Sir, this has been going on on
the Raritan River for thirty years.
DR. KANDLE: And there is improvement.
MR. KARMATZ: I think there is a point of dis-
cussion where we feel the State Department of Health and
other agencies, the Conservation Development Division, and
Fish and Game, have been dragging their feet in the prosecu-
tion of polluters that have polluted not only for one year,
two years, but five and eight years.
We have had records of 28 polluters and we have
turned in reports.
DR. KANDLE: With steady improvement.
MR. KARMATZ: With steady improvement on having
five —
DR. KANDLE: With steady improvement. I insist
that there is steady improvement.
MR. KARMATZ: I beg your pardon.
DR. KANDLE: I have the record in my office. I
am responsible. I will stand on the record.
MR. KARMATZ: I can also stand on the record,
-------
988
S. Meseroll
where in the State of New York they are prosecuting three to
five cases per day on pollution. We have companies,
industries in New Jersey who are not only polluting the air,
but polluting the water.
DR. KANDLE: I stand on the record of improvement.
MR. KARMATZ: We also have it that your record
shows that all these companies who are polluting have permits
from the State Department of Health, and those permits have
never been rescinded. Those records have never been changed.
MR. STEIN: Pardon me. I think the issue is
clear.
The conferees, I am sure, will make the records
available. Dr. Kandle has indicated there is nothing like the
record here. I am sure the record will speak for itself.
Do we have any other people from New Jersey, Dr.
Kandle?
DR. KANDLE: No, sir.
MR. STEIN: I think Mr. Klashman has one other
Federal representative.
MR. KLASHMAN: Is Mr. Albert Kachic here?
MR. KACHIC: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Kachic is the Assistant
Regional Hydrologist, with the United States Weather Bureau.
-------
989
A. S. Kachic
STATEMENT OF ALBERT S. KACHIC, ASSISTANT
REGIONAL HYDROLOGIST, UNITED STATES WEATHER
BUREAU, EASTERN" REGION, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK
MR. KACHIC: I am Albert S. Kachic, Assistant
Regional Hydrologist, Weather Bureau, Eastern Region,
Environmental Science Services Administration, Garden City,
New York.
The conclusions and recommendations as outlined
in the Summary Report for the Conference on Pollution of
Raritan Bay and Adjacent Interstate Waters (Third Session)
properly emphasize the structural approach as a means of
pollution abatement. However, under certain circumstances,
the non-structural approach to the problem can provide
remedial aid or enhance the recommended structural approach.
One of the non-structural approaches is the continuous flow
forecast.
Under certain circumstances, the availability of
information on anticipated fresh water flows can be useful
for managers or planners of pollution abatement programs.
For example, the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) utilizes the Weather Bureau
-------
990
A. S. Kachic
(WB) river forecasts for planning waste storage and/or
releases during low flow periods. On other occasions ORSANCO
has utilized velocity forecast to locate and keep track of
accidental spillage.
The Weather Bureau has three river forecast points
within the Raritan River Basin and two within the limits of
the study reach, as indicated in the Summary Report. At
present, these are only flood forecast points. Bound Brook
and Manville are located on the main stem of the Raritan,
within the limits of the study reach. Blackwell Mills is on
the Millstone River, a tributary of the Raritan. New program
capability has become available with the expansion of the
River Forecast Center at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the
Weather Bureau Office at Trenton, New Jersey. These offices
will have the capability of providing the following:
(1) Three or four-day flow forecasts on a daily
basis.
(2) Thirty-day mean flow forecast (including
forecast temperature and precipitation from
30-day weather outlook). The mean flow
forecast presently provided by the Weather
Bureau in the Delaware and Susquehanna River
Basins has an accuracy on the order of
+ 10 percent. This is a new project that we
-------
991
A. S. Kachic
did at this time.
(3) Calendar year mean flow forecast (issue
date April 1). The accuracy of this forecast
presently provided by the Weather Bureau in
the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins is
in the order of + 6 percent. These are
from preliminary studies we have done. The
river forecasting for New Jersey, the
Delaware and Susquehanna Basins is done by
the Federal State River Forecasting Service
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in cooperation
with the Pennsylvania Department of Forest
and Waters. The expansion, previously
mentioned, includes the addition of several
hydrologists to the River Forecast Center
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the addition
of three more people to our Weather Bureau
office at Trenton, New Jersey.
In addition, the River Forecast Center is presently
converting to computer operations on a rented computer. Negoti-
ations are under way for the purchase of an IBM 1130 computer
to be delivered sometime in fiscal year 1968. At the same
time, we are expanding our quarters.
The Weather Bureau office at Trenton, New Jersey,
-------
992
A. 'S. Kachic
is the service office for this area. It is responsible for
data acquisition and the dissemination of river forecasts in
New Jersey and the Delaware River Basins. Mr. William Long,
who is here, Meteorologist-in-Charge at Trenton, New Jersey,
can be contacted to discuss any service requirements that are
required.
The Weather Bureau will cooperate in efforts to
coordinate these programs with those of other agencies to
effect a comprehensive program in pollution abatement and
control in this area.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kachic.
Are there any questions or comments?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: As you know, we have used systems
such as this out in the West, and I think as far east as the
Missouri River. I think this is coming east.
The question here is when we are dealing with
regulated rivers, it is very important to regulate the flow.
I think the Missouri will give you the best
example of what we do. We have a large station run by the
Corps of Engineers in Omaha and we maintain certain flows in the
Missouri River, during the navigation season 13,000 cubic
feet a second, and dropping off in other than navigational
-------
993
A. S. Kachic
seasons.
Of course, you need water sometimes for quality
control too. We have these tremendous dams, not quite up on
the headwaters of the Missouri, but up on the top of the
Missouri in Garrison, and so forth. We like to keep the
water in the dams for recreational purposes, and the farmers
like to have it, but there are certain regulated releases.
When we get a report from the Weather Bureau,
for example, of a local storm on a tributary and are able to
take advantage of that water and predict when it will come
down, we can preserve the water in the dam up above and
utilize the water coming in from one of the tributaries, and
so maintain a very equal flow.
This kind of system, in cooperation with the
Weather Bureau, is worth its weight in gold as far as
maintaining water quality is concerned, and we are delighted
to have the indication of the services being available.
MR. KACHIC: I would like to emphasize that this
does not solve the problem, but it is a tool that can be used
by anybody if they have any ideas on it.
MR. STEIN: Right. By the way, I should
emphasize this, and I am glad you brought it up. The Federal
law makes it clear flow augmentation is no substitute for
treatment at the source.
-------
994
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
Thank you, Mr. Kachic.
MR. KACHIC: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: At this point we would like to call
on the assistant to Senator Robert Kennedy, Mr. Carter
Burden, who has a statement for the Senator.
Mr. Burden.
STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE ROBERT F. KENNEDY,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, PRESENTED BY CARTER BURDEN, ASSISTANT
TO SENATOR KENNEDY
MR. BURDEN: Mr. Stein and Members of the
Conference:
Senator Kennedy greatly regrets his inability to
be here. He had to be in Washington for the debate on the
Dodd case, being taken up this morning on the Senate Floor,
and it is necessary for him to be there.
I regret his inability to be here even more.
I have been delegated to read his statement. I
am not particularly experienced at this task, as you can see,
but insofar as the Senator cannot be here in person, I will
read an abbreviated version of his remarks. The full text
of the statement will be released for the press and will be
-------
995
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
available to anyone here who would like a copy.
MR. STEIN: Do you want the full statement to
appear in the record as if read?
MR. BURDEN: I think so; yes.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be done.
MR. BURDEN: During the latter part of March, a
giant-sized oil tanker named the Torrey Canyon ran aground
and broke up on Seven Stones Ree"f off southern England.
Despite the effort of the Royal Air Force to burn
the oil coming from the hulk, a large part of the 118,000 tons
of crude oil fouled the beaches and coastlines of southern
England.
Thousands of English citizens voluntarily assisted
in removing this oil from the beaches and from sea birds.
This pollution diseaster was the focus of atten-
tion in the Western World for several weeks, because of the
size of the oil cargo that was loosed on the summer resorts of
a nation and because of the rapidity with which it occurred.
And one result of this pollution disaster is a
number of legislative proposals designed to ensure that future
marine disasters will not foul our beaches with oil or chemicals.
The Torrey Canyon disaster shocks us because we can
all visualize the damage done by the black tide of oil suddenly
-------
996
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
washing up on ocean beaches.
Yet, when an equally disgusting tide of sewage
and industrial wastes daily washes up on the ocean beaches
serving metropolitan New York and New Jersey, we either
disguise or Ignore this fact.
The pollution, of New York's beaches on Staten
Island and Coney Island and of New Jersey's beaches along
Raritan Bay, has apparently occurred for so long that we
find almost no public reaction to this problem.
CONTAMINATION OP BEACHES:
The list of beaches on Staten Island and Raritan
Bay that have been declared closed is a long one: Totten-
ville Beach, South Beach, Graham Beach, and Oakwood Beach are
only a few.
South Beach, for example, is operated by the
City Park Department, and is banned for swimming by the
City Health Department.
And the beaches at Wolfes Pond Park and Great
Kills Park, both declared fit for use by the City Health
Department, are out of bounds for all United States Army
personnel because of the high bacteria count in these waters.
New York City is willing to tolerate a greater
chance of infection than the United States Army.
-------
997
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
But even if the higher levels of bacteria
permitted by the City Health Department cause problems at
Coney Island where in the past, I am informed, their
officials repeated tests until a satisfactory sample was
obtained.
There is no excuse for public health service
that ignores a significant danger to our health. Similar
records of pollution can also be found at Keansburg Atlantic
Highlands, and other beaches on the New Jersey side of
Raritan Bay.
DAMAGE TO SHELLFISH AND MARINE LIFE:
Municipal sewage and industrial wastes in the
waters surrounding Staten Island and bordering New Jersey
and New York cause other damage.
Almost all of the shellfish beds off Staten
Island and New Jersey have been closed to harvesters by the
action of New York and New Jersey State agencies.
This has resulted in the loss of a crop valued
at $500,000 each year.
Bacteria in untreated wastes makes this shell-
fish unsafe to eat and chemical wastes add unpleasant tastes
to the shellfish.
-------
998
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
Heavy pollution in the coastal waters also
destroys the marine organisms on which sport and commercial
fish feed.
Loss of these fish deprives some of a livelihood;
some of sport opportunities.
The Arthur Kill, feeding into Raritan Bay, may
well be the most polluted waterway in the World,
For in some stretches of this channel, no marine
organisms can be found.
Oxygen absorbing pollution and a poisonous chemi-
cal kill even the most primitive form of life, the fledgeworm.
Municipal sewage and industrial wastes also
exact a heavy toll from the pleasure boaters in the area.
Foul odors make it unpleasant to boat in many
of the waters surrounding Staten Island, and chemicals and
dirt raise the cost of upkeep enormously — an increased
number of paintings, ruined sales, and continued cleaning
are the price of urban filth.
PRICELESS RECREATIONAL RESOURCES:
But although I have the details of some of the
damage done in economic terms, by far the greatest damage
is done to our recreational resources on the shores of Staten
-------
999
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
Island and Raritan Bay.
For our seashore is a valuable heritage which
cannot and must not be cast aside as if it were a product
with built-in obsolescence.
The ocean wave laughing at a child's feet, the
short, darty flight of the sandpiper, are irreplaceable and
worth every effort to save.
The Verrazzano Bridge and modern highways have
opened up Staten Island, the fifth Borough of New York, to
those who have never 'had the opportunity to use Its beaches
or sections of the Jersey coast.
Yet, this coastline Is Just as important to
the citizens of New York and New Jersey as Cape" Cod to the
citizens of Massachusetts or the Oregon Dunes are to the
Oregonians.
And there is no reason why the beaches of New
York and New Jersey cannot be equally protected.
SOURCES OF POLLUTION:
Fortunately, the causes of pollution in these
waters are known.
By far the largest source of pollution is the
untreated or inadequately treated human waste from more
than five million people which is continually pouring into
-------
1000
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
the Upper Harbor, the Arthur Kill, the Raritan River, and
Raritan Bay.
This tide of filth even overwhelms the Atlantic
Ocean, for its germs are still present when the waves wash
up on the shore of Staten Island and Coney Island.
The list of cities, towns and suburbs contribut-
ing this to this pollution disaster — and it can only be
called a disaster — is shown in the report prepared for this
conference.
Lower Manhattan, the Passalc River Valley, much
of Staten Island, the Raritan Lower Valley, to name only a
few, all follow the beautifully destructive practice of
dumping their sewage into nearby waterways.
This may have been acceptable at the turn of
the century, when the total population was smaller — it is
not acceptable today.
The second major source of contamination is the
larger volume of industrial waste unceremoniously discharged
into the Arthur Kill, the Raritan River, the Upper Harbor,
and Raritan Bay itself.
All too often industry has treated these bays and
rivers as their own private preserve, with no thought to
toxic effect of chemicals, oil discharges, and industrial
wastes, on these waterways or nearby beaches.
-------
1001
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
And again action that might have been acceptable
on the part of one industry soon becomes viciously destructive
when practiced by many.
The list of industrial polluters in the
Raritan Bay area is almost a Who's Who of American Business.
Union Carbide Corporation, General Aniline and
Film Corporation, American Cyanamid Company, Hess Oil &
Chemical Company — to name only a few — have all been
issued formal pollution abatement orders by the New Jersey
Department of Health, and to a large extent those have not
complied with these abatement orders.
All these same firms, by and large, have not
complied with these abatement orders.
It is no wonder that in 196? no marine flights
can exist in the waters of the Arthur Kill and that the
beaches of Raritan Bay and Staten Island are tainted with
the smell of chemicals.
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT;
The purpose of this conference, as I understand,
is to set the timetable for the elimination of heavy pollu-
tion in the waters of Raritan Bay.
-------
1002
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
It is anticipated that the beaches bordering
Raritan Bay can all be used with safety when we complete
the pollution abatement program recommended today.
First and foremost, the conference recommends
that municipal sewage be given secondary treatment to remove
90 percent of the harmful material.
Lower degrees of treatment, primary treatment
that removes only 45 percent, or intermediate treatment that
removes only 65 percent, are not acceptable in an area with
a population running in the millions.
Primary treatment of the wastes of five million
people that live near Raritan Bay would leave the equivalent
of the raw sewage of 2,250,000 people, slightly less than
the population of Los Angeles.
Only effective secondary treatment can reduce
this pollution threat to reasonable limits.
The conference has also established a schedule
for the construction of treatment facilities designed to
accomplish this goal.
This schedule requires every municipality to
give this level of treatment by June 1, 1970, and this
requirement applies equally to lower Manhattan, which is
constructing a system to carry sewage from lower Manhattan to
the plant being constructed at Newton Creek in Brooklyn
-------
1003
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
and to the Passaic Valley Sewer Commission, which will have
to undertake a major construction project.
Similarly, the conference recommends that
industrial plants on these waterways provide the necessary
facilities to remove acids and alkalis, oil and tarry sub-
stances, toxic materials, heat, chemicals and other materials
that are now discharged into these waters.
This abatement must also be completed by June 1,
1970, except for those companies that have already received
abatement orders who are required to comply by the dates
specified.
The conference has also recommended that regula-
tions in both States be extended to receive waste treatment
facilities for holding tanks in all ships and recreational
boats using the area.
This is a necessary step in view of the heavy
ship and boat traffic area.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE:
The Federal Water Pollution Act of 1966 will
help the communities of New York and New Jersey to meet the
costs of this ambitious arid urgently needed pollution control
program.
-------
1004
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
This Act, passed last year, can provide up to
55 percent of the funds required to construct or improve
municipal sewage treatment plants and interceptor sewers.
A total of six billion dollars in Federal funds
was authorized for a program covering the next five years,
and limitations on the size of individual grants that
effectively excluded the cities from the program, have now
been removed.
This assistance should make it possible for every
community to meet its obligations under this program.
I do, however, have one concern about the
Federal assistance program, and that is the question of
Federal appropriations for this year.
The program as authorized would provide $450
million for 1967.
Yet, the Executive budget contained a request
for only $200 million.
I think it would be a great mistake to short-
change our water pollution program by appropriating less
than half of the funds authorized.
Fortunately, Congressman Blatnik of the House
Public Works Committee held hearings on this problem and
developed testimony showing that inadequate funds would
get the water pollution programs under way.
-------
1005
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
I have urged, and continue to urge, the House
and the Senate Appropriations Committees to appropriate the
funds that will muscle into our resolve to clean up water
pollution. After all, dollars and not words, build sewage
treatment plants.
STATE ASSISTANCE:
In addition to Federal financial aid, New York
State also provides grants covering 30 percent of the cost
of facility construction under the Clean Water Program.
As a result, New York State communities can
receive up to 85 percent of the costs of pollution facilities
This materially reduces the tax burden on our
hard-pressed urban centers, where a single sewage treatment
plant may cost more than $100 million. There is no excuse,
therefore, for permitting the continued pollution of our
waterways.
FEDERAL-STATE-LOCAL CORPORATION:
This conference was called because Raritan Bay
is an interstate waterway,
We found from past experience
-------
1006
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
that the efforts of one community might be wasted if every
community bordering the waterway did not enforce similar
standards.
And we found that differences in the degree and
effectiveness of enforcement of water pollution in different
States made it necessary to adopt a single set of standards
for an interstate waterway.
This conference has now recommended a common
set of standards for pollution control in Raritan Bay.
And the conference has recommended that these
standards be met by June 1, 1970. I urge tha.t these recom-
mendations be adopted by the conference and that sanctions
be applied to those communities or companies that fail to
meet this schedule.
CONCLUSION:
The New York State-wide comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan indicates that we will spend over fifteen
million'in improving Kill's Park, Lemon Creek Park, Coney
Island and Drier-Offerman Park, each one a park or beach
bordering Staten Island or New York's lower harbor.
These plans are designed to open up and improve
these recreation areas.
-------
1007
Hon. R. F. Kennedy
But the value of these ocean-front parks and
beaches is far greater than these figures indicate.
For although there are dozens of parks in New
York, these are the only windows on the ocean for thousands
of people living in New York City.
The Brighton Express subway or transit busses
now give those who live in our ghettos an opportunity to
swim, enjoy and feel the sea breeze on their faces.
These beaches and parks, however, are threatened
by water pollution.
Already some are closed and others have been
damaged by sewage and industrial wastes washing upon their
shores.
We have our own tide of pollution as damaging
as the one pouring from the Torrey Canyon.
And we can do something about it.
We can demand that the standards recommended by
this conference be adopted and enforced.
We should demand nothing less.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Burden.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: I wish you would convey our thanks
-------
1008
Hon. R. P. Kennedy
and ray thanks to Senator Kennedy, and tell him I am sorry
we could not meet him today.
As usual, the Senator has done his homework in
a painstaking manner and has come up with his perceptive
analysis in dealing with specifics, rather than glittering
generalities. We appreciate the contribution.
Thank you very much.
Are there any others here?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, let us proceed with New York.
Mr. Hennigan?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. HENNIGAN, CONFEREE
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF
PURE WATER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ALBANY, NEW YORK
MR. HENNIGAN: Mr. Stein, Fellow Conferees and
Ladies and Gentlemen:
One thing that has impressed me is that since
the 1963 meeting of this particular conference, there have
been vast changes that have taken place, both on a national
and State level, in reference to public attitude and official
posture concerning the water quality management and pollution
-------
1009
R. D. Hennigan
abatement.
To name a few, of course we had the New York
State Pure Waters Program, which I think everybody here is
somewhat familiar with, which was developed and passed in
1965. At the Federal level we had the Water Quality Act of
1965, the Clean Stream Restoration Act in 1966, and the
latest being the reorganization of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration and its move from the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the
Interior.
I think all of this is but a reflection of
public expectation and demand for effective environmental
control.
I would note that in the past, this public
demand or public voice has been just about mute on this
question, except for a few people who tried to lead the way
and to enlighten the public to the dangers and threat of
pollution of our environment.
But I think there is a whole new context that
we can view this situation in that did not exist either in
1961 or in 1963.
Another thing that is evident is the necessity
for a Federal-State-local partnership — and I mean a real
partnership — in which the assets of each are maximized,
-------
1010
R. D. Hennigan
and the liabilities are minimized, all working with a
single objective of improving the environment and abating
pollution.
I tried to think of some ideas of what the roles
of the Federal, State and local people were in such a program,
Mr. Stein has alluded to this in some of his remarks this
morning.
On the Federal level, I think the need, which is
being met now for a national policy of assistance which
requires uniform standards and requirements adapted to local
conditions across the country, is both needed and essential
to any effective program. We cannot have islands of refuge
in the United States for people to flee to if- there is a
great variety of enforcement programs or a great variety
of different standards.
Also, the Federal establishment can bring to
bear and assist State and local people with technical
resources and financial resources which may not be available,
and, of course, the Federal Government must exercise leader-
ship in interstate and international problems, which are
frequently outside of the area of capability of State
government.
The States themselves occupy a more increasingly
tough regulatory posture. For many State agencies, this is
-------
1011
R. D. Hennigan
quite a change from an educational posture to a regulatory
posture. This requires effective programming and administra-
tion. It requires certain tools, such as incentives,
enforcements, surveillance and research.
On the local level, as mentioned by Mr. Adams,
the municipalities and the authorities are the action
agencies. This is where the Issues are usually Joined, and
much of the success will depend on the ability of these local
agencies to come through. They must raise the funds to con-
struct and operate the facilities, which sounds easy, but it
usually is not.
We also have our shared responsibilities, because
these lines of division I have mentioned are not sharp and
distinct, but they are blurred and overlap.
The only point I am trying to make is that, as
exemplified by this meeting, it requires the complementary
action of these levels of government. The other point is that
this combined effort is essential if we are ever going to be
very successful.
This itew York State Pure Waters Program was
enacted in 1965. It provides the three elements of incentive
in the form of construction grants, operation and maintenance
grants, study grants, and incentive of industry. It has a
-------
1012
R. D. Hennlgan
strong enforcement program based on the fact that we cannot
proceed Just on a cooperative approach, but we must establish
a legal foundation for action if we fail, or if the polluter
fails to comply with the orders of the Commissioner of
Health, and a surveillance and research program in order to
measure what we are doing, and also to try to find some
answers to questions that we are not so sure of.
In line with the enforcement phase of the program,
roughly 293 orders have been issued by the State Commissioner
of Health since September of 1965.
On the construction grant phase of the program,
some $^9 million of State funds have been committed for the
construction of the needed treatment facilities.
Further legislation was enacted. One was a
Marine Pollution Control Bill, which sets up standards for
the discharge of wastes from boats and marinas, and also
controls littering from boats and beaches. This is
effective July 1, 1968, and rules and regulations are now
being developed.
Another bill that was passed in the 1966 session
of the State legislature was the Registration of Outlets
Statute. This statute requires that all owners of outlets,
industries and municipalities, file with the State Commission-
er of Health information on the strength and the volume of
-------
TD1T
R. D. Hennigan
the waste discharged into any of the waters of the State in
accordance with rules and regulations enacted by him, and
in accordance with a schedule established by him. The
rules and regulations have been adopted and promulgated.
The key in this particular statute is the require-
ment that if anybody fails to furnish this information as
required by the rules and regulations to the Commissioner,
any permits that they hold are null and void.
In the 1967 session of the legislature, the
Pure Waters Authority Act was passed. This Act provided a
device in State government in which a State agency can act
as an agent for local municipalities, or can actually build
and construct facilities by contracting with local munici-
palities. This new element of the program has not as yet
been activated.
The Raritan conference is one of four in which
New York State has taken part. We have taken part in the
Moriches Bay conference, the Lake Erie conference and the
Hudson River conference. I sometimes find it difficult to
keep focusing down into a certain area, when practically
everything we do is so interrelated and all actions we take
in terms of the program must have application in New York
on a State-wide basis.
The Raritan conference is a rather unique one,
-------
R. D. Hennigan
unique from two or three points of view. One is that it is
the oldest.
Secondly, as far as the States are concerned, we
are dealing with a single entity, because all the area in
the Raritan conference area is within a single municipality,
the City of New York.
The City of New York has cooperated with the
State. We have a stipulated agreement, which is equivalent
to a Commissioner's order, to proceed with necessary works
on an agreed upon schedule. Other speakers from the city
will develop this subject a little more.
Getting down to some of the specifics, some
of the dates in Volume 1, on Pages 33 and 31*, do not coin-
cide actually with our abatement order on the city.
These include completion dates of the Port
Richmond West Branch interceptor set at March 1969; the
East Branch interceptor at March 1972; the treatment plant
expansion, December 1970; the Oakwood Beach south shore
Interceptor dated December 1970; and the plant expansion is
set for completion in December of 1971.
These dates are incorporated in the stipulated
agreement with the City of New York. They reflect the
city's revised plan for consolidated treatment, and a few
large well planned and operated treatment plants serving all
-------
1015
R. D. Hennigan
of Staten Island, rather than providing a multiplicity
of smaller facilities.
It seems that there have been two or three —
five, to be exact — areas in which there may be some
difference of opinion. One relates to the percent removal
objective} one in scheduling, which I have detailed in
reference to the City of New York; the question of money
available for constructing these facilities; some standard
differences in the conference area between the Interstate
Sanitation Commission, the State of New Jersey and the State
of New York; and then some question relative to the possi-
bility of shellfish rehabilitation, the rehabilitation of
certain areas for shellfish production in the conference area.
We have one speaker who will be on later, who
will address himself to the shellfish business, and he is
a well recognized expert on it.
I think, however, there is a single objective
to which everybody here agrees, and that is the abatement
of this pollution in the area as soon as feasible.
There are some small areas of disagreement,
but I think they are rather a matter of evidence than sub-
stance, to be honest with you.
I think the foundation of the conference, which
I consider the report prepared by the Federal Water
-------
1016
R. D. Hennlgan
Pollution Control Administration, is probably more sub-
stantial than in any other conference I have ever partici-
pated in. I tfcjink that the recommendations made form an
agenda for the executive session which will follow the open
meeting.
I agree with the Chairman that I don't see any
barriers to coming up with a program which will be acceptable
to everybody here and will meet the objectives that we all,
in fact, subscribe to.
Shall I proceed?
MR. STEIN: Thank you, unless there are any
questions or comments.
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Will you go ahead, Mr. Hennigan?
MR. HENNIGAN: My first speaker will be Mr.
Maurice Feldman, First Deputy Commissioner, Engineering and
Research Development, and Deputy General Manager of the
Water Pollution Control Division of the New York City
Department of Public Works.
Mr. Feldman.
-------
1017
M. M. Peldman
STATEMENT OP MAURICE M. PELDMAN, FIRST
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENGINEERING AND
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT, AND DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER, BUREAU OP WATER POLLUTION CONTROL,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. FELDMAN: My name is Maurice M. Peldman.
The description of my title is correct, so I won't repeat it
My main function here is not to give you any of
the detail matters that New York City is concerned with as
a part of New York State and its interest in the Raritan
Bay area, but mainly to introduce to you a person who has
been living and working with this problem for many years,
the Director of our Bureau of Water Pollution Control of the
Department of Public Works in New York City, Mr. Martin
Lang, who will, I know, give all that we are concerned with
and contribute greatly to the value of this conference inso-
far as it affects New York City's interest.
Mr. Martin Lang.
-------
1018
M. Lang
STATEMENT OP MARTIN LANG, DIRECTOR, BUREAU
OP WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. LANG: I am Martin Lang, Director of
the Bureau of Water Pollution Control. I have only held that
position for the past two months, but I have arrayed behind
me, invisibly, of course, some very distinguished pre-
decessors, so I speak for them as well as for myself and
the Department.
I regret I do not have a prepared address. The
net result of that may be that there may be a few parti-
ciples left dangling, there may be some lack of coherence
at times, but maybe on the plus side is this: The
distinguished conferees — perhaps I can hold their span
of attention, because they won't have to compete with some
document in front of them.
What I propose to do is, first, give you a
sort of quick horseback view of the accomplishments of the
City of New York .in this field, and then go on specifically
as to what the future of the program is in New York City.
Then specifically as to how that will relate to the Raritan
Bay waters.
-------
1019
M. Lang
New York City does not come here as a sort of
apologetic suppliant. We don't have to be dragged into the
Twentieth Century of water pollution control screaming and
kicking. It is not necessary to apply Mr. Stein's carrot
and stick, and, Mr. Stein, that's a big stick and a very
small carrot.
(Laughter.)
Let's Just take a view of New York City. I
don't know if all of you can see this. I wouldn't take it
amiss if any of you wanted to come up forward and occupy
any of the vacant seats and get a better view.
Dr. Kandle, here is the population, or a little
more than the population of the entire State of New Jersey
(indicating). Here it is compressed into an area of a little
less than one-twentieth of the State of New Jersey.
I am going to talk about 80 years of a concerted
approach to pollution control in New York City. This is no
figure of speech, because in the 1920's, a unique team was
assembled in the city to conceive, design and construct the
basic pollution control program of the city, and their con-
cepts are now being built to take us to the year 2000 and
beyond, so this eighty years is not a figure of speech.
Here we have the sprawling megalopolis, and
here are the receiving waters, a salt water estuarine system,
-------
1020
M. Lang
a very complex estuarine system.
It has been intensively studied, but Just to
cite one thing, the East River, for example, the inner
waterway of the city — we refer to it as the "East River,"
but obviously it is a misnomer because the East River is a
*
tidal strait, and to this date all the hydrologists, Army
Engineers, Federal agencies, are in some dispute as to
whether there is a net flow from the Long Island Sound to
the Upper Bay, or from the Upper Bay to the Long Island
Sound.
There are very complex movements in here. For
example, even you native New Yorkers may be surprised to
know that when there is ebb tide the Harlem River ebbs up
to the Hudson and not down to the bay.
But there is one thing everybody agrees on:
This is a pretty good mixer, this Upper Bay. Another thing
everybody can agree on is this: That these waters don't
recognize geography, politics and political boundaries.
The waters don't know the sources of the pollution; they
just respond to them, whether it is New York City or our
neighbors across the river.
Incidentally, let me state right here and now,
we are not taking the position that there is any
antagonism or divergence between New York and New Jersey.
-------
1021
M. Lang
We believe we are now and will be increasingly partners
in the intelligent management of these Joint waters.
In the early 1900's, a group of engineers in
New York City began to foresee what was happening in the
degradation of the waters which had made New York City great,
and a plan began to crystallize.
In the 1920's, specific action was taken by the
city. A group, probably unrivaled in the history of this
country, was assembled of sanitary engineers, electrical
engineers, mechanical, civil, and structural engineers, who
began the design of the basic program, with a very specific
object of treating all the dry weather waste water within
the City of New York.
This program has plowed ahead, slowed by the
depression, temporarily stopped by the wars, temporarily
deterred by shortages of material, manpower and money, and
now given a new boost of acceleration by State aid. Never-
theless, it has never stopped, but moved ahead.
Let's just see what happened.
All these brightly colored patches (indicating)
are individual drainage areas. In 1935, to protect the
biggest bathing beach in the world, the Coney Island plant
went on stream. This — of course, it is a pejorative
-------
1022
M. Lang
word, Mr. Stein — was a primary treatment plant, enhanced,
however, seasonally during the bathing season by chemical
coagulation. We used chlorinated ferrous sulfate to create
a ferric chloride floe to enhance the removals during the
bathing season, and, of course, the effluents were subject
to chlorine disinfection during the bathing season.
But, even then, the engineers realized they
were tuned to the tenor of the next generation, the thinking
of the next generation. In 1937, the Ward's Island plant
for complete activated sludge treatment went on stream.
An immediate result was an uplifting of the dissolved oxygen
which had entered the most degraded waterway of.the city,
the Harlem River.
In close succession, in time for the World's Pair,
the Bowery Bay plant, 40 MGD, and the Torman Island plant?
of about the same capacity, went on stream in the upper
East River.
The war came along. We had already started,
and then pushed the completion in the first years of the
war of the Jamaica plant on Jamaica Bay. All of these
plants provided secondary treatment.
Mr. Stein, in the 1930's, New York was convinced
of secondary treatment, and very significantly they were
doing this —at what time? At a time when throughout the
-------
1023
M. Lang
country at best only primary treatment was normally being
employed, at a time when even in our own State, and certainly
in the Midwest major cities, unpotable watersheds were
discharging either raw sewage or only sewages subject to
plain sedimentation.
In short, this elite group of designers and
conceivers were already attuned to the thinking of the
1970's.
Incidentally, I might add that the city was
fortunate in getting and holding on to these men, by virtue
of one regrettable phenomenon, the depression.
At the conclusion of World War II, the pent up
backlog, the designs, the concepts already prepared,
emerged in full strength. Within a period of a comparatively
few years, a period of four or five years, the Owl's Head
plant on the Narrows, embodying secondary treatment with a
capacity of 160 MOD, went on stream, in February 1952.
Within a few months thereafter, the Hunt's
Point plant, about 110 MOD, went on stream in the Bronx;
the Rockaway plant, 15 MOD, in Rockaway; and a few years
thereafter, two plants in Staten Island, the Oakwood Beach,
secondary treatment, and the Port Richmond plant, primary
treatment.
Now, remember this little plant here (indicating),
-------
1024
M. Lang
10 MOD, was primary treatment. This was even then conceived
as an interim measure, because to go anywhere beyond that,
considering the loads on the Arthur Kill, considering the
industrial waste in the Linden-Roselle complex, would be,
to quote Shakespeare, to "paint the lily" or "gild the
finest gold" anywhere, but again it was conceived as an
interim measure, hoping we would make one small movement
forward and others would follow suit.
Now, another phenomenon supervened that you are
all familiar with, the tremendous shift away from the
heartland of the city out to the periphery of the city, and
even while we were planning the remaining plants to pick
up all the dry weather waste water, we had to go back and
expand the outlying plants.
To cite one specific instance, the Rockaway
plant went on stream in 1952, with a capacity of 15 MGD,
deemed adequate for thirty or forty years. This unexpected
population shift compelled us to go back, redesign and
double the capacity of the plant by 1962.
The capacity of the Bowery Bay plant was tripled
in the 1960's. The capacity of the Torman Island plant was
substantially increased. The capacity of the Jamaica plant
was increased, not to mention the 26th Ward plant, which
also went on stream here in 1950.
-------
1025
M. Lang
Now, all these plants are secondary treatment,
and all these plants were built with the City of New York's
taxpayers' own money. They put their money where their con-
victions were.
This was long before any purported cornucopia
opened up in Albany, or a smaller cornucopia in Washington
(laughter), and the basic program continued.
While these plants were being expanded, the
Newtown Creek plant was being designed and constructed.
The North River plant was being designed.
Now, you notice something unusual here (indicating)
Here is the Newtown Creek plant in Brooklyn. It is one of our
big plants, 310 MGD, and, Mr. Stein, I would like to respect-
fully call to your attention that for plants of this magnitude,
some substantial lead time is required between concept and
treatment, that these timetables must be realistically
predicated on the fact that our bitter experience shows that
between the time the decision is made and the plant actually
receives sewage, some five to seven years may elapse.
Those of you who are native New Yorkers know the
situation along the waterfront. Thank goodness, this
dedicated group in the early 1930's acquired sites, because
this is the problem. In order to treat the sewage from
72nd Street down south to the Battery and around to Bank
-------
1026
M. Lang
Street, a deep rock tunnel was constructed under the East
River, and the sewage is being conducted for treatment in
the Newtown Creek plant in Brooklyn.
In order to construct the North River plant, a
site Is being designed, some of which is being built, the
site itself at the cost of a million dollars an acre on a
platform, because massive sites cannot be assembled within
the political boundaries of New York City now.
Fortunately, however, as we have an excellent
group of designers, the City of New York also was privileged
to assemble a group of sanitary engineers who made the major
contributions to the art of sewage treatment in the world,
in a small group of dedicated individuals doing this in
addition to their other duties, working out of the Ward's
Island plant.
Incidentally, Commissioner Feldman is an alumnus
of that group.
Processes, such as step aeration, activated sludge
aeration, short-period aeration, high-rate digestion,
digested sludge recirculation, and many others — incidentally,
I have a bibliography here with 150 items — were developed.
These are not esoteric ivy tower academic
studies; these are real hard contributions which are being
-------
1027
M. Lang
applied within New York City and elsewhere throughout the
world.
I might point out, for example, the chief of
the Division of Plant Operations here is the only man in the
United States who was the three-times winner of the Gascoyne
Award for the outstanding contributions to the art of
sanitary engineering.
At this very moment, while we are standing here,
the State Federation is meeting today in Rochester. Out of
all the papers submitted by engineers in New York State,
three were selected for honors. Two of those are from
New York City, and these again were not for any esoteric
projects. One was for a major contribution by two men of
the Department, one since retired, Torpy and Melbinger, for
a process whereby the net volume of sludge to be disposed
of could be effectively reduced even after digestion.
I have a lot of documentation here, but don't
let that overawe you, because this documentation plus a
pocket slide rule substitutes, you know, for a thumb and
blanket for the engineer.
New York City, for example, pioneered in the
abandonment of the use of compressed liquid chlorine for
the disinfection of effluents, and took the courageous and
more expensive step several years ago of completing converting
-------
1028
M. Lang
to the use of sodium hypochlorlte to protect these people
in this compressed metropolis against any disaster from
leaking chlorine.
These are -the two papers which are being honored
today. I won't read you the other 150 items in the bibli-
ography .
Among these contributions was a process for
achieving full activated sludge results, 90-plus removal
in a limited volume, the so-called Gould step aeration
process, now virtually standard throughout the country.
Mr. Gould, a distinguished former director,
Director Emeritus, retired now, has made this contribution
to the entire world, and this enabled us on even limited
sites to give 90-plus removal.
We did one other thing. We developed inter-
mediate degrees of biological removal for this period between ths
1930's and the 1970's, when the State's standards would be
such that it would be going far beyond the then requirements
to give 90"-plus removal, and we used some intermediate
degrees of treatment.
We devised a modified aeration and short-period
aeration, which gave very economical and effective treatment,
far beyond double that of primary removal, a little short of
-------
1029
M. Lang
that of complete step aeration, and effected great economies
in plant operation.
Now, where do we go from here?
New York City made firm commitments to the State
of New York to complete its basic dry weather wastewater
program by 1972, and it proposed to do it in the following
manner:
Put the Newtown Creek on stream. This will be
done within a couple of weeks. The plant is built, it is
there, and the equipment is installed. We are now at the
stage that many of you practical engineers know, where it is
99 percent complete, and we want to get that last one percent
done. It is 99-9, as a matter of fact.
We propose to build the North River plant to
take care of the remaining raw wastewater discharges into the
Hudson.
We have already started construction on one leg
of the interceptor. We propose to build, within that period
of time, the Red Hook plant for step aeration on the East
River and Upper Harbor.
We propose to expand the two Staten Island
plants, convert the Port Richmond plant from 10 MGD to 60
MGD, and convert it from primary treatment, in one giant
step forward, to complete secondary treatment.
-------
1030
M. Lang
We propose to expand the Oakwood Beach plant
from 15 MOD to 30 MGD and provide complete secondary treat-
ment there. When that is done, we will have virtually
completed our basic program.
In these blank areas in Staten Island, pending
the growth of population, there is an interim measure we
are considering, because we have a healthy respect for a
buck, using a combination of pumping stations and force
mains to convey the relatively small drainage areas to the
major plants, and we like this because we pride ourselves on
our process control in the plants.
New York City has a unique program. We have an
elite group of sanitary engineers going around to all these
plants controlling the process. That decision remains in
the hands of professional engineers.
Let's put some figures on this. The plants
already built and in operation with the sites, the 60-odd
miles of interceptors and the plants, have a reproduction
value of about three-quarters of a billion dollars. The
remainder of the construction for which hard commitments
have been made is in the order of $370 million, and,
regrettably, you engineers know how that has a way of
escalating sometimes.
At this moment, the New York City wastewater
-------
1031
M. Lang
flow, which IB essentially the used water supply of the
city, runs about between 1.2 or 1.3 billion gallons per
day, depending on the degree of water conservation. We are
now treating 800 million gallons per day, two-thirds of the
wastewater.
The degree of treatment we are giving varies
somewhat from plant to plant, because some plants are used
•co their full capabilities only seasonally. However, that
will change and we propose to apply them all year round.
But at this time we are getting 70 percent BOD
removal of all the wastewater being treated. Of all the
wastewater of New York City, raw as well as treated, some
50 percent will be. removed.
We have made some close projections as to what
our ultimate degree of removal will be when we complete this
program as outlined, and that degree of removal will be
80 percent BOD removal.
However, as I pointed out, New York City is not
static in our thinking. We are attuned to this fluid
technology of sanitary engineering, and we expect to exploit
new techniques as others devise them, or as we devise them
ourselves.
Therefore, we propose to get under way a program,
which we have already made a beginning on, to seek improvements
-------
1032
M, Lang
in those plants where less than full-step aeration results
are now being achieved. We propose to begin feasibility
studies of taking those major plants which have the site
capabilities, because ground is precious, to see what can
be done to convert and upgrade Coney Island and Owl's Head
to possibly full-step aeration.
So, I have outlined two steps: Complete the
basic program; start a new wave of upgrading; but there
is a third program in the City of New York.
If each of you, as many are, were taxpayers in
the city and you said, "I put my tax dollars into this
program; I put it in long before the State and Federal aidj
What am I going to get?" "Well," you say, "I have abated
the nuisances in the waters." "Fine. Then should I put
any more money in it?"
Already, ten years ago, the city began thinking
along those lines, and in 1957 we began assembling pre-
liminary reports on another very bright and worthwhile
objective. We knew the intrinsic problem of combined
sewers and 80 percent of New York City has combined sewerage,
We have ringed, for example, Jamaica Bay, this
beautifully sheltered body of water (indicating) to give
effective secondary treatment. Could we bathe there? The
answer is no, because during storm periods there would be
-------
1033
M. Lang
release of combined storm flow and wastewater Into the
receiving waters here.
At that time the solution seemed simple —. a
very simplistic view of it. If we will take care of the
stormwater overflows, then we will go into the millennium
and we will have achieved our result. And the City of New
York proceeded to design stormwater plants.
Incidentally, the semantics of this field keep
changing. When I was in it, it was "sewage disposal";
it is now "water pollution control." It is not "stormwater
plants." It is "auxiliary pollution control plants."
The objective of these plants will be to retain
half the storms and, in any case where combined stormwater
and wastewater would overflow these plants, those flows will
be subject to desludging, degrittlng, and effective disin-
fection by hyperchlorination.
However, New York City is unique in one other
respect. We have had a harbor survey going and we have had
hard data which shows us all the parameters in this harbor
as far back as 1909.
Close scrutiny of this showed something unique.
Something has changed in the marine environment in the
United States in the last fifteen years, perhaps with the
substitution of synthetic detergents for conventional soaps.
-------
1034
M. Lang
After all, when a housewife buys a box of some
synthetic detergent, she buys a pound box, and she buys about
three-quarters of a pound of phosphates, hexametric phos-
phates, trlsodlum phosphates, and the outpouring of these
new nutrients in these waters may have changed something,
because we saw certain phenomena there.
Again, without recourse to the Federal Govern-
ment, the City of New York spent $50,000 of its own money
to have the faculty at New York University make an elaborate
computer study, which verified our findings that there was
some unique phenomenon in coliform growth in the harbor,
and, nevertheless, we felt that the goal, for the first
time, of creating beautiful new bathing beaches in the
heart of a megalopolitan sprawl was so worthwhile, that we
have proceeded on all fronts.
We already have the Spring Creek plant designed,
contract specifications prepared; it has passed the State,
and it is in the hands of the Federal Government now, and
we are prepared to go to contract this year to build the
first prototype.
At the same time, we have consulted with the
Federal agencies to get together for a unique city, State
and Federal joint in depth scientific study of all the
phenomena associated with the creation of bathing beaches
-------
1035
M. Lang
in Jamaica Bay, and this study, of course,, is not only of
significance to New York City; it is of national value,
which is why the Federal Government is interested in it.
Incidentally, this again is no idle speculation.
We expect to get this off the ground this summer. I was
in Washington on this as late as last Friday. We expect
i
to have firm commitments within weeks on this.
This auxiliary program envisages ringing the
better potential bathing waters of the city, like Jamaica
Bay and the upper East River, Eastchester Bay, Little Neck
Bay, the Clearview area, with over 20 of these auxiliary
pollution control plants, at a cost of again some $360
million.
So, gentlemen, I have outlined three basic
programs of the city: First, the program which is in progress
now and is moving toward fruition, to take care of all the
dry weather wastewater and afford' it a degree of secondary
removal, which will provide a minimum af 80 percent removal
city-wide — in some plants, this may be well beyond that,
in some plants below; but if you regard New York City as
an entity, it will be above 80 percent.
The other program -then will not go concurrently
with that, but after that, because we have made a commitment
to finish this in the early 1970's. .
-------
M. Lang
Then, after that, we will start this program
of feasibility studies to upgrade these major plants in
these important waterways, plus a concerted program to
enhance the so-called modified aeration plants, so that
we can look forward by the 1990's to get beyond 80$ BOD
removal, and, concurrently with this program build the
prototype of the Spring Creek plant, combine that with an
in depth scientific study, and give us the meaningful
answers, which will give us the green light to go ahead
and get new bathing beaches in the city out of the conversa-
tional stage, out of the glossy brochure stage, and into
actual being.
As evidence of the City of New York's firm
Intent to proceed along these lines at long last, the city
administration has made a hard-nosed confrontation with the
problem of unsewered areas in Broad Channel. Those of us
who read the newspapers in New York City know about the
local reaction, but the move has been started.
Now, how do you propose to do this?
Mr. Stein, you are an attorney. You said,
"You engineers will worry about the nuts and bolts aspect."
Some of my colleagues here are a little more — actually,
how do you do this?
We had the gentleman from New Jersey say he was
-------
1038
M. Lang
going to solve the problem by trying to raid Paul DeFalco's
staff. Bob Hennigan is solving his personal problems by
raiding New York City. For us, we are low man on the totem
pole.
I don't like to contradict Senator Kennedy.
That might be awfully presumptuous of me, but his emissary
said, "You build the plants with dollars."
He is wrong. You design and construct them with
men, with talented men. As I said, this field is unique,
in that it requires a blend of all the engineering discipline
to make an effective plant and to continue effective opera-
tion.
This is the problem, Mr. Stein, how to retain
the talent we have, and how to assemble a new array of
talent.
You see, someone may say, "It's very simple.
You will hire consultants." But we have found we do employ
consultants. We are trying to optimize all our resources,
because again we must have top-flight project engineers
working with these consultants to ensure an effective
program.
The sad roster in New York City is this: The
former director, initiator of this giant program, Mr. Gould,
retired, and is actively working as a consultant. Mr.
-------
1039
M. Lang
O'Leary, his predecessor, retired. Mr. Steffensen, my
predecessor, retired now, is probably doing consultant work.
Bill Torpy, one of the most unique engineers we ever had in
the city, who gave us the impetus for many of these new
concepts, retired.
People don't know about it, but we have here in
the audience probably the most outstanding design engineer
in the country on these projects, and that is Lou Schwartz,
Chief of our Design Section, and Lou said this may be his
last year.
This is the shape of the future. This is the
problem. You need men. The dollars perhaps we can get,
but the men you need to execute this program.
So, therefore, in assembling your timetables,
I beg of you, you conferees, let the sweet light of reason
prevail (laughter).
Now, I think I have violated all the concepts
of what I was taught in the Army Field Manual of M-7 on how
to speak, where you say you give — what is it — explana-
tion, demonstration, application, instruction and critique,
and I guess I have failed along those lines.
But let me try to show you pictorially some of
the shape of the future in New York City.
I mentioned that we had a plant built ready to
-------
1040
M. Lang
go on stream. This is the Newtown Creek plant in
Brooklyn, with a capacity of 310 million gallons per day
to treat sewage from Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan. It
combines our best thoughts, and remember, we don't stamp
out these plants like cookies with a cookie cutter. Each
plant embodies in it our best knowledge and thinking and
experience gained from the preceding plants.
i
Mr. Cunetta, the Project Engineer who is here
today, embodied in this a unique concept. Because New York
City has a multiplicity of units, we have been able to
eliminate a lot of the cumbersome hydraulic structures and
have a continuous flow-through tank, a continuous flow-
through grit chamber, aeration and finally a sedimentation
tank.
Let me backtrack a little. Originally, our
plants were_des_lgned—only on those Class A waters as Tom
Glenn promulgated to provide seasonal chlorination. To
attune ourselves to the Federal thinking and to anticipate
even the requirements of this Ra-ritan Bay conference, there
is a change-order on the Newtown Creek plant and we have
embodied hyperchlorination facilities.
Remember, I mentioned that we have plants
which are now a generation old, like Ward's Island went
on stream in 1937. You know what happens in these plants.
-------
1041
M. Lang
They get old. They need rehabilitation, and maybe what
was good in the 1930's should be improved in the 1970's.
So again, we are upgrading, expanding and
incorporating new concepts in even existing plants.
This (Indicating) is the 26th Ward Plant.
Here is an existing plant.
Incidentally, you notice we are in the marine
business. It is a little known fact that our bureau operates
a fleet of four ocean-going sludge vessels.
This plant will incorporate the newest thinking,
only devised within the last ten years, of'combined sludge
•
thickening to reduce the volume of sludge, to combine the
latest techniques in high-rate digestion, and you see the
brand-new division here, a chlorine contact chamber, to
enhance the bacteriological kill.
Incidentally, Mr. Stein referred to the fact
that he was concerned that plants are built, but sometimes
do not realize their full potential. I have to account for
my stewardship of these plants to a lot of agencies. I
have to' account to the New York City Department of Health,
to the New York State Department of Health, to the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission, and now, of course, to the
Federal Government..
I think we have passed the test, because the
-------
1042
M. Lang
State now scrutinizes and exercises substantial surveillance
for any plant that wishes to avail Itself of their operation
and maintenance subsidy.
I am happy to report that all New York City
plants have been deemed eligible for that one-third subsidy.
Incidentally, to give you an idea of the order
of magnitude, the basic operating annual expense of these
plants, with no capital cost considered, is $14 million a
year.
This (indicating) is the Ward's Island plant.
This was the plant that was built in the 1930's, without
sludge digestion, the only plant in the metropolitan area
that is still taking raw sewage to sea, and now we are
incorporating all these techniques, full-step aeration,
separate sludge thickening, sludge digestion, hyperchlorina-
tion. There you see, Mr. Hennigan, the chlorine contact
chamber right there (indicating). This design is well under
way now.
Now, we spoke of ringing the potential bathing
beaches of the city with these auxiliary pollution control
plants.
Here (indicating) is the first prototype, the
Spring Creek plant, based at the head of a tidal inlet at
-------
1043
M. Lang
Jamaica Bay, designed to be esthetically compatible with
the community and to blend in parkland. Within this plant,
fully half the^-storms between May and October will be
impounded. The removal on those will be 100 percent,
because nothing will overflow. At the conclusion of the
storm, the underflow will be degritted, diluted and con-
veyed back to its mother plant, the 26th Ward plant, and
then, largely by gravity and the rest by pumping, the rest
will be conveyed after the storm to the plant for step
aeration treatment.
This is typical. I just cite this one. There
will be many such around the city, but this is the key,
because accompanied with the construction of this plant
will be an intensive study of the immediate micro-environment
of this plant to assess all the factors that are required to
make bathing beaches.
For the first time, we hope within the City
of New York to assemble a team of microbiologists, marine
biologists, to do a concerted approach, to study for the
first time the whole biota, the whole marine ecology of
these receiving waters.
Well, gentlemen, I think I have imposed on
your patience long enough. I just want to sum up by saying
one thing.
-------
M. Lang
New York City has a basic program. It has an
auxiliary program. It is going to follow the basic
program with a further attempt to upgrade existing plants.
The Immediate goal to be achieved by the early
1970's will be substantially 80 percent removal over all,
higher in some places, a little lower in other places, but
the city as an entity will achieve that removal. It will
then bind itself to continue to upgrade.
As far as the waters of the Raritan Bay study
area are concerned, we feel that the plans already committed
for Port Richmond and Oakwood Beach will meet our obliga-
tions to the Raritan Bay.
We look forward to the time when our neighbors
across the river will give substantially the same degree of
treatment, and at that time we can move into-a new era.
We are using these new sophisticated techniques
of mathematical modern studies, and one indication alone
shows that in the Hudson, within New York City, within our
own time, we may get the dissolved oxygen back to where it
was in the early days of the century.
Thank you for your patience.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Lang.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
-------
1045
M. Lang
MR. STEIN: Thank you for a very comprehensive
and articulate statement, Mr.. Lang.
You know, In dealing with these engineers for a
long time, I always wondered why a rough and tough group
like you are called civil engineers (laughter). Now that I
hear you use words like "pejorative" and you quote
Shakespeare correctly, maybe I will understand (laughter).
Also, you have cleared up a couple of items for
me. One thing you pointed out, you said a dedicated group
in the early 1930's acquired sites. I wish I had been
smart enough in the early 1930's, because I anr a New Yorker,
to have done the same thing. I don't think I would be
sitting here today.
Then, of course, I have always wondered how
New York continued to grow with your tremendous population
explosion, and you have given me the clew to that too in
talking about your elite group of designers and conceivers
(laughter).
Thank you.
-MR. HENNIGAN: The next speaker will be Mr.
David H. Wallace, who is Director of Marine Fisheries for
the New York State Conservation Department.
Mr. Wallace.
-------
1046
D. H. Wallace
STATEMENT OP DAVID H. WALLACE, CHIEF,
BUREAU OF MARINE FISHERIES, DIVISION
OF FISH AND GAME, NEW YORK STATE CON-
SERVATION DEPARTMENT, OAKDALE, NEW YORK
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
My name is David H. Wallace. I am Chief of the
Bureau of Marine Fisheries for the New York State Conserva-
tion Department.
The New York State Conservation Department has
a continuing strong and long interest in pollution control
in Raritan Bay and Lower Bay. Extensive fish and shellfish
resources exist there and wild waterfowl regularly use the
area. In the late 19th century, the center of New York's
oyster industry was located in Princess Bay, part of the
Raritan Bay, and was forced to vacate the area as pollution
increased.
Before going into a discussion of the fish and
shellfish resources in Raritan Bay, however, I would like
to touch upon Item 10 in the recommendations of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for Raritan
Bay.
-------
1047
D. H. Wallace
This item deals with the shipping channels,
or a relocation of the shipping channels in the Raritan Bay
and the selection of areas for dredging.
As I am sure everyone here knows, the resources
of Raritan Bay in New York waters, including the mineral
resources, are the property of the State of New York. The
conservation and development of these renewable and non-
renewable resources are primarily the responsibility of the
Conservation Department, although other State agencies have
varying interest in these resources. In 1965, the Legislature
of New York passed a law called the Stream Protection Act.
This Act became effective January 1, 1966, and designated
the State Water Resources Commission to administer the law.
One of the primary purposes of the law is to regulate and
control the physical changes in the aquatic environment,
including dredging for fill materials, filling of wetlands,
bulkheading and docks. The waters and wetlands in Raritan
'Bay come under the provisions of the law, and my office has
been designated 'the local permit agent.
The staff members of the State agencies compris-
ing the Commission within the past year have developed a
tentative plan designed to protect the fish and wildlife
resources of Raritan Bay and Lower Bay while providing for
utilization of the extensive non-renewable mineral resources
-------
1048
D. H. Wallace
which exist in the area.
I am presenting here, Mr. Chairman, a map which
delineates these various classifications in terms of use
of this area which I will submit to the conferees.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, this will appear
with your statement in the record.
MR. WALLACE: The map delineates that part of
t
the Bay set aside for dredging of fill materials. The
map indicates other areas where dredging is undesirable be-
cause of high fish, shellfish or wildlife values, or where
dredging might result in increased shore erosion or beach
damage. The plan depicted takes into consideration the
pollution problems in Lower Bay and Raritan Bay.
Dredging of a straight ship channel across
Raritan Bay has been projected to improve water circulation
and exchange and, at the same time, to facilitate ship
access to industrial sites in Arthur Kill and the Raritan
River. It seems to me that this is in line with the recom-
mendations in the report of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration. As an additional conservation
measure, firms granted permits to dredge in a designated
preferred dredging area will be required to remove existing
shellfish before their mining operation can begin. The
permittee will also be required to tie into existing
-------
1049
D. H. Wallace
channels of comparable depths.to eliminate deep holes In
which pollution conditions might be aggravated.
This Initial plan will undoubtedly be modified
as further studies and experience provide additional informa-
tion on the extent and'potential .of.the total resources and
the needs of the State in utilizing these resources. How-
ever, the significance of this original effort cannot be
overemphasized. The State of New York has started to plan
for the compatible use and development of the renewable and
non-renewable resources of Raritan Bay and Lower Bay.
The State plan shown in this exhibit prohibits
dredging westerly of Great Kills Boat Channel to prevent the
destruction of the extensive beds of shellfish which exist
there. The conferees, and all of you, are aware of the
large populations of clams which exist. Studies have shown
that millions of bushels of clams are present in Raritan
Bay in both New York and New Jersey waters. We estimate
the total market value of these shellfish at this moment is
about $40,000,000. While these shellfish represent a
tremendous potential asset, they can only be considered a
highly dangerous public hazard now because of the contaminated
condition of the waters of the bay.
All of the waters of Raritan Bay within the
boundaries of the State of.New York are restricted currently
-------
1050
D. H. Wallace
for the harvesting of shellfish, and will remain closed
until such time as they meet the criteria of the Federal-
State-industry cooperative shellfish program, Irrespective
of the classification. Mr. Van Derwerker pointed out this
program yesterday.
In 1961 the "SA" waters shown (Exhibit B) were
closed to shellfish harvesting by this agency because of
the questionable quality of the overlaying waters. This
preventive action, taken in the interest of public health,
forced hundreds of people to seek other employment and
resulted in an economic loss of $500,000 annually. With
the increased value of hard clams since 1961, the annual
loss for New York at current prices would be closer to
$1,000,000, and here I am speaking specifically of the
area classified as "SA" waters" — not those that exist in
the "SB" classification.
Steps 1-9 recommended in the summary of the
report of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
to this conference to abate and control pollution presumably
are designed, if carried out as scheduled, to improve the
water quality by 1970 in the area "SA" by State water
classification up to the level necessary for the direct
harvesting of shellfish, although the language in the
Summary in Item 12 leaves doubt about this concept.
-------
1051
WATER • RESOURCES • COMMIS
ASSIFICATIONS • OF • PRIMAL WATERS
MAP 3
LEGEND
Class SA
Class
SB
VTA Class
Vm\ Class
-------
1052
D. H. Wallace.
If this water level quality is not accomplished it would be
Impossible to utilize these shellfish directly from the area
and the only possible way for the development of these shell-
fish resources would be by using purification techniques
that were again mentioned yesterday by Mr. Van Derwerker.
It is also assumed that the recommendations
would not upgrade the remaining waters classified as "SB,"
or, in other words, shellfish still would be utilized
directly from such waters. Populations of shellfish existing
in the "SB" area in New York waters are extensive — in the
millions of bushels. In fact, it is probable that 75 percent
of the shellfish in Raritan Bay in the State of New York
waters are in the "SB" group rather than in the "SA" group.
I am emphasizing this because this is of grave importance
to us.
These contaminated shellfish, while representing
a future valuable resource, pose a serious problem to the
State and the entire shellfish industry. Massive depletion
of these grossly polluted beds through extensive trans-
planting to pure waters where natural cleansing can take
place seems at present the only course open for rational
management.
-------
1052-b
D. H. Wallace
New York initiated such a program in 1966 in
Jamaica Bay, which Mr. Lang was talking about Just a
little while ago, in close cooperation and coordination
with authorities of New York City with notable success.
A comparable program should be activated by both New York
and New Jersey for the waters of Reritan Bay. Poaching of
shellfish from these waters is a continuing health threat.
A rigid, coordinated enforcement program between New York
and New Jersey to prevent such poaching is essential to
minimize the public health hazards. It is suggested that
the conference assist in bringing this about, and devise
plans for helping in the financing in carrying out such
programs.
Since one of the original reasons for the
Federal action on Raritan Bay in 1961 was the public
health threat from shellfish from polluted waters, it
seems appropriate for the conferees to explore with the
States involved the techniques which would reduce such
hazards while the pollution abatement steps are being
accomplished.
Pish and wild waterfowl, in contrast to sedentary
animals such as clams, have the ability to move from con-
taminated waters. In many instances the damage from
-------
1053
D. H. Wallace
pollution to such organisms is not so directly apparent.
However, deterioration of the marine environment, even in
such a limited area as Raritan Bay, reduces the capability
of fish to maintain themselves at a high level of abundance.
The shad, herring and menhaden fishery with fixed gears has
disappeared from these waters. In 1966 and 1967, not a single
application for licenses of this type was received by our
department.
The recreational fishery in the Lower Bay area
has also suffered a serious decline in the last three or
four years. This party and charter boat fishery in Lower
Bay and Raritan Bay has been meeting the recreational needs
of hundreds of thousands of people for many years. Environ-
mental deterioration is undoubtedly part of the cause of the
drop in abundance of fish. Sport fishing is one way to meet
the need of part of our urban population for outdoor
recreation in close proximity to the place in which they
live. We must keep this need in mind as a major benefit in
our efforts to restore our estuarine environment.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: This was an excellent statement
indeed.
-------
1054
D. H. Wallace
You know, I would like to take this opportunity
to point out what I think is a possible alternative to our
manpower shortage, to which you referred, Mr. Lang.
I knew Mr. Wallace, as we all have who have
worked in this field for many years, when he was down in
Maryland. As far as I can see, he is one of the outstanding
marine and aquatic biologists in the country. We have a
few on our staff too, but they are rather scarce and we
did not think it necessary to bring one up here for the
conference.
The point is: I think what Mr. Wallace,
working for the State, says, is good enough for us, and we
accept his analysis. Part of what we are going to have to
do in the future with this personnel — and this is up to
the bureaucrats like us -- is forget some of the Federal,
State and local conceptualism. If we have a joint problem
and one of us has one of these experts on the staff, we
must utilize him as if it were an integrated staff.
I know we are trying to do that more and more
with the States. I don't see that there is any other
way out, because there really are not enough people to go
around.
MR. LANG: This was precisely the proposal that
we made to Dr. Weinberger of your agency last February,
that, if necessary, he actually detail people from the Federal
-------
1055
D. H. Wallace
agency to work jointly with us on this project; but, again,
everybody gets a little defensive.
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know that this is the
place to discuss this.
Again, when you deal with a word like "detail,"
then you talk in terms of this administrative conceptuallsm
and we get these blocks. This is what we have to avoid.
But I think if we can accept that, that is precisely where
the problem comes up.
In a case like this, speaking for us, we
couldn't improve and would not presume to improve, after
knowing Dave's work through the years, on his analysis of
the shellfish question. If they made an analysis in New
York with a man of Mr. Wallace's caliber, we would proceed
on that.
Thank you very much.
Are there any further participants?
DR. KANDLE: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Dr. Handle?
DR. KANDIE: Mr. Chairman, we would like to hear
from Mr. Frederick Richardson, who is a former mayor of
New Brunswick, and .a lifetime worker for the cause of clean
waters.
-------
1056
F. F. Richardson
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK F. RICHARDSON,
FORMER MAYOR, NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY
MR. RICHARDSON: Dr. Kandle and Members at
the speaker's table, and Conferees:
My name is Frederick F. Richardson. I live in
the City of New Brunswick and niy interest in water problems
is mainly in the Raritan River, because some 30 years ago,
when I was Mayor of the City of New Brunswick, we entered into
a three-way agreement with the State Board of Health, with
municipalities of our county, Middlesex County, and the
industries, that if the municipalities would build their
sanitation plants at that time, the State Board of Health
assured us that after we had done our duty they would enforce
a similar responsibility upon all the industrial plants
fronting on the river. That was in 1935.
I am here today because, although I have been
out of office since 19^3, having served eight years, I gave
my pledge and my word to the people of the community, not
only in New Brunswick, but for the entire county, through
the Mayors' Association, which I headed at that time, this
pledge to them that involved something like $500,000 of
their money, that this pledge would be kept so far as
-------
1057
F. F. Richardson
industry was concerned.
They went forward on my assurance, and after a
spell of these retired years from municipal service, I feel
a responsibility to at least try to emphasize that I am
still cognizant and appreciative of the responsibilities
then assumed.
But over and beyond that, you here today
are interested as vitally as we are in seeing that the
Raritan River is cleaned up.
The State Board of Health took charge some 35
or 40 years ago, and the conditions in the Raritan River, I
am sorry to say, are just about as bad today as it was then.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is a long period
of time. To appreciate that, all you have to do is look at
me. (Laughter.) In 1935 I was a promising young man. Well,
I am still promising, but no longer young. (Laughter.)
I am not here to criticize, because in a problem
of this magnitude, criticism comes very readily and is very
simple. It is a tremendous job that you are undertaking,
and we are all, I think, mutually encouraged to be stimulated
by the conferees here and their dedicated spirit, to appreci-
ate the sacrifice that they make.
Before I get into the Raritan River situation,
I want to make a suggestion here that is apropos of the last
-------
1058
P. P. Richardson
subject that was talked about, namely, the lack of personnel.
Now, In New Jersey, as in many States, we have
a clean air problem, which is a handmaiden of clean water,
and at Rutgers College very recently, within the last week
or two, there have been plans evolved for classes in clean
water students.
Now, that will not take care of our immediate
problem, but for a long range Rutgers is establishing these
courses that in the future will produce, in the men of
tomorrow, the people who will solve these great problems that
we are trying to solve today, and I bespeak your attention
to that fact. They have not yet established a clean water
class, but they will, I am sure. It will go with clean air.
Clean air has priority, because over in our
State, as apathetic as the public has been, as indifferent
as they are to many public menaces and hazards, they found
very recently that they almost suffocated from smog, so they
are more interested in clean air; but they are still
interested in clean water.
Now, we do not have a problem that is earth-
shaking in the Raritan River. Our principal problem — we
have a County Sewerage Commission that has jurisdiction in
Middlesex County — but our principal problem is regional,
because just outside of our jurisdiction in Somerset County,
-------
1059
P. P. Richardson
the Middlesex County Sewerage Commission has no authority —
at least, they say they don't have it. I think they do.
I think as a lower riparian owner and interested in the
quality of water, that any upper stream polluter is answer-
able to him, but, at any rate, I am not saying that my law
is the correct law. I am saying that is what I think it is.
The law problem down there, however, has a
curious twist. We have a plant known as the Philip Carey
plant — and this will be interesting to you people because
you will eventually head into the courts the way we have
been heading into the courts.
Now, this plant, the Philip Carey plant, has been
under orders to cease and desist for five years, and within
the last two weeks, the Chancery Court refused an injunction
to compel them to make these repairs, or to shut. up.
Now, this was the second or third occasion that
the State department brought this Philip Carey plant into
court, and while we can appreciate that the closing of a
plant is a hardship, and we do not want those sorts of
solutions, nevertheless, for some people "that is the only
solution that is going to be, I think, salutary.
\
Now, why I mention that is this, and it is a
very curious trend of legal reasoning: The court seemed to
think that because the river was still polluted, that the
-------
1060
F. F. Richardson
Philip Carey factory did not have to be shut down, because
they said, "The river is already polluted, and so this plant
might just as well go along with the rest of them and enjoy
themselves."
That is a stalemate that we are reaching in a
polluted area such as we have in Middlesex County through
the Raritan River. If a plant is exonerated and immune
from complying with the law because the water is already
polluted, where are we going? We are going nowhere.
Now, most of our difficulty has originated with
the American Cyanamid Calco Chemical plant at Bound Brook.
Thirty-five years ago, to this very summer, I
stood in Trenton before the. State Board of Health, and the
Calco Company was there, and they promised at that time to
put in pilot plants and correct the pollution, and they have
not corrected it up to this day. I don't know whether it is
because they can't correct it. I am inclined to think that
is the answer, but if they can't correct it, there are other
solutions. They can use pipelines to trunk it somewhere
else. They can use; the Middlesex Commission pipelines.
That was what I suggested when Governor Drlscoll
was governor of pur State, and I was very friendly with him.
I suggested to him that as long as the upper reaches of this
river were polluted and came down through our City of New
-------
1061
P. P. Richardson
Brunswick, that we would never clean up that river, and we
never will until the upper reaches of that river are taken
care of.
With all the respect that I can bring — and I
have great confidence in Dr. Kandle — I am frank to say
that 1 see now some glimmering of light, some improvement
in many respects. There are some things that I think are
wrong about enforcement in New Jersey. I think Dr. Kandle
inherited this problem. He did not create it. He inherited
it, and he is doing the best he can with a force that isn't
giving him very much help.
Now, we have created a classification of waters,
and Just north of this great polluter, the Calco Chemical
Plant, they have given it a classification-of PW3, which is
a pollution classification.
That area is on a direct line from the two new
State reservoirs that have been created to create fresh
water — an additional volume of water for the Raritan River
— and why the State Board can classify an area PW3 as a
pollution area on a stream which was Intended by the expendi-
ture recently of millions of dollars to create this fresh
water and make it available as potable water at Bound Brook,
1 don't know.
-------
1062
P. P. Richardson
We not only object to that classification, but
we object to the classification from New Brunswick on down
to the Raritan Bay, and when I say "we object," I say it
for this reason: New Brunswick has water rights in that
river for potable water. It paid $300,000 for those rights,
and those rights are being injured and damaged and prevented
from being exercised today because of this pollution.
Now, who are these polluters? Let me ask you:
Do they own the waters?
The waters of this State belong to the public.
These people are trespassers. They are impinging upon the
sovereignty of the public rights when they use these places
as cesspools and drainage areas.
They should appreciate that. They have no
inherent rights, and we have been very tolerant and lenient
in applying sanctions against them, but time has run out. It
has run out on the State Board of Health in the State of
New Jersey for any further temporizing. It has run out, so
far as the City of New Brunswick is concerned, because we
need that water. We are short of water and we need it.
You know where we get it? Prom a canal that
comes from the Delaware River and runs parallel to the
Raritan River. We can't touch the Raritan River, but we
-------
1063
F. P. Richardson
have got to pay, and pay through the nose, for this canal
water — a most ridiculous, unsound, uneconomical, burden-
some, foolish idea, because we don't want an industry to
move.
Well, let me say this: If they want to move
today, there is no place to move to, and they know it, so
that that threat that they hang over our heads doesn't make
too much sense.
What I would like to emphasize here as my reason
for being here too is that all of us should be cognizant of
the fact that on our clean water, the success of our campaign
depends against industry and even against municipalities
upon the understanding that the public is entitled to a
reasonable use of this water.
Now, in New Jersey, as I indicate, there are
cases that hold that even the State Board of Health cannot
give a license on a river for a plant if the results of that.
license pollute the water to an extent that it is an
unreasonable user, so that we will be in the courts over
there eventually again, and maybe very shortly; but when we
do we are suggesting or are going to suggest to the State
Board of Health that instead of being turned down, as they
were a couple of weeks ago by one of the Judges in my own
county on an injunction proceeding based upon the fact that
-------
1064
P. P. Richardson
they were polluting the water, if the State Board of Health
would change their tactics and come in on the unreasonable
use of the water, on the potential damage it is doing to
the lower stream user — for example, the damage it is doing
to the City of New Brunswick.
We have 40,000 people. We are selling water
that we get from the canal to some of our adjacent communi-
ties that are less fortunately'situated than we are. We
are trying to help what I call the hub of the water wheel in
central New Jersey.
Now, we want our results to manifest themselves
creditably and in cooperation with the waters of New York
Bay, with the Kill Van Kull, and as these waters, meet and
merge, the chain is weakest maybe where the link is frailest.
There is no use of people in New York here talking
about billions of dollars of expenditure if New Brunswick
and the Middlesex County and New Jersey continue to let
this polluted condition exist.in the Raritan River. We are
all In that kind of. a boat where we must cooperate, and I
think we will wind up cooperating; but sometimes it is a
very difficult and harrowing experience.
I was here a year ago when Senator Kennedy was
here, and Senator Kennedy at that time said that he thought
that the difficulty in New York and New Jersey and elsewhere
-------
1065
P. P. Richardson
was one of enforcement, and was blaraable, as he saw It,
upon the local and the State Board of Health being a little
bit on the apathetic side.
Well, now the problem is very visual. Everybody
who runs can read. The public is more interested. I know
down our way we have many water groups that are seriously
interested, holding their meetings, putting out information,
and all this is not their business. All this is at their
own time, and the progress sometimes is disappointingly
slow.
But I am sure that by the persistence, by the
necessity of the occasion itself, the urgency, why, we will
get somewhere, and if we do, we can congratulate ourselves
that the great inarticulate helpless public that depends upon
us will have some source of satisfaction in understanding
that there are people yet who are working, so that the public
rights may be protected.
Through the State officials and with the kind
help of the Federal officials, which I think is a grand move
in the right direction, we are bringing to public attention
these things that the public wrath, if it has to be exer-
cised, may be in the offing.
We don't want to suggest take-overs. We want
these things to work out. normally. I have never sued anybody
-------
1066
P. P. Richardson
to compel compliance. I have never even sued a private client.
I am a very peacefully dlsposltloned fellow that tries to
get along, but, after all, I haven't another thirty years
to fool around. So I do bespeak the cooperation of
everybody In solving not only New York City's problem, but
these other problems.
When we were here before about a year ago, we
were discussing the Hudson River problem, which is very
similar to the Raritan River, but over our way we have spent
millions of dollars creating new reservoirs. We have put
90 million gallons per day more water in the Raritan River.
We are going to sell potable waters to the public that wants
to buy them at a reasonable price. All this New Jersey has
done.
We still have more to do, and I don't want anybody
to think that here today New Jersey is at odds. I will
support Dr. Handle in his efforts with every ounce of
strength, with every thought that I can bring to bear, and
anything that the public can do stimulated by me in my area,
they will have the full approval.
But we want results. We are crying out loud
now, "Let us have action. Let us have an end to the excuses.
Procrastination is a past and a dirty word. Let us go forward
-------
1067
P. P. Richardson
together and really accomplish these things."
I would be glad to answer any questions.
(Applause.)
(The following statement was submitted by
Mr. Richardson for the record:
PAPER PRESENTED BY FORMER MAYOR
FREDERICK F. RICHARDSON, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J.,
ON RARITAN RIVER POLLUTION (JUNE 1^/196?)
(Dept. of Interior
U. S. Gov't hearing,
New York City)
I have represented the City of New Brunswick for
a number of years, in connection with its water problems, and
in that capacity have obtained considerable knowledge of the
water situation relating to the Raritan River and its
pollution.
As City Commissioner and Mayor of New Brunswick
(1935-1943), I constructed the City's Sanitation Plant, now
a part of the Middlesex County Sewerage System, and when this
plant was built 1935-1936, the Mayors' Association of
Middlesex County was assured by the State Board of Health,
-------
1068
P. P. Richardson
that as soon as municipal plants were built in our area,
that the industrial plants on the river would be made to
similarly comply with their treatment processes, so that
the River could be effectively cleansed of pdllution. At
that time, the late Dr. King represented, before the State
Board of Health, Calco Chemical Co. (Bound Brook), one of the
worst polluters of the River, and through him, this plant
promised the State Board in 1936 or thereabouts, that Calco
would put in pilot plants and install new processes to stop
pollution. All this was a part of a three-way public under-
standing, appearing in the public press at the time, which
included the State Board of Health (then beginning its crack-
down on municipalities 1935); the municipalities affected
(some 8 or 10 at the time); and,the offending big industries
like Johnson & Johnson, Calco Chemical, Johns-Manville, etc.
This three-way public understanding in 1935 had to be binding
on all three parties, otherwise compliance by one and non-
compliance by the others would nullify the great costs
involved. Compliance orders went out to the big industries
thirty years ago and. although the municipalities built their
plants, spent huge sums of money and were made to comply with
State Board of Health specifications for River pollution,
the enforcement against industry along the River has really
never gotten off the ground.
-------
1069
P. P. Richardson
When the Middlesex Grand Jury investigated the
State Board of Health's enforcement of industrial pollution
in the Raritan River some 20 years ago, the State Board's
Engineer, Mr. Shaw, promised salutory action by the State
Board, once the Middlesex County Sewerage Commission began
functioning and promised If this Commission did not clean
up the River, the State Board of Health would act summarily
against the industries polluting the River, especially Calco
Chemical Co. at Bound Brook, which continued the big offender,
This is all a matter of public record and can easily be
verified.
The County Sewerage Commission has now been in
operation over 15 years and this Commission now blames the
present pollution condition of the River, principally on
the fact, that Calco and some other Somerset County
offenders, are outside of their Jurisdiction. They are
apparently rejecting the legal thesis that a reasonable user
by upper riparian owners is required and accepting the idea
that injuries by lower riparian owners must remain without
legal recourse. I, of course, disagree radically with this
interpretation of the law and the duties of the Commission.
I call attention to the New Jersey case of Westville vs.
Whitney Homes, on the doctrine of reasonable user (N* J.
Super 1956, 40 N. J. Super 62; 122 A(2) 233). Other
-------
1070
P. P. Richardson
applicable cases Involving the enforcement powers of the
State Board of Health and the Sewerage Commission may be
found In the cases cited In the Westvllle case (supra), but
the law Is very plain that not even the State Board of Health
can give Immunity to pollution, where its effect constitutes
an unreasonable use of the river water. I contend that the
present pollution of the Rarltan River constitutes Just such
an unreasonable use and that no further time orders by the
State Board of Health are. acceptable. After all, some of these
orders, like Calco's, run back to 1935-1936, not the dates set
forth in the Just Issued Summary Report by the U. S. Dept.
of Interior (May 196? - pg. 19).
If the Federal Government continues to allow
plants like Calco to continue to pollute the River, citizens
will be obliged to resort to Chancery action at their own
expense, plus whatever municipal help may be available, and
time has already run out on plants like Calco, which still
continues one of the largest sources of River pollution in
the upper part of the stream.
In this connection, we call the Dept. of
Interior's attention to the great disparity in the compliance
between what New York City shows (pg. 21) as against what
New Jersey Dept. of Health shows (pg. 19) on this afore-
mentioned Summary Report, and ask the Dept. to draw its own
-------
1071
P. P. Richardson
conclusion. The Philip Carey case (pg. 19) within the last
two weeks was "held over" by Judge Furman, of the N. J.
Chancery Court (Middlesex Cty.) for later action, but It
will be seen that this offender has been on the "cease and
desist" orders since Dec. 1, 1961, which is nearly six long
years without any action that is meaningful. Some offenders
have had orders to stop pollution as far back as 1962, some
six offenders since 1963, and two in 1964, and as I have
said, one (Calco) since 1935. I need not emphasize that
cease and desist orders which are not enforced, make a
mockery of genuine enforcement and cause a loss of public
confidence in the agency responsible. There is a present
loss of confidence in this agency that is thoroughly Justi-
fied. Secondly, there is dissatisfaction with the present
classification of the River by the State Board of Health.
The area north of Bound Brook (PW3) is one that should be
classified as public potable water. Below Bound Brook
(fieldville Dam) TW classifications are totally out of line
because not only has the City of New Brunswick rights in
the River, to use it as potable public supply, but the
building of the two new State reservoirs was Intended to
permit this use of the River to and below New Brunswick, as
a means of easing water shortage. New Brunswick, with all
this water running past its doorstep going to waste, is
-------
1072
F. P. Richardson
forced to buy water as are some other communities and private
water companies, from the adjacent canal supplies, a most
ridiculous and unsound and burdensome arrangement. All
this can be and is chargeable to the continued pollution
of the Raritan River, mostly due to industrial pollution.
With booming growth in the Raritan Valley, with a dire
shortage of water, to continue the pollution of the River
will be a short-sighted, almost criminal offense against
the rising generation. We certainly can and should avail
ourselves of this great water potential in a far more
meaningful way than we are now doing. Federal cooperation,
yes, leadership and enforcement, may be the answer.
I am sure that the arguments advanced by
industries have by now been properly evaluated. When
contrasted to public health and public welfare, the cost
argument has no weight. In any event, these waters like
the Raritan River, belong to the public. They are not in any
sense the property of these industrial companies, except as
usurpers and trespassers. The argument that certain wastes
cannot be treated is likewise without weight because if it
cannot be treated, they can be run off into a pipeline and
disposed of elsewhere than in the River. Time, as I have
said, about enforcement has likewise run out on these
excuses.
-------
1073-74
P. F. Richardson
The public is demanding proper enforcement
of the pollution laws of this State and of the Federal
Government. The public, in my area, is sick and tired of
time-consuming excuses and delays. We have arrived at the
high noon of this problem and we ask Federal help — Federal
enforcement — Federal take-over, if necessary, to get these
results. Most of our large daily papers are clamoring for
action. Many organizations are pressing for results. But
most of all the helpless, the inarticulate, the taxpaying
public cries aloud for relief and asks again and again,
"Oh, Lord, how long - Oh, Lord.")
# * »
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions or comments?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
DR. KANDLE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: We have two more speakers listed.
In order to plan the meeting, I wonder if we could possibly
call on them now-. We do not want to cut anyone off. The
question is whether we recess for lunch or do this first.
Mr. Johnson, could you give us an idea of how
long your statement will be?
-------
1075
MR. JOHNSON: Very brief. Actually, I would
take about ten minutes or less, if you want to do it before
lunch.
MR. STEIN: Let's try this before lunch then.
MR. HENNIGAN: The next New York speaker will
be Mr. Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Assistant Commissioner,
Environmental Health Services of the New York City Department
of Health.
STATEMENT OP CHARLES C. JOHNSON, JR.,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, Distinguished
Conferees and Associates that are here to discuss the
pollution problems of the Raritan Bay and adjacent inter-
state waters:
I wish to make a brief statement relative
to the policies of the New York City Health Department with
relation to this conference and to the water pollution
program in New York City.
Chapter 22, Section 556 of the New York City
Charter, states in part, and I quote:
-------
1076
C. C. Johnson, Jr.
a) "The Health Department shall have juris-
diction to regulate all matters affecting the
Health of the City.
b) "The authority, duties and powers shall
extend over the City and over the waters adjacent
thereto, within the jurisdiction of the City."
It should also be pointed out that in Article
145, Water Pollution Control, of the New York City Health
Code, the Health Department has been given the responsibility
to pass on plans for proposed pollution control facilities.
The Department of Health is concerned with pollution control
from the broad viewpoint of health. It is the aim of this
Article to give the Department authority to control sources
of pollution and to cooperate with other government agencies
in the development of pollution abatement programs in addi-
tion to meeting the,necessary requirement of sound sanitary
engineering. This section of the Health Code also gives to
us a prime responsibility in implementing pollution abatement
programs and evaluating the proper operation and maintenance
of pollution control facilities.
In view of these authorities, I was surprised and
chagrined to learn that the City Health Department was not
officially notified of this conference and learned of its
existence only through the news media. I hope that we can
-------
1077
C. C. Johnson, Jr.
now be placed on your official mailing list for proper
notification of all future conferences of this type.
Let me now speak about the Conference Report:
With reference to the status of the various
abatement programs of the industrial waste discharges into
the Raritan Bay area, the policy of the City Health Depart-
ment has been to limit the number of discharges into its
water and to promote, whenever possible, industries to tie
into the municipal sewer system. This policy has had some
deterrent effect on the elimination of some industries'
pollutional load because of the current schedule in the city
for the construction of sewers and sewerage treatment plant
facilities. Three polluters, Mt. Loretto Home, St. Joseph
By The Sea and Richmond Memorial Hospital, have complied
with issued orders. The conference report cites the following
industrial plants, Nassau Smelting & Refining Co., Inc.,
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., and S. S. White Co.
These industrial plants will connect to city sewers as soon
as they are built.
I understand that you heard from our representa-
tive of our Department of Public Works, and he gave you a
schedule as to what New York City is doing in order to
complete its sewerage system to comply with the orders of
this conference.
-------
1078
C. C. Johnson, Jr.
We are pleased to report that our engineering
staff assigned to water pollution control has been increased
and we are in an even better position to cooperate with all
agencies, as we have in the past, to promote the rapid con-
struction of the sewerage system within New York City, in order
to protect the public health and the common good.
Progress in the city's abatement program has been
made possible through the cooperation of Federal, interstate,
State and city agencies.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Again, we talk about personnel, and here, Mr.
Johnson and I have been old colleagues. I understand
he has been detailed to New York.
Speaking for myself and my experience with him
through the years, you can't do better. He is one of the
really top professionals in this business.
Dr. Kandle?
DR. KANDLE: We will now hear from New Jersey's
last speaker, Mrs. Yuhasz from the Morgan Bayview Association.
-------
1079
V. Yuhasz
STATEMENT OP MRS. VIRGINIA YUHASZ,
RECORDING SECRETARY, MORGAN AND BAYVIEW'
MANOR IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, MORGAN,
NEW JERSEY
MRS. YUHASZ: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
My name is Virginia Yuhasz. I am recording
secretary of the Morgan and Bayview Manor Improvement
Association, Morgan, Borough of Sayreville, New Jersey. I
am here today to speak on behalf of my organization.
Some of you may know that Morgan used to be a
small resort area just south of Perth Amboy on the Raritan
Bay, known for many years for its clamming and fishing and
bathing, boating, etc. I can even remember as a child being
called a "clam digger." I took offense at that time, but
since things have developed, I think I would like to be
called it again (laughter).
Then the waters of the Raritan became so con-
taminated and polluted that we could no longer swim, fish
or clam.
I believe that is the reason we are all here
today, to see to it that the Raritan Bay and the surrounding
-------
1080
V. Yuhasz
waterways are Teturned to their former condition and that
people will once again be able to enjoy the pleasures they
had so many years ago. We Morganites h.ope to possibly return
our community to a small resort status.
Some may say this is only a dream, but I am told
that if the present Federal Water Pollution Control Plan
is carried out and no additional pollution or effluent is
added, that this dream could become a reality by 1971 or
1972.
However, there appears to be a threat to this
dream, a fly in the ointment. Nine years ago, when the
Borough of Sayreville purchased 66 acres of land fill on
the Raritan Bay in Morgan, or, to quote the Mayor of
Sayreville, one of the finest bayfront park and recreation
sites, we believed we would have a beautiful marine park.
Today, this area is being offered as a site for one of the
dirtiest, filthiest, unhealthiest industries known to man,
the aluminum reduction industry.
Not only does this industry have the reputation
of being injurious to human health, animals and vegetation,
it will utilize a minimum of 12 million gallons of water per
day.
I do not have to tell you that water is at a
premium in New York and New Jersey, and especially in
-------
1081
V. Yuhasz
Middlesex County. Why, as recently as yesterday, there were
250 persons in the Borough of Sayreville without water,
drinking water or sanitary water. They had been without
water for seven days.
Shall we sacrifice everything? It is time
that industries and municipalities as well realize that they
have a moral obligation to ,the people.
Industry takes advantage of our natural
resources, such as water, easy access by boat or rail or
dock, and in return they give us employment and lowered
taxes, but I ask you: Is that enough? Is it enough? I say
no, it is not.
They are destroying the very thing that enticed
them to our area. They canno.t go on polluting the water and
the air as freely as they have in the past. Even farmers
had to learn crop rotation, and so industries must learn that
they have to give back what they have taken.
.It is time for our municipal officials also to
realize that they must screen each new industry carefully
before allowing a potential pollution threat to locate in
our area.
Determining the amount of the pollution is a
very important job of the Federal Water Pollution Agency.
It-is to them that we take our hats off today. It has been
-------
1082
V. Yuhasz
a very long and tedious task, but it has not gone unnoticed
or unappreciated.
This is only the beginning of a new and wonder-
ful dream, clean water for everyone. Keep up the excellent
work for the sake of all mankind.
Hats off also to Dr. Kandle and Richard Sullivan
of the New Jersey Department of Health, whose recent efforts
in pollution abatement are most appreciated. Though the
New Jersey Department of Health had seemed lax in the past,
they have come to the forefront recently, and we hope they
will stay there to the ultimate good of the citizenry of
New Jersey and New York as well.
On behalf of my organization, in closing I would
like to say we not only ask that our land fill be utilized
for recreation; we demand that it be used for such.
Let it be known from Governor Hughes' office
in Trenton to Governor Rockefeller's offi'ce in Albany that
we will fight to protect our rights, as well as the rights
of all creatures — fowl, fish, game and wildlife — that
abide on the land and in the waters that are ours. This
shall be our testament of love to future generations.
Thank you, Dr. Kandle.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments?
-------
1083
J. R. Pfafflin
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Are there any other speakers?
MR. PPAPPLIN: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Do you have anything to say?
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. PFAFFLIN, REPRESENTING
THE RARITAN ANTI-POLLUTION ASSOCIATION
MR. PFAFFLIN: My name is James Pfafflin. I am
Chairman of the Raritan Anti-Pollution Association and, by
training, a sanitary engineer.
Last night I was the recipient of several phone
calls asking that I present a statement today on behalf of
our association concerning one specific problem which is
bothering us considerably within the bay area. That is the
problem of oil pollution, which has not been discussed in
great depth or detail, unfortunately, at the conference.
We have since 1961 been the victim, I should
think, on an average of once a week, of either quite serious
or rather mild oil spills. We are of the opinion that these
"accidental" spills come from a quite specific area on the
Arthur Kill.
We wish to call the attention of this conference
to our opinion that there can be no durable solution to
-------
1084
J. R. Pfafflin
Raritan Bay pollution as long as we are blessed with this
specific industrial waste. If one segment of New Jersey's
industry is above the law and the political situation in
New Jersey indicates that this is the case, we submit there
can be no lasting solution to the pollution problem.
I thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, the conferees are very
mindful of that problem.
MR. PPAFPLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: I believe we are going to solve that
We have had problems like that with concentra-
tions of similar degrees around Chicago, and we solved it
there. I think we know how to do it, and when the program
gets under way of the clean-up of the waters that you men-
tioned, that certainly will be one of the things we will
take care of.
MR. PPAPPLIN: I may say, Mr. Stein, we have
the utmost confidence in all the agencies concerned.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
With that, let me try to give you the schedule,
and I hope I am not being too optimistic, so that we will
know what we are doing. I hope to meet the schedule.
-------
1085
We will recess now and the conferees will recon-
vene very shortly after they have a chance to wash, and eat
in the Regency Room, which is on the fourth floor. Then
we hopefully will be able to'reconvene here at three o'clock
and have a statement for issuance.
With that, I think we had better get started,
and we stand recessed until three o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:00 o'clock noon, a recess was
taken.)
-------
1086
AFTERNOON SESSION
(3:^0 p.m.)
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
We have one additional statement for the record
from Captain Brian A. McAllister of McAllister Brothers,
Inc. I think they run a barge and tugboat firm.
As a matter of fact, he was here today and I
told him we were on the Battery a day or two ago and I saw
a boat called The Brian McAllister in. red and gold, and he
said, "Yes, that boat is named after me."
But, you know, after us they name sewage treat-
•
ment plants (laughter).
You think that's funny.
Do you know, one of the grand old men of our
business — I see Hayes Black, who, when you talk about
experts, is the top industrial waste consultant, in my
opinion, in the business. Why don't you stand up, Hayes,
and let them see you?
Hayes Black has worked with us for years. Hayes
knows this .fellow, and he worked at Michigan, and his name
was Milton P. Adams.
For, oh, since the beginning of time, as far as
I knew, he was the head of the Michigan Water Pollution
Control Agency. Finally we got our bill through after the
-------
108?
1948 one, when we really got some money, in 1955, and he
was really active in the bill, in getting the legislation
through.
Then, when we had the first grant under the
program, one of the first ones was in Michigan.
I said, "Milt, with all the work you have done
for water pollution control, why don't we name this first
plant the Milton P. Adams Sewage Treatment Plant?"
And he said, "My gosh, don't do that. There's
enough controversy about my middle initial as it is."
(Laughter.)
(The statement of Captain McAllister is as
follows:
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN BRIAN A. MCALLISTER,
MCALLISTER BROTHERS, INC., 17 BATTERY PLACE,
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
"To the Conference on Pollution of Raritan Bay
and Adjacent Interstate Waters
"Dear Mr. Stein:
"The firm I represent operates tugs and barges
specifically designed to carry sewerage sludge and industrial
waste to sea.
-------
1088
B. A. McAllister
"We feel the method of barging the pollutants from
our rivers and streams out into the safe and approved desig-
nated areas of the ocean has been completely overlooked. The
history of the Raritan area has shown that your agencies
cart not wait for more studies, but it is time for action.
Besides being the most economical system available it is
also a system that can be put to use immediately.
"Our barges can be at any plant near the water
and a simple pipeline to the barge instead of the river is
all that is needed.
"This is our position and we hope your conferees
will put more emphasis on this immediate and practical solu-
tion to the problem of pollution.
"Thank you.
/s/ Brian A. McAllister.")
* * »
MR. STEIN: We now come to the conclusions of
the conferees. We expect to have duplicated copies avail-
able for the press and others as soon as possible.
I am happy to announce that the conferees
arrived at a unanimous agreement. In the light of conference
statements and discussion, the conferees at the third session
-------
1089
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein
agreed to the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. Pollution of the interstate waters of Raritan
Bay and its tributaries is occurring due -to the discharge of
inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastes.
2. Considerable progress has been made towards
abating the pollution problem.
3. Progress has not been more rapid because of
the complexity of the discharges and the difficulties in
dealing with controlling pollution in an estuarine system
of waters such as exists in Raritan Bay.
M. Still more has to be done to abate pollution
of the Raritan Bay area, even though most wastes in the area
are now receiving treatment.
5. All wastes prior to discharge into waters
covered by this conference, including the Raritan Bay,
Arthur Kill, and the Raritan River system, shall be treated
to a degree providing as a minimum 80 percent reduction of
biochemical oxygen demand at all times, including any four-
hour period of a day when the strength of the wastes to be
treated might be expected to exceed average conditions. It
is recognized that this will require a design of an average
removal of 90 percent of biochemical oxygen demand.
6. Effective year-round effluent disinfection
-------
1090
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein
shall be provided at all municipal plants and all industrial
plants with bacterial discharges.
7. Industrial treatment facilities to accomplish
such reduction shall provide removals at least the equivalent
of those required for municipal treatment plants.
8. Facilities and procedures are to be estab-
lished to provide laboratory control for each treatment
facility.
9. The schedule for remedial action is as
follows:
That which has been proposed by the States of
New York and New Jersey and has largely been included in
orders and stipulations by those States.
This means that the schedules for remedial action
by New York and New Jersey have been accepted by the
conferees. All of the improvements will be in operation
between 196? and 1970, except that the expansion of one plant
will be in operation by 1971, and one interceptor will be
completed in 1972.
I think we can expect continued and progressive
improvement of the water quality in this area.
10. The conferees shall meet every six months
to review and evaluate progress on water quality improvement.
These meetings in the past and, I expect, in the
-------
1091
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein
future, are publicized and open to the public, so you can
come and watch it and see how well we do our job.
11. The conferees have appointed a technical
committee to further evaluate the effects of the shipping
channel through Raritan Bay and dredging on water quality.
The committee shall consist of Mr. David H. Wallace,
Director of Marine Fisheries, New York State Conservation
Department, Chairman; and Mr. George Cowherd, Assistant
Chief Engineer, Interstate Sanitation Commission; Anthony
Ricigliano, Supervising Public Health,Engineer, New Jersey
State Department of Health; and Mr. Paul DeFalco, Deputy
Director, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Are there any comments or statements by the
conferees?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: I think this was a very successful
conference. This represents many years of hard work by the
staffs of all the agencies represented at the table. I
don't think it concludes it. Maybe it is the beginning, but
it is at least the beginning of hard work.
Where we have agreement of the States, the
interstate agency, and the Federal Government, I believe
this will give us clean waters of the Raritan Bay within the
-------
1092
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein
foreseeable future.
Because of the nature of the waters and the
nature of the problem, It took many years to study and,
as you well know, some of the most delicate negotiations in
the field of Federal-State relations.
I would like to thank all the conferees — Mr.
Glenn, Mr. Klashman, Dr. Kandle and Mr. Hennigan — their
predecessors and their staffs, for working wholeheartedly
toward this end.
This has not been an easy job. The relationships
In this area were about as complex as we ever had. The only
reason I think we came this far is because of the commit-
ment and the dedication of all the people at the table to
the field of clean water.
At this time I would really like to single out
and give my commendation to Dr. Kandle. Most of the other
people at the table, at least the four that are here, primarily
and almost exclusively work with water quality. Dr. Kandle
has a variety of other duties, as you well know, running the
whole gamut of a health program. For a health officer to be
this much interested in the quality of water and to bring
the full force and effect of the State to work with us, is
indeed an achievement. It speaks for the breadth of Dr.
Kandle!s interest in the entire broad field of public health
-------
1093
Closing Statement - Mr. Stein
and his interest in a clean environment.
I would like to thank you all for coming and
participating and staying with us.
We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the conference was
adjourned.)
-------
1094
Third Session of Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of Raritan Bay and Adjacent Interstate Waters,
convened at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, New York,
on June 13 and 1*1, 1967.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner
for Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Department of the
Interior
APPENDIX
-------
1095
NATIONAL SHELLFISH
SANITATION PROGRAM
MANUAL OP OPERATIONS
Part I
SANITATION
of
SHELLFISH
GROWING AREAS
1965 Revision
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
-------
1096
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM
MANUAL OF OPERATIONS
Part I
SANITATION OF
SHELLFISH
GROWING AREAS
1965 Revision
Edited by
Leroy S. Houser, Sanitarian Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Washington, D.C., 20201
-------
1097
This is part I of two companion volumes published
by the Public Health Service with titles and publication num-
bers as follows:
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1965) Part I ~ Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1965) Part II -- Sanitation-of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
This is a revised edition published previously under
the title: Cooperative Program for the Certification of
Interstate Shellfish Shippers, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas, 1962 Revision.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 33
Part I — Revised 1965
-------
1098
LIST OP PREVIOUS EDITIONS OP MANUAL OF OPERATIONS FOR
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM — NOW SUPERSEDED
1925. Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports November
6, 1925 "Report of Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry In the United States".
1937. U.S. Public Health Service Minimum Requirements for
Approval of State Shellfish Control Measures and
Certification for Shippers in Interstate Commerce
(Revised October 1937).
19^6. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry Recommended by the U.S.
Public Health Service (Public Health Bulletin No. 295).
1957. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry (Part II: Sanitation of
the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish). Printed
as Part II of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.
1959. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of
the Shellfish Industry (Part I: Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas). Printed as Part I of Public Health Servlci
Publication No. 33
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Inter-
state Shellfish Shippers, Part II, Sanitation of the
-------
1099
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish. (Printed
as Part II of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.)
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Inter-
state Shellfish Shippers, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas. (Printed as Part I of Public Health
Service Publication No. 33.)
-------
1108
6k
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
SECTION A — General Administrative Procedures
1. State Laws and Regulations
2. Administrative Procedures To Be Used by State
3. Intrastate Sale of Shellfish
SECTION B — Laboratory Procedures
1. Bacteriological
2. Toxicological
3. Chemical and Physical
SECTION C — Growing Area Survey and Classification
1. Sanitary Survey of Growing Areas
2. Classification of Growing Areas
3. Approved Areas
4. Conditionally Approved Areas
5. Restricted Areas
6. Prohibited Areas
7. Closure of Areas Due to Paralytic Shellfish
Poison
-------
1101
SECTION D — Preparation of Shellfish for Marketing
1. Relaying
2. Controlled Purification
SECTION E ~ Control of Harvesting From Closed Areas
1. Identification of Closed Areas
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting From
Closed Areas
3. Depletion of Closed Areas
APPENDIX B. In Preparation
APPENDIX C. In Preparation
REFERENCES
INDEX
-------
1102
8k FOREWORD
A DECLARATION OP PRINCIPLES
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program Is
an unusual teaming of State and Federal resources to preserve
and manage a natural resource for a beneficial use. Although/
the current program is of comparatively recent origin, Its
development can be traced back through several centuries of
American history. When the European colonists arrived
they found almost unlmagined natural wealth^ Forests, rich
agricultural land, minerals, and space itself, were present
in quantities and a variety previously unknown. To these
settlers one of the most valuable and readily useable of
these natural resources was the food resources of the sea,
particularly the estuaries. It Is not surprising that
shellfish were foremost among their staple food items.
The value of these renewable natural resources
to the early settlers was reflected In colonial legislation
designed to encourage their wise use. In 1658 — over 300
years ago — the Dutch council of New Amsterdam passed an
ordinance regulating the taking of oysters from the East
River. Other early legislation, Including that of New
York (1715), New Jersey (1730), and Rhode Island (173*0, was
designed to regulate harvesting, presumably as conservative
measures to guarantee a continuing supply.
-------
1103
The public health problems which were associated
with shellfish in the United States in the first two decades
of the present century brought a new dimension to natural re-
source utilization; i.e., shellfish could not be used for
food unless of acceptable sanitary quality. This concept
was clearly recognized in the Public Health Service sponsored
conference of 1925 in which the concepts of the present
cooperative program were first outlined and the administra-
tive foundation put down. All parties seemed to recognize,
and accept as fact, the premises that: (l) shellfish re-
presented a valuable natural food resourcej (2) the
cultivation, harvesting, and marketing of this food resource
were valuable components in the financial bases of many coastal
communities; (3) a State and Federal program was necessary
to permit the safe use of this resource; and (4) the
transmission of disease by shellfish was preventable and
therefore not to be tolerated. It is significant that the
founders of this program did not take the parochial stand
that the only completely safe way to prevent disease trans-
mission by shellfish was to prohibit Its use. Instead, they
held that this beneficial use of the estuaries was in the
best public Interest, and that sanitary controls should be
developed and maintained which would allow safe use. These
concepts were recognized In the program which evolved following
-------
110*1
the report of the "Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States" in 1925.
In 1954 the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public
Health Service called a second national conference to discuss
shellfish sanitation problems. Specifically, the 1954 confer-
ence addressed itself to the questions of the practicality and
need for this tripartite program. There was general agree-
ment that, despite the profusion of technical problems,
the basic concepts were sound and that it was in the public
interest to maintain the program. Thus, the presence of an
Irrevocable bond between the application of sanitary controls
in the shellfish industry and the continuing beneficial use
of a renewable natural resource was again confirmed.
Despite this long established relationship the
national program has tended to neglect the second of these
biphasio goals — use of a valuable natural resource — and
to concentrate on the negative policy of closure of areas of
unsuitable sanitary quality. Little effort has been made by
•^
the program to develop a compensatory element which would
encourage corrective action by State or Federal agencies.
Similarly, the program has not taken a position on the use
of conservation law even when it was known that this would
increase the program's consumer protection confidence factor.
-------
1105
In recognition of past history of the shellfish
industry In the United States and of the relationship of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program to the effective
use of this natural resource, the 1964 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop endorses the following principles:
1. Shellfish are a renewable, manageable
natural resource of significant economical
value to many coastal communities, and
which should be 'managed- as carefully as
are other natural resources such as
forests, water, and agricultural lands.
2. Shellfish culture and harvesting represents
a beneficial use of water in the estuaries,
This use should be recognized by State and
Federal agencies in planning and carrying
out pollution prevention and abatement pro-
grams and in comprehensive planning for the
use of these areas.
3. The goals of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program are: (l) the continued safe use
of this natural resource and (2) active
encouragement of water quality programs which
will preserve all possible coastal areas for
this beneficial use.
-------
1106
12k It is the conviction of the 1964 National
Shellfish Sanitation Workshop that survival of the shellfish
industry is in the best public interest; that by application
of the above principles on a State-by-State basis shellfish
can continue to be used safely as food and to make a
valuable contribution to the economic structure of the
Nation both in the immediate present and in the foreseeable
future.
INTRODUCTION
In 1925 State and local health authorities
and representatives of the shellfish industry requested
the Public Health Service to exercise supervision over the
sanitary quality of shellfish shipped in interstate commerce.
In accordance with this request, a cooperative control pro-
cedure was developed. In carrying out this cooperative control)
the States, the shellfish industry, and the Public Health
Service, each accept responsibility for certain procedures as
follows.
1. Procedures To Be Followed by the State. --
Each shellfish-shipping State adopts adequate laws and regula-
tions for sanitary control of the shellfish industry, makes
-------
1107
sanitary and bacteriological surveys of growing areas,
delineates and patrols restricted areas, inspects shellfish
plants, and conducts such additional inspections, laboratory
investigations, and control measures as may be necessary to
insure that the shellfish reaching the consumer have been
grown, harvested, and processed in a sanitary manner. The
State annually issues numbered certificates to shellfish dealers
who comply with the agreed-upon sanitary standards, and
forwards copies of the Interstate certificates to the
Public Health Service.
2. Procedures To Be Followed by the Public
Health Service. — The Public Health Service makes an annual
review of each State's control program including the in-
spection of a representative number of shellfish-processing
plants. On the basis of the information thus obtained, the
Public Health Service either endorses or withholds endorsement
of the respective State control programs. For the infor-
mation of health authorities and others concerned, the
Public Health Service publishes a semi-monthly list of all
valid interstate shellfish-shipper certificates Issued by
the State shellfish-control authorities.
3. Procedures To Be Followed by the Industry. —
The shellfish industry cooperates by obtaining shellfish from
safe sources, by providing plants which meet the agreed-upon
-------
1108
Hk
sanitary standards, by maintaining sanitary plant conditions,
by placing the proper certificate number on each package of
shellfish, and by keeping and making available to the control
authorities records which show the origin and disposition of
all shellfish.
The fundamental components of this National
Shellfish Sanitation Program were first described in a
Supplement to Public Health Reports, "Report of Committee on
Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry in the United States"
(1925). This guide for sanitary control of the shellfish
industry was revised and reissued in 1937 and again in
1946. It was separated into two parts by publication of
Part II, Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing of
Shellfish in 1957 and by publication in 1959, of Part I,
Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas. The need for a
specialized program of this nature was reaffirmed at the
National Conference on Shellfish Sanitation held in Washington,
D.C., in 195^ (1) and at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshop
held in 1956 (2), 1958 (3), 196l-(67) and 1964 (68).
This edition of the shellfish sanitation manual
has been prepared In cooperation with the State shellfish con-
trol authorities In all coastal States, food control authorltiei
In the inland States, interested Federal agencies, Canadian
Federal departments, the Oyster Institute of North America,
the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association, and the Oyster
-------
1109
Growers and Dealers Association of North America.
Since the growing and processing of shellfish
are two distinct phases of operation in the shellfish industry.,
the manual has been prepared in two parts: I: Sanitation
of Shellfish-Growing Areas; and II: Sanitation of the Har-
vesting and Processing of Shellfish. This, Part I of the
manual, is intended as a guide for the preparation of State
shellfish sanitation laws and regulations, and for sanitary
control of the growing, relaying, and purification of shell-
fish. It is intended that States participating in the
National Shellfish Sanitation program for the certification
of interstate shellfish shippers will be guided by this manual
in exercising sanitary supervision over shellfish growing,
relaying, and purification, and in the issuing of certificates
to shellfish shippers.
The manual will also be used by the Public
Health Service in evaluating State shellfish sanitation
programs to determine if the programs qualify for endorse-
ment. Part III of the manual, "Public Health Service
Appraisal of State Shellfish Sanitation Programs", sets
forth appraisal procedures in evaluating State shellfish
sanitation programs and is based on the requirements con-
tained in parts I and II.
-------
1110
16k
The provisions of this manual were accepted
at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshop held in Washington, Novei-
ber 17-19, 1964, and unless otherwise stated become effective
60 days after publication (68).
EUGENE T. JENSEN,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch Division of
Environmental Engineering and Food Protection,
Public Health Service.
DEFINITIONS
And/or. -- Where this term is used, and shall
apply where possible; otherwise, or shall apply.
Area, growing. — An area in which market shell-
fish are grown.
Coliform group. — The coliform group includes
all of the aerobic and facultative anaerobic, Gram-negative,
non-spore-forming bacilli which ferment lactose with gas
formation within 48 hours at 35° C. Bacteria of this group
which will produce gas from E. C. medium within 24 hours at
44.5° C. in a water bath will be referred to as fecal coil-
forms.
Controlled purification. — The process of re-
moving contamination from whole live shellfish acquired while
growing in polluted areas.
-------
1111
National shellfish sanitation program. — The
cooperative State-PHS-Industry program for the certification
of interstate shellfish shippers as described in Public
Health Service Publication Number 33, National Shellfish
Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Parts I and II.
Depletion. — The removal of all market-size
shellfish from an area.
Most probable number (abbreviated MPN). — The
MPN is a statistical estimate of the number of bacteria per
unit volume, and is determined from the number of positive
results in a series of fermentation tubes. A complete
discussion of MPN determinations and computations, including
MPN tables, can be found in the American Public Health
Association publication "Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Waste Water". (4) (5).
Population equivalent (coliform). — A quantity
of sewage containing approximately l6o x ICr coliform
group bacteria. This is approximately equal to the per
capita per day contribution of conforms as determined in a
metropolitan sewerage system (6) (7) (8).
Sanitary survey. -- The sanitary survey is the
evaluation of all factors having a bearing on the sanitary
quality of a shellfish growing area including sources of
pollution, the effects of wind, tides, and currents in the
-------
1112
distribution and dilution of the polluting materials, and
the bacteriological quality of the water.
Shellfish. — All edible species of oysters,
clams, or mussels, either shucked or in the shell, fresh or
frozen.
Shellfish, market. — Shellfish which are, may
be, or have been harvested and/or prepared for sale for
human consumption as a fresh or frozen product.
State shellfish control agency. — the State
agency or agencies having legal authority to classify
shellfish growing areas and/or to issue permits for the
interstate shipment of shellfish in accord with the pro-
visions of this manual.
State shellfish patrol agency. — the State
agency having responsibility for the patrol of shellfish
growing areas.
Transplanting. — The moving of shellfish from
one area to another area.
-------
1113
SECTION A
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. State Laws and Regulations. — State laws or regulations-
shall provide an adequate legal basis for sanitary control
of all interstate phases of the shellfish industry. This
legal authority shall enable one or more departments or
agencies of the State to classify all coastal waters for
shellfish harvesting on the basis of sanitary quality;
effectively regulate the harvesting of shellfish; effectively
prosecute persons apprehended harvesting shellfish from
restricted, prohibited, or nonapproved areas;, regulate and
supervise ^he shipment and storage of shell stock, and the
shucking, packing, and repacking of shellfish; make
laboratory examinations of shellfish; seize, condemn, or
embargo shellfish; and restrict the harvesting of shellfish
from particular areas and suspend interstate shipper certi-
ficates in public-health emergencies.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when the State has legal authority to --
a. Classify all actual or potential shellfish
growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish harvest-
ing on the basis of sanitary quality as defined in section
.C of this manual. (It is strongly recommended that a State
permit be required for the growing of shellfish, and that
such permits be revocable or subject to suspension for just
-------
1114
20k cause. It is also recommended that the State have authority
to regulate the discharge of sewage, radioactive, and other
toxic wastes from boats in the vicinity of approved shell-
fish growing areas.)
b. Control the harvesting of shellfish from
areas which are contaminated or which contain marine shell-
fish poisons. To be effective this authority must allow the
State to —
(l) Patrol growing areas.
(2) Apprehend persons violating the
restrictions.
(3) Effectively prosecute persons appre-
hended harvesting shellfish from
restricted or prohibited areas.
(Penalties for such violations should
be sufficient to discourage illegal
harve st ing.)
c. Regulate and supervise relaying, depletion,
wet storage, and controlled purification as described in this
manual if these techniques are used.
d. Require that shell stock in storage or in
transit from the growing area to the certified shipper be pr°*
tected against contamination; i.e., every person, firm or
-------
1115
corporation that handles shellfish up to the certified shipper
will be subject to sanitary control by an official agency
but will not necessarily be required to have a State shell-
f ish permit.
e. Prohibit national program shippers from
possessing or selling shellfish from out-of-State sources
unless such shellfish have been produced in accord with
cooperative program requirements.
f. Regulate the operations of shucker-packers,
repackers, shell stock shippers and reshippers in accord with
the applicable provisions of part II of this manual.
g. Restrict the harvesting of shellfish from
specific areas, and suspend interstate shipper certificates
in a public-health emergency. Administrative procedures
required in connection with such emergency actions should
not require more than one day to complete.
h. Prevent the sale, shipment, or possession
of shellfish which cannot be identified as having been
produced in accord with national program requirements or which
are otherwise unfit for human consumption, and to condemn,
seize, or embargo such shellfish. This authority need not
be specific for shellfish and may be Included in other State
food laws.
Public-health explanation. — The National
Program was developed by the 1925 Conference on Shellfish
-------
1116
22k
Pollution to meet the specific publi-health need resulting
from the 1924-25 thphoid epidemic (9).
However, the National Program has gone beyond
the original objective of insuring that shellfish shipped
interstate would not be the cause of communicable disease.
Thus, in the 19^0's, paralytic shellfish poison became a
matter of public-health concern and steps were taken to
protect the public against this hazard. In 1957 it was
recognized that shellfish might concentrate certain
radionuclldes and that a radiation surveillance activity
might become a necessary adjunct to the established pro-
cedures.
To accomplish these public-health objectives the
State must supervise all phases of the growing harvesting,
transportation, shucking-packing, and repacking of shell-
fish to be shipped interstate. It is also important that
shellfish be properly refrigerated and protected against
contamination during interstate shipment. This is not easily
accomplished by the State of origin although certified
shippers are required to pack shellfish in containers which
i
will protect them against contamination.
If State supervision is to be effective all
phases of the activity must be supported by legal authority.
This authority may be either a specific law or regulation.
-------
1117
The success with which the State is able to regulate the
several components of the shellfish industry provides a
measure of the adequacy of the statutory authority.
The unique nature of shellfish as a food also
makes it necessary that the State shellfish control agency
have authority to take immediate emergency action to halt
harvesting or processing of shellfish without recourse to
lengthy administrative procedures. As examples, a State
may find it necessary to close a shellfish growing area
within hours of a breakdown in a sewage treatment plant or
the unexpected finding of paralytic shellfish poison.
Periodic revisions of State shellfish laws or
regulations may be necessary to cope with new public-health
hazards and to reflect new knowledge. Examples of changes
or developments which have called for revision of State
laws include the wide-soale use of pleasure boats with the
resulting probability of contamination of shellfish growing
areas with fresh fecal material, the conditionally approved
area concept resulting from the construction of sewage treat-
ment works, and the apparent ability of shellfish to con-
centrate certain radlonuclides.
Experience has demonstrated that all actual and
potential shellfish growing waters of the State must be
classified as to their sanitary suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Harvesting should be permitted only from those
-------
1118
areas which have been found by sanitary survey to meet the
sanitary criteria of this manual. Harvesting should
accordingly be specifically prohibited from areas which do
not meet the criteria, or which have not been surveyed.
2. General Administrative Procedures To Be
Used by States. -,- States shall keep records which will
facilitate Public Health Service review of their shellfish
sanitation programs and shall assist the Service in making
such reviews. States shall not certify shippers for inter-
state shipment unless the shipper complies substantially
with the construction requirements of part II of this
manual and maintains a sanitation rating of at least 80
percent during periods of operation. Shippers not meeting
these requirements will not be eligible for Inclusion on
the Public Health Service list of State-certified shellfish
shippers. National Program standards shall be applied to
all actual and potential growing areas, all shellfish har-
vesters, and all persons handling shell stock prior to its
delivery to the national program certified shipper. When
two or more State agencies are involved in the sanitary
control of the shellfish industry, a clear statement of
responsibility of each agency should be developed.
Satisfactory compliance. --This item will be
satisfied when —
-------
1119
a. National Program requirements are applied
to all actual and potential shellfish growing areas.
b. National Program requirements are applied
to all commercial market shellfish harvesters.
c. National Program requirements are applied
to all persons handling the shellfish prior to its delivery
to the interstate shipper.
d. Interstate shellfish shipper certificates
are issued only to those establishments substantially
meeting the construction requirements of part II of this
manual and which maintain a plant sanitation rating of at
least 80 percent during periods of operations. , (The State
shellfish control agency shall suspend or revoke certifi-
cates if a plant sanitation rating drops below 80 percent
or if any individual sanitation item is violated repeatedly.)
Ratings will be determined on the basis of compliance with
the applicable provisions of part II of this manual as
measured by an inspection report comparable to that con-
tained in appendix A of part II.
e. The following records are kept of shellfish
sanitation activities as required in sections C, D, and E,
Part I, of this manual and when monthly summaries of State
patrol activities are forwarded to the Public Health Service
regional office:
-------
1120
26k
(l) Individual growing area files. (Areas
may be defined by either geographic or political boundaries,)
(2) Patrol activities, including arrests,
prosecutions, and the results of prosecutions.
(3) Plant inspections. Shucker-packers and
repackers shall ordinarily be inspected at least monthly.
Shell stock shippers and reshippers shall be inspected at
a frequency which will afford adequate publie-health
supervision of their operations. A central inspection-
report file should be maintained by the State.
f. The following guidelines are observed by the
State in issuing interstate shellfish certificates.
(1) Certificate content. Each certificate
should give the following information:
Name. (The usual business name and alternative
names that should appear on the interstate shellfish shippeis
list, hereafter called "list.")
Address. (A business and/or mailing address
in the State issuing the certificate. This address indi-
cates where records are kept and where inspection may be
arranged.)
Certificate Number. (A number shall be assigned
for each business unit. Suffix or prefix letters may not
be used to differentiate between two or more plants of a
given shipper.)
-------
1121
Classification. (The shipper classification
should be indicated by a symbol: i.e., shucker-packer,
SP: repacker, RP; shell stock, SS; or reshipper, RS. Only
one classification should be used. The single classification
will cover all proposed operations which the shipper is
qualified to perform.)
Expiration Date. (All certificates in a State
should expire on the same date, preferably the last day of
a month. This date will be shown on the "list". All
certificates will be automatically withdrawn from the
"list" on the date of expiration unless new certificates
have been received by Public Health Service headquarters
office. If the date of expiration coincides with the
date of issue for the "list" the certificates expiring on
the date of issue will be deleted.)
Certifying Officer. (Each certificate is signed
by a responsible State official.)
(2) Certificate changes. A change in an
existing, unexpired certificate should be made by Issuing
a corrected certificate.
(3) Interstate shipment before listing. The
shipper should be informed of the probable date his name will
appear on the "list" and should be advised against rny.:cinr:
interstate shipment pricr to
:a
-------
1122
28k be made before the appearance of the shipper's name on the
"list", the Public Health Service will notify the applica-
ble receiving States If the names and addresses of the expected
receivers are Indicated In advance by the State when the
certificate Is forwarded to the Public Health Service.)
(4) State cancellation, revocation, or suspension
of Interstate shipper certificates. If a State revokes,
cancels, or suspends an Interstate shellfish shipper certi-
ficate, the Public Health Service regional office should be
Immediately notified, preferably by telephone or telegram,
with a following confirmatory letter.
(5) Mailing list for Interstate shellfish shipper
list. Names of persons, business units, organizations, or agen-
cies, desiring copies of the "list", and requests for Informa-
tion concerning the "list" should be sent to the appropriate
Public Health Service regional office. Recipients will be
circularized periodically to determine if they still have
use for the'"list".
g. The appropriate Public Health Service regional
office is notified by the State of any revision in growing area
classification. The notification shall so describe the area
that it may be readily located on Coast and Geodetic Survey
charts.
h. State shellfish plant inspectors are provided with
the following inspection equipment: standardized inspection
forms, thermometer, chlorine test kit, and light meter.
-------
1123
1. Interdepartmental memoranda of understanding
have been developed which will define the responsibilities
of each State agency in maintaining adequate sanitary control
of the shellfish industry in the State*
Public-health explanation. — The annual review
of each participating State's shellfish sanitation activities
is a fundamental Public Health Service responsibility in the
National Program. The purpose of this review is to evaluate
the adequacy and reliability of each Individual State
program in accord with the agreed-upon standards. The
Service will endorse those State programs meeting the
National Program standards and will publish and distribute
a list of the names of the State certified shippers. How-
ever, if a State program does not meet the standards the
program will not be endorsed. Names of nonparticipating
States will be omitted from the Public Health Service list
of State certified shellfish shippers.
Minimum plant sanitation standards for interstate
shellfish shippers are described in part II of this manual.
Experience has shown that absolute compliance with these
minimum standards is not always attainable, particularly
those items which relate to operating procedures. The
establishment of the 80-percent plant sanitation score
as a prerequisite for listing on the Public Health Service
list of State certified shellfish shippers recognizes the
-------
1124
30k
fact that perfection Is not always obtainable and, at the
same time, provides a mechanism for excluding any plant
which is not operated in a reasonably sanitary manner.
National program sanitary requirements should
be applied to all actual and potential growing areas and
all shellfish harvesters to insure that all shellfish avail.
able to certified dealers have been produced and harvested
under sanitary conditions. It Is also Important that the
shell stock be protected against contamination during the
period between harvesting and delivery to the certified
shipper.
3. Intrastate Sale of Market Shellfish. —
Sanitary standards for Intrastate shellfish shippers should
be substantially equivalent to those of the national progran,
Public-health explanation. — States may accept
lower sanitary standards for shellfish sold Intrastate than
are required by the National Program. However, it has been
found that small Intrastate shippers may at times sell their
product to Interstate shippers if demand exceeds the supply
of shellfish available to the latter. Because of the possi-
bility that such substandard shellfish might be shipped
Interstate, the 195^ National Conference on Shellfish Sani-
tation recommended that National Program standards be applielj
-------
1125
to all shellfish production and processing (l). The 1958
Shellfish Sanitation Workshop also strongly recommended
the use of substantially equivalent standards for intra and
inter-state shellfish shippers (3).
SECTION B
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
1. Bacteriological. — American Public Health
Association Recommended Procedures for the Examination of
Sea Water and Shellfish shall be followed in the collection
and transportation of samples of shellfish and shellfish
waters for bacteriological examination and in the laboratory
examination of such samples.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when current American Public Health Association
Recommended Procedures for the Examination of Sea Water and
Shellfish are followed in the bacteriological examination
of shellfish and shellfish waters.
Public-health explanation. -- Experience with the
bacteriological examination of shellfish and shellfish
growing waters has indicated that minor differences in
laboratory procedures or techniques will cause wide
-------
1126
32k variations In the results. Variations In results may
also be caused by Improper handling of the sample during
collection or transportation to the laboratory (10).
The American Public Health Association Recommended Procedu-
res for the Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish, which
are revised periodically, offer a reliable way of minimiz-
ing these variations (62). (National Program required use
of a standard procedure for the bacteriological examination
of shellfish and shellfish waters should not discourage lab-
oratories from working on new methods of sample handling or
analysis.)
2. Toxicologleal. — A recognized procedure shall
be used in the assay for paralytic shellfish poison.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when current Association of Official Agricul-
tural Chemists official methods are followed in the bioassay
for paralytic shellfish poison.
Public-health explanation. — It has been demon-
strated that significant variations in bioassay results
will be caused by minor changes in procedures. If reliable
results are to be obtained it is essential that the test
procedures be standardized and that variations due to use
of strains of mice be minimized (11). The official proce-
dure for the bioassay for paralytic shellfish poison
-------
1127
by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists
minimizes these variations (66). A method of analysis for
ciguatera poison in shellfish has been developed (12).
3. Chemical and Physical. — Standard laboratory
methods shall be used for all salinity, radionuclide, and
other chemical and physical determinations made on shellfish
or shellfish waters in conjunction with National Program
activities. Results shall be reported in standard units.
Satisfactory compliance.— This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Chemical and physical measurements
on shellfish and shellfish waters are made in accord with
accepted laboratory techniques.
b. Results of all chemical and physical
determinations are expressed in standard units. (For example,
salinity should be expressed in parts per thousand rather
than hydrometer readings.)
Public-health explanation.— Standardized lab-
oratory procedures are most apt to produce results in which
the State shellfish control agency can have confidence, and
facilitate comparative evaluation of data. The need for
adherence to standardized procedures should not discourage
laboratories from experimental use of nonstandard methods.
-------
1128
34k
FOOTNOTES
Section B
Material which may be useful In Interpretation of results
of bacteriological examination of shellfish is contained in
appendix A.
-------
1129
Section C
GROWING AREA SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION
1. Sanitary Surveys of Growing Areas. — A
sanitary survey shall be made of each growing area prior to
Its approval by the State as a source of market shellfish
or of shellfish to be used In a controlled 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 made less comprehensive than the original survey since
It will only be necessary to bring the original information
up to date. Records of all original surveys and resurveys
of 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 approval 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
-------
1130
36k growing areas; effectiveness and reliability of sewage
treatment works, the presence of industrial wastes,
pesticides, or radionuolides which would cause a public -
health hazard to the consumer of the shellfish; and the
effect of wind, stream flow, and tidal currents in dls-
o
trlbuting polluting materials over the growing area.
The thoroughness with which each element must be investi-
gated varies greatly and will be determined by the specific
conditions in each growing area.
b. The factors Influencing the sanitary quality of each
approved shellfish growing area are reappraised at least
3
biennially. A complete resurvey should be made of each
growing area in an approved category at least once every
ten years; however, data from original surveys can be used
when it is clear that such information is still valid.
c. A file which contains all pertinent sanitary
survey information, including the dates and results of pre-
ceding sanitary surveys is maintained by the State shellfish
control agency for each classified shellfish area.
d. The State agency having primary responsibility for
this element of the national program develops a system for
identification of growing areas.
Public-health explanation. — The positive rela-
tionship between sewage pollution of shellfish growing
areas and enteric disease has been demonstrated many times
(13)'(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (63) (64) (65). However,
-------
1131
epldemiologioal investigations of shellfish-caused disease
outbreaks have never •etablished a direct numerical
correlation between the bacteriological quality of water
and the degree of hazard to health. Investigations made
from 1914 to 1925 by the States and the Public Health
Service — a period when disease outbreaks attributable
to shellfish were more prevalent — indicated that typhoid
fever or other enteric disease would not ordinarily be
attributed to shellfish harvested from water in which not
more than 50 percent of the 1 ce. portions of water examined
4
were positive for conforms, provided the areas were not
subject to direct contamination with small amounts of
fresh sewage which would not ordinarily be revealed by
the bacteriological examination.
Following the oyster-borne typhoid outbreak
during the winter of 1924-25 In the United States (19)
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 area is sufficiently removed from major
sources of pollution so that the shellfish would not be
subjected to fecal contamination In quantities which might
be dangerous to the public, health.
-------
1132
38k 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 ordinarily
show the presence of the coli-aerogenes group of bacteria
in 1 cc. 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 of other enteric disease have been attributed to
shellfish harvested from waters meeting the criteria since
they were adopted in the United States In 1923. Similar
water quality criteria have been In use in Canada with
like results. The available epidemlologlcal and labora-
tory evidence gives little idea as to the margin of safety,
but it is probably considerable as indicated by the virtual
absence of reported shellfish caused enteric disease
over a comparatively long period of time (18) (20) (21)
(65) (69) from water meeting this criteria.
The purpose of the sanitary survey is to identify
and evaluate those factors influencing the sanitary quality
of a growing area and which may include sources of pollu-
tion, potential or actual, the volume of dilution water;
effects of currents, winds and tides In disseminating
-------
1133
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 con-
figuration; and salinity and turbidity of the water.
Sources of pollution Include municipal sewage discharged
Into the estuary or inflowing rivers; sewage brought into
the estuary by tides or currents; surface runoff from
polluted areas; industrial wastes; and discharges from
pleasure craft, fishing boats, naval vessels, and merchant
shipping.
Bacteriological examination of the growing waters
is an Important component of the sanitary survey. In
many instances the bacteriological and related salinity
data will also provide valuable information on the hydro-
graphic characteristics of an area.
Ideally, a large number of water samples for
bacteriological examination should be collected at each
station. However, in most Instances this is not prac-
tical because of time and budget limitations, and accordingly
only a limited number of samples can be collected. Therefore,
sampling stations should be chosen which will provide a
maximum of data, and which will be representative of the
bacteriological quality of water in as wide an area as possi-
ble. Sample collection should be timed to represent the most
-------
1134
unfavorable hydrographio and pollution conditions slnoe
40k
shellfish respond rapidly to an Increase In the number of
bacteria or viruses In their environment (25) (26)
(70) (71) (72) (78).
There Is no specified minimum number of sampling
stations, frequency of sampling, or total number of samples.
Sampling results obtained over a period of several years
can be used as a block of data provided at least 15
samples have been collected from each of a representative
number of stations along the line separating approved
from restricted growing areas and there have been no ad-
verse changes in hydr©graphic or sanitary conditions. Only
occasional bacteriological samples are necessary from
areas which are shown to be free from pollution.
Experience with the shellfish certification
program indicates a tendency to omit or de-emphasize some
components of the sanitary survey unless a central State
file of all shellfish sanitary surveys, reappraisals, and
re surveys is maintained. This is particularly true where
responsibility for shellfish sanitation is divided be-
tween two or more State agencies. Maintenance of a central
State file for all shellfish sanitary survey Information
will also simplify the endorsement appraisal of State pro-
grams by the Public Health Service and will help prevent
-------
1135
loss of old data which may be useful In evaluating 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 de-
trimental 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. Classification criteria are described in
sections C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, and C-7 of this manual.
Except in emergency any upward revision of an area classi-
fication shall be preceded by a sanitary survey, resurvey,
or reappraisal. A written analysis of the data Justifying
the reolassifloatlon shall be made a part of the area file.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This Item will be satis-
fied when —
a. All actual and potential growing waters in the
State are correctly designated with one of the following
classifications on the basis of sanitary survey information;
Approved; conditionally approved; restricted; or prohibited.1
-------
1136
ll2k b. Area classl float Ions 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 surveys shall be automatically
classified as prohibited.
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. Classifica-
tion should not be revised upward without careful consid-
eration of available data. Areas should be reclassifled
whenever warranted by existing data. A written Justifi-
cation for the reclassificatlon simplifies Public Health
Service, appraisal of State programs.
A hypothetical use of the four recognized area
classifications is shown in figure 1. This Idealized situa-
tion depicts an estuary receiving sewage from two cities,
"A" and "B". City "A" has complete sewage treatment in-
cluding chlorinatlon of effluent. City "B" has no sewage
-------
1137
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 constitute a public-health hazard. The
median coliform MPN of the water is less than 70/100 ml.
The sanitary quality of the area is independent of sewage
treatment at city "A".
Conditionally Approved
Area II. This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I; however, the quality varies with the
effectiveness of sewage treatment at city "A". This
area would probably be classified prohibited if city "A"
had not provided sewage treatment.
Restricted
Area III. Sewage from "B" reaches this area,
aid the median coliform MPN of water is between 70 and 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
-------
1138
conform HPN 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 conform content of water or amount of
dilution water.
3. Approved Areas. — Growing areas may be
designated as approved when: (a) the sanitary survey
Indicates that pathogenic micro-organisms, radlonuclldes,
and/or harmful Industrial wastes do not reach the area
In dangerous concentration, and (b) this Is verified by
laboratory findings whenever the sanitary survey Indicates
the need. Shellfish may be taken from such areas for
direct marketing.
Satisfactory compliance. — This Item will be satis-
fied when the three following criteria are met:
a. The area Is not so contaminated with fecal
material that consumption of the shellfish might be haz-
ardous, and
b. The area is not so contaminated with radlonuclides
or Industrial wastes that consumption of the shellfish might
be hazardous (see Section C, item 7, regarding toxins in
shellfish growing areas), and
c. The ooliform median MPN of the water does not
exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of the
-------
1139
samples ordinarily exceed 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 unfavorable hydrographlc and pollution
conditions. (Note: This concentration might be exceeded
if less than 8 million cubic feet of a collform-free
dilution water are available for each population equivalent
(coliform) of sewage reaching the area). The foregoing
limits need not be applied if it can be shown by detailed
study that the coliforms are not of direct fecal origin and
Q
do not Indicate a public health hazard (19) (20).
Public-health explanation. — A review of epldemiolo-
glcal Investigations of disease outbreaks attributable
to the consumption of raw shellfish reveals that two
9
general situations prevail insofar as pollution of growing
or storage areas are concerned.
(1) Gross sewage contamination of a growing or wet
storage area. (A report of a 1910 outbreak of typhoid fever
involving 41 persons 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 (27) (28). In 19^7 a case
of typhoid fever was attributed to clams harvested 200 yards
from the outlet of a municipal sewage treatment plant (29).
In the latter case, the coliform MPN of the harbor water
-------
1140
46k exceeded 12,000 per 100 ml. and the area had been posted
as closed to shellfish harvesting.)
(2) Chance contamination of a growing or wet storage
area by fresh fecal material which may not be diffused
throughout the entire area (14) (16) (17) (19) and there-
fore not readily detectable by ordinary bacteriological
procedures. The possibility of chance contamination was
noted by Dr. Gurion in his report on a 1902 typhoid out-
break, and who is quoted in Public Health Bulletin No. 86,
as "there is a zone of 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
persisted in, because it renders these articles of food
dangerous at times, and always suspicious". The 1936 out-
break of infectious hepatitis in Sweden (691 oases) attri-
buted to oysters which were contaminated in a wet storage
area is an example of such contamination (16). Similarly
in. 1939, 87 cases of typhoid were attributed to fecal con-
tamination of a storage area by a typhoid carrier
It is well established that shellfish from water
8
having a median coliform NFN not exceeding 70 per 100 ml.
and which is also protected against chance contamination
with fecal material, will not be involved in the spread of
-------
disease which can be attributed to initial contamination
of the shellfish. This is not surprising since a water
MPN of 70/100 ml. is equivalent to a dilution ratio of
about 8 million cubic feet of 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 tidal action
Q
which Is constantly bringing unpolluted water into the area.
Areas which are approved for direct market
harvesting of shellfish which will be eaten raw must
S
necessarily meet one general test; i.e., sewage reaching
the growing area must be so treated, diluted, or.aged
that it will be of negligible public-health significance.
This implies an element of time and distance to permit
the mixing of the sewage or fecal 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 (22).
The effectiveness of sewage treatment processes
must be considered in evaluating the sanitary quality of
a growing area since the bacterial and viral content of
the effluent will be determined by the degree of treatment
which is obtained (2) (73) (74) (75). The results of
-------
I
f.
n
Sewer outfall
PROHIBITED AREA
RESTRICTED AREA
Sewage
treatment
plant
PROHIBITED
AREA
CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED
AREA
APPROVED AREA
FHH-UK 1
-------
1143
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 reali-
zation of the possibility of malfunctioning, overloading,
or poor operation.
The presence of radionuolides in growing area
waters may also have public-health significance since
shellfish, along with other marine organisms, have the
ability to concentrate such materials (31) (32) (33) (3*0.
/
The degree to which radioisotopes will be concentrated
depends upon the species of shellfish and the specific
radioisotope. For example, it has been reported that the
Eastern oyster has a concentration factor of 17,000 for
65
Zn whereas the concentration factor in soft tissues for
Sr89 is approximately unity (31) (33). The distribution
of the radioisotope in the shellfish and the biological
half-life are also variable. Sources of radioactive
materials include fall-out, industrial wastes, and nuclear
reactors. Limiting maximum permissible concentrations of
radioactive 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 signi-
ficance of detected radioactivity in market shellfish.
-------
50k The bacterial quality of active shellfish will
ordinarily be directly proportional to the bacterial
quality of the water in which they grew; however, consider-
able 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 quan-
tities of water to obtain food, thereby concentrating the
suspended bacteria. This relationship will depend upon the
shellfish species, water temperature, presence of certain
chemicals, and varying capabilities of the individual
animals.
4. Conditionally Approved Areas. — The suita-
bility of some areas for harvesting shellfish for direct-
marketing is dependent upon the attainment of an established
performance standard by sewage treatment works discharging
effluent, directly of indirectly, to the area. In other
oases 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 per*
formance standards will be met, and (b) that precautions
have been taken to assure that shellfish will not be
-------
1145
marketed from the areas subsequent to any failure to meet
the performance standards and before the shellfish can
purify themselves of polluting microorganisms.
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 procedures for each conditionally
approved area is developed jointly by the State shellfish
control agency, local agencies* Including those respon-
sible for operation of sewerage systems, and the local
shellfish industry. 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 standards, specify necessary safety
devices and measures, and define Inspection and check
procedures. (These procedures are described In more de-
tail in the following public-health explanation.)
c. A closed safety zone is established between the
oondlonally approved area and the source of pollution to
give the State agency time to stop shellfish harvesting if
performance standards are not met.
d. Boundaries of conditionally approved areas are
so marked as to be readily identified by harvesters.
-------
1146
52k e. Critical sewerage system units are so designed,
constructed, and maintained that the chances of failure
to meet the established performance standards due to meohani
cal failure or overload ing are minimized.
f. There is a complete understanding of the purpose
of the conditionally approved classification by all parties
concerned, including the shellfish industry. Successful
functioning of the concept is dependent upon the whole-
hearted cooperation of all interested parties. If such
cooperation is not assured the State should not approve
the area for direct harvesting of market shellfish.
g. Any failure to meet the performance standards
is Immediately reported to the State shellfish control
agency by telephone or messenger. In some instances
states may find it desirable to delegate the authority for
closing a conditionally approved area to a representative
of the agency located in the immediate area.
h. The State immediately closes conditionally
approved areas to shellfish harvesting following 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 D-l, "Reiayitf
for information on the length of time required for self-
purlficatlon of shellfish.)
-------
1. The State shellfish control agency makes at
least two evaluations during the shellfish harvesting
season of each conditionally approved area Including In-
spection of each critical unit of the sewerage system to
determine the general mechanical condition of the equip-
ment, the accuracy of recording devices, and the accuracy
of reporting by the operating agency.
J. It is discovered that failure to meet perfor-
mance standards have not been reported by the operating
agency, or if the performance standards are not met, the
area will immediately revert to a restricted or prohibited
classification.
k. All data relating to the operation of a condi-
tionally approved area, including operation of sewerage
systems, are maintained In a file by the State shellfish
control agency.
Public-health explanation. — The conditionally
approved classification is designed primarily to protect
shellfish growing areas in which the water quality might
undergo a significant adverse change within a short period
of time. The change might result from overloading or
mechanical failure of a sewage treatment plant, or by-
passing 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 shell-
fish 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 degradation in water
quality in the growing area, which may Justify a relo-
cation of the boundaries. The degree of relocation would
depend upon such items as the distance between the pollu-
tion source and the growing area, hydrography, the amount
of dilution water, and the amount of pollution.
The concept Is also applicable to other situations
in which there may be a rapid or seasonal change In water
quality. Examples of such situations include —
a. A growing area adjacent to a resort community.
During the summer months the community might have a large
population which might have an adverse effect on water
quality. However, during the winter when there are few
people in the community the water quality might improve
sufficiently to allow approval of the area. In some States
this is known as a seasonal closure.
b. A protected harbor in a sparsely settled area
-------
11*49
provide anohorage for a fishing fleet several months a
year. When the fishing fleet is in, the harbor water
would be of poor sanitary quality; however, during the
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.
o. The water quality in an area fluctuates with the
discharge of a major river. During periods of high runoff
the area is polluted because of decreased flow time in the
river. However, during periods of low runoff the area
might be of satisfactory quality and thus be approved
for shellfish harvesting.
The establishment of conditionally approved areas
might be considered whenever the potential for sewage con-
tamination 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 situa-
tions 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:
-------
1150
56k (1) Sewage treatment plants.
(a) Bypassing of all or part of sewage because
of mechanical or power failure, hydraulic
overloading, or treatment overloading.
(b) Reduced degree of treatment due to operational
difficulties or inadequate plant.
(2) Sewage lift stations.
(a) Bypassing during periods of maximum flow
due to inadequate capacity.
(b) Bypassing because of mechanical or power
failure.
(3) Interceptor sewers or underwater outfalls.
(a) ExflitratIon due to faulty construction
(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 conditionally
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 in-
stallation having a significant effect on the sanitary
quality of the area. Examples of performance standards
might include:
(l) Bacteriological quality of effluent from sewage
-------
1151
treatment plants. This might be stated In terms of chlorine
residual if the baoteriologioal quality of the effluent
can be positively related to chlorine residual. The
following is an example of a performance standard (37):
"The median ooliform MPN, in any one month, shall not
exceed 500 per 100 ml., based on not less than 16 compo-
site samples per month, and not more than 10 percent of
the samples shall have an MPN in excess of 10,000 per
100 ml. Determinations of the chlorine residual of the
effluent should be made hourly and recorded in the perman-
,/
ent plant records."
(2) Total quantity of sewage which can be discharged
from any given unit, or from a combination of units, with-
out causing the basic water quality standards to be ex-
ceeded .
(3) Amount of shipping in the area and the amount
of sewage which can be expected.
Design criteria which may be useful in formulating
an opinion on the quantity of sewage which can be dis-
charged into an area without exceeding the desired water
quality standards include: Population equivalent (collform)
of sewage; predicted survival of collform in sea water,
effectiveness of chlorlnatlon, and the total quantity of
clean dilution water in an area. Results of many studies
on the survival of bacteria in sea water have been summarized
-------
1152
58k in An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Sewage and Sludge; Publication No. 14, Cali-
fornia State Water Pollution Control Board, 1956.
The meobanleal equipment at critical sewage
treatment or pumping units should be such that Interr-
uptions will be minimized. Wherever possible operations
should be automatically recorded on charts. Examples of
the requirements which might be imposed, depending upon
the Importance of the unit in terms of water quality, include
(l) Ample capacity for storm flows. (Storm water
should ordinarily be excluded from the sanitary system.)
(2) Standby equipment to insure that treatment or
pumping will not be interrupted because of damage to a
single unit or to power failure.
(3) Instrumentation of pumps and equipment to allow
the regulatory agency to determine that performance
standards have been met. Examples include:
(a) Recording scales to indicate rate of
chlorine use. Chlorine flow can be integrated with hydraulic
flow to establish a ratio.
(b) Liquid level recording gages In overflow
channels of sewage treatment plants and wet wells of lift
stations to Indicate when overflow takes place. Charts
should be dated and initialed by the operator. Gages
should be calibrated so that discharge can be estimated.
-------
1153
(o) Automatic devices to warn of failure or
malfunctioning at self-operated pumping stations or
treatment plants.
(4) The effect of storm sewage can be calculated by
multiplying the total estimated flow by the observed
collform content. The result can be expressed In terras
of population equivalents (collform).
Design and operation of equipment should be
such that closure provisions should not have to be invoked
more than once per year under ordinary circumstances.
A closed safety area should be Interposed
between the conditionally approved area and the source
of pollution. The size of such area should be based on
the total time it would take for the operating agency
to detect a failure, notify the State shellfish control
agency, and for the latter agency to stop shellfish
harvesting. It is recommended that the area be of such
size that the flow time through the safety area be at
least twice that required for the notification process
to become 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 approved areas will vary from state to
-------
1154
60k: state depending upon the legal requirements for closing an
area.
The length of time a conditionally approved
area should be closed following a temporary closure will
depend upon several factors Including the species of
shellfish, water temperature, purification rates, pre-
sence of silt or other chemicals that might Interfere
with the physiological 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 classified
as restricted when a sanitary survey Indicates a limited
degree of pollution which would make It unsafe to har-
vest the shellfish for direct marketing. Alternatively
the states may classify such areas as prohibited. (See
section C-6, this manual.) Shellfish from such areas
may be marketed after purifying or relaying as provided
for in section D.
Satisfactory compliance. — This Item will be
satisfied when the following water quality criteria are
11 12
met in areas designated by states as restricted.
a. The area is so contaminated with fecal materials
that direct consumption of the shellfish might be hazardous*
and/or
-------
1155
b. The area is not so contaminated with radionuclides
or industrial wastes that consumption of the shellfish
might be hazardous, and/or
o. 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 por-
tions of the areas most probably exposed to fecal con-
tamination during the most unfavorable hydrographio and
pollution conditions. (Note: this concentration might
be exceeded if less than 800,000 cubic feet of a con-
form-free dilution water are available for each population
equivalent (coliform) of sewage reaching the area.)
d. Shellfish from restricted areas are not marketed
without controlled purification or relaying.
Public-health explanation. — In many instances it is
difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between
polluted and nonpolluted areas. In such instances the
state may, at its option* classify areas of intermediate
sanitary quality as restricted and authorize the use of
the shellfish for relaying, or controlled purification.
6. Prohibited Areas. — An area shall be classi-
fied prohibited if the sanitary survey indicates that
dangerous numbers of pathogenic microorganisms might
reach an area. The taking of shellfish from such areas
for direct marketing shall be prohibited. Relaying or
-------
1156
62k other salvage operations shall be carefully supervised
to insure against polluted shellfish entering trade
channels. Actual and potential growing areas which
have not been subjected to sanitary surveys shall be
automatically classified as prohibited.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satisfied
when:
a. An area is classified as prohibited if a sanitary
survey indicates either of the following degrees of pollu-
t ion:
(1) The area is contaminated with radio-
nuclides or industrial wastes that consumption of the
shellfish might be hazardous and /or
(2) The median ooilform MPN of the water
exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than 10 percent of the
samples have a coliform MPN in excess of 2,300 per 100
ml. (Note: This concentration might be reached if less
than 800*000 cubic feet of a coliform-free dilution
water are available for each population equivalent (coli-
form) of sewage reaching the area.)
b. No market shellfish are taken from prohibited
areas except by special permit as described in section D.
c. Coastal areas in which sanitary surveys have not
been made shall be automatically classified as prohibited.
-------
1157
Public-health explanation. — The positive relation-
ship between enteric disease and the eating of raw or
partially cooked shellfish has been outlined in section C-l,
Prevention of the interstate transport of shellfish con-
taining sufficient numbers of pathogenic microorganisms
to cause disease is a primary objective of the National
Program. Therefore, areas containing dangerous concen-
trations of microorganisms 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 has been found. '
The harvesting of shellfish from such areas shall be
controlled in accord with the recommendations of sections
E-i and £-2 of this manual.
The quarantine shall remain in effect until such
time as the State shellfish control agency is convinced
the poison content of the shellfish involved is below the
-------
1158
14
64k quarantine level.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis-
fied when —
a. The State shellfish oontrol agency collects and
assays representative samples of shellfish for the pre-
sence of toxins from eaah suspected growing area during
the harvesting season, (See section B-2 for assay methods,
b. A quarantine is imposed against the talcing 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 bl-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 several
fatalities, resulting from poisonous shellfish have been
reported from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The
minimum quantity of poison which will cause intoxication
in a susceptible person is not know. Epidemiologioal
investigations of paralytic shellfish poisoning in Canada
have indicated 200 to 600 micrograms of poison will pro-
duce symptoms in susceptible persons and a death has been
-------
1159
attributed to the ingestion of a probable 480 miorograms
of poison. Investigations indicate that lesser amounts
of the poison have no deleterious effects on humans.
Growing areas should be closed at a lower toxicity level
to provide an adequate margin of safety since in many
instances toxioity levels will change rapidly (38) (39).
It has also been shown that the heat treatment afforded
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, physiology and toxicology,
characteristios of the poison, and prevention and control
of poisoning has been prepared (40).
In Gulf coast areas, toxioity in shellfish
has been associated (12) (76) with Red Tide outbreaks
caused by mass bloomings of the toxic dinoflagellate,
Gymnodinium breve. Toxic symptoms in mice suggest a type
of oiguatera fish poisoning rather than symptoms of para-
lytic shellfish poisoning.
-------
1160
66k
FOOTNOTES
Section C
2
In making the sanitary survey consideration should be
given the the hydrographlc and geographic characteristics
of the estuary, the bacteriological quality of the growing
area water and bottom sediments, and the presence and
location of small sources of pollution, including boats,
which might contribute fresh sewage to the area.
3
The purpose of this reappraisal is to determine If there
have been changes In stream flow, sewage treatment,
populations, or other similar factors which might result
In a change in the sanitary quality of the growing area.
The amount of field work associated with such a reappraisal
will depend upon the area under consideration and the
tude of the changes which have taken place.
4
An MPN of approximately 70 per 100 ml.
5
Bacteria in an unfavorable environment die out in such
a way that following an initial lag period there Is a
large percentage decline during the first few days.
-------
1161
Descriptions of studies on bacteria dieout have been
published by Greenberg (22) and Pearson (23), Dleoff has
also been Investigated by the Public Health Service Shell-
fish Sanitation Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass., and
Pensacola, Fla. Application of this principle may be
helpful In predicting the quantity of pollution which
will reach an area, and In establishing objective
effluent quality criteria (24).
6
In connection with the evaluation of sampling results,
It should be noted that MPN determination Is not a pre-
cise measure of the concentration of bacteria (.4). Thus,
In repeated 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 concentration 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 = 21 and 70 x 3.3 = 230.
7
Closures may also be based on presence of Marine Toxins
or other toxic materials.
-------
1162
68k *
States may use other terminology in describing area
olassIfIcatIons; provided, that the classification terms
used are consistent with the intent and meaning of the
words "approved", "conditionally approved", "restricted",
or "prohibited".
8
This MPN value is based on a typical ratio of conforms
to pathogens and would not be applicable to any situation
in which an abnormally large number of pathogens might
be present. Consideration must also be given to the
possible presence of industrial or agricultural wastes
in which there is an atypical coliform to pathogen ratio (30)
9
There is a third general consideration in which shellfish
may be contaminated through mishandling. This is not
related to growing area sanitation and is considered in
part II of this manual.
10
A natural disaster may also cause many sewage treatment
plants to be out of service for an extended period of time.
The conditionally approved area concept is not ordinarily
concerned with such emergency situations.
-------
1163
11
It is not mandatory that states use this classification.
Areas not meeting the approved classification may be closed
to all harvesting for direct marketing.
12
Routine sanitary surveys and reappraisals of restricted
areas shall be made on the same frequency as for approved
areas. (See section C-l.)
13
This value is based on the results of epidemiological
investigations of outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poison
in Canada in 1952* and 1957 (38) (39).
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.
-------
1164
70k Section D
PREPARATION OF SHELLFISH FOR MARKETING
1. Relaying. — State shellfish control agencies
may approve the intra- or interstate transplanting of
market shellfish from restricted or prohibited areas to
approved areas subject to certain limitations. All phases
of the operation shall be under the immediate supervision
of responsible State(s) shellfish control or patrol agency(e),
A memorandum of understanding shall be developed between
the agencies responsible for the control of interstate
relaying operations. (Shellfish may be transplanted from
an approved area to another like area at any time without
restriction due to sanitary reasons.)
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satisfied
when —
a. Shellfish are not re laid from restricted or pro-
hibited areas to approved areas without written permission
of the State shellfish control agency.
b. All relaying operations are under the immediate
supervision of the State shellfish control or patrol agency.
Supervision shall be such that no polluted shellfish are
marketed before the end of the approved relaying period. The
supervising officer shall be authorized and equipped to
-------
1165
enforce the State regulations on relaying; shall actually
supervise the harvesting, transport and relaying of shell-
fish; and shall patrol the approved area during the period
that shellfish are undergoing the cleansing process.
However, continuous supervision will not be necessary if
relaying operations are carried out during a period when
shellfish may not be marketed. A continuous record of
water temperature, salinity, and any other critical variables
must be maintained when it is known that the limiting
values may be approached and when the minimum relaying
periods are being used.
c. State permission to relay shellfish is given only
to responsible persons; responsibility to be determined
by the past record of the permit applicant.
d. Relaid shellfish are held in the approved area
for a period of time sufficient to allow them to cleanse
themselves of polluting bacteria. (The time required for
purification will be determined by water temperature,
salinity, initial bacteriological quality and species of
shellfish.)
e. Relaid shellfish are not harvested without written
permission from the State shellfish control agency.
f. Areas designated for relaid shellfish are so
-------
1166
72k located and marked that they may be readily identified by
the harvesters and BO that shellfish in any adjacent
approved area will not be contaminated. (This requirement
applies only to relaying during the harvesting season.)
g. Shellfish are not relayed intra or interstate
from restricted or .prohibited areas to approved areas with-
out written permission of the State(s) shellfish control
agency (a). (If shellfish are relayed interstate, a
memorandum of agreement shall be developed outlining the
control measures to be used.)
Public-health explanation. — Shellfish transplanted
from a polluted to a clean environment will cleanse
themselves of the polluting bacteria or viruses. This
is a natural phenomenon resulting from the shellfish
feeding processes. Bacteria or viruses in the body and
shell cavity of the shellfish at the time of transplanting
are either used as food or are ejected in feoes or pseudo-
feoes.
The length of time required for this cleansing
process is Influenced by many factors Incldulng original
level of pollution, water temperature, presence of chemicals
inhibitory to physiological activity of the shellfish,
salinity, and varying capabilities of the individual animals*
-------
1167
Advice on limiting water temperatures, either maximum or
minimum, should be obtained from local marine biologists.
Investigations by marine biologists have confirmed
that the payBiological activities of the Eastern oyster
(Crassestrea virglnloa) is reduced when the water tempera-
ture falls below a certain value. It has been found that
the pumping rate of Eastern oysters is reduced at water
temperatures below 50° F., and that most animals stop
pumping at a water temperature of about 41° F. However*
a few oysters show slight activity at temperatures
approaching 32° F. (41) (42). This phenomenon was first
noted by shellfish bacteriologists who found that Eastern
oysters harvested from polluted areas during cold weather
had conform contents comparable with those of oysters
harvested from clean areas during warmer weather (43)
(44) (45).
Oibbard et al. (46) investigating temperature-
induced hibernation was unable to demonstrate conforms In
Eastern oysters within a few days after the water tempera-
tures dropped to 32° F. The rapidity with which hiber-
nating oysters become active when the water temperature
rises above the threshold value was discussed by Wachter
(4?) in 1925 and was demonstrated by Gibbard et al. (46).
The latter investigator found that contamination accompanying
-------
1168
a sudden two degree increase in water temperature from
4l to 43° F. was reflected in the oysters in one day.
Relaying operations must be carefully super-
vised by an official State agency since the shellfish
may contain pathogenic microorganisms. Control must
apply to all phases of the operation including initial
harvesting, transportation, replanting, purification
period, and final harvesting for marketing if the relaying
area is adjacent to a restricted area or to an area con-
taining re la Id shellfish which have not been released for
harvesting.
Controlled Purification. — Shellfish from res-
tricted or prohibited areas may be marketed after effec-
tive controlled purification. Purification shall be per-
mitted only under the immediate supervision of the State
shellfish control agency. Water used for purification
shall be of high bacteriological quality and its physical
and chemical properties shall be favorable to maximum
physiological activity of the shellfish. Stringent pre-
cautions shall be taken by the State shellfish control
agency to insure that shellfish harvested from restricted
or prohibited areas are actually submitted to an effective
purification process before marketing.
Purification of shellfish from prohibited areas
-------
1169
shall not be approved by the State unless relaying Is
not practical for biological reasons, and no public-health
hazard will result from the use of such shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis-
fied when:
a. The controlled purification system, including water
treatment, has been demonstrated to be consistently
effective for the species of shellfish being purified.
Purification may be accomplished in either a natural body
of water or in tanks. (In determining the effectiveness
of the process at least the following factors shall be In-
vestigated : Water temperature, silt or turbidity, dissolved
oxygen, presence of chemicals, and time required for puri-
fication.) The bacteriological quality of the purified
shellfish shall be at least equal to shellfish of the
same species harvested from local approved areas.
b. A purification plant operating procedures is
developed and copies are supplied to the Public Health
Service.
c. Water used for purification is obtained from an
area meeting the physical and bacteriological requirements
of an approved growing area, or in the case of treated
water the bacteriological limits of the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards (k&) are met. If water
-------
1170
is to be treated, it shall be obtained from an area
meeting at least the sanitary requirements for a restricted
area.
d. Water used for purl float ion has chemical and
physical characteristics conducive to maximum physiological
activity of the shellfish. (Consideration shall be given
to the following: Presence of chemicals, turbidity,
temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen, and to to the
adequacy of the facilities of the operating agency for
measuring these characteristics.)
e. Shellfish are freed of contamination and foreign
material adhering to shells before purification.
f. Shellfish are culled before and after purification,
g. Purification plant operation is under the admin-
istrative control of the State shellfish control agency.
Purification plants may be operated by agencies other
than the State; however, insofar as the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program is concerned, the State i& responsible
for satisfactory operation.
h. Laboratory control is maintained over the puri-
fication operation. Controls shall include at least the
following: Dally or tidal-cycle bacteriological quality
of water; final bacteriological quality for each lot of
shellfish purified; and, when they are critical factors,
-------
1171
hourly or continuous salinity determinations and tidal-cycle
turbidity determinations.
1. The plant operator possesses a satisfactory know-
ledge of the principles of water treatment and bacteriology.
J. Animals, rodents, and unauthorized persons are
excluded from the plant.
tc. Plant employees fulfill the qualifications for a
shucker as described in section B-28, part II of this manual.
1. The State has an effective system for assuring
that shellfish harvested from restricted areas will be sub-
mitted to purification before marketing. Shellfish har-
vesting from prohibited areas for controlled purification
shall be under the immediate supervision of the State.
m. Shellfish from prohibited areas are not subjected
to purification unless the State shellfish control agency
can show that relaying or depletion is not biologically
feasible; and that no public-health hazard will result from
the use of such shellfish.
Public-health explanation. — The ability of shellfish
to purify themselves in clean water was discovered early
in the 1900's. The biological process is reasonably well
understood and is described by Arolsz and Kelly (26) as
follows:
"Purification is a mechanical process effected by the
-------
1172
physiological functioning of the shellfish in clean water.
When shellfish are feeding, the gills act as a filter to
strain out some of the material that may be brought in by
the water which passes through them. If this water contains
sewage, some of the microorganisms in it are entrapped
in the mucus on the body of the shellfish and transferred
to the alimentary tract. Some of these are perhaps utili-
zed as food (49) and the others discharged from the body
In the form of feces and pseudofeces. When shellfish
from polluted water are placed in clean water, the sewage
bacteria are eliminated from the shellfish, and, since no
more are ingested, purification is accomplished."
The purification process has been Investigated
extensively In England and to a lesser extent in the
United States and Canada (50) (51) (52). The technique is
reliable if proper methods are used, and insofar as is
known, is applicable to all commercial species of shellfish.
Many of the earlier Investigators suggested that
purification be accomplished in tanks using water which had
been subjected to a treatment process (52). The analogy
with water treatment was carried to the point of recommending
a chlorine residual in the purification tanks. However,
fishery biologists have shown that shellfish pumping is
decreased or inhibited by even small quantities of chlorine
(53) (5*0. The inhibitory effect of chlorinated-dechlorlnated
-------
1173
water on activity of Eastern oysters has been noted by the
Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory.
Since purification depends upon the pumping
rate of the shellfish, It Is Important that the water be
free of chemicals or physical characteristics which might
»
Interfere with this activity. For example, silt *r dissolved
organic substances may Influence the pumping rates of shell-
fish (55) (56). The relationship of water temperature to
pumping rates has been mentioned previously.
Shellfish purification facilities have generally
been considered to include holding tanks and water treat-
ment facilities (57) (58); however, investigations.In
Canada and England have demonstrated that purification
can be accomplished with relatively simple installations
if the operation Is supervised properly (59) (5P) (60)
(6l). Accordingly, any purification process of proven
effectiveness will be accepted by the national program.
Administrative control of the purification process
is necessary to insure that shellfish are properly washed
and culled, are held for the required length of time, and
that the purification water supply is properly controlled.
-------
Section £
CONTROL OF HARVESTING FROM CLOSED AREAS
( 1. Identification of Closed Areas. — Shellfish
harvesters shall be notified by direct notice and warning
signs of areas closed to harvesting* Closed areas shall
be so marked or described that they may be easily recognized
by the harvesters. The measures necessary to accomplish
delineation and notification will vary with the structure
of the local shellfish industry and with the legal re*
qulrements of each State.
Satisfactory compliance, — This item will be satisfied
when:
a. The boundaries of the closed areas are marked by
fixed objects or landmarks in a manner which permits
successful prosecution of any violations of the closed
areas.
b. Shellfish harvesters are notified of the location
of closed areas by publication or direct notification (such
as registered mail) and/or warning signs posted at points
of access to each closed area. The method of notification
and identification should permit the successful prose-
cution of persons harvesting shellfish from the closed areas,
-------
1175
(The limiting of shellfish harvesting permits to specific
areas is an alternative to posting or notification. Where
such a system is used, posting will be required only for
closed areas which contain market shellfish.)
Public-health explanation. — Previous sections of
this manual have described the public-health reasons for
limiting shellfish harvesting to areas free of contamination
and shellfish toxins. Methods have been described for the
evaluation and classification of such areas. However,
classification is not effective unless the State can pre-
vent illegal harvesting of shellfish for direct marketing
from these closed areas.
For the most part, control of illegal harvesting
depends upon the police activities as described in section
E-2. However, adequate delineation of the closed areas
IB fundamental to effective patrol.
The type of area identification will be deter-
ftlned by the structure of the local shellfish industry.
Posting a warning sign is one method of .informing shellfish
harvesters that an area is closed to the taking of shell-
fish for public-health reasons. However, if the local
ahellfish industry is highly organized, with shellfish
being harvested by only a few operators, identification
•ay be accomplished by officially informing the harvesters
-------
1176
that certain areas are closed to the taking of shellfish.
It is recommended that the advice of the State's legal
counsel be obtained to insure that the marking of closed
areas and notifications to shellfish harvesters are such
that Illegal harvesting can be prosecuted successfully.
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting of Shellfish
From Closed Areas. -- Closed growing areas shall be
patrolled by a State agency to prevent Illegal harvesting.
The patrol force shall be so equipped that its officers
will be able to apprehend persons taking shellfish from
closed areas.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis-
fied when —
a. There is no evidence that shellfish are being
harvested from closed areas except by special permit as
required to meet local conditions.
b. Closed shellfish growing areas are patrolled by
representatives of an official agency, due consideration
being given to night, weekend and holiday patrols. (States
may delegate patrol activities to local organizations; how-
ever, responsibility for effective control will remain with
the State insofar as the National Program is concerned.
o. Patrol forces are so equipped that persons ob-
served in closed areas may be apprehended.
-------
1177
d. Complete records of patrol activities, Including
violations and court actions, are maintained In the central
office of the State shellfish control or patrol agency.
It will be the responsibility of the State to Include
local patrol activities In these records. (See section A,
subsection 2 (e) regarding monthly summaries of patrol
activities.)
Public-health explanation. — The primary objective
of the National Program Is to Insure that shellfish will
be harvested only from areas which are free of dangerous
concentrations of pathogenic mloroorganlsma. Industrial or
radioactive wastes, pesticides or shellfish toxins.
Growing areas may be classified as to their
public-health suitability for shellfish harvesting on the
basis of Information obtained by sanitary and toxlcologlcal
surveys. However, If local shellfish harvesters are not
convinced of the need for restrictions, shellfish may be
harvested surreptitiously from the closed areas. Thus,
patrol failure may nullify the public-health safeguards
resulting from sanitary survey activities.
The fact that law prohibits the removal of
shellfish from certain areas will deter most persons from
attempting to harvest such shellfish provided they are
aware of the law and of the areas which are closed. However,
-------
1178
local public opinion may not support the need for such
closures. In such cases favorable opinion can probably
be developed only through an educational program or a
locally demonstrated need such as an epidemic or outbreak
of paralytic shellfish poisoning. There is also a minority
element not concerned with the welfare of their customers
and who, through Ignorance or purpose, will attempt to
circumvent the harvesting restrictions.
Patrols must, therefore, be directed against
three classes of individuals; i.e., those who are ignorant
of the law, those who believe the law is unjust or un-
reasonable, and those who have no regard for the law.
Several mechanisms for improving the effective-
ness of patrols include educational programs to acquaint
shellfish harvesters with the public-health reasons for
the closures, elimination of the "temptation element" by de-
pletion, and relaying or purification. Apprehension,
prosecution, and punishment of violators is a final resort.
The type of patrol organization needed for any
particular situation cannot be specified and is determined
by the nature of areas to be patrolled, means of access,
methods of harvesting, and species. Patrol equipment
should be such that the officers can apprehend persons
harvesting shellfish in a closed area. Necessary equipment
-------
1179
might include patrol boats capable of operating in open
waters; small, high-speed, readily transportable boats,
or patrol automobiles. In many instances, two-way radio
will be helpful in coordinating patrol activities. Radar
surveillance systems might also be of assistance, parti-
cularly during foggy weather or at night.
Organization of the patrol activity must take
into consideration the need for night, weekend, holiday,
and surprise patrols. Either nuisance or continual patrol
nay be used depending on the nature of the area to be
patrolled and the type of industry.
The adequacy of State laws as a basis for prose-
cution Is an important component of this activity. Shell-
fish patrol will probably be ineffective if State laws
are so written or Interpreted that violators cannot be
successfully prosecuted, or if penalties are so small
that they are economically unimportant. The latter point
may be important in an area where local public opinion
does not support the need for the restriction.
3. Depletion of Closed Areas. — The State shell-
fish control or patrol agency shall supervise all deple-
tion operations. All market-size shellfish and as many
of the smaller size as can be gathered by reasonable
methods shall be removed in the initial depletion operation,
Depletion of each area shall be carried out at intervals to
-------
1180
prevent the development of market-sized shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. — This Item will be satisfied
when --
a. The State shellfish control or patrol agency
exercises direct supervision over each depletion project
Including patrol of the area in which the shellfish are
re laid. (See section D-l.)
b. All market shellfish and as many of the smaller
size shellfish as can be gathered by reasonable methods
are removed in the depletion operation.
c. Similar supervised depletion operations are carried
out at intervals to prevent development of market-sized
shellfish In quantities which would make commercial harvesting
economically practicable in the depleted areas.
Public-health explanation. -- Complete removal of
shellfish from polluted to clean areas under appropriate
precautions is the best safeguard against contaminated
shellfish reaching the market. In some cases depletion
may be more economical and effective than patrol of closed
areas.
-------
1181
Appendix A
BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR SHUCKED OYSTERS
AT THE WHOLESALE MARKET LEVEL
The development of satisfactory bacteriological
criteria for interstate shipments of oysters as received
at the wholesale market, level has been under consideration
since 1950. At that time the Canadian Department of
National Health and V/elfare pointed out that most, of the
U. S. - shucked Eastern oysters sold in Canada had high
conform MPN's, high standard plate counts, or both (2), The
.Canadian experience with market standards for oysters
swas discussed at the 1956 National Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop (2) and the Workshop adopted on an Interim basis
the following bacteriological standard for shucked Eastern
oysters at the wholesale market level:
"Class 1, Acceptable: Shucked oysters with a
Most Probably Number (MPN) of coliform bacteria of not
more than 16,000 per 100 ml., and/or a Standard Plate Count
of not more than 50*000 per nil.
"Class 2, Acceptable on Condition: Shucked
oysters with a coliform MPN greater than 16,000 per 100
ml., but less than 160,000 per ml., and/or a Standard
Plate Count greater than 50,000 per ml., but less than 1
-------
1182
million per ml. (The oysters will be accepted on the con-
dition that the shellfish sanitation authority In the ori-
ginating state will make Immediate Investigation of the
producer's plant and operations and will submit a report
of such Investigations to the control agency In the market
area. On the basis of this report the control agency in the
market will reject or permit further shipments from the
producer in question.)
"Class 3, Rejectable: Shucked oysters with a
coliform MPN of 160,000 or more per 100 ml., and/or a
Standard Plate Count of 1 million or more per ml."
In establishing the above Interim standards,
the 1956 Workshop recognized the limitations of the coliform
group as an Index of quality In that it failed to reveal
whether the shellfish had been harvested from polluted
areas or had been exposed to contamination during handling
and processing subsequent to removal from the water. A
recommendation was made that investigations be conduoted
to evaluate the significance of other bacterial indices.
The fecal coliform group was suggested as a possible sub-
stitute for the coliform indices.
In partial fulfillment of this suggestion, a
report on an Interstate cooperative study to evaluate
bacteriological criteria for market oysters was presented
-------
1183
at the 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop (3). A feature
of this report was the development and evaluation of a
method for the estimation of fecal coliform organisms
following a procedure originally developed by Hajna and Perry
(77). Gross increases in coliform organisms were observed
during normal acceptable commercial practices. The magni-
tude of changes in coliform organisms was of the same
order as those observed in plate counts. The results
clearly demonstrated the inadequacy of the coliform group
as an Indicator of the sanitary quality of shellfish.
It was further concluded that the plate count was of equal
significance in revealing chance contamination or viola-
tions of aooeptable storage time and temperature. On
the other hand, the results of the examinations for fecal
coliform organisms revealed a much higher degree of
stability as the shellfish proceeded through commercial
channels and thus suggested the greater suitability of
this parameter as an index of sanitary quality at the
wholesale market level. After due consideration of the
report, the 1958 Workshop cnanged the interim bacteriolo-
gical standard for fresh and frozen shucked oysters at the
wholesale market level to the following:
Satisfactory. *•* E. coll density of not more than 78
-------
1184
MFN per 100 ml. of samples as indicated by production of
gas in E. C. liquid broth media nor more than 100,000
total bacteria per ml. on agar at 35° C. will be acceptable
without question. An E. coli content of 79 to 230 MPN per
100 ml. of sample or a total bacteria count of 100,COO
• o 500,000 per ml. will be acceptable in occasional
samples. If these concentrations are found in two succ-
essive samples from the same packer or repacker, the
State regulatory authority at the source will be requested
to supply information to the receiving state concerning the
status of operation of this packer or repacker.
15
Unsatisfactory. E. coli content of more than 230
MPN per 100 ml. of sample or a total bacteria count of
more than 500,000 per ml. will constitute an unsatisfactory
sample and may be subject to rejection by the State shell-
fish regulatory authority. Future shipments to receiving
markets by the shipper concerned will depend upon satis-
factory operational reports by the shellfish regulatory
authorities; at the.point of origin.
-j * • -i,.. -
In adopting the above standards, the 1958
Workshop recommended that the cooperative studies conducted
by city and State laboratories and the Public Health
Service be Continued.
-------
1185
The 1961 Workshop reviewed still more data
collected by the collaborating agencies during the 1958-61
period (6?) and after considerable deliberation agreed to
continued use of the interim bacteriological standards
arrived at by the I95& Workshop.
The 1964 Workshop considered all bacteriological
data available up to that time (Nov. 17-19), including
date relative to Crassostrea glgas, and adopted the
following standards on a permanent basis, versus the
previous interim basis, as being applicable to- all species
of fresh and frozen oysters at the wholesale market level,
provided they can be identified as having been produced
under the general sanitary controls of the National Shell-
16
fish Sanitation Program.
17
Satisfactory. Fecal coliform density of not more
<•> i ft
than 230 MPN per 100 grams and 35 C. plate count of
not more than 500,000 per gram will be acceptable without
question.
Conditional. Fecal coliform density of more than 230
MPN per 100 grams and/or 35° C. plate count of more than
500,000 per gram will constitute a conditional sample and
may be subject to rejection by the State shellfish regu-
latory authority. If these concentrations are found in
two successive samples from the same shipper, the State
-------
1186
regulatory authority at the source will be requested to
supply Information to the receiving state concerning the
status of operation of this shipper. Future shipments to
receiving markets by the shipper concerned will depend
upon satisfactory operational reports by the shellfish
regulatory authorities at the point of origin.
In establishing the above bacteriological
standards the 1964 Workshop took cognizance of the fact
that no known health hazard was involved in consuming
oysters meeting the standard; that oysters produced in
the Gulf Coast States with warmer growing waters, could
meet the standard if harvested, processed, and distributed
according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
requirements, and that the oysters harvested were from
"approved" growing areas complying with the standards for
growing areas established In part I of the PHS Publication
No. 33.
-------
1187
Appendix A
FOOTNOTES
15
E. coll was defined as conforms which will produce
gas from E. C. medium within 48 hours at 44.5° C. in a
water bath will be referred to as fecal coliforms.
16
The standards are not considered meaningful in the ab-
sence of such information.
17
Fecal collform organisms are those which, on transfer
to E. C. medium from gas positive presumptive broth tubes
show production of gas after incubation In a water bath at
44.5° C.*t o.2° C. for 24 hours. Where air Incubation is
at 45.5° C. - 0.2° C. comparative tests must be made to
determine comparable time of Incubation.
18
Plate count is the number of bacteria determined by the
"Standard Plate Count: procedure for shellfish described
In the APHA Recommended Procedures for the Bacteriological
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish."
-------
1188
References
1. Jensen, E. T.: The 1954 National Conference on Shell-
fish Sanitation, Public Health Reports, vol. 70, No. 9
Sept. 1955.
2. Proceedings — 1956 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
mimeographed, Public Health Service, 1956.
3. Proceedings -- 1958 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
lithographed, Public Health Service, 1958.
4. Woodward, Richard L.: How Probable Is the Most Probable
Number? Journal, American Water Works Association, vol.
49, No. 8; 1060-1068; August 1957.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water, American Public Health Association*
6. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification of
the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No. 143, July 1924.
7. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification of
the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No. 204, May 1933.
8. Phelps, Earl B.: Stream Sanitation, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1944.
9. Report on Committee on Sanitary Control of the Shell-
fish Industry In the United States, Supplement No. 53,
Public Health Reports, Nov. 6, 1925.
-------
1189
10. Orlob, Gerald T.; Evaluating Bacterial Contamination
In Sea Water Samples, Public Health ReportK, Vol. 71,
No. 12, December 1956.
11. Scisantz, E. J.: Purified Shellfish Pel^on for Dlo-
aseay St&ndaraizatlan, Journal of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, Feb. 1958.
12. McFarren, E. F.: Mlneograph 1-14-63. Available from
P.H.S. Shellfish Sanitation Branch.
13. Fisher, L.M., Chairman: Report of the Committee of
the Public Health Engineering Section of the American
Public Health Association, American Journal of Public
Health, 27, 180-196, Supplement, March 1937.
14. Old, H. N. and Gill, S. L.: A Typhoid Fever Epidemic
Caused by Carrier Bootlegging Oysters, American Journal
of Public Health, 30: 633-640, June 19^0.
15. Hart, J. C.: Typhoid Fever from Clams, Connecticut
Health Bulletin, December 19^5.
16. Roos, Bertil: Hepatitis Epidemic Conveyed by Oysters
Svenska Lakartidnlngen, vol. 53, No. 16, 989-1003, 1956.
(Translation available from the Public Health Service.)
17. Lindberg-Broman, Ann Marl: Clinical Observations in
the So-Called Oyster Hepatitis, Svenka Lakartldningen,
vol. 53, No. 16, 1003-9, 1956 (Translation available from
the Public Health Service.)
-------
1190
18. Meyers, K. P.: Medical Progress — Food Poisoning, New
England Journal of Medicine, 249: 765-773, 804-812 and
843-852 (Nov. 5, 12, and 19) 1953*
19. Lumsden, L. L., Hasseltine, H. E., Leak, J. P. and
Veldee, M. V.: A Typhoid Fever Epidemic Caused by Oyster-
Borne Infection, Public Health Reports, supp. No. 50, 1925.
20. A Report on the Public Health Aspects of Clamming In
Rarltan Bay, Public Health Service, reissued June 1954.
21. Dack, G. M.: Food Poisoning, third edition; the
University of Chicago Press, 1956, fourth impression 1964.
22. Qreenberg, Arnold E.: Survival of Enteric Organisms
in Sea Water, Public Health Reports, vol. 71, No. 1,
January 1956.
23. An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Sewage and Sludge, Publication No. 14, Cali-
fornia State Water Pollution Control Board, 1956.
24. Harris, Eugene K.: On the Probability of Survival of
Bacteria in Sea Water, Biometrics, June 1958.
25. Wood, P. C.: Factors Affecting the Pollution and
Self-Purification of Molluscan Shellfish, Extrait du Jour-
nal du Gonseil International Pour 1'Exploration de la Mer,
vol. XXII, No. 2, 1957.
-------
1191
26. Arcisz, William and Kelly, C. B.: Self-Purification of
the Soft Clam, Mya arenaria, Public Health Reports, vol. 70,
No. 6; 605-614, June 1955.
27. Investigation of Pollution of Tidal Waters of Maryland
and Virginia, Public Health Bulletin No. 74, 1916.
28. Investigation of the Pollution of Certain Tidal
Waters of New Jersey, New York and Delaware, Public Health
Bulletin No. 86, 1917.
29. Mood, Eric W.: First Typhoid Case in Seven Years,
Monthly Report of the New Haven, Conn., Department of
Health, December 1948.
30. Bidwell, Milton H., and Kelly, C. B.: Ducks and
Shellfish Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health,
vol. 40, No. 8, August 1950.
31. Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and
Fisheries, Publication No. 551, National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, 1957.
32. Gong, J. K., et al.: Uptake of Fission Products and
Neutron-Induced Radlonuclides by the Clam, Proceedings of
the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 95,
451-454, 1957.
33. Studies of the Fate of Certain Radionuclldes in
Estaurine and Other Aquatic Environments. Public Health
Service Publication No. 999-R-3.
-------
1192
34. Weiss, H. V., and Shipman, W. H.: Biological Concen-
tration by Killer Clams of Cobalt-60 from Radioactive
Fallout, Science, vol. 125, No. 3250, April 1957.
35. Title 10, Part 20, Code of Federal regulations.
36. Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Per-
missible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and in
Water for Occupational Exposure, National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 69, June 5, 1959.
37. Water Quality Survey of Hampton Roads Shellfish
Areas, Virginia State Department of Health and U. S.
Public Health Service, 1950.
38. Tennant, A. D., Neubert J., and Corbell, K. .£„:
An Outbreak of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 72: 436-439, 1955.
39. Proceedings — 1957 Conference on Paralytic Shellfish
\ -
Poison, mimeographed: Public Health Service, 1958.
40. McFarren, E. F., et alr: Public Health Significance
of Paralytic Shellfish Poison — Advances in Food Research.
vol. 10, I960.
41. Galtsoff, P. S.: Biology of the Oyster in Relation
to Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health, vol.
26, 245-247, 1936.
42. Loosanoff, V. L.: Some Aspects of Behavior of Oysters
at Different Temperatures, Biological Bulletin, vol. 114,
No. 1, 57-70, 1958.
-------
1193
43. Gage, S. DeM., and Gorham, P.: Self-Purification of
Oysteru During Hibernation, American Journal of Public
Health, December 1925.
44. Gumming, Hugh S. : Investigation of the Pollution and
Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac Watershed with Special
Reference to Self-Purification and the Sanitary Conditions
of Shellfish in the Lower Potomac River, U, S. Public
Health Service, Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin No. 1C4,
February 1916.
/•
45. Fisher, L. M., anc) Acker, J. E, : Bacteriological
Examinations of Oysters and Water from Karraga'nsett Bay
During the Winter and Spring in 1927-28, Public Health
Reports, vol. 50, No. 42, October 18, 1935.
46. Gibbard, James, et al.: Effect of Hibernation on
Content of Coliform Bacteria in Oysters, American Journal
of Public Health, vol. 32, 979-986, September 19^2.
47. Wachter, L. M.: The Laboratory Aspects of Oyster
Pollution, American Journal of £ub,£J.c Health, 15, 1066-
68, 1925.
48. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, PHS
pub. 956.
49. ZoBell, C. E., and Landon, W. A -. Bacterial Nutri-
tion of the California Mussel, Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol.
and Med., 36, 607-609 (1937).
-------
50. Wood, P. c.: The Cleansing of Oysters, Public Health,
February, 1957.
51. Erdman, I. E., Kelly, J. M., and Tennant, A. D. :
195^ Clam Cleansing Studies (Mya), Manuscript Report, Pish
Inspection Laboratories, No. 55-1, Canada Department of
Fisheries.
52. Messer, R., and Reece, G. M.: Progress in Oyster
Conditioning With Report of Experiments at the Demonstration
Plant, Norfolk, Va., Public Health Reports, Reprint No. l8?0,
1451-1460, 1937.
53. Galtsoff, Paul S.: Reaction of Oysters to Chlorination,
Research Report 11, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1946.
54. Sandholzer, L. A., and Buctaier, C. R.: Bacteriolo-
gical Studies of Oyster Conditioning, Commercial Fisheries
Review, 9, 7-11, 1947.
55. Loosanoff, V. L., and Tommers, F. S.: The Effect of
Suspended Silt and Other Substances on the Rate of Feeding
of Oysters, Science, 107, 69, 1948.
56. Collier, Albert, et al.: Effect of Dissolved
Organic Substances on Oysters, Fishery Bulletin 84, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1953.
57. Vile la, H. : Oysters in Consumption and in the
National Economy, publication 18, Council of Studies of
Fisheries, Separate from Bulletin of Fisheries No. 43,
Lisbon, Portugal, 1954. (Translation available from the
Public Health Service).
-------
1195
58. Report of the Special Commission Established To Make
an Investigation and Study Relative to Edible Shellfish
and Shellfish Chlorinating Plants, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, December 1947.
59, Swansburg, K. B., and Mullan, N. W.: Studies in the
Self-Cleansing of Quahougs (Venus mercenaria, L.), manu-
script report 57-2. Canada Department of Fisheries, 1957.
60. Cole, H. A.: Purification of Oysters in Simple Pits,
Fishery Investigations, series II, vol. XVIII, No. 5,
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, 1954.
61. Reynolds, Nial: A Simplified System of Mussel
Purification, Fishery Investigations, series II, vol. XX,
No. 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, 1956.
62. Recommended Procedures for the Bacteriological Exam-
ination of Sea Water and Shellfish, American Public Health
Association.
63. Rlnge, Mlla E., Clem, David J., Llnkner, Robert E., and
Sherman, Leslie K.: A Case Study on the Transmission of
Infectious Hepatitis by Raw Clams, published by U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service.
64. Mason, James 0., and McLean, W. R.: Infectious
Hepatitis Traced to the Consumption of Raw Oysters, American
Journal of Hygiene, vol. 75» No. 1, Jan. 1962.
-------
1196
65. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveillance,
Report No. 18, March 31, 1964, and Report No. 19, June
30, 1964. U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Public Health Service.
66. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, published by the Asso-
ciation of Official Agricultural Chemists.
67. Proceedings — 1961 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service, 1962.
68. Proceedings — 1964 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service, 1965.
69. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveillance,
Report No. 5, May 3, 1961, and Report No. 6, September
28, 1961. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service.
70. Metcalf, T. G.; and Stiles, W. C.: The accumulation
of the Enteric Viruses by the Oysters, Crassostrea vlrginica,
Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 115, 68-86, 1965.
71. Hedstrom, C. £., and Lycke, E.: An Experimental Study
on Oysters, American Journal Hygiene, vol. 79, 143-153.
72. Crovari, Plero Dr.: Some Observations on the Depura-
tion of Mussels Infected with Poliomelltis Virus, Iqiene
Moderna, vol. 51, 22-32, 1958. Translation available from
PHS Shellfish Sanitation Branch.
-------
1197
73. Kabler, Paul: Removal of Pathogenic Micro-Organisms
by Sewage Treatment Processes, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
vol. 31, 1373-82 (Dec. 1959).
74. Kelly, Salley, and Sanderson, W. W.: The Effect of
Sewage Treatment on Viruses, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
vol. 31, 683-89 (June 1959).
75. Clarice, Norman A., and Kabler, Paul W.: Human
Enteric Viruses in Sewage, Health Laboratory Science, vol. 1
44-50 (Jan. 1964).
76. Eldred, B., Steidlnger, K., and Williams, J.: Pre-
liminary Studies of the Relation of Gymnodinum Breve
Counts to Shellfish Toxiclty. A Collection of Data in
Reference to Red Tide Outbreaks During 1963, Reproduced
by the Marine Laboratory of the Florida Board of Conserva-
tion, St. Petersburg, Florida, May 1964.
77. Hajna, A. A., and Perry, C. A., 1954, Comparative
Study of Presumptive and Confirmatory Media for Bacteria
of the Coliform Group and for Fecal Streptococci,
American Journal of Public Health, 33, 550-556.
78. Mitchell, J. R., Presnell, M. W., Akin, E. W.,
Cummins, J. M., and Liu, 0. C.: Accumulation and Eli-
mination of Poliovlrus by the Eastern Oyster, manuscript
in preparation.
-------
1198
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION I -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
120 Boy1ston Street
Boston, Mass., 02116
REGION II — Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
Room 1200, 42 Broadway
New York, New York, 10004
REGION III — District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland,
North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
700 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Va., 22901
REGION IV — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
South Carolina, Tennessee
Room 404
50 Seventh Street N. E.
Atlanta, Ga., 30323
-------
1199
REGION V — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Room 712
New Post Office Building
433 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, 111., 60607
REGION VI — Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota
560 West port Road
Kansas City, Mo., 64111
REGION VII — Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
Ninth Floor
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, Tex., 75222
REGION VII - Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming
DEEFP - PHS - DHEW
Room 9017
Federal Office Building
19th and Stout Street
Denver, Colo., 80202
-------
1200 -01
REGION EC — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, Guam, American Samoa
Federal Office Building
50 Pulton Street
San Francisco, Calif., 9^102
-------
1202
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM
MANUAL OP OPERATIONS
PART II
SANITATION
OF THE
HARVESTING AND PROCESSING
OF
SHELLFISH
1965 Revision
Compiled and edited by
EUGENE T. JENSEN, Sanitary Engineer Director
(Seal) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, 1798
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Washington, D.C. 20201
-------
1203
This Is Part II of two companion volumes
published by the Public Health Service with titles and
publication numbers as follows:
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1965) Part I -- Sanitation of
Shellfish Growing Areas
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 1965) Part II -- Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
This is a revised edition published previously
under the title: Cooperative Program for the Certification
of Interstate Shellfish Shippers, Part II, Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish, 1962 Revision.
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
Part II -- Revised 1965
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 2C402
Price 55 cents
-------
12 OU
LIST OP PREVIOUS EDITIONS OP MANUAL OP OPERATIONS FOR
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM — NOW SUPERSEDED
1925. Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports, November
6, 1925 "Report of Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States".
1937. United States Public Health Service Minimum Requirements
for Approval of State Shellfish Control Measures and
Certification for Shippers in Interstate Commerce.
(Revised October 1937.)
19^6. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry Recommended by the U. S. Public
Health Service (Public Health Bulletin No. 295).
1957. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry Part II: Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish. Printed as Part
II of Public Health Service publication No. 33.)
1959. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry Part I: Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas. (Printed as Part I of Public Health
Service Publication No. 33.)
-------
1205
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Inter-
state Shellfish Shippers, Part II, Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish. (Printed as Part
II of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.)
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate
Shellfish Shippers, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing
Areas. (Printed as Part I of Public Health Service
Publication No. 33.)
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
SECTION A -- Harvesting and Handling Shell-Stock
1. Boats and Trucks
2. Washing of Shell-Stock
3. Disposal of Body Excretions
4. Licenses for Commercial Harvesters
SECTION B — Shucking and Packing Shellfish
1. Wet Storage
2. Plant Arrangement
-------
120b
3. Dry Storage of Shell-Stock
4. Floors
5. Walls and Ceilings
6. Ply-Control Measures
7. Lighting
8. Heating and Ventilation
9. Water Supply
10. Plumbing and Related Facilities
11. Sewage Disposal
12. Rodent Control
13. Construction of Shucking Benches and Tables
1*1. Construction of Utensils and Equipment
15. General Cleanliness
16. Cleaning of Buildings and Equipment
17. Bactericidal Treatment of Utensils and Equipment
18. Storage of Equipment
19. Source of Shellfish
20. Refrigeration of Shell-Stock
21. Shucking of Shellfish
22. Shell Disposal
23. Handling of Single-Service Containers
24. Packing of Shucked Shellfish
25. Refrigeration of Shucked Shellfish
26. Ice
-------
1207
27. Records
28. Health of Personnel
29. Supervision
30. Cleanliness of Employees
SECTION C — Packing and Shipping Shell-Stock
1. Washing of Shell-Stock
2. Packing and Shipping of Shell-Stock
SECTION D — Repacking of Shellfish
1. Shucked Shellfish Intended for Repacking
2. Refrigeration During Repacking
3. Cleaning of Returnable Shipping Containers
SECTION E — Resnippers
APPENDIX A.
Inspection of Certified Shellfish Shippers
Shucking-Paeking Plant Inspection Report
Shell-Stock Shipper Inspection Report
APPENDIX B.
Code-Dating System for Shucker-Packers and Repackers
Figure 1, Coliform MPN of Stored Oysters
Figure 2, Fecal Coliform MPN of Stored Oysters
Figure 3, Plate Counts of Stored Oysters
Shucker-Packer Ledger Report
Shell-Stock Shipper Ledger Report
Cooling Rates of Fresh Oysters
-------
1208
APPENDIX C.
Heat Shock Method
INDEX
FOREWORD
A DECLARATION OP PRINCIPLES
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program is an unusual
teaming of State and Federal resources to preserve and manage a
natural resource for a beneficial use. Although the
current program is of comparatively recent origin, its develop-
ment can be traced back through several centuries of American
history. When the European colonists arrived they found almost
unimagined natural wealth. Forest, rich agricultural land,
minerals and space itself were present in quantities and a
variety previously unknown. To these settlers one of the most
valuable and readily usable of these natural resources was the
food resources of the sea, particularly the estuaries. It is
not surprising that shellfish were foremost among their staple
food items.
-------
1209
The value of these renewable and natural resources
to the early settlers was reflected in colonial legislation
designed to encourage their wise use. In 1658 — over 300
years ago — the Dutch council of New Amsterdam passed an
ordinance regulating the taking of oysters from the East River.
Other early legislation, including that of New York (1715),
New Jersey (1730), and Rhode Island (1734), was designed to
regulate harvesting, presumably as conservative measures to
guarantee a continuing supply.
The public health problems which were associated with
shellfish In the United States in the first two decades of the
present century brought a new dimension to natural resource
utilization; i.e., shellfish could not be used for food unless
of acceptable sanitary quality. This concept was clearly
recognized in the PHS-sponsored conference of 1925 in which the
concepts of the present cooperative program were first outlined
and the administrative foundation put down. All parties seemed
to recognize, and accept as fact, the premises that: (l)
shellfish represented a valuable natural food resource; (2)
the cultivation, harvesting and marketing of this food resource
were valuable components in the financial bases of many coastal
communities; (3) a State and Federal program was necessary to
permit the safe use of this resource; and (4) the transmission
of disease by shellfish was preventable and therefore not to be
tolerated. It is significant that the founders of this program
-------
1210
did not take the parochial stand that the only completely
safe way to prevent disease transmission by shellfishwas to
prohibit its use. Instead, they held that this beneficial use
of the estuaries was in the best public interest, and that
sanitary control should be developed and maintained which
would allow safe use. These concepts were recognized in the
program which evolved following the report of the "Committee
on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry in the United
States" in 1925.
In 1952* the Surgeon General of the U. S. Public Health
Service called a second national conference to discuss shell-
fish sanitation problems. Specifically, the 1954 conference
addressed Itself to the questions of the practicality and
need for this tripartite program. There was general agreement
that, despite the profusion of technical problems, the basic
concepts were sound and that it was in the public Interest
to maintain the program. Thus, the presence of an irrevocable
bond between the application of sanitary controls in the
shellfish industry and the continuing beneficial use of a
renewable natural resource was again confirmed.
Despite this long-established relationship, the national
program has tended to neglect the second of these blphasic
goals — use of a valuable natural resource -- and to con-
centrate on the negative policy of closure of areas of
-------
1211
unsuitable sanitary quality. Little effort has been made
by the program to develop a compensatory element which would
encourage corrective action by State or Federal agencies.
Similarly, the program has not taken a position on the use of
conservation law even when it was known that this would increase
the programs consumer protection confidence factor.
In recognition of past history of the shellfish
industry in the United States and of the relationship of the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program to the effective use
of this natural resource, the 1964 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop endorses the following principles:
1. Shellfish are a renewable, manageable natural
resource of significant economical value to many
coastal communities, and which should be managed
as carefully as are other natural resources such
as forest, water, and agricultural lands.
2. Shellfish culture and harvesting represents a
beneficial use of water in the estuaries. This
use should be recognized by State and Federal
agencies in planning and carrying out pollution
prevention and abatement programs and in comprehen-
sive planning for the use of these areas.
3. The goals of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program are: (l) the continued safe use of this natu-
ral resource, and (2) active encouragement of water
-------
1212
quality programs which will preserve all possible
coastal areas for this beneficial use.
It is the conviction of the 1964 National Shellfish
Sanitation Workshop that survival of the shellfish industry is
in the best public interest; that by application of the above
principles on a State-by-State basis, shellfish can continue
to be used safely as food and to make a valuable contribution
to the economic structure of the Nation both in the immediate
present and in the foreseeable future.
INTRODUCTION
In 1925 State and local health authorities and
representatives of the shellfish industry requested the Public
Health Service to exercise supervision over the sanitary
quality of shellfish shipped in interstate commerce. In
accordance with this request, a cooperative control procedure
was developed. In carrying out this cooperative control,
the States, the shellfish industry, and the Public Health
Service each accept responsibility for certain procedures as
follows:
-------
1213
1. PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE STATE. --
Each shellfish-shipping State adopts adequate laws and regula-
tions, for sanitary control of the shellfish industry, makes
sanitary and bacteriological surveys of growing areas,
delineates and patrols restricted areas, inspects shellfish
plants, and conducts such additional inspections, laboratory
investigations, and control measures as may be necessary to
insure that the shellfish reaching the consumer have been
grown, havested, and processed in a sanitary manner. The
State annually issues numbered certificates to shellfish
dealers who comply with the agreed-upon sanitary standards,
and forwards copies of the interstate certificates to the
Public Health Service.
2. PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE. — The Public Health Service makes an annual review
of each State's control program including the inspection of a
representative number of shellfish-processing plants. On
the basis of the information thus obtained, the Public Health
Service either endorses or withholds endorsement of the
respective State control programs. For the information of
health authorities and others concerned, the Public Health
Service publishes a semimonthly list of all valid Interstate
shellfish-shipper certificates Issued by the State shellfish-
control authorities.
-------
1214
3. PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE INDUSTRY. --
The shellfish Industry cooperates by obtaining shellfish from
safe sources, by providing plants which meet the agreed-upon
sanitary standards, by maintaining sanitary plant conditions,
by placing the proper certificate number on each package of
shellfish, and by keeping and making available to the control
authorities records which show the origin and disposition of
all shellfish.
The fundamental components of this National Shell-
fish Sanitation program were first described in a Supplement
to Public Health Reports, "Report of Committee on Sanitary
Control of the Shellfish Industry in the United.States"
(1925). This guide for sanitary control of the shellfish
industry was revised and reissued in 1937 and again in 1946.
It was separated into two parts by publication of Part II,
Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish in
1957 and by publication in 1959* of Part I, Sanitation of
Shellfish Qrowing Areas. The need for a specialized program
of this nature was reaffirmed at the National Conference on
Shellfish Sanitation held in Washington, D. C., in 195** (l)
and at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshops held in 1956 (2),
1958 (3), 1961 (67), and 1964 (68).
This addition of the shellfish sanitation manual
has been prepared in cooperation with the State shellfish
control authorities in all coastal States, food control
-------
1215
authorities in the inland States, Interested Federal agencies,
Canadian Federal departments, the Oyster Institute of North
America, the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association, and
the Oyster Growers & Dealers Association of North America.
Since the growing and processing of shellfish are
two distinct phases of operation in the shellfish industry,
the manual has been prepared in two parts: I: Sanitation of
Shellfish-Growing Areas; and II: Sanitation of the Harvesting
and Processing of Shellfish. This, Part II of the manual is
intended as a guide for the preparation of State shellfish
sanitation laws and regulations, for sanitary control of the
harvesting and processing of shellfish, and for the shellfish
Industry in the maintenance of sanitary conditions during the
harvesting and processing of shellfish. It is intended that
States participating in the National Shellfish Sanitation
program for the certification of Interstate shellfish
shippers will be guided by this manual in exercising sanitary
supervision over harvesting, shucking, packing, repacking,
and reshipping shellfish, and in the issuing of certificates
to shellfish shippers.
The manual will also be used by the Public Health
Service in evaluating State shellfish sanitation programs
to determine if the programs qualify for endorsement. Part
III of the Manual, "Public Health Service Appraisal of State
Shellfish Sanitation Programs," sets forth appraisal procedures
-------
1216
in evaluating State shellfish sanitation programs and is based
on the requirements contained in parts I and II.
The provisions of this manual were accepted at the
Shellfish Sanitation Workshop held in Washington, D. C.,
November 1?-19» 1964, and unless otherwise stated become
effective 60 days after publication (68).
EUGENE T. JENSEN,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch,
Division of Environmental Engineering
and Pood Protection, Public Health
Service.
DEFINITIONS
And/or. -- Where this term is used, "and" shall
apply where possible; otherwise,- "or" shall apply.
Approved area. -- An area which has been approved
by the State control agencies for growing and/or harvesting
of shellfish for direct marketing.
Classes of shippers. -- (a) Reshippers are shippers
who transship shucked stock in original containers, or shell
stock, from certified shellfish shippers to other dealers
or to final consumers. (Reshippers are not authorized to
-------
1217
shuck or repack shellfish.)
(b) Repackers are shippers, other than the
original shucker, who pack shucked shellfish into containers
for delivery to the consumer. Shippers classified as re-
packers may shuck shellfish if they have the necessary facili-
ties. A repacker may also act as a shell-stock shipper if
he has the necessary facilities.
(c) Shell-stock shippers are shippers who grow,
harvest, buy, and/or sell shell stock. They are not authorized
to shuck shellfish nor to repack shucked shellfish.
(d) Shucker-packers are shippers who shuck and
pack shellfish. A shucker-packer may act as a shell-stock
dealer. (Shucker-packers are classified as repackers if
shucked shellfish are regularly repacked.)
Dry storage. — The storage of shell stock out of
water.
Food-product zone. — The parts of food equipment,
including auxiliary equipment (such as blower pipes and
drain valves), which may be in contact with the food being
processed, or which may drain into the. portion of equipment
with which food is in contact.
Internal temperature. — Actual temperature of
shucked shellfish in the container, as opposed to the air
temperature of the refrigerator in which the shellfish may be
stored.
-------
1218
Person. -- Person shall mean an individual, or
a firm, partnership, company, corporation, trustee, associa-
tion, or any public or private entity.
Shellfish. -- All edible species of oysters, clams,
or mussels, either shucked or in the shell, fresh or frozen.
Shell-stock. -- Shellfish which remain in their
shells.
Shucked shellfish. -- Shellfish, or parts thereof,
which have been removed from their shells.
Wet storage. -- The temporary storage of shellfish
from approved sources, intended for marketing, in tanks con-
taining sea water or in natural bodies of water, and including
storage in floats.
-------
1219
SECTION A
HARVESTING AND HANDLING SHELL-STOCK
1. BOATS AND TRUCKS. -- All boats used In
tonging, dredging, or transporting shellfish, Including
"buy" boats, and all trucks used for hauling bulk shell-stock
shall be so constructed, operated, and maintained as to prevent
contamination or deterioration of the shellfish, and shall be
kept clean.
Public-health explanation. — Precautions exercised
In gathering shellfish from approved growing areas may be
nullified by contamination with bilge water or polluted over-
board water..
Satisfactory compliance. — This Item will be satis-
fied when —
a. Decks and/or storage bins are so constructed
and located as to prevent bilge water or polluted overboard
water from coming Into contact with the shellfish, Removable
false bottoms, will ordinarily be required In all small craft,
Including rowboats, skiffs, and power boats, used in the trans-
port of shell-stock.
b. Bilge pumps are so located that pumpage will
not contaminate shellfish.
c. Sacks or other containers used for the storage
-------
1220
of shellfish are clean.
d. Boat decks and storage bins are kept clean
with water from an approved source.
e. That portion of boats or trucks (decks,
storage bins, floorbeds, etc.) and all other equipment
(shovels, wheelbarrows, rakes, etc.) In contact with shell-
stock during handling or transport from polluted areas to
approved areas for relaying are thoroughly cleaned before they
are used for the transport or handling of shellfish from
approved areas.
f. Trucks used for the transport of bulk shell
stock are so constructed as to protect the shellfish from con-
tamination, and are kept clean.
2. WASHING OP SHELL-STOCK. Shell-stock should
be washed reasonably free of bottom sediments and detritus as
soon after harvesting as is practicable. The primary responsi-
bility for washing rests with the harvester. Water used for
shell-stock washing should be obtained from an approved growing
area, or from other sources approved by the State regulatory
agency.
Public-health explanation. — When muddy shell
stock are shucked, quantities of mud and bacteria are mixed
with the shucked shellfish, thereby contributing to high
bacteria counts in the finished product.
These bacteriological changes which take place
-------
1221
during the shucking of oysters (Crassostrea virglnica) in
the Middle Atlantic States have been investigated at the
Public Health Service's Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory
(Kelly and Arcisz: "Bacteriological Control of Oysters
During Processing and Marketing," Public Health Reports, vol.
69, No. 8, August 195*0.
During shucking, the percentage of samples of
oysters having coliform Most Probable Numbers (MPN's) in
excess of 2,400 per 100 ml. of meats was found to increase
from 18 to 72, and the percentage of samples of oysters having
coliform MPN«s in excess of 24,000 per 100 ml, of meat in-
creased from zero to 14. Mud and detritus adhering to the
shells were implicated as responsible for the Increase in coli-
form counts.
Muddy shell-stock also make it difficult to main-
tain shucking rooms in a clean, sanitary condition.
Water used for shell-stock washing should be of good
sanitary quality, to avoid possible contamination of the shell
stock.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis-
fied when —
a. Shell-stock are washed reasonably free of
bottom sediments and detritus as soon after harvesting as is
feasible. Washing of naturally clean shell stock is not
-------
1222
necessary. Shell-stock should preferably be washed at the
time of harvesting; however, this may not always be feasible
because of the harvesting method or climatic conditions. In
other instances, shellstock washing by the harvester might
introduce a sanitary hazard because of the possible tendency
of the harvester to wash the shell-stock with polluted water
from a harbor area, rather than with clean water from a
growing area. State shellfish control authorities may, there-
fore, at their discretion, waive the requirement for shell-
stock washing by the harvester when, in the State's opinion,
there are climatic, technical, or sanitary reasons for such
action.
b. Water used for washing shell-stock is obtained
from an approved growing area, or from other sources approved
by the State regulatory authority.
DISPOSAL OP BODY WASTES. — During the marketing
season, body wastes shall not be discharged overboard from
a boat used in the harvesting of shellfish, or from "buy"
boats while in areas from which shellfish are being harvested.
The State shellfish control agency, when necessary, shall
specify the device and practices necessary to eliminate the
overboard discharge of body wastes from boats used in harvest-
ing of shellfish. It Is recommended that each State shellfish
control agency maintain an educational program for all boat
-------
1223
owners concerning the public health significance and dangers
Inherent in the overboard discharge of body wastes.
Public-health explanation. — Gastrointestinal
infections may be conveyed by shellfish; hence, it is neces-
sary to protect the shellfish from pollution by disease-
causing organisms that may be present in body wastes. This
item is intended to protect the shellfish from chance pollu-
tion during harvesting. The discharging of body wastes from
either harvesting or "buy" boats will be considered in the
evaluation of harvesting practices.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. No body wastes are discharged from a boat
used in harvesting shellfish while in an area from which shell-
fish are being harvested.
b. No body wastes are discharged from a "buy"
boat while in an area in which shellfish are being harvested.
c. It is evident that soil cans, if provided, are
used for the purpose intended.
d. Soil cans, where used, are so secured and
located as to prevent contamination of the shellfish by
spillage or leakage.
e. The contents of soil cans are disposed of by
discharge into an approved sewage-disposal system, and soil
-------
1224
sans are cleaned before being returned to the boat.*
(Faclities used for cleaning food-processing equipment may
not be used for this purpose.)
4. LICENSES FOR COMMERCIAL HARVESTERS. --
Each person who handles unshucked shellfish prior to delivery
or sale to a dealer certified under the cooperative program
shall have a valid State permit or license to do so.
In the case of leased land, either the lessee
shall be licensed or the person who harvests shall be
licensed by the State. The State agency having primary
responsibility for granting licenses shall maintain a record
of all such licenses granted for review by the appropriate Pub-
lic Health Service regional office.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Each person harvesting shellfish has a valid
permit or license to do so.
b. The State agency having responsibility for
granting licenses maintains a record of all such licenses
granted for review by the appropriate Public Health Service
regional office.
c. In the case of leased growing area(s), either
the lessee or the person who harvests shall be licensed by
the State.
-------
1225
1For use and construction of soll-can-washing
facilities, see Public Health Service Publication No. 66,
Handbook on Sanitation of Railroad Servicing Areas, on sale
by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C. 20U02, at 20 cents.
SECTION B
SHUCKING AND PACKING SHELLFISH
1. WET STORAGE. — Shellfish in wet storage
shall be protected against sewage contamination. Wet
storage shall not be practiced by a shipper unless written
approval is given each year by the State regulatory authority,
This approval is to Include a sketch, drawn to scale, showing
the approval location of the storage area, floats, or the
water intake for the wet-storage tanks, and all the potential
hazards to which the stored shellfish may be exposed. The
approval statement shall describe the measures taken to pro-
tect the shellfish from the potential hazards. The presence
of usable wet-storage tanks in a plant, or the presence of
usable floats in the water, shall be deemed evidence that wet
-------
1226
storage is being practiced.
Public-health explanation. — Removal of shellfish
from growing beds to storage areas close to shore and habita-
tions, and frequently in shallow water, may subject an
accumulated quantity of shellfish to constant or intermittent
pollution. Shellfish in wet-storage tanks are similarly
subject to pollution if the water is obtained from a polluted
source. Shellfish on floats are more directly exposed to
chance contamination from boats than are shellfish stored in
the growing areas themselves, since it is customary to "float"
the shellfish near the surface, where fresh sewage is apt to
be found in greatest concentration. Shellfish on floats,
therefore, are protected to a less degree by dilution than are
shellfish on bottom areas.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis
fied when —
a. Shellfish in wet storage are protected against
sewage contamination.
b. Wet storage is practiced only in strict com-
pliance with the terms of the written approval of the State
regulatory authority. This approval is to include: (l) a
sketch, drawn to scale, showing the location of the storage
area or water intakes and the potential hazards to which the
shellfish may be exposed; and (2) a statement describing the
-------
1227
measures taken to protect the shellfish from the above poten-
tial hazards. This written approval shall be valid for not
more than 12 months.
2. PLANT ARRANGEMENT. -- Plants in which shellfish
are shucked and packed shall, to the extent feasible, be so
located that they will not be subject to flooding by high
tides. If plant floors become flooded, shucking shall be
discontinued until after waters have receded and the building
cleaned.
Shucking and packing operations shall be conducted
in separate rooms. A shucked-stock delivery window shall be
installed in the partition between the two rooms. Packing
rooms shall be of sufficient size to permit sanitary handling
of the product and thorough cleaning of equipment.
A separate room or rooms, or lockers, shall be
provided for storing employees' street clothing, aprons,
gloves, and personal articles.
Public-health explanation. — The nature of the
shucking operation is such that the shuckers' clothing becomes
very soiled. If shuckers enter the packing room, shucked
stock, cans, and other equipment may become contaminated.
Rooms or lockers should be provided for clothing, aprons and
gloves to eliminate the tendency to store such articles on
the shucking benches or in packing rooms, where they interfere
with plant cleanup and operation.
-------
1228
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Processing establishments are so located that
they will not be subject to flooding by ordinary high tides.
(A minimum plant elevation of at least 2 feet above high tides
is recommended.) If plant floors are flooded, shucking is
discontinued until after waters have receded and the building
is cleaned.
b. Shucking and packing operations are carried
on in separate rooms. Flytight screening may be accepted
in lieu of a solid wall between the shucking and packing rooms,
provided that the packing room is so situated that there is no
likelihood of the shucked product or packing-room equipment
being contaminated by splash from the opening room.
c. The delivery window is equipped with a corro-
sion-resistant shelf of metal, concrete, or tile, draining
toward the shucking room and, if necessary, curbed on the
packing-room side.
d. Packing rooms are large enough to permit
sanitary handling of shellfish and thorough cleaning of equip-
ment.
e. Rooms or lockers are provided which have ade-
quate capacity for storing clothing, aprons, gloves, and other
personal articles of employees.
-------
1229
3. DRY STORAGE OP SHELL-STOCK. -- Shell-stock
in dry storage shall be protected from contamination. Rooms,
benches, or hoppers shall be provided for the storage of
shell-stock. Floor wastes from a shell-stock storage area
shall be discharged through a separate drainage system, or,
if discharged into a general drainage system carrying sanitary
wastes, an airgap shall be provided.
Public-health explanation. — Smooth, wash-stored
where polluted ground or surface water or floor drainage can
accmulate, the shell-stock may become contaminated. Shell-
stock may also be contaminated by domestic animals and rodents
(see Section B, Items 12 and 15).
Satisfactory complaince. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The storage-area floor is constructed of
material impervious to water* is free from cracks and uneven
surfaces that interfere with proper cleaning or drainage,
and is graded to assure complete and rapid drainage of water
away from the shellfish.
b. Walls of shell-stock storage rooms and hoppers
are smooth and of material which will not deteriorate under
repeated washing.
c. Shell-stock storage areas are so constructed
that they will not receive floor drainage water from other
portions of the plant. If such construction is not feasible,
-------
1230
the shell-stock should be stored on racks to prevent them
from coining into contact with the floor or with water which
might accumulate on the floor. Shell-stock storage areas
should not serve as an entry way to other areas of the estab-
lishment. Shell-stock storage areas are protected against
sewage backflow by the installation of an airgap in the
waste line or by provision of a separate drain system.
d. Conveyances or devices used in the transport
of shell-stock are so constructed that they may be easily
cleaned, and are kept reasonably clean. (Use of impervious
materials is recommended wherever possible.)
4. FLOORS. — Floors shall be constructed of
concrete or other material impervious to water, and shall be
graded to drain quickly, shall be free from cracks and uneven
surfaces that interfere with proper cleaning or drainage, and
shall be maintained in good condition.
Public-health explanation. -- Properly graded
floors, of durable, impervious material, maintained in good
condition, permit rapid disposal of liquid and solid wastes,
and are easily cleaned.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The floors of all rooms in which shellfish
are shucked or packed, or in which utensils are washed, are
constructed of concrete of good quality, or of equally
-------
1231
Impervious tile laid closely with Impervious joint material,
or of metal surfacing with impervious Joints, or of any
other material which is equivalent to good quality concrete;
and when the floors are maintained in good repair.
b. The floor surface is smooth, and graded to
drain, and the junctions between floors and walls are Impervi-
ous to water.
5. WALLS AND CEILINGS. -- The interior surfaces
of rooms in which shellfish are shucked or packed, or in which
utensils are washed, shall be smooth, washable, light-colored,
and kept in good repair.
Public-health explanation. -- Smooth, washable
walls and ceilings are more easily kept clean and are, there-
fore, more likely to be kept clean. A light-colored paint
or finish aids In the distribution of light and in the detec-
tion of unclean surfaces. Clean walls and ceilings are con-
ducive to clean shellfish handling.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when interior surfaces are of tile, concrete,
cement plaster, concrete blocks, painted wood, or equivalent
material, having a smooth, washable, light-colored surface.
(Structural members may be exposed, provided that they do not
interfere with cleaning.)
6. PLY-CONTROL MEASURES. -- All outer openings
to toilet and wash rooms, shucking and packing rooms, utensil
-------
1232
cleaning and storage rooms, and locker rooms shall be effective-
ly screened during the seasons when files are present, unless
other effective means are provided for preventing the entrance
of files. Effective in-plant fly-control measures shall be
used to kill or capture flies which may enter the plant
despite the screening. Shell-stock storage rooms shall be
screened as necessary, to prevent the entrance of flies into
the other portions of the plant. All interior doors or other
openings into the packing room should be screened whenever
necessary to keep the packing room free of flies.
Public-health explanation. -- Plies may contaminate
the shellfish with disease organisms, thus nullifying the
effectiveness of all other public-health safeguards.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. All outer openings are effectively screened
Whenever flies are present; or other effective devices are
provided to prevent the entrance of flies.
b. Screen doors open outward and are self-closing.
c. Plies are not present.
d. Necessary internal fly-control measures are
used, and such measures are approved by the State regulatory
authority.
7. LIGHTING -- Ample natural and/or artificial
light shall be provided In all working and storage rooms.
-------
1233
Public-health explanation. — Adequate lighting
encourages cleanliness of rooms, equipment and product, and
helps to prevent eyestrain.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be satis
fled when work and storage rooms are lighted to at least the
intensity indicated below:
TYPE OP AREA FOOT CANDLES OP ILLUMINATION1
p
Working surfaces in packing rooms 25
Shucking benches and utensil-washing areas 15
Storage rooms, including cold-storage rooms ^5
^-Approximate. Measure as incident light.
20verall illumination level in area should be
at least 10 ft.-c.
•^Measured 30 inches above the floor.
8. HEATING AND VENTILATION. -- Working rooms shall
be ventilated, and shall be heated when necessary.
Public-health explanation. — Uncomfortable working
conditions impair the efficiency of the workers, and may
result in insanitary practices.
-------
1234
Proper ventilation reduces condensation, and aids
In retarding the growth of mold.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. A comfortable working temperature is maintained.
b. Sufficient ventilation is provided to eliminate
odors, discomfort and excessive condensation.
9. WATER SUPPLY. -- The water supply shall be
easily accessible, adequate, and of a safe and sanitary
quality.
Public-health explanation. — The water supply
should be accessible in order to encourage its use in cleaning
operations; it should be adequate to insure proper washing,
rinsing, and bactericidal treatment of the equipment; and it
-,>
should be of a safe and sanitary quality, to avoid contamina-
tion of the equipment and product.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The water supply is approved as safe by the
responsible State authority, or complies with the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards. (Private water systems
are so constructed and operated as to be at least equal to
the recommendations contained in Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 24, "Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems.") 3
-------
1235
b. All shell-stock storage rooms, shucking and
packing rooms, and utensil washrooms are provided with water
outlets.
c. An automatically regulated hot-water system
is provided which has sufficient capacity to furnish water
with a temperature of at least 130°P. during all hours of
plant operation.
d. Sufficient water is available for all plant
needs. (Nonpressure supplies will not constitute compliance.)
e. Hot and cold water outlets are provided at each
sink compartment, except that warm water only may be acceptable
at handwashlng sinks, as provided by Section B, Item 10 e.
10. PLUMBING AND RELATED FACILITIES. -- Plumbing
shall be Installed in compliance with State and local plumbing
ordinances, or, in the absence of such ordinances, shall be
substantially equivalent to the recommendations contained in
the American Standard National Plumbing Code ASA A40.8-1955.^
Lavatories with running hot and cold (or warm) water shall be
so located that their use by plant personnel can be readily
observed. Signs shall be posted in toilet rooms and near
lavatories, directing employees to wash their hands before
starting work and after each interruption. Conveniently lo-
cated, separate toilets shall be provided for each sex; how-
ever, separate toilet facilities for each sex shall not be
required when family shucking is carried on and satisfactory
-------
1236
toilet facilities are located nearby, or when the plant has
fewer than 10 employees.
Public-health explanation. — The organisms
causing typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, dysentery, and
other gastrointestinal diseases may be present in the body dis-
charges of cases or carriers, and may thus be present in the
drainpipes in the plant. Correctly installed plumbing pro-
tects the water supplies from back siphonage through improper-
ly installed fixtures or equipment. A safe water supply in a
plant contributes to product purity and to the safety of the
workers.
Handwashing facilities, including running water,
soap, and sanitary drying facilities, are essential to the
personal cleanliness of food-service workers. The posting of
a handwashing sign is necessary to remind plant employees of
this important public-health practice.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Plumbing is installed in compliance with
State and local plumbing ordinances, or is substantially
equivalent to the recommendations contained in the American
Standard National Plumbing Code ASA A^O.8-1955.
b. There are no cross-connections between the
approved pressure water supply and water from a nonapproved
-------
1237
source, and there are no fixtures or connections through which
the approved pressure supply might be contaminated by back
siphonage.
c. There is at least 1 lavatory for every 20
employees among the first 100 employees, and at least 1
lavatory for each 25 employees in excess of the first 100.
(Twenty-four lineal inches of wash sink or 18 inches of a
circular basin, when provided with water outlets for such
space, will be considered equivalent to 1 lavatory.)
d. Handwashing facilities are convenient to the
work areas, and are so located that the person responsible
for supervision can readily observe that employees wash their
hands before beginning work and after each Interruption.
(Ordinarily, there should be at least one lavatory in the
packing room for use by packing-room workers.)
e. The lavatories are provided with hot water
(at least 100°p.) either from a controlled-temperature source
with a maximum temperature of 115°F., or from a hot-and-
cold mixing or combination valve. (Steam-water mixing or
steam-water combination valves are not acceptable.)
f. Supplies of soap and single-service hand
towels are available near the lavatory. (Other sanitary
drying devices, if approved by the State regulatory agency,
are also acceptable.)
-------
1238
g. Handwashing signs are posted in toilet rooms
and near lavatories.
h. The toilet-room doors are tight-fitting and
self-closing.
i. The toilet rooms are kept clean and in good
repair,
J. A supply of toilet paper is available in the
toilet rooms.
k. At least 5-foot-candle illumination (natural
or artificial) is provided in toilet rooms; and toilet rooms
are ventilated by a direct opening to the outer air, or by a
mechanical ventilating system. (Exhaust fans, if used, should
have a minimum capacity of 2 cubic feet a minute per square
foot of floor area. ) Air vents should be screened or have
self-closing louvers.
1. Conveniently located, separate toilets are
provided for each sex, excepting that separate facilities need
not be required when family shucking is carried on and satis-
factory toilets are located nearby, or when the plant has
fewer than 10 employees. The number of water closets provided
complies with applicable State laws. In the absence of such
laws, the following number of water closets should be pro-
vided :
-------
1239
Number of water closets 1
Number of Employees
1 to 9
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 to 7*»
75 to 100
Male
1
2
3
4
2 5
Female
1
2
3
4
25
Wherever urinals are provided, one water closet
less than the number specified may be provided for each urinal
Installed, except that the number of water closets In such
cases should not be reduced to less than two-thirds of the
minimum specified. A 24-inch trough will be considered equi-
valent to 1 urinal.
2 one additional fixture for every 30 employees
over the first 100.
m. No drainpipes or wastepipes are located over
food processing or storage areas, or over areas in which con-
tainers or utensils are stored or washed.
11. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. — Sewage shall be discharged
into public sewers wherever possible. Where private sewage-
-------
1240
disposal systems must be utilized, they shall be constructed
according to State and local requirements; provided, that
privies shall be accpetable only where water-carriage systems
are not feasible. All newly constructed individual water-
carriage systems shall be at least equal to the recommendations
contained in the "Manual of Septic Tank Practice," Public
Health Service Publication No. 526.5 All sewage-disposal
facilities shall be so constructed and maintained that waste
Hill be inaccessible to flies and rodents.
Public-health explanation. — The organisms
causing typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, and dysentery may
be present in the body discharges of cases or carriers. When
sewage-disposal facilities are of a satisfactory type, there is
less possibility that the shellfish being processed may become
contaminated with fecal material carried by flies or rodents.
Non-water-carriage sewage-disposal systems should
be of a sanitary type, so that excreta are not accessible to
flies or rodents.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Sewage is discharged into public sewers
wherever possible.
b. Any private sewage-disposal facilities utilized
are constructed and operated so as to comply with State and
-------
1241
local requirements and privies are accepted only where water-
carriage systems are infeaslble. Any newly constructed indi-
vidual water-carriage systems are at least equal to the recom-
mendations contained in the "Manual of Septic Tank Practice,"
Public Health Service Publication No. 526.
c. No human excreta are accessible to flies or
rodents.
12. RODENT CONTROL. — Shellfish-processing
plants shall be free from rodents.
Public-health explanation. — Rodents may con-
taminate the shellfish, utensils, or containers.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The plant is so constructed as to prevent
ready entrance of rodents, and there is no evidence of rodents
in any part of the plant.
b. Rodenticides which are highly toxic to humans
are not stored in shellfish-processing plants, and are not
used except under the supervision of a licensed pest-control
operator or other qualified specialist. (Rodenticides which
have a low toxicity for humans should be identified, stored,
and used in such a manner as to prevent contamination of the
product or ingredients, and to cause no health hazards to
employees.)
-------
1242
13. CONSTRUCTION OP SHUCKING BENCHES AND TABIES. --
The tops of shucking benches and tables, and contiguous walls
to a height of at least 2 feet above the bench top, shall be
of smooth concrete, corrosion-resistant metal, or other durable,
nonabsorbent material, free from cracks, and so constructed
that drainage Is complete and rapid and Is directed away from
the stored shellfish. Shucking blocks shall be easily clean-
able. Wooden shucking blocks, if used, shall be of solid,
>ne-piece construction, and shall be easily removable.
Shucking blocks of lead or other toxic materials are prohibited.
Stands or stalls, if any, shall be of painted, finished
material.
Public-health explanation. -- Unless shucking
benches, stands, blocks, and stalls are made of smooth
material and are easily cleaned, they will become very dirty
and may contaminate the shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Shucking benches and contiguous walls to a
height of at least 2 feet above the bench tops are of smooth
concrete, corrosion-resistant metal, or other durable, non-
absorbent material, free from cracks.
b. Benches drain completely and rapidly, and
drainage is directed away from any shellfish on the benches.
-------
1243
c. Shucking blocks are easily cleanable; of
nontoxic material; of solid, one-piece construction; and,
unless an Integral part of the bench, are easily removed from
the shucking bench. (Lead is acceptable for weighting breaking
blocks only where the shellfish or knife will not come into
frequent contact with the metal.)
d. Stands (or stalls) and stools are of painted,
finished material.
e. Shuckers1 stools have no attached padding, and
are so constructed as to be easily cleaned.
14. CONSTRUCTION OP UTENSILS AND EQUIPMENT. --
The food-product zone of utensils and equipment, including
that used for ice-handling, shall be made of smooth, corrosion-
resistant, impervious, nontoxic material which will not readily
disintegrate or crack; and the utensils and equipment shall be
so constructed as to be easily cleaned, and shall be kept in
good repair.
Public-health explanation. — Colanders, shucking
pails, skimmers, blowers, and other equipment or utensils
which come into contact with the shucked shellfish and which
have cracked, rough, or inaccessible surfaces, or which are
made of Improper material, are apt to harbor accumulations of
organic material in which bacteria or other microorganisms
may grow. These microorganisms may later cause illness among
-------
1244
those who eat the shellfish, or spoilage In the shucked
shellfish.
The slime and foreign material which accumulate in
blower alrpipes below the liquid level afford an excellent
breeding place for bacteria. This material may be dislodged
and forced into the batch of shucked shellfish then In the
blower, thus increasing the bacterial content of the shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
: a. All pails, colanders, skimmers, paddles,
tables, storage containers, returnable containers, blowers,
and other equipment which come into contact with shucked shell-
fish, or with ice used for direct cooling of shellfish, are
constructed of corrosion-resistant, nonabsorbent, nontoxic,
smooth material which will not readily crack or disintegrate.
(The use of enameled, tinned, or galvanized material in the
food-product zone of equipment other than single-service
shipping containers is not acceptable.)
b. There are no exposed screw, bolt, or rivet
heads in the food-product zones, and all joints in the food-
product zone are welded or soldered flush and have a smooth
surface. (The use of welded Joints which have been ground
smooth is recommended, because soldered Joints have been
proven to be generally unsatisfactory for equipment used in
the shellfish industry.)
-------
1245
c. Tanks, tubs, and shucked-stock storage
containers are so located that their top rim is at least 2
feet above the floor.
d. All utensils and equipment are in good repair.
e. All equipment, including external and Internal
blower airlines and/or hoses below a point 2 Inches above the
overflow level of the tank, and blower drain valves, is so
constructed as to be easily cleanable; when perforations in
skimmers and colanders are smooth, to facilitate cleaning;
when all internal angles in the food-product zone are filleted
or otherwise fabricated to have an Internal radius of at least
1/4 inch; and when there are no V-type threads in the food-
product zone of the blower. (The use of wire mesh in the
food-product zone of equipment is not acceptable. )7 Non-food-
product zones of equipment should be so constructed that they
can be kept in a clean, sanitary condition; seams and Joints
should be welded, whenever possible; outside seams should be
welded or filled with solder; and there should be no in-
accessible spaces in which dirt or organic material might
accumulate.
f. The blower drain is not directly connected
with a sewer.
g. A stand or shelf constructed of corrosion-
resistant material, located so that the rim of the receiving
-------
1246
container will be at least 2 feet above the floor, is provided
under all chutes from skimmers and blowers, unless blowers
discharge directly to a skimmer.
h. Air-pump intakes are located in a protected
place.
i. Containers are clean; are fabricated of non-
toxic metal, waxed paper, glass, or other impervious material;
are so designed and fabricated that the contents will be
protected from contamination during shipping and storage;
covers of returnable containers are so designed as to protect
the pouring lip of the container; and returnable containers are
sealed so that tampering can be detected.
J. All blower tanks, skimmers, returnable shipping
containers, shucking buckets and pans purchased and/or in-
stalled after September 30, 1965, shall comply with the sanita-
tion requirements contained in the Shellfish Industry Equip-
ment Construction Guides published by the Public Health Service.
(Copies are available from State shellfish sanitation agencies
or PHS regional offices.)
15. GENERAL CLEANLINESS. -- Premises shall be
kept clean and free of litter and rubbish. Miscellaneous and
unused equipment and articles which are not necessary to
plant operations shall not be stored in rooms used for shell-
stock storage, shucking, packing, or repacking. No domestic
animal or fowl shall be permitted to be in a shellfish-
-------
1247
processing plant. The shell-stock storage, shucking, and
packing portions of the plant, when In operation, shall be
restricted to the handling of shellfish. Unauthorized
persons shall be excluded from the plant.
Public-health explanation. — The presence of
unused equipment and material interferes with the proper
cleaning of the plant and equipment, and may, therefore,
contribute indirectly to contamination of the food product.
Shell or shucked stock may be contaminated by domestic animals,
fowls, or rodents.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Material and equipment not in routine use
are not stored in rooms used for shell-stock storage, shucking,
packing, repacking, or container storage.
b. The shell-stock storage, shucking, and packing
portions of the plant are not used for other operations while
shellfish are being processed.
c. tfo domestic animals, rodents, or fowl are
permitted in shellfish-processing plants.
d. Only personnel engaged in packing operations,
supervisory personnel, authorized inspectors, or other persons
specifically authorized by the plant manager, are allowed in
the shell-stock storage, shucking, or packing rooms during
-------
1248
periods of operation.
e. Premises are clean and free of litter and
rubbish.
f. Shuckers do not go Into or through the packing
room for any purpose. (An exception may be made In small
operations, where an employee may work In both the packing
room and the shucking room. In such cases, the employee
should be required to change aprons and wash his hands
thoroughly before entering the packing room.)
16. CLEANING OP BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT. --
Shucking benches, shucking stools, floors, and, if necessary,
Nails of the shell-stock storage rooms and packing and shuck-
ing rooms shall be cleaned within 2 hours after the day's
operations have ceased. Windows and skylights shall be kept
clean. Refrigerators shall be kept clean. All equipment,
utensils, and work surfaces, Including the external and in-
ternal blower airlines and blower drain valves, shall be
cleaned by scrubbing with water and detergent and rinsing
with potable water within 2 hours after the day's operations
have ceased.
Public-health explanation. -- Clean work-rooms
and refrigerators reduce the chance of contaminating shell-
fish during shucking and processing. Shucked shellfish
cannot be kept clean and safe if permitted to come into con-
tact with equipment which has not been sanitized. Bacterl-
-------
1249
cidal treatment is not effective unless the equipment is
first thoroughly cleaned.
The determination of adequate cleanup facilities
will depend upon the method of bactericidal treatment
selected (see Item 17) and plant-by-plant determination of
what equipment and utensils may best be washed in a sink and
what equipment may best be washed "in place." Detergents
and brushes, Including special brushes that may be needed
for cleaning equipment such as blower lines, should be
available.
SINK WASHING
Wash sinks should be made of impervious nontoxic
material. Sink compartments should be large enough to permit
the complete immersion of the largest utensil to be sink-
washed. A second compartment should be provided in the
sink for clean-water rinsing between washing and bactericidal
treatment, unless some other acceptable method, such as a
spray rinse, is provided. In the case of bactericidal treat-
ment by immersion in hot water (item 17a(2), both the bac-
tericidal treatment and rinse may be accomplished simultane-
ously in the second compartment. If bactericidal treatment
by means of immersion in chemical solutions (Item 17a(3)),
is selected, a separate compartment should be provided for
this operation.
-------
1250
NUMBER OF COMPARTMENTS REQUIRED IN SINK
Method of bactericidal
treatment
Steam cabinet
Hot water (I70°p.)
Bactericidal solution
Method of rinse
Immersion
Spray
2
2
(1)
(1)
Not applicable.
IN-PLACE WASHING
Utensils and equipment which have to be washed
"in place" will require the same three steps of wash, rinse,
and bactericidal treatment. A watertight container, such as
a blower tank, is best washed by preparing a solution of the
detergent in the container itself and using this to scrub
all parts of the unit. Rinsing, preferably, should be
accomplished either by complete filling or by thorough spray
rinse. The bactericidal treatment methods are described in
item 17.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
-------
1251
satisfied when —
a. Shell-stock storage, shucking, and packing
rooms are cleaned within 2 hours after the day's operations
have ceased.
b. All utensils, equipment, and work surfaces,
Including the external and internal blower airlines below
the tank's liquid level, are cleaned by scrubbing with water
and detergent and rinsing with potable water within 2 hours
after the day's operations have ceased.
c. Cleaned benches, blocks, and stalls are
flushed or sprayed as often as necessary, and at least once
each week, with a solution containing not less than 100 parts
per million of available chlorine, or other disinfecting
agents in effective concentrations as approved by the State
regulatory authority.
d. Refrigerators are clean.
e. Adequate cleanup facilities, Including sinks,
bactericides, detergents, and brushes, are available within
the plant. Where chemical bactericides are used, a third
compartment or spray rinse must be installed to permit a
clean-water rinse between washing and bactericidal treatment.
(Sink compartments should be 3arge enough to permit complete
immersion of the largest utensil to be washed.)
f. All shelves, tables, and other equipment in
the shucking and packing rooms are clean.
-------
1252
g. Wash tanks, blowers, and containers for
shucked-stock holding are flushed or spray-rinsed with tap-
water after each emptying. (Dismantling is not necessary.)
Periodic clean-water flushing of shucking benches, utensils,
table surfaces, and other equipment during working periods
is recommended.
17. BACTERICIDAL TREATMENT OP UTENSILS AND
EQUIPMENT. — All utensils and equipment in the shucking
and packing rooms which come into contact with shucked shell-
fish shall be subjected to an effective bactericidal process
c
at the end of each day's operation.
Large equipment which might be recontamlnated
before use shall be cleaned at the end of each day's opera-
tion, and shall be subjected to effective bactericidal treat-
ment immediately before use.
Returnable shipping containers, if used, are
subjected to an effective bactericidal treatment process on
the day they are to be used, and are protected against con-
tamination until filled.
-------
1253
A mounts of Chlorine Compounds Required To Give Approximately 100 p.p.m. of Chlorine by Readily Available Measuring
Devices
Volume of water
(gallons)
20
40
60 - -- -
80
100
150
200
Dry chlorine compounds — available chlorine
15 percent
5H tbs
1 1 tbs
1 cup. .
1% cups
IJi cups -
3J4 cups.-
25 percent
3}4 tbs
6% tbs
10 tbs - ...
13J4 tbs
1 cup
Ifa cups
2 cups
70 percent
1X2 tbs
2}'i tbs. —
3}Ubs
4Mtbs
6 tbs
9 tbs—
12 tbs
Liquid hypochlorite solutions —
available chlorine
/ percent
3 cups
3 pts
4Kpts_-
GHpts
4 qtS-._
6 qts
2 gals
5 percent
10 tbs.
1}{ cups.
2 cups.
1% cups.
3 cups.
4% cups.
3 pts.
NOTE
Dry measure
I tablespoon (tbs.)—approximately 0.3 ounce.
1 cup or H-P'nt—approximately 5 ounces.
Liquid measure
1 tablespoon or 3 teaspoons—approximately 15 milli-
liters.
I cup or %-pint—approximately 16 tablespoons.
-------
1254
Public-health explanation. -- Shellfish furnish
an excellent growth medium for bacteria or other micro-
organisms. Small numbers of bacteria which might remain on
improperly sanitized equipment may multiply to tremendous
numbers in the finished pack.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. All utensils and other equipment have been
treated by one or more of the following methods;9
(l) Exposure for at least 15 minutes at a
temperature of at least 170°p., or for at least
5 minutes at a temperature of at least 200°P., in a
steam cabinet equipped with an indicating thermometer
located in the coldest zone. (Absence of a thermometer
violates this item.)
If steam is used in the bactericidal treatment
of blowers, a suitable cover and indicating thermometer
are provided. A vent or valve should be Installed at
the bottom of large steam cabinets, to permit the
discharge of cold air when steam is admitted.
(2) Immersion in hot water of at least 170°F.,
for at least 1/2 minute. (An accurate indicating
thermometer is provided and used.10 J1 Ordinarily,
a booster heater is necessary for water to be maintained
-------
1255
at 170°P.)
In the bactericidal treatment of blowers by this
method, the blower may first be filled with water
and then brought up to 170°F. by the addition of steam.
This temperature should be checked by the indicating
thermometer, and the 1/2-minute contact period measured
after reaching this value. In practice it has been
found desirable to provide a connection to, or a
removable section in, the blower line above the liquid
level of the tank, where steam or hot water can be
introduced.
(3) Immersion for at least 1 minute in, or
exposure for at least 1 minute to, a flow of a solution
containing not less than 50 parts per million of free
chlorine. All product-contact surfaces must be wetted
by the bactericidal solution, and piping so treated
must be filled. Bactericidal sprays containing not
less than 100 parts per million of free chlorine may be
used for large equipment. Bactericidal treatment with
chemicals is not effective unless the surface has been
thoroughly cleaned.
Bacterlcides other than chlorine should not be
accepted by the inspector until official tests by the proper
regulatory authority have demonstrated that the bacterlcide
-------
1256
in question is satisfactory for use in connection with
shellfish sanitation. The local inspector should consult
his State health organization regarding other bactericldes
in use in his area, so that he may be certain he is using the
proper tests for effectiveness and concentration.
b. Large Items which cannot be stored in a protected
place are given effective bactericidal treatment immediately
before starting each day's operation.
18. STORAGE OP EQUIPMENT. — Equipment and
utensils which have been cleaned and given bactericidal
treatment shall be stored so as to be protected against con-
tamination .
Public-health explanation. -- The results of
cleaning and bactericidal treatment may be negated by improper
storage of the treated equipment.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when the treated equipment is stored where it will
be protected from contamination or unauthorized handling.
(The utensils may be stored in the steam chest, in a special
cabinet, or in the packing room on clean shelves, stands,
tables, or racks. Storage racks should be at least 2 feet
above the floor.)
19. SOURCE OP SHELLFISH. — All shellfish shall
be obtained from a source approved by an official regulatory
agency.
-------
1257
Public-health explanation. -- The positive rela-
tionship between sewage-polluted shellfish and enteric
disease has been demonstrated many times. The bacterial
content of shellfish will, in general, mirror the bacterial
quality of the water in which they have grown. Because
shellfish pump and filter a large quantity of water, the
bacteria count of the shellfish will normally exceed the
bacteria count of the water in which they frow. The shell-
fish-water bacteria ratio depends upon the shellfish species,
water temperature, presence of certain chemicals, and vary-
ing capabilities of the individual animals. If the water
in which the shellfish are grown contains sewage, it may be
assumed that the shellfish will also contain sewage bacteria
or viruses, some of which may be capable of causing disease
in man.
Furthermore, there is evidence that organisms
of the Salmonella group, at least, will survive in shellfish
for a considerable length of time after harvesting. Kelly
and Arcisz ("Survival of Enteric Organisms in Shellfish,"
Reprint No. 3249, vol. 69, no. 12, Dec. 1951*, pp. 1205-1210,
Public Health Reports) have shown that viable S. schott-
muelleri will persist for at least 49 days in shell oysters,
Crassostrea virginlca, stored at a temperature of 40°F.
However , there was little evidence of multiplication of the
bacteria in the shellfish during the storage period. In
-------
1258
the same study, It was reported that S. schottmuellerl per-
sisted in soft clams, Mya arenaria, stored at a temperature
of 40°F., throughout a normal storage period.
Other public-health hazards may result from the
presence of a naturally occurring paralytic shellfish poison
in certain species of shellfish. The occurrence of this
poison is apparently related to the concentration of a dino-
flagellate, Gonyaulax, in the water of the growing area.
Species of shellfish which may accumulate this poison under
appropriate conditions Include Mytilus californianus, Mytilus
edulis, Mya arenaria, Saxldomus gigantius, Donax serra, and
Modiola modiolus. The poison occurs only in well-defined
areas and, in some instances, only during certain season. It
is not widespread over all shellfish-producing areas.
Cooking does not insure safety of shellfish
since, in ordinary cooking processes, shellfish may not be
sufficiently heated to insure a kill of pathogenic organisms,
although a considerable reduction will take place. One
investigator has found that oysters must be held in a water
bath at 138°-l42°F. for 1 hour before the coliform count is
reduced to zero. (See Salafranca, E. S., "The Effect of
Salt, Vinegar, and Heat on the Coliforms in Oysters," The
Philippine Journal of Fisheries, vol. 2, no. 1, 1953.)
Also, normal cooking processes cannot be relied upon to
destroy paralytic shellfish poison if it should be present.
-------
1259
The primary safeguard in the entire shellfish
sanitation program is, therefore, that of obtaining shellfish
which are free of disease-causing organisms, and which con-
tain, at most, only relatively small quantities of poison.
If shell-stock from sewage-polluted or highly toxic areas
are shucked, then almost all of the other sanitary safeguards
of the cooperative certification program will have been
circumvented.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when all shellfish are obtained from one or more
of the following sources: (a). An approved growing area;
(b) a State-certified shellfish shipper; or (c) a State-
approved shellfish-treatment plant.
20. REFRIGERATION OP SHELL-STOCK. — Shell-
stock of shellfish species which have poor keeping qualities
(such as the soft-shell clam, Mya arenarla, and the mussels,
Mytilus edulis and Mytilus californianus) shall be refrigerated
during shipment and holding.
Public-health explanation. -- If shell-stock of
shellfish species which have poor keeping qualities are not
refrigerated during prolonged storage, the quality of the
product will be impaired and the bacteria counts will be
Increased.
Significant increases in coliform counts in shell
oysters stored overnight may also occur under some conditions.
-------
1260
Satisfactory compliance. --This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Shell-stock of shellfish species with poor
keeping qualities are stored at a temperature of 50°P. or
less, but are not frozen, and when, at points of transfer,
such as loading docks, shell-stock are not permitted to
remain unrefrigerated for prolonged periods.
b. Shell-stock are protected from the sun
during warm weather to the extent necessary to prevent
spoilage.
21. SHUCKING OP SHELLFISH. -- Shellfish shall
be shucked in such a manner that they are not subjected to
contamination. Shell-stock shall be reasonably free of mud
when shucked.12 Only live shellfish shall be shucked.
Water used in fluming or washing shell-stock
shall be from a source approved by the State regulatory
agency. Use of overboard water must be specifically approved
by the State agency, and its use limited to shell-stock
Hashing.
Public-health explanation. — If shellfish are
not reasonably clean at the time of shucking, a considerable
quantity of the adhering material will be mixed into the
shucked shellfish during the shucking process, thus contribut-
ing to high bacteria counts in the final product. (See
Public-health explanation, Section A, Item 2, Washing of
-------
1261
^hell-Stock.)
The bacteria count of the final pack Is related
to the time intervening between shucking and attainment of
a temperature of approximately 45°P., i.e., the length of
time the shellfish are at a temperature favorable to the
rapid growth of bacteria. Factors in the shucking-room
procedure which Influence the length of time shucked shell-
fish are above 45°p. include the quality and species of the
shellfish being shucked, the speed of the individual
shucker, the practice of returning "overage" or "bluff" to
the shuckers, the frequency with which the shucking con-
tainers are delivered to the packing room, 'the air temperature,
and the temperature of the shell-stock being shucked.
The total elapsed time which shellfish may be
held on the shucking bench without causing high bacteria
counts is closely related to the packing-room procedures, the
size of containers into which the shucked shellfish are being
packed, the temperature of blower water, the temperature of
the oysters, and the method of cooling.
Prom the standpoint of bacteriological quality,
it is preferable that the elapsed time between shucking
and the attainment of a temperature of 45OP. not exceed *l
hours. More rapid cooling is very desirable.
The return of overage (bluff) from the packing
room to the shucker would ordinarily result in at least a
-------
1262
portion of the shellfish being held on the shucking bench
for more than 2 hours and would permit an undesirable growth
of bacteria. When bench grading of shellfish is practiced,
it is especially important that all grades of shellfish be
delivered to the packing room at least once every 2 hours
when the temperature of the shellfish exceeds 45°F. To
encourage frequent delivery of the shucked shellfish to the
packing room, it is suggested that the shucking containers
be limited to a size that an average shucker might reasonably
be expected to shuck full in 1 hour.
Storage of shucked shellfish on the shucking
benches for long periods of time increases the possibility
of contamination of the shucked shellfish by splash or flies.
Bacteriological examination of the water in dip
buckets has shown very high coliform counts. Since water
from the dip bucket may be carried over into the shucked
shellfish, there is a need for controlling the sanitary
quality of the water.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Water used for fluming or washing shell-
stock is obtained from a source approved by the official
State regulatory agency.
b. Shell-stock are reasonably free of mud when
shucked.
-------
1263
c. Only live shellfish are shucked.
d. The use of "dip" buckets Is prohibited.
(Where conditions dictate the need for frequent rinsing of
the shucker's hands and knife, it is recommended that water
outlets be Installed at the shucking bench convenient to
each shuoker, or that a flow-through type of dip bucket, in
which the water is continually replaced by clean tapwater,
be installed.)
e. Shucking containers are rinsed with running
tapwater before each filling.13
f. The return of overage (bluff) from the packing
room is not permitted.
22. SHELL DISPOSAL. -- Shells from which meats
have been removed shall be removed promptly from the shucking
room.
Public-health explanation. — Shell accumulations
in the shucking room make it difficult to keep the room
clean, and the chances of contaminating the shucked product
are increased.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when shells are promptly removed from the shucking
room to prevent Interference with the sanitary operation of
the plant. Any method of shell removal which results in
the prompt removal of shell without contaminating the shucked
-------
1264
product is acceptable. These methods Include, but are not
limited to, conveyors, baskets, barrels, wheelbarrows, or
shell drop-holes. (It Is recommended that unused portions
of body meats, such as clam siphons, not be disposed of with
shells. Ply-control measures may be necessary in the vicinity
of shell piles.)
23. HANDLING OP SINQIE-SERVICE CONTAINERS. --
All single-service containers shall be stored and handled
in a sanitary manner and, where necessary, shall be given
bactericidal treatment Immediately prior to filling.
Public-health explanation. -- Single-service
containers which have not been stored and handled in a
sanitary manner may become contaminated and thus may con-
taminate the packaged shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
Single-service containers and covers are kept
in original cartons until used, and are kept clean and dry.
b. Containers which may have been contaminated
during storage are cleaned and given bactericidal treat-
ment immediately prior to filling, or are discarded.
c. Plant employees use every reasonable pre-
caution to prevent the food-contact surfaces of containers
from coming into contact with their person or clothing.
d. Container-storage rooms are kept clean and
-------
1265
free of rodent or insect infestation; containers are so
stored that the presence of rodents may be easily detected;1^
and container-storage rooms are not used as general store-
rooms for unused equipment and materials.
e. Single-service containers in the packing
rooms are kept on stands or tables at least 2 feet above
the floor, and are protected against contamination from
splash.
24. PACKING OP SHUCKED SHELLFISH. — Shucked
shellfish shall be packed without exposing them to contamina-
tion. Shucked shellfish shall be packed and shipped in clean,
single-service containers made of impervious materials, or
in clean, properly designed, returnable containers1-* so
sealed that tampering can be detected. Each Individual
package of fresh or frozen shellfish shall have permanently
recorded on the package or label, so as to be easily visible,
the packer's repacker's or distributor's name and address,
and the packer's or repacker's certificate number preceded
by the abbreviated name of the State. Containers holding 1
gallon or more shall have the identification on the container
wall, unless the cover becomes an integral part of the con-
tainer during the sealing process.
Each shucker packer and repacke" shall legibly
code-date each package of fresh and frozen shucked shellfish
to indicate the date of packing or repacking. (A recommended
-------
1266
code-dating system is included in Appendix B.)
Public-health explanation. — Unless shucked
shellfish are packed in clean containers, all precautions
taken to produce a clean and safe product may be negated.
The State permit number facilitates tracing the
product to the plant in which it was actually prepared.
The date or code on the product further assists the regulatory
authority in tracing shellfish to their point of origin.
Satisfactory compliance. This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Skimmer tables are so located that they will
not receive drainage from the delivery window.
b. Shuckers do not place shucking containers
on skimmers.
c. Shellfish are not exposed to contamination
during packaging.
d. Containers are closed as soon after filling
as is feasible.
e. The name and address of the packer, repacker,
or distributor, and the certificate number, preceded by the
abbreviated name of the State, of the packer or repacker,
are permanently recorded on the package so as to be easily
visible. Wording, such as "Packed for" or "Distributed by,"
is used wherever necessary to clarify the name on the label.
Containers holding 1 gallon or more have the identification
-------
126?
on the side wall, rather than on the cover, unless the cover
becomes an integral part of the container during the sealing
process. l6 (The presence of containers or covers with a
plant number other than that on the unexpired certificate
for the plant will be considered a violation of this item.
Packing into containers with other plant certification
numbers is not permitted. Recording identification informa-
tion on containers by use of a rubber stamp will not be
acceptable for compliance with this item. ) Returnable
shipping containers may be identified with tags of at least
2-5/8 x 5-1/U inches in size and made of substantial water-
proof stock.
f. Each container or package of fresh or frozen
shucked shellfish of the shucker packer or repacker has
legibly recorded on the label or package, code symbols
giving the date of packing, or if repacked, the date of re-
packing: Provided, that this requirement shall not apply
to returnable containers.^ Such code dating of frozen
shellfish need not be on the outer wrap. (The packaging
code shall be made available at the request of the State
shellfish-regulatory authority.)
25. REFRIGERATION OP SHUCKED SHELLFISH. --
Shucked shellfish shall be cooled to an internal temperature
of *45°F. or less within 5 hours after shucking. Storage
-------
1268
temperatures shall not exceed ^5°P. Storage at 3M°-40°F
is strongly recommended.
A temperature of o°P. or less shall be maintained
in the frozen-storage rooms.
Public-health explanation. -- Shucked shellfish
are an excellent medium for the growth of bacteria. Thus,
it is very important that the packaged shellfish be cooled
promptly, so that bacteria will not multiply. Also tempera-
tures above 45°F. may accelerate physical deterioration and
spoilage of shucked stock. Alternate freezing and thawing
of shellfish may cause deterioration and spoilage.
Research by the Public Health Service with
Crassostrea virginlca and Crassostrea gigas stored in ice
and at 37.5°P. sustained slight increases in coliform
MPN's during the first 5 days of storage. After the storage
period of 5 days, there was a continuous increase in MPN
values until the 25th day, at which time the coliform MPN's
exceeded the original values by at least 50 times. Oysters
from the same lots stored at 50°p. sustained a continuous
increase in coliform MPN's exceeding 1,000 times the original
count within 5 days. In the same studies oysters stored in
ice and at 37.5°P. sustained only slight increases in
standard plate counts after being stored for 5 days. How-
ever, with a storage temperature of 50°P. the same oysters
sustained plate count increases which exceeded 180 times
-------
1269
their original count within 5 days.
The fecal coliform MPN's decreased slightly from
their original MPN values during storage in ice, at 37.5°F.
and at 50°P«* with the exception that there was a frequent
increase in fecal coliform MPN's at the 50°F storage
temperature. (See Time and Temperature Effects on Stored
Oysters, by C. B. Kelly, Proceedings 1964 Shellfish Sanita-
tion Workshop, available from Shellfish Sanitation Branch,
Public Health Service Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D. C., 20201.) Appendix B contains
charts, figures 1, 2, and 3, which present the above informa-
tion in graphic form. Appendix B also contains in graphic
form the length of time necessary to cool oysters in various
size containers to 40°P. under dry refrigeration and in
crushed ice.
Satisfactory shellfish. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Shucked shellfish are cooled to an internal
temperature of 45°p. or less within 5 hours after shucking,
and are stored and shipped under similar temperature condi-
tions.
b. Packaged shellfish to be frozen are properly
stacked to insure rapid freezing, and are frozen at an
ambient air temperature of 0°E. or less, with packages
-------
1270
frozen solid within 12 hours after the start of freezing;
and frozen shellfish are handled in such a manner as to
remain frozen solid, and are held at 0°P. or less.1?
c. All containers holding shucked shellfish
shall be kept covered while under refrigeration.
26. ICE. — Ice shall be obtained from a source
specifically approved by the State regulatory agency, and
shall be stored and handled in a clean manner.
Public-health explanation. -- Ice may become
contaminated during freezing or in subsequent storing and
handling.
Shucked shellfish packed in non-hermetically
sealed containers may also be contaminated by dirty ice.
When containers of shellfish are stored in ice, a partial
vacuum is formed within the container which may draw water
from the melting ice into the container.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Ice is manufactured in an establishment or
machine approved by the proper State regulatory authority.
b. Ice is stored and handled in such a manner
that it will not be contaminated.
c. Ice, other than that manufactured in the
shell-fish processing establishment, is washed before use.
27. RECORDS. -- Complete and accurate records
-------
1271
shall be kept by every shellfish dealer.
Public-health explanation. — In case of an out-
break of disease attributable to shellfish, It Is necessary
that health departments be able to determine the source of
contamination, and thereby to prevent any further outbreaks
from this source. This can be done most effectively by
following the course of a shipment, through all the various
dealers who have handled It, back to the point of origin
by means of records kept by the shellfish dealers.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when each shucker-packer, repacker, shell-stock
shipper, or reshipper establishes and maintains a ledger
record or record system satisfactory to the State control
agency indicating from whom shellfish were purchased or
secured; the date purchased or secured; State designated
areas from which the shellfish were harvested; and the names
and addresses of persons to whom shellfish were sold. (An
example ledger form is contained in App. B.)
28. HEALTH OF PERSONNEL. — Any person known
to be infected with any disease in a communicable form,
or to be a carrier of any disease which can be transmitted
through the handling of shellfish, or who has an infected
wound or open lesion on any exposed portion of his body,
shall be excluded from the shucking or packing plant. An
owner or manager who has reason to suspect that any employee
-------
1272
has contracted a communicable disease shall Immediately
notify the proper health officials. Pending appropriate
action by the health officials, said employee shall be ex-
cluded from the plant.
Public-health explanation. — Persons who are
Infected with, or who are carriers of, organisms of typhoid
fever, dysentery, septic sore throat, or certain other
communicable diseases, might transmit such disease to others
through shucked shellfish. A person with an infected wound
or open lesion on the exposed portion of his body might
transmit toxin-producing bacteria to the shucked shellfish,
and thus cause food poisoning to consumers thereof.
Careful, daily observations of the health of
employees, with proper inquiries when indicated, and ex-
clusion of employees who are ill, will tend to prevent
possible contamination of the shucked stock with pathogenic
organisms.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Persons with infected wounds or open lesions
on the exposed portion of their bodies, and those who are
known to be carriers of, or infected with, typhoid fever,
:dysentery, or other communicable diseases likely to be
transmitted by shucked shellfish, are excluded from the
plant.
-------
1273
b. Daily observations of employees are made by
the supervisor, with reasonable inquiries being made when
signs of Illness appear.
c. Upon an inquiry Indicating the possibility
of a communicable disease, the ill employee is excluded
from the plant pending clearance by the health officials.
d. Employees having diarrhea or sore throat
promptly report this to the manager.
29. SUPERVISION. -- The management shall desig-
nate a reliable individual to be accountable for compliance
with the items of this manual having to do with plant and
personal cleanliness.
Public-health explanation. -- Handwashing by
food-service employees is a very Important public-health
measure. Unless someone is made specifically responsible
for this practice, it is apt to be forgotten or overlooked.
Similarly, one person must be responsible for plant clean-
up. Clean floors, walls, and benches reduce the chance of
contamination of the shellfish or utensils during shucking
or packing operations. Periodic disinfection of the plant
will reduce the possibility of conaminating the shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when a reliable individual has been designated
by the management to supervise the activities enumerated in
-------
1274
Section B, Items 16, 28, and 30, and when there is evidence
that he has been executing these duties. Designation of
such an individual does not relieve management of responsi-
bility for compliance with these items.
30. CLEANLINESS OP EMPLOYEES. -- Employees
shall wash their hands with soap and water before beginning
work, and again after each interruption. (Supervision of
handwashlng la a specific responsibility of management,
Section B, Item 29.)
When manual handling of shucked shellfish becomes
necessary, sanitized rubber gloves shall be worn, or the
hands shall be washed and disinfected immediately before
such manual handling.
Finger cots, gloves, and/or shields, if worn by
shuckers, shall be sanitized as often as necessary and at
least twice daily. (Use of water-proof finger cots or
shields is recommended as preferable to those made of an
absorbent material.) Any person who handles shucked shell-
fish shall wear a clean apron or coat.
Employees shall not use tobacco in any form in
the rooms in which shellfish are shucked or packed.
Public-health explanation. -- The hands of all
employees frequently come into contact with their clothes;
hence, it is important that the clothes worn during the
handling of shucked shellfish be clean. The nature of the
-------
1275
work makes it necessary that protective outer garments be
worn. Finger cots, gloves, and/or shields, unless sanitized
periodically, will accumulate bacteria which will contaminate
the shucked shellfish.
Disease of toxin-producing bacteria may be
carried on the hands of shuckers and/or packers; hence,
handwashing is very important.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Clean aprons or coats are worn by any
persons handling shucked shellfish.
b. Aprons or coats not in use are stored in a
room or locker provided for this purpose.
c. Finger cots, gloves, and/or shields, if
worn by shuckers, are sanitized as often as necessary and
at least twice daily, and are properly stored until used.
(See Section B, Item 18.)
d. Sanitized rubber gloves are worn during, or
the hands are washed and disinfected immediately before,
any manual handling of the shucked shellfish. (A bucket
or pan of the bactericidal solution should be present in
the packing room during periods of operation.)
e. There is no evidence of spitting, or of the
use of any form of tobacco, by employees in rooms in which
shellfish are shucked or packed.
-------
1276
f. Employees wash their hands with soap and
water before beginning work and after each interruption,
and utensil sinks are not used for handwashing.
(Footnotes to Section B:
^^ot-candles Of illumination
2This publication is obtainable from the Super-
intendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C., 20*402; price 40 cents.
^The regulatory agency should collect water
samples for bacteriological examination at not less than
semi-annual intervals if the supply should be from a private
source. In addition, samples for bacteriological examination
should be collected from all new private sources of supply
before they are used, and from repaired supply facilities
after they have been disinfected. Bacteriological examina-
tion shall be made in conformity with the standard methods
recommended by the American Public Health Association.
^This publication is obtainable from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 29 West 39th St.,
New York, N. Y.
5This publication is obtainable from the
Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 20402; price 40 cents.
-------
1277
f
'Sanitary Standards describing the construction
of valves, fittings, and pumps may be obtained from Inter-
national Association of Milk and Pood Sanitarians, Inc.,
Box 3^7, Shelbyville, Ind. Public Health Service Publica-
tion No. 9^3, Shellfish Industry Equipment Construction
Guides, obtainable from PHS regional offices, contains
guides for sanitary construction of shellfish blower tanks,
skimmers, returnable shipping containers, and shucking
buckets and pans.
o
Containers which have been subjected to bacteri-
cidal treatment should have a residual bacterial plate count
of not more than 1 per milliliter of capacity, and equipment
not over 50 colonies per 8 square inches (i.e., 1 per
square cm.) of food-contact surface, in 3 out of 4 samples.
(See Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products
for Information on apparatus and procedure for making rinse
and swab counts.)
9ln medium and large shucking plants, a steam
cabinet with auxiliary steam boiler is a most satisfactory
type of equipment for bactericidal treatment of utensils
and equipment.
* ^Thermometers should be accurate to within 2°P.,
should have scale divisions not greater than 2°P., and should
be so installed as to be easily read. Accuracy of thermometer
should be checked at least once each year by the State
-------
12?8
regulatory agency.
Steam or hot-water treatment shall not be
accepted as satisfactory compliance unless the equipment or
containers are completely immersed or completely exposed for
the required time or longer, at the required temperature or
higher, throughout the period of exposure.
12The primary responsibility for washing the
shellfish free of mud is placed on the harvesters. However,
this does not relieve the plant operator of responsibility
for compliance with this item. (See Section A, Item 2.)
Bacteria counts of mud from Tangier Sound averaged about six
times higher than bacteria counts of oysters from the same
growing area. See "Bacteriological Survey of an Oyster
Bed in Tangier Sound, Maryland" by M. W. Vaugn and A. W.
Jones. Chesapeake Science, Vol. 5, no. 4, Winter 1964.
^pood and Drug Administration requirements
limit the amount of water in the shucking containers to
one-fourth of the capacity of the container.
^Containers should be stored on open racks or
pallets at least 8 inches above the floor and 18 inches
away from the walls.
^Returnable containers will be accepted only
for interplant shipment of shucked shellfish.
^Additional information on product quality,
quantity and identification may be required by Federal
-------
1279
and/or State laws.
17
'It is recommended that freezing and frozen-
storage compartments be equipped with at least the following
equipment: (l) Automatic temperature-regulating control;
(2) an indicating thermometer, so Installed as to indicate
accurately the temperature within the storage compartment;
and (3) except for plate freezers, a recording thermometer
installed on each freezing or storage compartment in such a
manner as to record accurately the temperature within the
compartment at all times. Recording-thermometer charts
should be retained for at least 1 year.)
SECTION C
PACKING AND SHIPPING SHELL-STOCK
A shell-stock shipper deals only in shellfish
which are still in the shell; hence, his plant sanitation
requirements are not as extensive as those of a shucker-
packer or repacker. A shipper holding only a shell-stock
certificate shall not shuck shellfish or repack shucked
shellfish. Operators of "buy" boats and "buy" trucks shall
be considered shell stock shippers.
Shellfish in the possession of a shell-stock
shipper shall be protected against contamination. The shell
stock shipper shall keep records of his purchases and sales,
and shall tag shell-stock shipments so that they may be
-------
1280
identified.
To effectuate the needed sanitary safeguards,
the shell-stock shipper shall comply with items 1 and 2
below, and with the items of sections A and B indicated for
each type of shell-stock operation in table II.
1. WASHING OP SHELL-STOCK. -- Shell-stock shall
be reasonably free of mud at the time of shipment.
Public-health explanation. — See Section A,
Item 2, concerning reasons for washing shellstcck. If
shellfish are washed in polluted water, the shellfish may
be contaminated. Therefore, water used for shell-stock
washing should be of approved sanitary quality. Preferably,
shell-stock should be washed at the time of harvesting or
as soon thereafter as is feasible.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Shell-stock are reasonably free of mud at the
time of shipment. The qualifications applicable to washing
of shell-stock under Section A, Item 2a, also apply to this
Item.
b. Water used for shell-stock washing is from
a source approved by the official State regulatory authority,
2. PACKING AND SHIPPING OP SHELL-STOCK. --
Shell-stock shall be packed and shipped in clean containers,
under conditions which will prevent contamination. When
-------
1281
TABLE II
Shell-stock operation
type
Shore establishment t
buys, stores, packs.
Harvests or Buy Boats,
all operations on boat.
Buy Trucks, all opera-
tions on truck.
Applicable
item — sec. A
1
_
X
e, c, f
3
_
X
—
Applicable item — sec, B
1
X
—
—
3
X
—
—
9
a
—
—
10
a, d, f, g,
h, i, j,
k, m*
—
—
11
X
—
—
12
X
—
—
15
a, c,
d,
e
a, c,
d
a, c,
d
19
X
X
X
20
X
X
X
25
X**
—
—
27
X
X
X
28
X
X
X
*=Item b also applies to pressure systems. applicable.
**=Applies if shucked shellfish are handled. X= Required.
t=If shore establishment operates boats or trucks, —= Not required.
requirements for Buy Boats and Buy Trucks are also
May 1JH55
23
-------
1282
consigned in bulk, shell-stock shall be shipped in clean
conveyances, under conditions which will prevent contamina-
tion.
Shell-stock in transit shall be Identified by a
tag or label fastened to each shipping container and bearing
the number of the shipper, his name and address, the name
and address of the consignee, and the kind and quantity of
shell-stock in the container. The following classes of
shell-stock shippers shall be exempt from this requirement:
Harvesting Only; Buy Boats; and Buy Boats with Storage on
the Boats.
Public-health explanation. -- Shellfish must be
protected during shipment to avoid contamination and spoilage,
Shipments must be tagged, to make it possible for the control
authorities to identify shipments of shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Shipping containers and vehicles are clean.
b. Tags at least 2-5/8 by 5-I/1* inches in size,
and made of substantial, waterproof stock, and carrying the
"name, address, and number of the dealer, the name and
address of the consignee, and the kind and quantity of the
shell-stock, are securely fastened to each individual con-
tainer of shell-stock. (Bulk shipments, "e.g., unpackaged,"
of shell-stock to a certified shipper require only a single
-------
1283
tag or bill of lading which gives the required information.
SECTION D
REPACKING OP SHELLFISH
The packaging of shucked shellfish in plants
other than those in which they were Initially shucked exposes
the shucked shellfish to additional handling and increases
the possibility of contamination. Combining in one pack
shucked shellfish from more than one dealer permits the
possibility of contamination of the entire pack if shell-
fish from any one of the dealers should be contaminated.
When repacking is practiced, tracing of shellfish to the
source is difficult.
When repacking is practiced, it shall be done
in accordance with the requirements of table III and the
items which follow in this section.
TABLE III
Applicable satis-
Item number factory-compliance
in Section B Item items
2
*»
5
6
Plant arrangement
Floors
Walls and ceilings
Fly-control measures
a, d, and e.
all items.
all items.
all items.
-------
128*1
Item number
in Section B
TABLE III
(Continued)
Item
Applicable satis-
factory-compliance
Items
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
*9
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
Lighting
Heating and ventilation
Water supply
Plumbing and related
facilities
Sewage disposal
Rodent control
Construction of utensils
and equipment
General cleanliness
Cleaning of buildings
and equipment
Bactericidal treatment
of utensils and equipment
Storage of equipment
Source of shellfish
Handling of single-
service containers
Packing of shucked shellfish
Ice
Records
Health of personnel
Supervision
Cleanliness of employees
all items.
b.
all items.
all Items.
all items.
all items.
all items.
all items.
a, b, d, e,
f, and g.
all items.
all items.
all items.
all items.
c, d, e, f, and g.
all Items.
all items.
all items.
all items.
a, b, d, e, and f.
-------
1265
1. SHUCKED SHELLFISH INTENDED FOR REPACKING. —
Shucked shellfish to be repacked shall be received at the
repacking plant in approved shipping containers at a
temperature of 45°p. or less. Frozen shellfish which have
thawed shall not be repacked or repackaged.
Public-health explanation. — Shellfish which are
not shipped in properly sealed, easily cleanable containers
may become contaminated. Shellfish which have not been
properly refrigerated may have excessively high bacteria
counts.
If frozen shellfish are thawed during repacking,
high bacteria counts in the final pack may result.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when —
a. All shucked shellfish are received in
properly designed1^ containers. (Returnable containers
should be so sealed that any tampering will be evident.)
b. Shellfish are received at a temperature of
45°F. or less. Frozen shellfish which have thawed are not
repacked or repackaged.
2. REFRIGERATION DURING REPACKING. -- The
temperature of the shellfish shall not exceed 45°F during
the repacking process. Frozen shellfish shall not be
thawed during the repacking process.
-------
1286
Public-health explanation. -- Bacteria multiply
rapidly at high temperatures, but are unable to do so at
low temperatures. Adequate cooling, therefore, helps to pro-
duce a low bacteria count in the final product.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The internal temperature of nonfrozen shell-
fish being repacked does not exceed 45°P. during the repacking
process. (This may be accomplished by expeditious handling,
by continuous refrigeration of the shellfish being repacked,
or by the provision of a refrigerated room for the repacking
operation. )
b. Frozen shellfish are not thawed during the
repacking process.
3. CLEANING OP RETURNABLE SHIPPING CONTAINERS. --
Returnable shipping containers shall be thoroughly cleaned
as soon after emptying as is practicable.
Public-health explanation. -- Containers are most
easily cleaned before the organic material has had time to
dry.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when returnable shipping containers are thoroughly
cleaned as soon after emptying as is practicable.
(Footnote for Section D:
19See Section B, Item 14.)
-------
128?
SECTION E
RESMPPERS
Persons who reship shellfish from certified
shell-stock shippers, shueker-packers, or repackers to other
certified shippers or to final consumers should be licensed
and certified as reshlppers. Use of this shipper classifica-
tion is left to the option of the State.
(A reshipper is not permitted to shuck shell-
fish, nor to repack shucked shellfish.) Requirements for
a reshipper depend upon the type of product handled and the
methods of operation. If shell-stock are handled, the
applicable requirements outlined for a shell-stock dealer
must be met (Sec. C).
If only shucked shellfish are handled, the
required items are —
1. Section B, Item 19, "Source."
2. Section B, Item 25, "Refrigeration."
3. Section B, Item 27, "Records."
APPENDIX A
INSPECTION OP CERTIFIED SHELLFISH SHIPPERS
QENERAL: Section A-2 of Part I specifies that
shellfish shippers certified by States under the Cooperative
Program shall meet the construction requirements of Part II
-------
1288
of this manual prior to certification, and shall maintain
satisfactory sanitary conditions during periods of opera-
tion. Establishments not meeting these two requirements will
not be eligible for inclusion on the Public Health Service
list of State certified shellfish shippers.
Plants will be considered as meeting the basic
sanitary standards of Part II of this manual when the two
following conditions are met: (l) the same sanitation
item is not violated repeatedly, and (2) a sanitation rating
of at least 80 percent, as determined by a standardized
inspection procedure, is achieved.
Sanitation rating of shucker-packer and repacker
establishments should be determined by use of an inspection
report equivalent to PHS-769, a copy of which is included as
page 28 of this manual. The percentage values assigned to
each item are shown on the sample inspection report. Per-
cent values are not shown for items B-l, B-19, C-l, C-2,
D-l, D-2, and D-3 since any violations of these items are
applied against the tentative percentage rating for the
plant. Percentage values for these items are given in
table IV. Section C of the inspection report (PHS-769) should
not be used unless the shucker-packer ships a portion of his
product in the shell. Section D of the inspection report
(PHS-769) should not be used unless the shucker-packer also
repacks shellfish.
-------
1289
Sanitation ratings for shell-stock shippers
should be determined by use of an inspection report
equivalent to the "Shell-Stock Shipper Inspection Report,"
a copy of which is included as page 29 of this manual. The
percentage values assigned to each item are shown on the
sample inspection report.
Sanitation Rating for Shucker-Packers: In
computing a sanitation rating for a shucker-packer the viola-
tions recorded under Section B on the inspection report
should be totaled using the indicated percentage values.
This total, when subtracted from 100, will give a tentative
percentage sanitation rating. If items B-l or B-19 are
violated an additional 25 percent or 50 percent should be
subtracted from the tentative rating (see table IV). Simi-
larly any violations recorded under sections C and D should
also be subtracted according to the table IV schedule.
TABI£ IV
Percentage Values for Use in Establishing Sanitation Ratings
of Shucker-Packers by Use of Standardized Inspection Report,
PHS-769
Section Iten number Item Percent values
B 1 Wet Storage 25
19 Source of Shellfish 25
-------
1290
TABI£ IV
(Continued)
Section Item number Item Percent values
C 1
2
D 1
2
3
Shell-Stock Washing
Shell -Stock Shipping Container
Shellfish for Repacking
Refrigeration
Frozen Shellfish
Returnable Containers, Cleaned
1
2
2
1
1
Sanitation Ratings for Repackers:1 The instruc-
tions for rating a shucker-packer should be followed in
rating a repacker except that section B items not.applicable
to the operation of the repacker should be indicated on the
inspection report and should be taken into consideration in
computing the tentative sanitation rating according to the
following formula:
Tentative sanitation rating JPercent compliance section B)flOQ)
(percent; (percentage of section B applicabl^
Any violations noted for items B-l, B-19, C-l,
C-2, D-l, D-2, or D-3, should be subtracted from the tenta-
tive rating according to the table IV schedule to obtain a
final rating.
Sanitation Ratings for Shell-Stock Shippers:
-------
1291
The required physical facilities and operating procedures
for shell-stock shippers varies with the type of establish-
ment. Therefore, all Items on the Inspection report will
not apply to every shipper. (See section C, Part II, this
manual.) In completing-the Inspection report those items
which are not applicable to the particular shipper should
be so Indicated. These "not applicable" items should be
taken into consideration in computing the sanitation rating
for the shipper according to the following formula:
Sanitation rating (percent)= (Percent compliance) (100)
(Percent applicable)
-------
W-769-1
kf.S-41
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1292
ludgel brtau No. 6I-R633
SHKKING-PACKING PUNT INSPECTION REPORT
HUNT NAME AND LOCATION
I. WET STORAGE:
funded; State approved
1 PLANT ARRANGEMENT:
Not subject to flooding
Separate shucking and pocking rooms
taper delivery window
Adequate pocking & clothing rooms
J. MY STORAGE OF SHELL STOCK:
Users, impervious, graded to drain
Wells, smooth, well-constructed
Conveyances easily-cleanable; clean
Not used as passageway
Bex drain protected against backflow
I FLOORS:
hpenioul; smooth; graded to drain
5. WALLS AND CEILINGS:
Ueolh; washable; light-colored
I Kl CONTROL MEASURES:
Adequate screens or fans; self-closing, outward-
opening screen doors
Approved internal fly-control measures
tut from flies
J. LIGHTING:
Ample; properly distributed
I. HEATING AND VENTILATION:
Ceafcrioble temperature; well ventilated
I. WATER SUPPLY
(Met in each room
Aeple; regulated, hot water supply
Hole, cold water at each sink vat
It. PLUMBING AND RELATED FACILITIES:
Approved, no cross-connections
Adequate number and location of lavatories;
fcot and cold water; mixing valves; soap;
single-service towels
••doashing signs posted
t number and location of toilets; clean;
load repair; ventilated; lighted; supply of
toilet tissue
UM room doars. self-closing, tight
It. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Satisfactory .
1! tODENT CONTROL:
Indent free; proper construction
Ue use and storage of rodentic.des ....
1.0
O.S
2.0
O.S
O.S
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
5.0
0.5
CEDTIHCATE NO.
NUMBER Of SHUCKEB
13. CONSTRUCTION OF BENCHES:
Smooth; impervious; self-draining
Blocks easily cleanable; non-tonic
Stalls & stools cleanable; pointed
No attached padding on stools
14. EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION:
Material; smooth surfaces & joints; good repair
easily cleanable; equipment installed compile
sub-item j
Container rims 2' above floor
Blower not connected directly to sewer
Blower air intake protected
15. GENERAL CLEANLINESS:
No miscellaneous equipment or material
Plant used only for shellfish
No animals, fowl, unauthorized persons
Premises clean; no rubbish
Shuckers do not go into pocking room
16. CLEANING:
Building & equipment cleaned within 2 hrs
Benches and blocks disinfected weekly
Sinks, bactericides, detergents, and brushes .
Blowers and tanks rinsed between uses
Refrigerators clean
17. BACTERICIDAL TREATMENT OF
EQUIPMENT: Approved
18. STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT:
Treated equipment properly stored
19. SOURCE OF SHELLFISH:
Approved
20. SHELL STOCK COOLING:
Refrigerated or protected as necessary
21. SHUCKING SHELLFISH:
Wash water from approved source
(See item 9)
hell stock free of mud
luff not returned
tip buckets not used
hucking containers rinsed after each use
22. SHELL DISPOSAL: Prompt
13. SINGLE-SERVICE CONTAINERS:
>tore rooms clean, no rodents, trash,
insects -
!ept clean and dry until used
lontaminated containers sanitized or
discorded
2.0
O.S
24. PACKING SHUCKED SHELLFISH:
Shellfish not contaminated during
packing
Containers closed as soon as feasible
_Clean, properly-designed containers
Containers: identified. Code-dated
25. COOLING SHUCKED SHELLFISH:
Cooled to 45" in 5 hrs
Stored at 45° or lesi
Frozen and stored at 0" or less
26. ICE:
From approved source; protected from
contamination; washed
27. RECORDS: Complete, accurate
28. PERSONNEL HEALTH:
Infected persons and carriers excluded
29. SUPERVISION: Effective
30. CLEANLINESS OF EMPLOYEES:
Clean aprons or coats; properly stored
Finger cots sanitized; no tobacco used
Packing-room workers wear rubber gloves or
wash and disinfect hands
Handwashing by employees
SECTION C (SHELl STOCK)
1. WASHING SHELL STOCK:
Shell stock clean at time of shipment
Wash water from approved source (See item 9)
2. SHIPPING SHELL STOCK:
Shipping containers clean, identified
SECTION D (REPACKING)
1. SHELLFISH FOR REPACKING:
n approved containers at 45 ° or less
2. REFRIGERATION DURING REPACKING:
Temperature does not exceed 45"
:rozen shellfish not thawed
3. CLEANING OF RETURNABLE CON-
TAINERS:
Cleaned soon after emptying
*n»w items not rnflmM in computation of initial sanitation rating for Sbudur-Packtri.
• U.S. OOVCRHHCI
May 1965
-------
1293
PHS-769-3 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, E
""•5-" PUBLIC HEAl
SHELL STOCK SHIPPER OR RESHIPPER INSPECTION REPORT
PUNT NAME AND LOCATION
•em* Mt •ppkeeMe to shipper befcj Impected *
SECTION A
1. BOATS AND
Construction so
Kept dean, cw
Cleaned often
3. BODY WASTE
Not discharged
proper dispc
SECTION B
1. WET STORAG
Protected; Stat
3. SHEU STOCK
Floors, impervM
Walk, smooth.
Conveyances •
Not used as a
Floor drain pro
9. WATER SUPFl
Safe; adequah
10. PLUMBING Ah
Approved; no
Lavatories; soc
Handwashing i
ToiM rooms d
lighted; sup
ToiM room do
No overhead)
TRUCKS:
Delaying operations
DISPOSALS:
in harvesting area
id for purpose intended, secured,
>sol
E:
STORAGE:
well-constructed
tected against bocltflow
Y:
4D RELATED FACILITIES:
•an; good repair; ventilated;
•ply of toilet tissue
on self-closing tight
iratm
11. SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
Satisfactory
12. RODENT CC*
Rodent Ire.; p
Safe use and i
15. GENERAL Ol
No miscellane.
fTROL:
roper construction
EANUNESS:
No onimab. fewrls, unauthorized persons
DATf
pi
iiiiiiitii
i
i
i
an
i
i
'in
20
WH/i
1
1
1
1
1
11
15
Wit,
3
2
1
2
1
3
w/it
2
Wit
2
1
•
2
1
NA
iillll
i/A
m
•
in
Wii
Wih
Wii,
•
SANeTAMAN
DUCATION, AND WELFARE Fo™ Appro»»d:
Budget lunau No. 68-6633
fH SERVICE
CERTIFICATE NO.
PRODUCT
NUMKI OF EMPLOYEES
15. GENERAL CLEANLINESS (Cont'd):
19. SOURCE OF SHELLFISH:
Approved
20. SHELL STOCK COOLING:
Refrigerated or protected as necessary
25. REFRIGERATION OF SHUCKED SHELLFISH:
Internal temperature of stored shellfish
45* or less
Frozen shellfish storage 0* or less
27. RECORDS: COMPLETE, ACCURATE
28. PERSONNEL HEALTH:
Infected persons and carriers
excluded
SECTION C
1. WASHING SHELL STOCK:
Shell stock clean at time of shipment
Woshwater from approved sources
(See item 9)
2. PACKING AND SHIPPING SHELL STOCK:
Shipping containers clean
Shipments properly identified
SECTION E: (Applies only to reshippen)
1, SOURCE, (Sec. B. Item 19)
2. REFRIGERATION. (Sec. B, Hem 25):
Internal temperature 45* or less
Frozen shellfish 0* or less
3. RECORDS, (Sec. B, Hem 27)
Hi,
\
iffil/ffii
20
iillili
2
u
1
1
3
Wlili,
3
B
i
1
i
i
wt
25
'ill/Ik
25
25
25
NA
'///////ff/l
I//////////,
Wlii,
W/////A
B
1
m
H/l/l/i/h
fjInAejts
1969)
' H.S. COVCBMCm PttlHTHeC OTFICE : IMS Of—TW-TM
May 1965
31
-------
129**
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDED CODE-DATING SYSTEM FOR SHUCKER-PACKERS AND
REPACKERS
The following code-dating system Is recommended
to the States In establishing their code-dating system for
shueker-packers and repackers as required by Item 24 :
A five digit number and letter system should be
established which will reflect the year, the month, the day
of the month, and the morning or afternoon in which the shell-
fish were packed or repacked. Larger packers may wish to
indicate morning or afternoon packing by using the letter
"A" or "P" in their code system.
Example: 31O12
3-1963
10-10th month, October
12-day of month
Example: 40510
4-1964
5-5th month, May
10-day of month
It is further recommended the repackers be re-
quired to precede their code-dating digits with the letter
"R" to indicate the product is repacked.
-------
107
8
S.o-
a.
2
8
u
ios
10*
TTT
I i I i
ICED
Appendix B
I1" 'I
I .... I
3° C
I
EASTERN OYSTERS
PACIFIC OYSTERS
I
10 15
DAYS
20
25
10 15
DAYS
20
25
0
10°C
5
DAYS
Figure 1. Coliform M.P.N. in Pacific and Eastern Oysters stored in ice and at 3° C. (37.5° F.) and 10° C. (50° F.).
10
ro
43
Ul
-------
105 —
o
o
2 10-
z
DL
Iio3
8
ICED
O—€> EASTERN OYSTERS
*—* PACIFIC OYSTERS
I
Appendix B
T
3° C.
I
' ' ' |
10° C.
,1
10
15
DAYS
20
25
10 15
DAYS
20
25
5
DAYS
10
Figure 2. Fecal coliform M.P.N. in Pacific and Eastern oysters stored in ice and at 3° C. (37.5° F.) and 10° C. (50° F.).
ro
-------
o
O
IO
CO
0—0 EASTERN OYSTERS
A—A PACIFIC OYSTERS
Appendix B
i 1 I I
i r
3° C.
i i i i
10° C.
I I I I
10 15
DAYS
20 25
10 15
DAYS
20
25
0 5
DAYS
Figure 3. 35° C. plate counts in Pacific and Eastern oysters stored in ice and at 3° C. (37.5° F.) and 10° C. (50° F.).
10
ro
vD
--J
-------
Appendix B
Shucker-Packer Ledger Report
Name of firm: John Doe
Address: 12 Spring Road, Benton, Florida
State certification No.: 10
Quantity purchased or
harvested (indicate
oysters, clams, or
mussels)
Date of
harvest
Date
of pur-
chase
State area
designation
from which
harvested
Name and address,
or State permit
or license number
of harvester
Quantity sold
(indicate oysters,
clams, or mussels)
Date
sold
State permit or license number, or
name and address of purchaser
(Example of use of form by shucker-packers)
20 bushels oysters
10 bushels oysters
1/12/66
1/14/66
1/14/66
<*)
1/15/66
1/15/66
WLr— Wash
GH— Wash -_
N— Oreg. ...
Wash.— 28
Wash.— 7
John Jones
12 Shady Lane,
Portland, Oreg.
Oreg.— 12
40 gallons oysters
30 gallons oysters
31 pints oysters
12 gallons oysters
1/12/66
1/15/66
1/15/66
1/16/66
Redwood Foods Inc., Tacoma, Wash.
Sea Food Corp., Olympia, Wash.
Cash sales to individual buyers through
salesroom.
Toms Grocery, 120 Sentinel Highway,
Aberdeen, Wash.
•Date of purchase not applicable since shucker-packer dredged these oysters from his own leased ground.
p
V]
ro
M3
CO
-------
Appendix B
Shell-Stork Shipper Ledger Report
Name of firm: John Doe
Address: 12 Spring Road, Benton, Florida
State certification No.: Fla.—12
State permit or license No.: 1267
Quantity purchased or
harvested (indicate
oysters', clams, or
mussels)
Date of
harvest
Date
of pur-
chase
State area
designation
from which
harvested
Name and address,
or State permit
or license number
of harvester
Quantity sold
indicate oysters,
clams, or mussels)
Date
sold
State permit or license number, or
name and address of purchaser
(Example of use of form by shell-stock shippers (includes "Buy" boats and "Buy" trucks))
20 bushels cltuns
1/2/66
1/3/66
1/4/fifi
1/3/60
i+)
1/5/66
NA— Fla
AB — Fla
DF— Fla
Fla.— 162. .. . .
Fla.— 12
John Jones
24 Ileo Place
Benton, Florida
5 bushels clams
5 bushels clams
% bushel clams
10 bushels clams
4 bushels clams
8 bushels oysters
4}£ bushels clams
2 bushels oysters
1/4/66
1/5/66
1/5/66
1/6/66
1/6/66
1/6/66
1/9/66
1/10/66
Fla.— 34.
Shipped to Wholesale Inc., 40 Maine
Ave., Washington, D.C.
Jane Doe, 7 Maryland Rd., Benton,
Fla.
Delmar Restaurant, 101 Riverside Dr.,
Miami, Fla.
Shipped to Kraften Foods, Inc.,
106 Trane Ave., Atlanta, Ga.
Shipped to Groceries, Inc., 124 Bourbon
St., New Orleans, La.
Destroyed.
Destroyed.
•Date of purchase not applicable since oysters were longed by shell-stock dealer Fla.—12 himself from leased ground.
ro
•U
-------
1300
APPENDIX B
COOLING RATES OP FRESH OYSTERS
Central Laboratory Report*
OBJECT
At the request of the USPHS the rate of cooling
fresh oysters was determined on various size cans in crushed
ice and under dry refrigeration.
CONCLUSIONS
The attached graphs contain the cooling rate
curves for 1 gallon (610 x 708), 1/2 gallon (610 x 314),
1 pint (307 x 314), 12 fi. oz. (307 x 300), and 1/2 pint
(307 x 202) cans cooled in crushed ice and cooled in a dry
refrigerated chest. As expected, the cooling rate in
crushed ice was faster than in dry refrigeration. Following
the initial lag period, the cooling rates were generally the
same regardless of initial temperatures.
PROCEDURE
Fresh standard grade oysters were heated in a
steam-Jacketed kettle to the desired initial temperature and
filled into the cans for the first run at each refrigeration
condition. In subsequent runs the oysters were warmed in a
*Prepared by the American Can Company, Technical Service
Division at the request of the U.S. Public Health Service.
-------
1301
water or air bath to the desired initial temperature.
The temperatures in the cans were taken with
heat penetration thermocouples connected to a potentiometer.
The Junction of the thermocouple was located at the geometric
center of the can.
The first cooling rate determination was made
with the cans packed in crushed ice. The cans were covered
with ice at all times and a drain carried away the water as
the ice thawed. The ice temperature was 31°-32°F.
The second determination was made in a refrigerated
chest at a temperature of 31°-32°F. A small fan in the
chest kept the air gently circulating.
Fresh oysters were used for each refrigeration
condition and no deterioration other than some sloughing
from physical agitation was noted.
DISCUSSION
The original request was for cooling rates at
initial temperatures of 50°F. increments. We believe that
from the attached curves which represent maximum and minimum
initial temperatures, the time to cool to any given tempera-
ture from any given initial temperature can be interpolated
very closely.
D. B. MORDEN,
Jteat, Fish, and Dairy Group.
-------
1302
80
75
CAN SIZE 610 x 708
one gallon
COOLING IN CRUSHED ICE
31-32° F.
70
65
IU
at
£ 60
a:
LLJ
a.
55
50
45
\
40
35
50
TOO
150 200
TIME-MINUTES
250
300
May 1965
-------
1303
80
75
CAN SIZE 610 x 314
Vi gallon
COOLING IN CRUSHED ICE
31-32° F.
70
65
I
LLJ
60
OC
LU
a.
55
50
45
40
35
40
80
120 160
TIME-MINUTES
200
240
280
May 1965
-------
1304
80
75
CAN SIZE 307 x 314
one pint
CRUSHED ICE 31-32° F.
70
65
I
_
ce.
60
\
UJ
Q.
UJ
55
50
45
4C
35
20
40
60 80
TIME-MINUTES
TOO
120
May 1965
41
776-722 O - 65 - 4
-------
80
75
70
65
I
LU
o:
60
Of,
55
50
45
40
3
42
1305
CAN SIZE 307 x 300
12 fl. oz.
COOLING IN CRUSHED ICE
31-32° F.
20
40
60 80
TIME-MINUTES
100
120
May 1965
-------
1306
80
75
CAN SIZE 307 x 202
(V4 pint)
COOLING IN CRUSHED ICE
31-32° F.
70
65
I
UJ
ac
60
\
Of.
UJ
0.
55
50
45
40
35L
0
20
40
60
TIME-MINUTES
May 1965
43
-------
1307
80
75
CAN SIZE 610 x 708
one gallon
DRY REFRIGERATION
31-32° F.
70
65
60
a:
UJ
0.
55
50
45
40
35
100
200
300 400
TIME-MINUTES
500
600
44
May 1965
-------
80
75
CAN SIZE 610 x 314
'/2 gallon
DRY REFRIGERATION
31-32° F.
1308
70
65
LLJ
O£.
\-
0£
LLJ
O_
3
60
55
50
\
45
40
35
50
TOO
150 200
TIME-MINUTES
250
300
May 1965
45
-------
1303
80
75
CAN SIZE 307 x 314
one pint
DRY REFRIGERATION
31-32° F.
70
65
60
OC
_'
0.
55
\
50
45
40
35
40
80
120 160
TIME-MINUTES
200
46
May 1965
-------
1310
CAN SIZE 307 x 300
12 fl. oz.
DRY REFRIGERATION
31-32° F.
120 160
TIME-MINUTES
200
47
May 1965
-------
1311
80
75
CAN SIZE 307 x 202
!/2 pint
DRY REFRIGERATION
31-32° F.
70
65
UJ
a:
I
at
_
UJ
60
55
50
45
40
35
20
40
60 80
TIME—MINUTES
100
120
May 1965
-------
1312
APPENDIX C
HEAT SHOCK METHOD OP PREPARATION OP OYSTERS FOR SHUCKING
The Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica in some
areas Is found in clusters which prevents rapid or conven-
tional shucking as with the same species in other oyster
growing areas. This natural phenomena has presented
questions as to how best this natural resource might be
utilized as a food source and remain within economic possi-
bilities.
Dr. A. D. Tennant1 in Canada investigated the
short-term dipping of soft shell clams in near boiling
water for various periods of 3 to 30 seconds. It was re-
ported that this short-term heat shock resulted in a reduc-
tion of coliform and fecal streptococci numbers. The reduc-
tion obtained after 3 to 10 seconds' immersion was not sig-
nificantly less than that recorded after longer periods of
heat treatment with the animals still alive after the Immer-
sion. There was no significant increase in the MPN values
in "shocked" clam meats during 7-day refrigeration periods,
and the short period of immersion did not impair the keeping
qualities of the packed, refrigerated clam meats. The
"shocking" process also reduced the amount of surface con-
tamination carried to the shucking tables by the shell-
stock and facilitated shucking without affecting the
palatability of the product.
-------
1313
It has further been found that Immersing the
cluster-type oyster in comparatively hot water (l'»5o-1500p> )
for a short period of time (up to 3-1/2 minutes) facilitates
the removal of oyster meat up to 99 percent of that contained
in the cluster. This process has been investigated under a
cooperative project by the Public Health Service and the
South Carolina State Board of Health.2 The "heat shock"
process resulted in an overall reduction in the coliform
and fecal coliform MPN's at all percentlle levels. The
greatest reduction occurred in the samples examined immediate-
ly after shocking. Holding on the shucking bench appears
to result in a slight increase in these two groups of
bacterial indices as compared to oysters examined immediate-
ly after shocking; however, these levels remain significantly
lower than the levels obtained on samples from the cold
shucking process. Accordingly, it has been concluded that
with application of sanitary precautions the beneficial use
of this food source may be fully realized.
.The following sanitary measures are delineated
for use where the "heat shock" method of preparation of
oysters for shucking is permitted by State shellfish sanita-
tion authorities. These are intended to apply only to the
cluster-type oyster, but may be adaptable to other species
in other areas.
1. WASHING OP SHELL-STOCK. -- Shell-stock sub-
-------
1314
Jected to the heat shock process shall be washed Immediately
prior to the heat shock operation in potable water. Experi-
ence has shown that wash water temperatures between 65°P.
and 75°P. are effective for adequately washing shell-stock.
Shell-stock shall be protected from contamination prior to
and during the prewash cycle.
Public-health explanation. — Although Item 2 of
section A requires that shell-stock be washed reasonably
free of bottom sediments and detritus as soon after harvesting
as is practicable, it is necessary to again wash shell-stock
immediately prior to heat shocking to reduce the bacterial
load in the dipping tank. Invariably some mud or detritus
will adhere to the shell-stock; hence, the necessity to
again wash the shell-stock before it is immersed in the heat
shock water where the mud or detritus may be released by
the warmer water. The cleaner the shell-stock, the more
rapidly the oysters will arrive at the optimum temperature
for shucking and there will be less variation in heat trans-
fer among different lots.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. All shell-stock subjected to the heat
shock process are washed immediately prior to the heat shock
operation in flowing potable water. Water temperatures not
less than 65°P. nor more than 75°P. are recommended.
-------
1315
b. Shell-stock are handled in a manner which
prevents their contamination during the prewash cycle.
2. TEMPERATURE AND CHANGE OP DIP WATER. —
During the heat shock process the water shall be maintained
at not less than l45°p. or more than 150°p. The water shall
be completely drained or removed from the heat shock tank
at least once each 3-hour period. An accurate^ indicating
or recording thermometer shall be available and used during
the heat shock process for temperature measurements. Re-
cording thermometers are recommended so as to provide a
record of the temperatures used.
Public-health explanation. — Experience and
research indicates the temperature range of 1^5°-150°F. to
be adequate to facilitate removal of oysters from the shell
without apparent physical change to the oyster. A tempera-
ture range is specified rather than an exact temperature
because of varying climatic conditions during the year. Dip
water is required to be changed at least every 3 hours to
avoid bacterial concentration or build-up of mud or detritus.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. Heat shock water is maintained at not less
than l45°p. or more than 150°F.
b. The heat shock watertank is completely
-------
1316
flushed at 3-hour Intervals or less in such manner that all
mud and detritus remaining in the dip tank from previous
dippings is eliminated.
c. An indicating or recording thermometer,
accurate within 2° between l45°P. and 150°P. is available
and is located In the heat shock water during all periods
of shock operation.
3. TIME INTERVAL OP IMMERSION. -- Shell-stock
subjected to the heat shock process shall not be immersed
in the heat shock water for periods longer than 3.0 minutes.
An accurate timing device shall be available and used to
control the time of immersion. Only approved containers of
e
1/2-bushel capacity shall be used in the heat shock process.
It is recommended that an automatic timer or an automatically
electrically controlled timer be used.
Public-health explanation. — Industry practice
and investigation reveals that an immersion time varying
between 2 and 3 minutes is all that is necessary to facilitate
the shucking process. A maximum time of immersion is speci-
fied to prevent any physical change in the oyster which
would prevent it from being classified as a fresh product.
The maximum time specified is based on the use of 1/2-bushel
quantities of shell-stock in 1/2-bushel wire baskets or
other 1/2-bushel containers approved by the shellfish
sanitation control agency.
-------
1317
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Shell-stock la not subjected to the heat
shock process for periods longer than 3 minutes.
b. An accurate timing device is available and
used to control the time of immersion.
c. Only approved containers of 1/2-bushel
capacity are used during the heat shock process.
4. DIP TANK VOLUME. — At least 8 gallons of
heat shock water shall be maintained in the dip tank for
each 1/2-bushel container of shell-stock being heat shocked,
Public-health explanation. -- The minimum of
8 gallons of dip water per 1/2 bushel is necessary to
prevent bacterial buildup and extreme variations of tempera-
ture in the heat shock water.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when there are at least 8 gallons of heat shock
water in the heat shock tank for each 1/2-bushel container
of shell-stock undergoing the heat shock process.
5. COOLING OP HEAT SHOCKED SHELL-STOCK. — On
removal from the shock immersion water, all heat shocked
shell-stock shall be subjected to an immediate cooldown
with potable tap water. Heat shocked shell-stock shall be
handled in a manner which prevents contamination reaching
the shell-stock during the cooling operation.
-------
1318
Public-health explanation. — After undergoing
the heat shock process, the internal temperature of the
oyster meat was elevated to temperatures within a range of
98°P. to 110°F. in field studies and 116°-1^7°F. in
laboratory studies. It Is therefore necessary to reduce
the internal temperatures of the oyster meat immediately to
prevent bacterial growth, but not to the extent that the
purpose of the process is nullified.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. All heat shocked shell-stock are subjected
to cooling with potable tap water immediately upon removal
from heat shock process water.
b. All heat shocked shell-stock are handled
in such manner as to preclude contamination during the
cooling process.
6. REFRIGERATION OF SHOCKED SHUCKED SHELLFISH. --
The oyster meats from all shell-stock which have been sub-
jected to the heat shock process shall be cooled to an
internal temperature of 45°F. within 2 hours after the heat
shocking process.
Public-health explanation. -- Oyster meat
temperatures of shell-stock which have been subjected to
the heat shock process are higher than those of conventionally
shucked oysters. Therefore, it is necessary that such
-------
1319
meats be cooled quickly to 45°p. after the heat shock
process to deter bacterial growth.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when all oyster meats of shell-stock which have
been subjected to the heat shock process are cooled to at
least 45°p within 2 hours after the heat shock process and
are placed in storage at 45°F. or below. (This requirement
will require the use of ice in the shucking containers,
blowers, skimming tables, or wash tanks, or the use of
refrigerated water, wherein the meats will be in direct con-
tact with crushed or flaked ice, or with refrigerated water. )
7. RECORDS OP HEAT SHOCK TIME AND TEMPERATURES. -•
Each plant operating the heat shock process shall maintain
an accurate daily record, on a ledger form satisfactory to
the State supervisory agency, of the time and temperature
of immersion of at least three lots of shellfish during
each day of operation as well as recording the time of
change of heat shock water. It is preferable that records
show the time of day each recorded lot is immersed and the
time of day each recorded lot is removed from the water,
and that the individual recordings be at intervals of 2 or
3 hours. These records shall be preserved for at least 3
months for the information of the supervising State agency.
Public-health explanation. — Records are needed
-------
1320
to maintain a summary or abbreviated history of each hot
dip operation. They are of assistance to the supervisory
agency in determining whether the operation is carried out
in accordance with these or other State regulations covering
the process. They are also of assistance to the operator
in maintaining the process within the limitations Imposed
by State authorities.
Satisfactory compliance. -- This item will be
satisfied when --
a. Each operator maintains an accurate daily
record of the time and temperature of immersion of at least
three lots of shellfish during the day of operation and
records the time of change of heat shock water. This record
shall be on ledger forms satisfactory to the State super-
visory agency. (Plants using recording thermometers will
be deemed in compliance with this item if suitable indica-
tion is made on the chart when the shell-stock are first
immersed and when they are removed from the heat shock
water, as well as the time of change of heat shock water.)
b. The above records are preserved and are on
file at the plant for inspection by State authorities.
8. CLEANING AND BACTERICIDAL TREATMENT OF HEAT
SHOCK PROCESS TANK. — At the close of each day's operation
the heat shock tank shall be completely emptied of all
-------
1321
water, mud, and detritus, and shall be cleaned In accordance
with the requirements for cleaning of equipment established
by item 16, section B, part II. Prior to the start of the
next day's operation, the heat shock tank shall be given
bactericidal treatment in accordance with the requirements
of item 17, section B, part II. Heat shock process tanks
shall be of such construction that they may be easily cleaned,
Public-health explanation. -- If the water,
mud, and detritus were allowed to remain in the heat shock
tank under declining temperature conditions, it would
constitute an excellent medium for growth of bacteria.
Emptying the tank and cleaning it at the close of the day's
operation will more likely insure that the next day's dipping
operation will start under optimum conditions of cleanliness.
Bactericidal treatment prior to the start of the next day's
operation will insure destruction of any pathogenic bacteria
remaining after the cleaning operation or introduced during
the interim storage period. .It will also prevent carryover
of thermophillic or thermoduric bacteria from the previous
day's operation.
Satisfactory compliance. — This item will be
satisfied when —
a. The heat shock process tank is thoroughly
cleaned at the close of each day's operation in accordance
with the requirements for cleaning of equipment established
-------
1322
by item 16, section B, part II.
b. The heat shock process tank is flushed with
water from an approved source after cleaning and is allowed
to drain and dry overnight.
c. Bactericidal treatment complying witn the
requirements of item 17, section B, part II, is provided
the heat shock tank prior to the start of the day's dipping
operation.
d. All heat shock process tanks are of such
construction that they may be easily cleaned.
* * *
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION I -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
120 Boylston Street, Boston, Mass. 02116
REGION II -- Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
Room 1200, 42 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 10O04
REGION III -- District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
700 East Jefferson Street, Charlottesville, Va. 22901
REGION IV — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South
-------
1323
Carolina, Tennessee
Room 4 04, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30323
REGION V — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Room 712, New Post Office Bldg., 433 West Van Buren
Street, Chicago, 111. 60607
REGION VI -- Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota
560 Westport Road, Kansas City, Mo. 64111
REGION VII — Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
Ninth Floor, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, Tex. 75202
REGION VIII -- Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming
Room 9017, Federal Office Bldg., 19th and Stout
Street, Denver, Colo. 80202
REGION IX — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, Guam, American Samoa
50 Fulton Street, Civic Center, San Francisco, Calif.
94102
-------
NATIONAL SHELLFISH
SANITATION PROGRAM
MANUAL OP OPERATIONS
Part III
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE APPRAISAL OF
STATE
SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAMS
1965
1324
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
2k
NATIONAL SHELLFISH
SANITATION PROGRAM
MANUAL OF OPERATIONS
Part III
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE APPRAISAL OF
STATE
SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAMS
1965
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Washington, D. C., 20201
-------
1326
Contents
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
SECTION A — Exercise of Public Health Responsibilities
in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
1. Discussion
2. Procedure
SECTION B — Appraisal Procedure
1. Discussion
2. Administrative Practices
3. Laboratory Procedures
U. Growing Area Survey and Classification
5. Relaying, Depletion, and Depuration
6. Control of Harvesting Prom Closed Areas
7. Evaluation of Harvesting Practices
8. Evaluation of Shucking-Packing Practices
SECTION C — Preparation of Rating Officer's Report
SECTION D — Supplemental Program Statistics
APPENDICES:
A. PHS - FDA Agreement
B. DHEW - Department of Interior Agreement
C. Form X - Combined Summary Rating
-------
132?
Intreduction
Since 1925 the Public Health Service has co-
operated with the several States and the shellfish Industry
In a program designed to Insure that shellfish shipped in
interstate commerce will be safe to eat. Under this
National Shellfish Sanitation Program, each of the parti-
cipating groups, i.e., the States, the Public Health
Service, and the shellfish industry, has accepted certain
specified responsibilities. These areas of responsibility
are as follows:
1. The States. — Each shellfish-shipping state
adopts adequate laws and regulations for sanitary control
of the shellfish industry, makes sanitary and bacteriolo-
gical surveys of growing areas, delineates and patrols
restricted areas, inspects shellfish plants, and conducts
such additional inspections, laboratory investigations, and
control measures as may be necessary to insure that the
shellfish reaching the consumer have been grown, harvested,
and processed in a sanitary manner. The state annually
issues numbered certificates to shellfish dealers who comply
with the agreed-upon sanitary standards, and forwards
copies of the interstate certificates to the Public Health
Service.
2. The Public Health Service. — The Public Health
-------
1328
Service makes an annual review of each state's control
program, Including the inspection of a representative
number of shellfish-processing plants. On the basis of
the information thus obtained, the Public Health Service
either endorses or withholds endorsement of the respective
state control programs. For the information of health
authorities and others concerned, the Public Health Service
publishes a semimonthly list of all valid interstate shell-
fish shipper certificates issued by the shellfish control
authorities. In addition, the Public Health Service carries
on a shellfish sanitation research program and assists the
states in investigation of problems of unusual nature.
However, for the purpose of the National Shellfish Sani-
tation Program, primary emphasis is placed upon the con-
tinuing appraisal of state programs to determine that a
satisfactory level of sanitation is, in fact, maintained.
3. The Industry. — The shellfish industry co-
operates by obtaining shellfish from safe sources, by
providing plants which meet the agreed-upon sanitary
standards, by maintaining sanitary plant conditions, by
placing the proper certificate number on each package of
shellfish, and by keeping and making available to the control
authorities records which show the origin and disposition
of all shellfish.
-------
1329
6k The need for objective procedures to guide the
Public Health Service in reviewing each state program, and
for specific criteria for PHS endorsement of state programs
were discussed at the 195^ and 1956 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshops. At the latter Workshop it was requested that
the Public Health Service undertake the development of such
procedures and criteria. This manual has been developed in
accord with this recommendation. Advice and assistance
in its development were sought from the control agencies
5l^;A ':;:^rfi^/x &?V'* at which
time its use was again discussed and it was thereupon adopted
in its present form.
EUGENE T. JENSEN,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Division
of Environmental Engineering and Pood
protection. Public Health Service
-------
1330
Definitions
National Shellfish Sanitation Program. -- The
National Shellfish Sanitation Program for the Certifica-
tion of Interstate Shellfish Shippers as described in
Public Health Service Publication No. 33, Part I, Sani-
tation of Shellfish Growing areas, and Part II, Sanitation
of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish.
Rating Officer. — The PHS employee assigned
to appraise the effectiveness of the State Shellfish
Sanitation Program.
State shellfish control agency. — The state
agency of agencies having legal authority to classify
shellfish-growing areas and/or to issue permits for the
interstate shipment of shellfish in accord with the pro-
visions of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
State shellfish patrol agency. — The state
agency having responsibility for the patrol of shellfish-
growing areas.
-------
1331
8k
Representative number. —
1 Minimum number to
Number of units: be Inspected
less than 25 All
25-54 - - 25
55-59 26
6o-64 27
65-71 28
72-78 29
79-86 30
87-94 31
95-105 - 32
106-116 33
117-130 34
131-147 35
148-167 36
168-191 37
192-222 38
223-262 39
263-316 40
1
Interstate shippers, boats, trucks, oyster culture rafts,
etc.
2
Units to be chosen at random.
-------
1332
Section A
EXERCISE OP PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM
1. Discussion. — The National Shellfish Sani-
tation Program for the Certification of Interstate Shell-
fish Shippers was established by a conference of Federal,
State, and municipal authorities and representatives of
the shellfish industry in February 1925 following a major
outbreak of typhoid fever in the United States attributed
to sewage-polluted oysters. The formation of the program
and its basic concepts are described in "Report of Committee
on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry in the United
States," Supplement No. 53, to the Public Health Reports.
These stated concepts Include:
1. Each producing state will be directly re-
sponsible for the effective regulation of all production
and handling of shellfish within its confines, not merely
for the protection of Its own citizens but equally for
safeguarding such of its product as goes to the other
states.
2. The receiving states, being dependent
upon the efficiency of the control exercised in the pro-
ducing states, are entitled to full information concerning
-------
1333
lOlc the scope and effectiveness of controls actually exercised
in each producing state in order that Judgment may be
formed and action taken accordingly.
To Implement the program, the 1925 conference
agreed that the producing states would issue "Certificates,"
i.e., a permit to operate, to shellfish shippers meeting
agreed-upon sanitary standards, and that the Public
Health Service should serve as a clearinghouse for Infor-
mation on the effectiveness of the state control programs.
This latter responsibility was met initially through issuance
of a periodic "Progress Report on Shellfish Sanitation"
describing the shellfish sanitation program in each state.
This procedures was subsequently abandoned in favor of a
"program endorsement" concept. Under this concept, the
Public Health Service makes a continuing appraisal of
each state's shellfish sanitation program to determine if
the control measures are In substantial accord with the
provisions of the current "Manual of Recommended Practice for
Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry." The Public
Health Service also publishes a list of all shellfish
shippers certified by those states having "satisfactory"
control programs.
The adoption of the "program endorsement concept
changed the role of the Public Health Service from fact-
gatherlng to appraisal. To facilitate the use of the
-------
endorsement concept, a numerical appraisal procedure was
developed in 19^5. Because of the number of variables and
lack of detailed Instructions, the appraisal procedure
tended to be rather subjective except for the Inspection of
shipper establishments where a more objective procedure was
developed on the basis of experience in the milk and
restaurant industries.
Experience demonstrated that the unqualified
"program endorsement" concept was not entirely satisfactory
because of the subjective qualities of the appraisal procedure
and the nature of the Public Health Service responsibilities
in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. . These short-
comings were discussed at the 195^, 1956 and 1958 Shellfish
Sanitation Workshops. In accord with recommendations made at
these meetings, the Public Health Service undertook the
collaborative development of an objective appraisal procedure
acceptable to the states and the shellfish industry, and the
establishment of minimum criteria for Public Health Service
endorsement of a state program.
2. Procedure. -- the Following procedure will
be observed by the PHS in fulfillment of its obligation in
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program:
a. Each state desiring to participate in the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program will submit a formal
request to the PHS Regional Health Director: Provided,
-------
1335
12k That this requirement will apply only to states entering
the program on an original basis or after a lapse in
participation. This request, to be signed by the senior
official of the state agency having primary responsibility
for shellfish sanitation control, shall include a state-
ment to the effect that an interagency agreement exists
between the state agencies sharing program responslbllitie
and that the state recognizes its responsibilities and
obligations in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program,
and is willing to assist the PHS in making necessary
reviews and Inspections for the state program appraisal.
State participation in the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program can thereafter be continuous; i.e., states will
not have to file an annual notice with the PHS of their
intent to participate in the program subsequent to the
initial request. However, the regional offices may, at
their discretion, request that states signify yearly their
desire to participate In this program for the following
fiscal year of the state. A state may withdraw from the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program at any time upon
written notification to the Regional office of the PHS.
b. PHS will complete a yearly appraisal of
each state shellfish sanitation program, utilizing the
procedures described in this manual. Field visits will be
prearranged with states. PHS will Initiate arrangements
-------
1336
for such visits. PHS will submit trip reports to the states
describing any corrective actions which should be taken
by the states.
o. PHS will make periodic spot checks of states
shellfish sanitation activities, particularly patrol and
plant sanitation operations.
d. PHS will publish a yearly report on the
status of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. This
report will describe progress made in both administrative
and technical aspects of the program, will discuss pro-
blems which must be faced by the program, and will present
a statistical review of the state activities. Neither
comparative nor specific ratings for individual states
will be shown in this yearly status report. The report
will be made available to all persons Interested in the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program and, if feasible,
will be published in a condensed form in a suitable tech-
nical journal.
e. A state program with a rating of less than 70
percent in any one of the eight identified program elements-
general administrative procedures, laboratory, sanitary
survey, relaying, depuration, patrol, harvesting, and
shucking-packing — will not be eligible for endorsement
by the Public Health Service 90 days after being formally
notified of the rating unless the state demonstrates that
-------
1337
suitable corrective action has been taken. Withdrawal of
the state program endorsement will be initiated by the
PKS Regional Office after discussion with the appropriate
state officials, and will be subject to review through
established PHS policy channels at Headquarters level. if
the state desires participation in the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program subsequent to PKS withdrawal of endorse
ment, the director of the state agency having primary
responsibility for shellfish control must make application
to the Regional Health Director for reappraisal of the
state's program. In submitting this application, the
state shall describe the measures taken to correct the
noted deficiencies.
f. In an emergency situation, the PHS will
take immediate steps to temporarily suspend endorsement
of a state program when it is found that a condition
exists in which interstate shipment of shellfish therefron
would be likely to cause disease. Such action will be
initiated by the Regional Program Director through estab-
lished communication channels after first advising the
state of the proposed action.
g. PHS will publish a periodic list of shellfis
shippers certified by the endorsed states.
h. PHS will keep the Pood and Drug AdministratJ
informed of technical and administrative developments in
-------
1338
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program in accord with
the existing Intradepartmental agreement (Appendix A).
1. PHS will keep the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice fully informed of technical and administrative
developments of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
in accord with the existing interdepartmental agreement
(Appendix B).
Section B
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE
1. Discussion. — To provide satisfactory public-
health protection to consumers of shellfish, a state
shellfish sanitation program should include the following
elements: legal authority; evaluation of sanitary condi-
tions of growing areas; sanitary control of relaying and
purification; prevention of harvesting from polluted areas;
sanitary supervision of the harvesting and packing of
shellfish; and laboratory facilities. The specific
requirements for these elements are described in Parts I
and II, Manual of Operations for Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry, PKS Publication No. 33. These require-
ments are revised periodically through joint action of the
interested parties.
-------
1339
16k PHS endorsement of a state program Is contingent
upon the attainment of a satisfactory level in each of the
several critical elements. In appraising these several
program elements, the Public Health Service will be guided
by the most current revision of PHS Publication No. 33,
Parts I and II. The complete cooperation of the state is
expected in making these appraisals; e.g., it will be the
responsibility of the state to produce evidence that all
program elements are, in fact, satisfactory. States will
supply the rating officer with copies of all necessary
reports, and with such details of sanitary surveys and
inspections as he may require to complete the appraisal.
The primary purpose of the program appraisal is
to evaluate the degree of compliance with the agreed-upon
practice of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The
appraisal will delineate specific areas of strength or
weakness in the state's shellfish sanitation program, and
may point out ways in which state programs may be improved;
however, this should not be confused with the primary purpos
of the appraisal.
Rating appraisals will be initiated annually by
the Public Health Service unless advised that the state
no longer wishes to participate in the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. The rating officer will make the
necessary arrangements with the state officials well in
-------
advance of the date selected, and will ordinarily make all
phases of the review in the company of state officials.
The rating officer will also normally make a limited
number of spot checks of patrol activities and plant
sanitation levels each year. The amount of time required
to complete the evaluation of a state program will ordi-
narily depend upon the size, importance, and complexity
of the shellfish Industry in the state.
The evaluation of state laboratory procedures
will ordinarily be performed by a laboratory review
officer with recognized competence in the area being
evaluated; I.e., bacteriology or toxicology. Copies of
laboratory evaluation will be included in the overall
state program appraisal report.
Two copies of the state program appraisal, together
with the regional recommendation for endorsement, will
be forwarded to the PHS Headquarters office by June 30 of
each year. The Regional office will also forward copies
of the completed review to the Senior Administrative Officer
of each state agency involved in shellfish sanitation
activities. Any necessary conferences between the regional
staffs and state staffs shall normally be completed prior
to the forwarding of the final appraisal to the Head-
quarters office. The format of the report is described
in section C. In the event a state disagrees with their
-------
18k appraisal, It Is understood that they have the right of
appeal to the PHS Headquarters office: Provided, Such
appeals are made within 30 days of their receipt of the
appraisal.
2. Administrative Practices. — The rating offi-
cer will complete Form I in evaluating the adequacy of the
legal and administrative elements in the state's control
program. Instructions for completing this form will be
found on pages 7 and 8. Data for this review will ordi-
narily be obtained from analysis of state records; however,
these data will be subject to confirmation through field
observations. Some states have delegated the responsibility
for certain administrative aspects of the program to
county, district, or local governmental Jurisdictions.
In all such cases, the state will be considered as respon-
sible for satisfactory operation. The states will also
be expected to have adequate data readily available on
which the rating officer can justify an opinion as to the
adequacy of these decentralized operations.
-------
FORM I.—Appraisal of general administrative procedures
State
Period
Rating officer
The number and let tor subitcms below refer to PUS Publication
No. 33, Part I, Section A.
1. Adequate legal basis for—
a. Classification of actual or potential growing waters.. ._ 10
b. Patrol, apprehension and effective prosecution 10
c. Supervision of relaying, depletion, wet storage and purification. 5
d. Regulating the handling of shellstock 3
e. Preventing ceritfied shippers from handling shellfish from non-
certified sources _ Q
f. Establishing sanitary standards for all classes of certified
shellfish shippers 2
g. Emergency restriction on harvesting or shipping 5
h. Preventing the sale, shipment or possession of nonidentified
shellfish 2
2. General administrative practices—
a. Requirements applied to all actual or potential growing waters. 10
b. Requirements applied to all commercial harvesters 10
c. Requirements applied to all persons {excluding harvesters)
handling shellfish prior to the certified shipper 10
d. Certificates issued only to establishments meeting basic con-
struction requirements and revoked when sanitation rating
falls below 80% or if item is repeatedly violated 10
e. Adequate central records of sanitary surveys, patrrl activities
(including arrests and results of prosecution) and plant
inspections 10
f. Guidelines observed in the issuance of certificates 2
g. Regional office notified of growing area reclassification 1
h. Plant inspectors have necessary inspection equipment 2
i. Interdepartmental memorandum of understanding complies
with manual requirement 5
Total
Weight
Weight
applicable
Percent
compliant
Final rating
Are controls based on statutory or administrative lawV
Give appropriate paragraph references to laws or regulations.
Have there been any changes in laws or regulations since last evaluation? If so, describe.
Scon;
REMARKS: (Discuss any significant differences in State requirements for interstate and intrastate shippers.)
-------
13^3
20k Instructions for Completion of Form I
Item 1: The subitems listed under this item
relate to the legal authority for the state's program.
Review of the legal aspects of the state shellfish laws
and regulations shall be made with the Regional Attorneys.
Full credit is to be given on each subitem if, in the
Regional Attorney's opinion, it is the intent of the law
or regulation regardless if the state is actually carrying
them out in practice. Deductions should be made from
item lt Form 1, only if the state clearly does not have
adequate legal authority to carry on a program, or if the
laws and regulations are not enforceable because of their
nature. Deductions should also be made under this item
if the legal authority is lacking, even though field
studies indicate a satisfactory program. Partial scores
may be given for the individual items.
Appropriate deductions should be made in Forms
III, IV, VI, or VII if field investigations indicate that
the subltems listed under item 1, Form 1, are not being
complied with.
Item 2: This item relates to the administrative
practice used by the state
(a) Partial credit will not be given.
(b) Partial credit will not be given.
-------
(c) Partial credit will not be given.
(d) Partial credit will be given. (In the event
that inspection discloses establishments, which are not
eligible for certification as described in Part 1, imme-
diate arrangements will be made by the states for the
correction of the observed defects or for state suspension
or cancellation of the certificates. If the state does
not notify the rating officer that such steps have been
promptly taken, the rating officer will advise the state
control agencies, the Food and Drug Administration district
office, and the Public Health Service Headquarters of the
defective establishments.)
(e) (1) Credit shall be based on the number
of complete growing area files relative to
the total number of growing areas. Growing
areas may be identified by number, name,
political or geographic boundaries.
(2) Monthly patrol reports are to be
submitted to the PHS regional office.
Credit will be based on the number of such
reports received, and the adequacy of the
information contained therein.
(3) Monthly summaries of plant inspection
activities are to be maintained by the state
in a central Inspection report file. Credit
-------
1345
22k given will be based on the proportion of
plants inspected relative to the number
which should have been inspected. Shucle-
er-packers are to be inspected on a monthly
basis during periods of operations. Other
classes of shippers to be Inspected accord-
ing to a frequency acceptable to the state
and the Regional office. This latter in-
spection frequency will be Indicated in
"Remarks."
(f) Credit will be given on the basis of com-
pliance with the basic item. Each numbered subitem, i.e.,
content, changes, prior shipment, cancellations, and use
of mailing lists will be given equal weight. Deductions
will not be prorated on the basis of observed violations.
(g) Any violation will forfeit the entire item.
(h) Credit should be given on the basis of
equipment provided all Inspectors. Partial credit may
be given on the basis of number of inspectors Involved,
and equipment deficiencies.
Item 3: Intrastate Sale of Shellfish. — If
it is clear from a review of the state regulations or in-
spection of intrastate shippers that standards for intra-
state shippers are lower than those for National Shellfish
-------
Sanitation Program shippers, this observance, together
with a discussion of the problem and the total number
of intrastate shippers, should be noted in "Remarks."
3. Laboratory Procedures. — Attempts will
ordinarily be made to have laboratory reviews made by
PJiS staff members who are particularly competent in the
area being reviewed. However, the rating officer will
be expected to discuss the laboratory procedures with
appropriate state officials to ascertain that generally
acceptable methods are used. The rating officer will
originate the request for service of the laboratory re-
view personnel.
The rating which Is given for laboratory pro-
cedures will be based upon the number of laboratories In-
volved and the degree to which these laboratories use
currently accepted methods In making bacteriological,
toxic©logical, chemical, and physical determinations. The
rating officer should note that not all such determinations
are made exclusively by laboratory personnel; e.g., salinity
measurements may be made by the field staff using a hydro-
meter. Form II should be completed on the basis of infor-
mation obtained by the rating officer in (1) discussion
with state laboratory and staff personnel, and (2) on
-------
134?
24k detailed information submitted to the rating officer by th
laboratory review specialists.
The laboratory review officer will direct his
appraisal of state laboratory facilities to the rating
officer. The report should be such as to enable the
rating officer to complete Form II. A supplementary
narrative report which can be transmitted to the respon-
sible state official will also be provided.
4. Growing Area Survey and Classification. —
The rating officer will ordinarily emphasize the appraisal
of the "Growing Area Survey and Classification" aspect
of state programs because of the established relationship
between shellfish-caused disease and pollution of growing
or holding areas.
Appraisal of this element will usually include
(l) an office analysis of all sanitary surveys and re-
surveys of all "Approved," "Conditionally Approved" and
"Restricted" areas; (2) field visits to a representative
number of the "Approved" and "Restricted" areas; and (3)
field visits to all "Conditionally Approved" areas. The
field visit will enable the rating officer to partially
verify the sanitary survey data in the state files. The
rating officer will place emphasis on his appraisal of
variable sources of pollution, i.e., sewage systems and
boats, and on the degree to which such sources of pollution
were considered in area classification.
-------
FORM II.—Evaluation of laboratory procedures
State Period
Rating officer
Part A: Bacteriological
Location of laboratory
Subtotal -.
Weight
40
Items applicable
Percent
compliance
Score
Part B: Toxic Shellfish Poison
Subtotal
40
Part C: Chemical and Physical
Subtotal
20
Total
Weighted final ratine
Remarks:.
-------
26k
Instructions for Completion of Form II
1. Location. — The name or location of each
laboratory should be indicated. In Part C, the type of
examination made should be indicated by a suitable code
to be explained in "Remarks."
2. Weight. — The relative Importance of the
laboratory in making the particular type of examination
should be Indicated. Note that the subtotals equal 40
for bacteriological examination, 40 for toxic shellfish
poison, and 20 for chemical and physical determinations.
3. Appropriate entries should be made in the
column to Indicate any items which are not applicable; e.g.,
many states have no reason to assay for paralytic shellfish
poison.
4. Percent compliance should be based on the
analysis of reliability of techniques used by the par-
ticular laboratory.
5. Score. — Score is the product of the weight
and percent compliance.
6. The final weighted result is computed by
dividing the total "Score" by total "Items applicable."
The results should be converted to a percentage by multi-
plying by 10O.
7. The name of the laboratory review officer, or
officers, should be entered under "Remarks."
-------
1350
The rating officer will review each survey
Jointly with his counterpart In the state shellfish control
agency. If In the course of review, defects were noted
which might result In the Interstate spread of disease,
the rating officer shall Immediately notify the senior
officer of the state shellfish control agency and the
Public Health Service Headquarters office of these condi-
tions. The rating officer and the state officials shall
take whatever steps may be necessary and feasible to
prevent the Interstate shipment of such contaminated or
dangerous shellfish.
Form III, Evaluation of Sanitary Surveys and
Resurveys, will be Initially completed by the rating officer
on the basis of information obtained through his review
of the state-maintained growing area files. These data
will then be corroborated by field inspection. The rating
officer, in the company of a state agency representative,
will visit a representative number of approved and res-
tricted growing areas to determine if the Information
in the growing area files portrays accurately those con-
ditions which influence the sanitary quality of the areas.
Where possible, program appraisals should be so scheduled
that all "Approved" areas will be reviewed at least once
during each 4-year period.
The rating officer will consider the bloassay
-------
1351
28k surveillance program as a component of the sanitary survey
In those areas In which toxic shellfish poison may rea-
sonably be expected to occur. An approximate weight
of 40 percent should be applied to those areas In which
this Item Is applicable. For example, a growing area
sanitary survey might be rated as 87 percent, but It might
be determined by Inspection that the bloassay surveillance
program was defective. In this case, a 40-percent deduction
should be made with a resulting value of 47 for the areas
Involved.
Growing areas having a sanitary survey rating of
less than 70 percent should not ordinarily be approved
for further harvesting of shellfish for direct marketing.
5. Relaying, Depletion, and Depuration. --
Adequate public-health control of relaying, depletion, and
controlled depuration is essential because these practices
permit the eventual marketing of shellfish which were
Initially dangerously polluted. The degree to which these
procedures are utilized varies greatly in the several
states. Also, the relative Importance of effective control
varies with the initial quality of the shellfish.
To appraise the effectiveness of relaying, de-
pletion, and controlled depuration operations, the rating
officer should review the office records of the state agency
and, to the extent possible, should make field checks to
-------
1352
verify the accuracy of these records. The rating officer
should attempt to observe at least one depletion operation
and should review all records of other depletion
operations which have been carried on. In completing
Form IV, the rating officer should observe the following
general guides: (a) the transportation of shellfish be-
tween Approved areas is not relaying; (b) the trans-
planting of seed shellfish, I.e., submarket sized shell-
fish, Is not relaying; and (c) shellfish relaying during
periods when shellfish may not be legally harvested for
conservation or other reasons is not relaying, provided
such operations are concluded at least two weeks In
advance of the legal harvesting season. In completing
Form IV, the rating officer should allow credit In pro-
portion to the percentage of the relayed shellfish which
are handled In accord with the provisions of PKS Pub. No.
33, Part I.
6. Control of Harvesting From Closed Areas. —
In many states the prevention of commercial shellfish
harvesting from polluted or toxic areas has importance
equal to or greater than that of any other element. How-
ever, adequate appraisal of this program element Is diffi-
cult because of the widely varying technical and adminis-
trative situations which are encountered. For these same
reasons, the National Shellfish Sanitation Program has not
developed patrol requirements with the same specificity as
-------
1353
30k those applied to sanitary survey or plant inspection
elements.
The rating officer will concentrate on identifying
and evaluating the apparent strengths or weaknesses of
the system. The rating officer will not be expected to
prove that a state patrol system is inadequate, but only
to show that the system is such that violators might go
unapprehended or that the prosecution Is such that there
is sufficient deterrent to violators.
-------
Foatt III.—Evaluation of tanitary twrveyt and returvey*
Bute Period Rating officer
Area
Designation
1
State classi-
fication
2
Surveys
Date of last
survey or
resurvey
3
Date of last
appraisal
4
Credit for
effective date
of survey
S
Quality
of survey
6
Deduction for
faulty toxicity
surveillance
7
Final ratine
Score
8
-------
1355
32k
Instructions for Completion of Form III
Area Designation and Classification. — Areas
may be designated by geographic name, number, or political
boundary. The rating officer may, and with concurrence of
the state, consolidate adjacent areas into more convenient
units to facilitate ratings. Such consolidated areas
should be described in terms of latitude and longitude
coordinates or by reference to established locations on
Coast and Geodetic Survey charts. Information positively
locating the area will be Included as a supplement to
Form III so that future program ratings will be based upon
the same general areas. Classifications should be in
accord with the definitons of Section C-2, Part I: 1965
Manual of Operations for the Sanitary Control of the Shell-
fish Industry. The following abbreviation should be used:
Conditionally Approved - CA; Approved - A; Restricted = R;
and Prohibited. = P.
If the state does not use this classification
system, a footnote explaining the state system shall be
appended to Form III. Each designated growing area, re-
gardless of Its size or relative shellfish production. Is
to be considered of equal weight and importance in the
computation of Form III.
-------
1356
Date of Last Completed Survey. — This date
should be obtained from the state area file. If the date
Is Indefinite or If an area file IB not available, a note
to this effect should be entered In column 2, and be
treated as zero In computations. Where a new area Is being
approved, the date of the Initial survey will be entered In
column 3.
Date of Last Resurvey. — This Information
should be entered In the same manner as In column 3.
Credit for Effective Date of Survey. — A per-
centage value will be entered In column 5 according to
the following schedule:
Sanitary survey or resurvey within 10 years
and reappraisal as follows:
Credit
(percent)
a. Reappraisal within 2 years 100
b. Reappraisal within 3 years 85
c. Reappraisal within 4 years 10
d. Reappraisal over 4 years 0
Sanitary survey over 1O years and no resurvey:
zero percent credit.
Quality of Survey. — The rating officer will
review survey and resurvey area files and will assign per-
centage values to each area on the basis of the following
criteria:
-------
1357
Percent
Sanitary evaluations of sources of
pollution including sewerage systems.... 40
Evaluation of hydrographlc factors res-
ponsible for spread of pollution 10
Bacteriological, chemical (including
pesticides), and radiological survey of
shellfish growing areas as indicated.... 25
Analysis of the interrelationships of
the foregoing factors and resulting area
classification 25
Partial credits may be allowed in using the
above criteria.
The weight which will be attached to any
particular item will depend upon prevailing conditions;
e.g., in considering a growing area remote from any source
of pollution, the rating officer will recognize that the
sanitary quality of the area can be established without
extensive field or laboratory-study.
The rating officer will make suitable adjustments
In the rating assigned on the basis of the review if field
conditions are found which indicate that the survey is
Incorrect, or If significantly changed conditions are not
reflected in the area classification.
A brief narrative statement shall be prepared de-
scribing each deduction for each growing area.
-------
1358
Deduction for Faulty Shellfish Toxicity Sur-
veillance. — The surveillance program, incorporating an
assay procedure, will be considered as a component of
the sanitary survey in those areas in which shellfish
toxicIty may reasonably be expected to occur. If the
inspection shows that the surveillance program is de-
fective, then the rating officer should apply a 40-
percent deduction to the area sanitary survey rating (product
of col. 5 and col. 6).
Score. — Score is the value which results when
the product of column 5 and 6 is divided by 100, minus
deduction for faulty area surveillance program for
naturally occurring shellfish toxins.
A brief, narrative statement should be prepared
describing each deduction.
Final Rating. — Final rating is the aritmetlcal
average of the scores of the designated growing areas
expressed as a percentage.
-------
1359
FOBII IV.—Control of relaying and depletion operations
\. Percentage of total State shellfish production which is relayed percent.
Effectiveness of relaying controls: '
a. Written approval for each relaying and depletion operation
b. Under immediate supervision of State including patrol of relaying
area and adequate tests.
(1) Supervision of relaying operations .
(2) Patrol of relaying areas
(3) Records of water quality
c. Permission to relay shellfish only to responsible person . ...
d. Shellfish held for adequate period of time .
e. Relayed shellfish harvested only by wirtten permission
f. Relaying areas designated and identified
Effectiveness of depletion controls: *
a. Under immediate supervision of State including patrol of relaying
area
b. Effectiveness of depletion operation
c. Evaluation of need for new depletion operations
Weight
10
?n
10
10
5
20
10
5
Applicable
Final rating
Percent
Score
i Itenu refer to Section D, Put I, PMo Fab. No. 33.
> Itenu refer to Section E, Part I, PUB Pub. No. 33.
12
-------
1360
Instructions for Completion of Form IV
Item 1. Percentage of Shellfish Relayed. —
State records should be reviewed and, where possible,
verified by discussions with shellfish shippers or with
other state agencies whloh share responsibility for super-
vision of the operation.
Item 2. Effectiveness of Relaying Controls (a,b,
and c). — The r*?*lng officer will not be expected to
demonstrate that the control system Is unreliable, but
only that the facilities and organization which the state
has provided are such that violations might.reasonably
be expected to occur. This attitude must be adopted since
It Is obviously Impossible for the rating officer to per-
sonally observe each relaying operation. Consequently,
discovery of a violation by the rating officer would be
only through accident or coincidence.
The rating officer may make partial deductions
for an item if it is clear that the deficiency is appli-
cable to only a portion of the state's relaying program.
(d) The effectiveness of relaying depends upon
the shellfish being left in the approved area for a period
of time sufficient for purification to take place. If any
violation is found of this item, the credit for the entire
relaying Item will be forfeited. The item will be assumed
-------
38k to be violated if records Indloate that shellfish have
been held in the area for less than 14 days at a suitable
temperature unless the state has satisfactory evidence tha
a lesser period of time is adequate to accomplish puri-
fication.
(e) State records should be consulted and veri-
fied by discussions with shellfish dealers and with other
state agencies that share responsibility for this operatic
(f) Credit will be in proportion to the number
of areas that are properly identified.
Item 3. Effectiveness of Depletion Controls.
(a) Same as Item 2 (a,b, and c), supra.
(b) The effectiveness of depletion operations
depends upon all market shellfish and as many of the
smaller size shellfish as can be gathered by reasonable
methods being removed from the area.
(c) Evaluation for need of new depletion opera-
tions to be carried out at Intervals to prevent the deve-
lopment of market-sized shellfish is a necessary require-
ment of the depletion operation.
-------
1362
FOBM V.—Depuration
State
Period
Rating Officer
1. Number of depuration plants _
2. Percentage of total State shellfish production subjected to controlled depuration
3. Effectiveness of depuration
Item1
(a) Demonstrated effectiveness
(b) Operating procedure
(c) Bacteriological quality of water
(d) Chemical quality of water
(e) Shellfish washed before purification
(f) Shellfish culled before purification
(g) State supervision
(h) Laboratory control
(i) Trained operator
(j) Limited access
(k) Worker health
(1) Controlled harvesting
Total
Weighted total _
T)eo"UCt for imp'Orwr hf»rvest,ir\g
' Letter refers to Part 1, Section D, Item 2.
Weight
20
1
> 40
3
10
5
10
5
2
5
Appli-
cable
Percent
'/y/r//////Mx
-------
1363
40k
Instructions for Completion of Form V
3. Effectiveness of depuration
(a) A depuration plant operating procedure
shall be developed for each depuration plant. The proce-
dure should demonstrate that the method used will result
in effective purification. Any violation of this require-
ment will result in zero credit regardless of the scores
obtained on other aspects of the purification operation.
However, the rating officer should complete the entire
evaluation of the item even though the portion dealing
with them (a) is violated.
(b) Credit for this item will depend upon (1)
receipt of the state's operating procedures; and (2) their
completeness.
(c through f) Partial credit may be allowed for
these items.
(g) Same as item (a), supra.
(h) Credit for this item will be based on the
degree to which the necessary tests are made. If non-
standard procedures are used, deductions should be made
on Form II, Laboratory Procedures, Part B.
(J and lc) Partial credits may be allowed for
these items.
-------
1364
(1) The rating officer shall assure himself that
the state has an administrative system which Insures that
shellfish harvested from "Restricted" areas will, In fact,
be submitted to purification before marketing. However, the
rating officer will not be expected to demonstrate that
lapses have actually occurred. If there Is any deficiency
In this Item, the entire Item for the purification plant
will be forfeited.
A necessary step preliminary to the evaluation
of a state patrol program Is a Joint State-PHS evaluation
of the patrol problems, and a determination of the type
of patrol organization and extent of patrol coverage that
Is required to achieve the desired results. The results
of such conferences between representatives of the state
and the PHS regional staff shall be documented and kept
on file In the Regional Office. This patrol document
shall review and clarify the following elements: (1)
method of Identification of closed areas; (2) type of
patrol problem; (3) listing of areas to be patrolled;
(4) frequency and nature of patrol; (5) type and frequency
of reporting; and (6) public-educational measures. The
patrol document shall be reviewed annually and be revised
when necessary.
-------
1365
42k The rating officer should recognize that not all
patrol activities may be carried out at the state level.
However, the state delegation of responsibility for ele-
ments of the control program to local organizations will
not absolve the state from the obligation of providing in-
formation on the effectiveness and completeness of these
operations. The rating officer should, therefore, con-
sider the local patrol operations as an integral part of
th» state program.
7. Evaluation of Harvesting Practices. — Where
possible, the rating officer should inspect a repre-
sentative number of shell stock harvesting boats and prepax
a numerical evaluation comparable to the sanitation rating
for shucking plants. However, in some instances, this
expenditure of staff time cannot be warranted because of
the relative public-health significance of the item. In
lieu of such a direct inspection, the rating officer will
then (l) evaluate the state's system for obtaining approve
sanitary measures, and (2) inspect only a small number of
harvesting boats and/or transport conveyance*. This Infor-
mation will be entered in Form VII.
8. Evaluation of Shucking-Packing Practices. —
Representative numbers of packers, and repaokers, will be
inspected by the rating officer. Inspections should be
recorded and ratings calculated as Indicated in Appendix
B, Part I, 1965 Manual of Operations for the Sanitary Contr
-------
1366
of the Shellfish Industry. Summary ratings for the several
classes of shippers should be computed on PHS-770 and
SS-3 forms. Copies of the Individual Inspection reports
will not ordinarily be Included In the rating offleap*t
report.
In making these Inspections the rating officer
may discuss results with the state's counterpart official
and may leave copies of the inspection report with the
state official. If requested to do so by the state repre-
sentative, the rating officer will also review the results
of each inspection report with the plant management.
The ratings obtained through the inspection of
these several classes of establishments will be combined
into a final appraisal rating for shucking-packing prac-
tices as shown on Form VIII.
-------
FORM VI.—Evaluation of growing area control measures
Part A
136?
Ares description
Final rating
Adequacy of
marking (percent)
Adequacy of
patrol (percent)
Score
Part B
Patrol Equipment Review
PartC
Enforcement Proceedings
Instructions for Completion of form VI
Part A
Arm Description: As the first step In the calculation
of the numerical ratings for the patrol activities, the
rating officer should prepare a list of those areas which
are not approved for commercial harvesting. This
Information should be entered in column 1. Each area
should be so described that it can be readily identified
in subsequent ratings.
Area Harking: The rating officer should visit a repre-
sentative number of these areas to determine if the
applicable requirements for boundary markers or area
posters have been met. The degree of compliance will
be determined for each area visited. This information
will be recorded In column 2. In addition, the rating
officer should visit "Prohibited" areas to attempt to
determine any violation of the closure orders. In
some instances, the rating officer should revisit areas
to determine if the required markers and posters
still present Any information obtained in such re-
evaluations should be reflected by suitable corrections
in Form VI.
Area Patrol: In appraising the patrol activities, the
rating officer should compare State records of patrol
activities with the previously-agreed upon levels of
activity. The extent to which these two values agree
should be entered in column 3 as a percentage. In
the absence of complete records, the rating officer will
ordinarily be unable to complete a review of this ele-
ment of the State program. In such, instances, no
credit will be given for these elements for the State
operation.
.Score: The value entered for "Area Marking" and
"Patrol Effectiveness" should be combined according
to the following weights: Marking, 20 percent; Patrol,
15
-------
1368
80 percent The resulting value should be entered In
column4, "Score (percent)."
Part B
The rating officer will prepare a narrative report on
the appraisal of the equipment indicated in the policy
document as necessary to carry on an effective growing
area control program.
Part O
The rating officer will prepare a narrative report
giving the number of apprehensions, the disposition
of the cases, and an analysis of the factors which in-
fluenced the disposition of the cases. If the State
agencies' experience in the courts suggests that State
laws cannot be enforced effectively, an appropriate
deduction should be made under item 1, page 7.
FOBM VII.—Evaluation of harvetting practice*
A. Number of State licensed harvesters --- —
B. Estimated number of harvesting boats in State
C. Number of harvesting boats inspected
D. Estimated number of trucks used for shell stock transportation.
E. Number of trucks inspected.. -
Item
Construction and cleanliness of trucks
Washing shell stock
Weight
40
30
10
20
Item
appli-
cable
Percent
com-
pliance
Score
Remarks-
16
-------
SS-8
1369
Skett-ttock shipper inspection summary
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Transfer information to columns 1, 2, and 3 from
Inspection Reports (PHS-769-3)
B. Multiply each "Final Plant Score" by adjacent
"Number of Employees" to obtain "Weight."
C. Add column 3 and enter 'Total" on final sheet of
computation.
D. Add column 4 and enter "Total" on final sheet of
computation. Divide "Total Weight" by "Total
Number of Employee*" to obtain "Final Rating."
State Number of shell-stock shippers Number inspected Date
Certificate number
(1)
Final plant score
(2)
Total
Number of employees
(3)
.Final rating
Weight
(4)
Remarks.
17
-------
PHS-770
REV. 1-IS
SHELLFISH SHUCKING-PACKING PLANTS INSPECTION SUMMARY
1370
FOB..
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Complcfa all block* obova column hooding*
B. Tronifor InfoimoMon to column* |. 2. 3. am/ 5 from Inspoo
Nan roport*. Record numb or of chucfcan to noar««f & If /•««
•/ton 5 thtck*r* record a> 1.
C Subtract "DEDUCTIONS" AMI "INITIAL PLANT SCORE"
to obtain "FINAL PLANT SCORE"
D. Multiply aoen "FINAL PLANT SCORE"
••NUMBER OF SHUCKERS" to obtain "WEIGHT.
E. AaM column 5 and ontar "totaf" on final aho** of
F. Add column < and anfor "tofaf" on flnof «lw«t of comoutatlon.
DtvU» "TOTAL WEIGHT" by "TOTAL NUMBER OF
SHUCKERS" to obtain "FINAL RATING."
CERTIFICATE
NUMBER
1.
NUMBER OF SHUCKER-PACKERI
INITIAL PLANT
SCORE
2.
DEDUCTIONS
3.
REMARKS:
FINAL. PLANT
SCORE
4.
TOTALS
NUMBER INSPECTED
NUMBER OF
SHUCKERS
5.
DATE
WEIGHT
6.
1
FINAL RATING
1
Vm* addition*! cople. ol Oil* Farm lor continuation •*••<«, If noCMa
18
-------
FOBM VIII.—Evaluation of thvcking-packing practice*
1371
Type of shipper
Reshippera .
Shell-stock
Shucker-packers
Repackers
Total
Summary rating
(percent)
. Number of
shippers
Find rating
Weight
Score (percent)
Remarks
Instruction* for Completing of Form VIII
Summary Rating.—The summary ratings for each
of the several classes of shippers (Forms PHS-770,
SS-3, etc.) should be entered in this column.
Number of Shippert.—The number of each class of
shipper should be brought forward from the summary
rating forms.
Weight.—Values for this column should be deter-
mined by dividing each type of shipper by the total
number of shippers.
Score.—Multiply column 2 "Summary rating" by
column 4 "Weight" to obtain this value.
FORK IX.—Summary appraisal of State Shettfith Sanitation Program
Individual program elements
1. General Administration Procedures
2. Laboratory procedures
3. Sanitary survey. . . ..^^..^,^
4. Relaying and depletion
5. Controlled purification
6. Patrol
7. Harvesting..
8. Shucking-paeking . . ....
Rating (percent)
Remarks
-------
1372
Section C
PREPARATION OP RATING OFFICER'S REPORT
The rating officer will prepare a report on each
state shellfish sanitation program according to the follow-
ing outline:
A. Introduction. — The introduction should
indicate that the appraisal has been made in accord with
Part III: "Public Health Service Appraisal of State
Shellfish Sanitation Programs — Manual of Operations —
National Shellfish Sanitation Program" The names and titles
of all individuals participating in the appraisal should
be given.
B. Summary of State Shellfish Sanitation
Programs.
1. Form IX, Summary of Appraisal.
2. Narrative report. The narrative report
should be concise and should Include:
(a) A statement as to the general status of
the state's shellfish sanitation program.
(b) A brief discussion of needs for specific
program emphasis.
(o) An appraisal of the adequacy of funds,
personnel, and facilities available to
t-he state agencies for carrying out all
phases of the program.
-------
1373
52k C. Detailed Appraisal of Individual Elements of State
Shellfish Sanitation Program.
1. Form I -- Appraisal of Legal and Administrative
Procedures.
2. Form II — Evaluation of Laboratory Procedures
3. Form III — Evaluation of Sanitary Surveys and
Resurveys.
4. Form IV — Control of Relaying Operations.
5. Form V — Controlled Purification.
6. Form VI « Evaluation of Growing Area Control
Measures.
7. Form VII — Evaluation of Harvesting Practices.
8. PHS - 770-Shellflsh Shucking-Packing Plants
Inspection Summary.
SS-3 - Summary of Shell Stock Shipper Inspections.
9. Form VIII -- Evaluation of Shucking-Packing Practice
10. Form IX — Summary Appraisal of State Shellfish
Sanitation Program
11. Form X — Combined Summary Rating (Appendix C).
12. Supplementary Narrative Report as needed to
clarify information on the foregoing Forms and as called
for by the appraisal procedure.
D. Appendix. — Additional information necessary to
clarify the state appraisal. Photographs may be used.
1
Any forms not applicable to the program being appraised may
be omitted from the completed appraisal report.
-------
1374
Section D
SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM STATISTICS
The rating officer should assemble and forward
the following Information to the PHS Headquarters office
by June 30 of each year for use In program planning. This
material will not be Included In the program appraisal
forwarded by the regional office to the state agencies.
1. Estimated shellfish production together with
any evident trends; I.e., an Indicated decline or advance.
2. A brief description of the state organiza-
tions responsible for administration of the shellfish
sanitation program Including, where possible, the names
of Individuals.
3. An estimate of the total state expenditures
for shellfish sanitation activities. This should include
an estimate of expenditures for patrol activities.
4. A statement as to the amount of time required
to complete the rating survey.
5. Information on any other elements of the
shellfish industry which might be helpful in program
planning.
6. An estimate of the proportion of shellfish
production not subject to National Shellfish Sanitation
Program requirements.
-------
1375
7. A statement of the problems associated with
the sale of shellfish from foreign countries not having
sanitation agreements with the United States.
8. A statement describing state control over
the use of shellfish In products not covered directly by
the certification program; e.g., breaded oysters or clams.
9. An estimate of yearly shellfish production
from each of the Identified growing areas.
Appendix A
Cooperative Agreement Between the U. S. Public Health Service
and the Food and Drug Administration Relative to Sanitary
Control of the Shellfish Industry, July 20, 1933
The agreement between the U. S. Public Health
Service and the Bureau of Chemistry (now the Food and Drug
Administration) is hereby reaffirmed. This agreement pub-
lished in 1925, reads as follows:
In accordance with a cooperative agreement
between the Public Health Service and the Bureau of Chemistry
(Food and Drug Administration) the Public Health Service
will furnish the Bureau of Chemistry (Food and Drug Admin-
istration) information regarding insanitary shucking houses
-------
1376
and shellfish growing areas In order that Interstate
shipments may be dealt with as heretofore under the Federal
Pure Food and Drugs Act.
The original agreement is supplemented as
follows:
1. U. S. Public Health Service will request
shellfish producing states to report all cancellations and
withdrawals of shippers certificates of refusals to issue
state certificates, and specify in the reports the reasons
for such action. On receipt of this information the
U. S. Public Health Service will in turn transmit the
report to the Food and Drug Administration.
2. The U. S. Public Health Service will inform
the Food and Drug Administration whenever the approval of
state certifications is withdrawn or withheld.
3. The U. S. Public Health Service will report
conditions in shellfish producing areas or in shucking
plants which Indicate probability that shellfish are being
marketed in violation of the Federal Food and Drugs Act.
4. The Food and Drug Administration will inspect
the sanitary conditions of all shellfish plants not certi-
fied, which may do an interstate business. Reports made
of such investigations by the Food and Drug Administration
will be furnished to the U. S. Public Health Service, with
copies to the state shellfish control agency.
-------
1377
56k 5. The Inspectors and agents of the Food and
Drug Administration will keep in close touch with state
shellfish control agencies and with representatives of the
U. S. Public Health Service in matters pertaining to en-
forcement of the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act.
Appendix B
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the
Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Department
of Health, Education,and Welfare (Public Health Service)
Relative to the Certification of Interstate Shellfish
Shippers
Whereas the Department of the Interior is charged
by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 with the responsibility
for all matters primarily relating to fisheries; and
Whereas the Public Health Service of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare is charged with pre-
venting the transmission or interstate spread of
communicable disease, and in fulfillment of this obligation
has cooperated with the states, shellfish Industry, Food
and Drug Administration, and Fish and Wildlife Service of
the Department of the Interior in a sanitary control program
for the certification of interstate shippers of oysters,
-------
1378
clams and mussels;
Now therefore in the interests of public health,
efficiency, and economy; to insure that consumer confi-
dence will be maintained in commercially produced and dis-
tributed shellfish as food; and for the purpose of de-
fining their respective functions the Pish and Wildlife
Service and Public Health Service do hereby mutually agree
as follows:
The Pish and Wildlife Service, acting in a liaison
and advisory capacity, and the Public Health Service,
acting in a research and administrative capacity, will
cooperate in maintaining a high level of sanitation in the
oyster, clam and mussel Industries so that shellfish will
not contribute to the interstate spread of disease.
The Public Health Service will continue to
cooperate with the states, shellfish industry, federal
agencies and the Canadian Government in the certification
of interstate shellfish shippers. This may be accomplished
through shellfish sanitation research, development of tech-
nical guides, periodic evaluation of state shellfish sani-
tation programs, endorsement of acceptable state programs,
maintenance of liaison with the Canadian federal agencies
responsible for shellfish sanitation, and distribution of
a list of state-certIf104 interstate shellfish shippers.
-------
1379
58k The Public Health Service will consult with the Pish and
Wildlife Service during all phases of the development of
technical guides and in the planning and direction of
shellfish sanitation research projects. In the event of
an interstate outbreak of disease attributed to a fishery
product other than shellfish the Public Health Service will,
whenever practicable, consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service prior to the institution of control measures.
The Pish and Wildlife Service, in its advisory
capacity and through its qualified liaison representatives,
will make available to the Public Health Service any
available scientific information pertinent to the develop-
ment of technical guides or to research projects under-
taken by the Public Health Service as a necessary adjunct
to the shellfish certification program. The Pish and
Wildlife Service will disseminate, through industry con-
tacts, information concerning the intent and the need for
the shellfish certification program.
The Public Health Service will continue to request
appropriations and to expend funds to support the shellfish
sanitation activities described above.
(S) HATPIELD CHILSON,
Acting Secretary of the Interior.
May 22, 1958.
(S) M. B. FOLSOM,
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
July 24, 1958.
-------
ERRATA SHEET
1380
Substitute for Page 2k of PART III, National Shellfish Sanitation
Program, Manual of Operations.
APPENDIX C
FORM X - Combined summary rating
Program Element
1. General Administration
Procedures
2. Laboratory Procedures
3. Sanitary Survey
k. Relaying and Depletion
5. Purification or
Depuration
6. Patrol
7. Harvesting
8. Shuck ing-Pack ing
Weight
10
5
30
5
10
30
5
5
Item
Applicable
%
Corapl iance
Score
Weighted total ....
Instructions
The final rating obtained by this artifical combination of values
is of limited utility; however, such ratings based on a uniform procedure
will measure year to year change, and may be used for comparative purposes.
Percent Compliance: Percent compliance values should be entered from
Form IX "Summary Appraisal of State Shellfish Sanitation Program."
Score; Each "Item Applicable" and "Percent Compliance" value should
be multipl ied, with the products being recorded under "Score".
Weighted Total: 'Veighted Total" should be readjusted in proportion
to the total obtained under "Item Applicable".
-------
1381
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION I — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
120 Boylston Street
Boston, Mass., 02116
REGION II — Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
Room 1200, 42 Broadway
New York, New York, 10004
REGION III — District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland,
North Carolina, Virginia, Vest Virginia, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
700 East Jefferson Street
Chariottesville, Va., 22901
REGION IV — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee
Room 404
50 Seventh Street NE.
Atlanta, Ga., 30323
-------
1382
REGION V — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Room 712 New Post Office Bldg.
433 Vest Van Buren Street
Chicago, 111., 60607
REGION VI — Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota
560 West Port Road
Kansas City, Mo., 64111
REGION VII — Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
Ninth Floor
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas, 75202
REGION VIII — Colorada, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming
Room 551
621 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colo., 80202
REGION IX — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, Guam, American Samoa
50 Pulton Street
Civic Center
San Francisco, Calif., 94102 ^Gpo-9S7-7S3
------- |