Mr. Mitchell, in explaining what radar automation can do in shellfish area surveillance assumed that most areas requiring surveillance would be a few miles in radius, and that all surface objects both fixed and moving were to be kept under constant observation. Foreign objects or intruders would be immediately apparent. Identification would be achieved by means of observer familiarity with the scene and by target behavior. Principal concern must be with the range of viewing and the power to resolve detail. It was indicated that microwave radar cannot penetrate solid obstructions and that there must be an unobstructed view between the radar antenna and all parts of the surface to be observed. As an approximation, he said, an antenna at 15 feet above sea level can "see" about 5 miles while a height of 50 feet is necessary to view a ten mile radius. Applications of radar installations to the shellfish industry surveillance problem were listed as: (a) the prevention of illegal shellfish gathering in polluted waters; (b) in combatting poaching on commercial beds, and (c) in deployment of harvesting crews on shellfish operations. He indicated that no special operator skill is required to handle a modern commercial radar installation. (Mr. Mitchell's complete presentation, together with material handed out at the Workshop is included in these Proceedings as Appendix M.) Current Administrative Problems of Cooperative Program-Interim Procedures Mr. Eugene Jensen, Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, PHS, presented a discussion entitled "Administrative and Management Problems in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program". Mr. Jensen outlined the history of the Cooperative Program with regard to management procedures and indicated that the overall National program would probably be strengthened materially by better defined management procedures. Mr. Jensen made the following proposals: 1. Recommend that the Public Health Service give strong consideration to the 2. Give official recognition to the relationship between the Regional and National meetings and endorse the concept that program changes will be made through the mechanism of National Workshops and associated Regional meetings. The National meetings would be scheduled in Washington in the late fall at two or three year intervals. 3. Request that the Public Health Service prepare an operational manual to define the procedures to be used in making changes in the National program. The proposed manual should be discussed with State agencies and other interested parties and brought before the next Workshop for consideration. 4. Recommend that the Public Health Service investigate the possibility of Mr. Woodfield (Woodfield Fish and Oyster Company) suggested not having the Workshops in the late fall as this handicaps industry attendance because it is so close to the busy Thanksgiving season. Mr. H.R. Bassett, Chesapeake Seafood Packers Association, indicated that it would be more convenient for industry, and that industry could have more representatives present at future Workshops, it they were held in May or June, rather than in November. Mr. Bassett then made a motion that all future National Shellfish Sanitation Workshops or meetings called by the Public Health Service be held during the months of May or June. Mr. Bower representing the Pacific Oyster Growers Association and the Olympia Oyster Association related that he was specifically instructed by the Presidents of both Associations to express the same view that this is the busiest time in the oyster season and there might be others who would have attended had it been held at another time. Mr. Bower further suggested that someday it might be possible to hold it closer to the West Coast as it worked a hardship on people from the West Coast to get to Washington, D.C. Mr. Jensen then discussed the conduct of National Shellfish Sanitation Workshops. It was explained that it had been PHS experience that any changes in Cooperative Program standards are best made through application of "law of the situation" rather than compromise or majority rule. This has the effect of each of the major participants having a veto power. Mr. Jensen indicated a more formal approach could be adopted for future meetings but it would caise many questions as to the "rights" of the various program participants and of the "authority" of the State and industry representatives to commit their agencies to a course of action. These problems are avoided by the "law of the situation" as long as all parties show a reasonable degree of cooperation. Questions arise as to the type and number of industry representatives, particularly from those few States in which the primary trade associations (The Oyster Institute of North America and its affiliated associations) are poorly represented. While these problems have been discussed in varying degrees with the States and industry at meetings proceeding this Workshop, no one has come up with concrete suggestions for improvement even though everyone has admitted certain problems exist. Mr. Jensen stated no immediate changes were proposed in our method of conducting the Workshop but that we will expect to have formal proposals which can be submitted to the States at the next series of regional meetings at which time PHS central office staff will be prepared to interpret and explain our proposals. Mr. George Harrison, Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Association, Inc., moved that the following procedure be placed in effect, and be so used until changed or amended by unanimous action (vote) of those parties hereafter recognized: A. "That all registrants at this and future National Shellfish Sanitation Workshops, and like or similiarly purposed conferences, meetings, forums, or gatherings, be classified into one of four categories as follows: B. C. D. 1. U.S.P.H.S. Representatives 2. 3. 4. Employees or selected Bona Fide Repre sentatives of the U.S.P.H.S. or the Department of Health, Education Members of the Health Departments (or Control Agencies) of the Members of the Shellfish Industry - Owners of, and/or their Bona Guests --Any person present, who does not fall into either group That each of the first three categories or classifications be given For the vote to be cast by the Health Departments (or Control Agencies) For the vote to be cast by the Industry (Companies or Associations In response Mr. Jensen indicated that under the above proposal Mr. Louis Stringer of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries would be classed as a guest. The proposal would also raise some questions in terms of international representation. Mr. Jensen explained that we had tried to avoid voting in the past and that we have to avoid voting at the present time until some sort of rules are established and that currently there is no way in which one can make a resolution and have it voted on. It almost has to be a situation approach in which the proposals are more or less, agreeable to all participants. Mr. Jensen stated that as an example of what could happen in connection with voting, not everyone would want to see the resolution adopted which required that all shellfish be landed at specific points. It might well have ended with one or two States being in the minority and yet, being a State would not necessarily have to be guided by the voting. The result might be a situation where the vote would be meaningless. Further, it appears that for the present it would be better to seek positions that are mutually acceptable as all must realize that all participants have a real interest in making the program work effectively. It was further pointed out that legal responsibility for shellfish sanitation programs in each State rests with the State and not the with the Federal Government. After some further discussion of Mr. Harrison's proposals, it was agreed by both he and Mr. Jensen, that the proposals should be circulated to the States for study, in hopes that a better method of voting at Workshops may be arrived at. Mr. Jensen next brought up the question of the program name. It was explained that the present name on Manuals is "Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers" which is long and somewhat cumbersome. The Workshop participants were asked whether it would be agreeable to them if the present name be shortened to something like "The National Shellfish Sanitation Program". Mr. Jensen indicated that since no objection was expressed from the participants, the proposal was considered accepted. Mr. Jensen brought up the subject of the proposal by industry that the Public Health Service listing of State certified shippers should include the percentage sanitation rating for each plant listed. Mr. Jensen observed that the Public Health Service could see a great many disadvantages to such a system. Two of these disadvantages he pointed out. One, was that it would be a difficult task to continually be revising the list on almost an every two week basis to reflect the new sanitation ratings. The second was that it would put the State under a lot of pressure to be continually making additional inspections in order to get new ratings. Also, buyers would tend to buy only from the plants with the highest ratings, and would tend to make a distinction between plants with insignificant rating differences. Mr. Jensen indicated that the Public Health Service recommended no changes in the present system. There being no comment or suggestion on this from Workshop participants, Mr. Jensen indicated that no change would be made in the certification list. Mr. Jensen next discussed the need for more adequate financing of State shellfish sanitation programs. It was indicated that the States need at least two million dollars a year to carry out adequate programs. Mr. Jensen mentioned that although administrators, such as Mr. Trygg of Louisiana, may be personally interested in shellfish sanitation, they have numerous other programs which need money and more staff. He further indicated that, testifying before the House Molluskan Hearings in 1963, the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers was cited as mentioning the problem to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In addition, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers two years ago raised the question of use of Federal funds, either through grants or contracts, to strengthen State programs. Mr. Jensen indicated he had no specific progress to report in this area and no specific suggestions except that the Public Health Service was convinced this constitutes a very significant administrative problem which in one way or another will have to be resolved. Mr. Jensen then indicated he would be pleased to have the record of the Proceedings show recommendations or course of action prescribed. There was no response from the Workshop participants. Mr. Jensen next discussed the question of interim decisions (policy questions or actions between Workshops) and how best they might be handled. He pointed out that the Public Health Service is sometimes accused of making such decisions unilaterally and at times the Public Health Service almost has to do this. He reported that when an incident which requires program action occurs he tries to get in touch with Mr. Trygg, as Chairman of the Marine Foods Committee of the Conference of Sanitary Engineers, and with Mrs. Wallace, representing the shellfish industry, to work out a course of action that can stand until the Workshop as a whole has the opportunity to consider the problem and make changes deemed necessary. Mr. Jensen stated that some procedure for handling interim changes is necessary and that it was an area in which an advisory committee with a built-in executive committee might be quite helpful. He requested whether anyone had any particular views on this matter. There was no response. Mr. Jensen next discussed the matter of a State Plan Review as criteria for State participation in the Certification Program. He pointed out that the current system for evaluation and endorsement of State programs by the Public Health Service is essentially retrospective. Mr. Jensen recommended prior PHS evaluation of the "State Plan" as a prerequisite for State participation in the National Program. Under such a scheme, each State would be expected to submit to the PHS a plan for the next fiscal year for carrying out their responsibilities under the National Program. If the critical review of this plan by the PHS staff disclosed that the State would be unlikely to carry out a satisfactory program, the Public Health Service would so advise the State. The State would have three courses of action open to them: one, a technical appeal which might be based on the State's contention that their plan would in fact be effective; second, assignment of additional resources or perhaps technical restructuring to make the plan effective and in accordance with the National Program goals; third, to agree that their plan would not be effective and, therefore, they would not participate in the program. This positive approach would improve consumer confidence factors, should minimize friction between the Public Health Service and the State agencies, and should help focus attention on the need for a State agency budget. Mr. Jensen stressed that he was making no proposal for adaption immediately but was proposing that it be discussed with a couple of States to determine if they might be willing to try it with us for a year or two and see how it might work. He then asked for the State views. Mr. Hobbs, Maryland State Health Department, indicated he could see advantages to a State plan where a State might be falling below a certain level, but that if the State has to prepare a series of plans and complicated reports which the State would send to the Public Health Service or local agencies, he could'nt see the necessity for such an arrangement. Mr. Howell, Delaware State Health Department, indicated Delaware would tend to go along with the proposal. Mr. Trygg, Louisiana, inquired if the States did not already have to submit plans in connection with grants received from the Public Health Service. Mr. Jensen replied this was correct, but that these plans were not specific and did not include conservation agencies. Mr. Willerford, Connecticut State Health Department, indicated the proposal would work quite a hardship on his State as they are currently having difficulty keeping up with present requirements. The Workshop did not reach a decisive decision on this subject, however, no objection was expressed to trying it out if one or more States agreed to it on a trial basis. (Mr. Jensens complete paper is included in these Proceedings as Appendix N.) Conference of State Sanitary Engineers' Actions on Crabmeat and Scallops: Mr. Leroy S. Houser, Public Health Service, presented and discussed the following proposal on Crabmeat Picking Plants: CRABMEAT PICKING PLANTS At the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers meeting May 22-24, 1962, the Joint Committee on Marine Food Sanitation concluded "that there was a need for a 'cooperative certification' program for scallops and that such a program might also be desirable for crabmeat." The Committee requested that the Public Health Service evaluate the needs for programs in these two areas, and prepare a report to CSSE on their findings. Attached is a copy (Appendix 0) of the PHS REPORT TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON MARINE FOOD SANITATION (APHA-CSSE) OF THE CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS ON EVALUATION OF NEED FOR COOPERATIVE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SCALLOPS AND CRABMEAT. The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers unanimously accepted this report during their subsequent meeting on June 25, 1963. Although acceptance of the report on crabmeat tables the proposal for a certification program, such acceptance did not clearly indicate whether the CSSE believed it desirable (See page 130, Appendix 0) for the Shellfish Sanitation Branch to prepare Sanitary Recommendations for Crabmeat Picking Plants for voluntary adoption as the States may see fit. Accordingly, the following proposal is submitted to the Workshop for decision: Proposal 1. That the Shellfish Sanitation Branch prepare Sanitary Recommendations for Crabmeat Picking Plants for voluntary adoption by the States. Discussion: From the limited data available to the Shellfish Sanitation Branch, there does not appear to be a serious public health problem in connection with crabmeat picking plants. Further, the principal crabmeat producing States appear to have adequate sanitary regulations and no State has indicated any major problem exists in regard to imports or exports. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Workshop, in the absence of a clearly identified public health problem in connection with the sale and distribution of crabmeat, go on record as not recommending at this time the preparation of sanitary recommendations concerning the crabmeat industry by the Shellfish Sanitation Branch. Workshop Action: Without discussion the Workshop went on record as accepting the above Recommendation on Crabmeat Packing Plants. After acceptance of the above by the Workshop, Mr. Houser presented and discussed the following proposal on Scallops. SCALLOPS In the attached copy (Appendix 0) of the REPORT TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON MARINE FOOD SANITATION (APHA-CSSE) OF THE CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS ON EVALUATION OF NEED FOR COOPERATIVE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SCALLOPS AND CRABMEAT it will be noted that it was our recommendation to the CSSE (which was accepted) that we take up the matter of including scallops in the present Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers with the 1964 Workshop. Proposal 2. That scallops be included in the definition of "Shellfish" in Parts 1 and 11 of the Shellfish Sanitation Manual. Discussion: As indicated in the above report to the CSSE, scallops were included in the original 1925 Report of Committee on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry but were not included in the Manual requirements after 1937, probably because the viscera is discarded in the shucking process, the meat is not generally consumed raw, and the animal is a free-swimming organism. While we have no specific objection to the inclusion of scallops in the definition again, it should be pointed out that possibly the growing water standard (median coliform MPN less than 70/100 ml) should be waived since the animal is free-swimming, the viscera is discarded in the shucking process, and scallops are not generally eaten raw. Also, we believe it would be advisable to waive the requirement of separation of the packing operation from the shucking operation as the majority of scallops are shucked on sea-going vessels. Recommendation: Although we believe there is need for a sanitation program for scallops as well as for all fishery products, we do not at this time have convincing evidence that there is justification for inclusion of scallops in the definitions of shellfish in Parts 1 and 11 of the Manual. We therefore recommend against the adoption of this proposal by the Workshop. Workshop Action: Without discussion, the Workshop went on record as accepting the above Recommendation on Scallops. (The PHS Report to Joint Committee on Marine Food Sanitation (APHA-CSSE) |