PROCEEDINGS
                                        Technical Session
                                        August 26, 1968
                                        Cleveland, Ohio
Pollution of Lake Erie and its Tributaries-
Indiana, Michigan, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania
   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-------
CONFERENCE

In the Matter of Pollution of

Lake Erie and Its Tributaries
                                TECHNICAL SESSION
                   Afjoncjj     STATLER HILTON HOTEL
                                  CLEVELAND, OHIO
                                  AUGUST 26, 196S

-------
U£S. Envlrc

-------
                 CONTENTS




                                                   Page



Opening Statement - Murray Stein                    4




Questions and Answers                               #

-------
          Technical Session in the matter of the




pollution of Lake Erie and its tributaries, convened




at 9^30 a.m., in the Garden Room of the Statler Hilton




Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday, August 26, 1968.




          PRESIDING:




               Murray Stein, Chief, Enforcement,




          Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-




          tration, Washington, D. C.




          CONFEREES:




               Frank 0. Bogedain, New York State




          Department of Health, Albany, New York




               Lorin F. Oeming, Michigan Water




          Resources Commission, Lansing, Michigan




               George H. Eagle, Ohio Department of




          Health, Columbus, Ohio




               H. W. Poston, Regional Director,




          Great Lakes Region,  Federal Water Pollution




          Control Administration, Chicago, Illinois




               Blucher A. Poole, Indiana State




          Board of  Health, Indianapolis, Indiana




               Richard M. Boardman, Pennsylvania




          Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

-------
                                         2-A
PARTICIPANTS:



     Dr. A. F. Bartsch, Pacific Northwest




Laboratory, Federal Water Pollution Control



Administration, Corvallia, Oregon



     Sharon D. Bresler, Director of Util-




ities, Lima, Ohio




     Frank Hall, Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration, Great Lakes Region,




Chicago, Illinois



     George L. Harlow, Cleveland Program



Office, Federal Water Pollution Control



Administration, Cleveland, Ohio




     John E. Richards, Ohio Department of



Health, Columbus, Ohio



     Dr. David G. Stephan, Acting Assistant



Commissioner  for Research and Development,



Federal Water Pollution Control



Administration, Washington, D.C.



     John J. Wirts, Easterly Pollution



Control Center, Cleveland, Ohio



     John Weaver, Proctor and Gamble,




Cincinnati, Ohio

-------
ATTENDANTS:



     E. Thomas Alvord, Rand Development



Corporation,  Cleveland, Ohio




     Dr. Daniel G. Bardarik, Pennsylvania



Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania



     Ed Earth, Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio



     Robert C. Black, Soap and Detergent



Association,  New York City, New York



     Torn Braidech, Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration, Cleveland, Ohio



     Richard W. Brown, Hammermill Paper




Company, Erie, Pennsylvania




     Thomas M. Burnett, Cleveland, Ohio



     D. S. Caverly, Ontario Water Resources



Commission, Toronto, Canada



     Thomas Colpetzer, Lake County Health



Department, Painesville,  Ohio



     Thomas W. Cooper, Municipal STP



Manager, Columbus, Ohio



     Seba H. Estill, Izaak Walton League,



Cleveland, Ohio.



     Carlos Fetterolf, Michigan Water



Resources Commission, Lansing,  Michigan



     David L.  Flynn, Stanley Consultants,




Cleveland, Ohio

-------
                                                   3-A
ATTENDANTS  (Continued)




               Joseph B.  Gaghen,  Dow Chemical



          Company, Cleveland,  Ohio




               George B.  Garrett, Ohio Department



          of Health,  Columbus, Ohio



               G.  A.  Hall,  Ohio Water Pollution



          Control  Board,  Columbus, Ohio



               Richard D.  Hall, Diamond Shamrock



          Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio



               Robert P.  Hartley, Federal Water



          Pollution Control Administration,  Cleveland



          Program  Office,  Cleveland, Ohio




               James  Haube, City of Toledo,  Toledo,



          Ohio



               Henry  Hauenstein,  Finkbeiner, Pettis



          and Strout, Toledo,  Ohio



               Ihor Havryluk,  A.  C. Ackenheil and



          Associates, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania



               Clifford R.  Hindman, Burgess  and Niple,




          Limited, Mentor,  Ohio



               Robert Howick,  Reporter, WKBF-TV 61,




          Cleveland,  Ohio



               Bob Kasarda, News Photographer,



          Cleveland,  Ohio

-------
                                                   3-1
ATTENDANTS  (Continued)



               Betty Klaric, Reporter, Cleveland



          Pres,,  Cleveland, Ohio



               Donald G. Kirk,  Hammermill Paper



          Company, Erie, Pennsylvania



               Sanford Kwasney, City of Cleveland,




          Cleveland, Ohio



               Robert K. Jordan, U.  S. Steel



          Corporation, Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania




               Perry Miller, Indiana State Board



          of Health, Indianapolis,  Indiana




               Peter T. Miller, Cinematographer,




          WJW-TV,  Cleveland, Ohio




               Hal Morgan,  Reporter, WJW-TV-S,



          Cleveland, Ohio



               Dr. Paul Olynyk, Cleveland State



          University,  Cleveland, Ohio



               Michael F. Pikus, Cleveland State



          University,  Cleveland, Ohio



               Chris Potos, Federal  Water Pollution



          Control  Administration,  Cleveland,  Ohio



               Glenn Pratt, Federal  Water Pollution



          Control  Administration,  Chicago Regional




          Office,  Chicago,  Illinois

-------
                                                   3-C
ATTENDANTS  (Continued)




               Tad Rajda, Federal Water Pollution




          Control Administration, Washington, B.C.




               Lawrence E. Rigby, F. G. Browne and




          Associates, Marion, Ohio




               Ray Roth, City of Cleveland, Bureau




          of Industrial Wastes, Cleveland, Ohio




               Agnes Rupp, Federal Water Pollution




          Control Administration, Cleveland, Ohio




               James P. Schaefer, City of Cleveland,




          Bureau of Industrial Wastes, Cleveland, Ohio




               Robert Seid, Reporter, WEWS News,




          Cleveland, Ohio




               David J. Scullin, Aqua Laboratories,




          Cleveland, Ohio




               Albert Seiler, Burgess and Niple,




          Limited, Columbus, Ohio




               R. N. Simonsen, Standard Oil Company




          of Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio




               Robert C. Singer,  'Water in the News,"




          New York City, New York




               Alfred Smith, Federal Water Pollution




          Control Administration, Cleveland, Ohio

-------
                                                   3-D
ATTENDANTS  (Continued)



               Mrs. Richard L. Smith, League of




          Women Voters, Fairview Park, Ohio



               Standly H. Sutton, Havens and




          Emerson, Cleveland,  Ohio



               Martha Takacs,  Cleveland State



          University, Cleveland, Ohio



               W.  R. Taylor,  Diamond Shamrock Corpor-




          ation, Cleveland, Ohio



               William A. Telliod, City of Cleveland,



          Water Division, Cleveland, Ohio



               Larry J. Vereb, Cleveland State




          University, Cleveland, Ohio



               Fred A. Voege,  Ontario Water Resources



          Commission, Toronto, Ontario, Canada



               Adel Wagner, Federal Water Pollution



          Control  Administration, Cleveland,  Ohio



               G.  H. Watkins,  Lake Erie Watershed



          Conservation Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

-------
             Opening Statement - Mr. Stein



                PROCEEDINGS








                   OPENING STATEMENT



                          BY




                   MR. MURRAY STEIN








          MR. STEIN:  May we come to order, please?  The



meeting is open.



          This is a Technical Session growing out of the



Federal-State Water Pollution Control Conference on Lake



Erie.




          The Conferees have unanimously come up with an



analysis of the problem and a time schedule and requirements



for cities and industries in the five States concerned.



          We would like to address ourselves at this tech-



nical meeting to just the single problem of the nutrient



impact on the aging and eutrophication of the lake and that



is all — I guess particular emphasis on the phosphate



problem.




          This — and I would like to emphasize it again




— will be a technical meeting and if your notion of



entertainment is listening to a technical meeting that is




what you are going to have.  We are not going to take up



any other question or broad questions of policy.




          The Federal Conferee is here, Mr. H. W. Poston.

-------
               Opening Statement - Mr. Stein



For Indiana, Mr. Blucher Poole; Perry Miller.  From Ohio,



Mr. George Eagle and Mr. Richards.  From Pennsylvania, Mr.



Richard Boardman and Dr. Bardarik.   From New York, Mr.



Frank Bogedain.  From Michigan, Mr. Loring Oeming.  And



my name is Murray Stein and I am the representative of



the Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall and from



Washington, D.C.



          We may have a lot of people participating in the



meting today.  Our proposal would be to utilize the ques-



tions submitted by Mr. Eagle — a list of about seventeen



questions — have the questions read, have one of our



experts try to give an answer to the questions and then



have any comment or clarification made by the feonferees



or anyone — technical expert or anyone else a Conferee



may want to call on at that time.



          I would suggest in view of the number of people



who are going to participate in the meeting that if you



are called on to make a comment or ask a question you



identify yourself by your last name and the State.



          Now, do any of the Conferees want to make a



statement or make a comment before we start with the



questions?



          MR. POSTON:  Mr.  Chairman.



          MR. STEIN:   Yes.

-------
               Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
          MR. POSTON:  Do I understand that the question
will be read and the answer will then be read?
          MR. STEIN:  The answer or a summary.  Any kind
of answer you want to make to the question, if you can
summarize it, this will be fine.  I think the question
and the full written answer which the Conferees have will
appear as read in the transcript.  We are making a
transcript of this meeting which will be available and
I think we probably will be able to have much useful
technical information in that.
          MR. OEMING:  Do I understand that the answers to
these questions were prepared by Dr. Stephan and Dr. Bartsch
jointly?
          MR. STEIN:  Dr. Stephan, Dr. Bartsch and our
regional staff here.  They were prepared as most answers
are prepared, individually, and then they got together by
conference call and discussed this, and I think these are
pretty generally the position.
          What we intend to do is have the question read
and then have the particular specialist from the Federal
Government give the answer, and then you can make any
comment or questions.  If we have to call on another
specialist at that time, we are prepared to do so and hope
you are.

-------
                                                   7
             Opening Statement - Mr. Stein




          Again, we will limit the questioners and the




comments to the people the Conferees call on and that is




all.  I hope they will all be confined to -- I don't want




this limited necessarily to the seventeen questions, but




I hope they will be germane to the technical purpose of




the meeting.




          MR. OEMING:  My only comment here, Mr. Chairman,




was that I am assuming, maybe wrongly so, that Dr. Stephan




and Dr. Bartsch are the experts here and those are the ones




I came down here to hear.




          MR. STEIN:  Yes, they are going to be available,




but the point is:  we did not frame the questions, and a




good many of the questions are directed really at our




regional people.  The regional people have the material




on hand rather than Dr. Bartsch or Dr. Stephan.  Both of




these men went over the questions very, very carefully.




          To give you a notion of the procedure we use,




both Dr. Bartsch and Dr. Stephan went over the questions.




The}'- had the first crack.  The questions which they thought




were appropriate for them to answer they answered.  Certain




questions they figured were not appropriate for either one




and would be handled largely by Mr. George Harlow who has




been doing work in the region.  He will supply the answers




to those questions.

-------
                                                        8






               Opening Statement - Mr. Stein




          MR. OEMING:  There is no objection to a Conferee



asking Dr. Bartsch or Dr. Stephan to comment.



          MR. STEIN:  Not at all, sir.  That is right.



          MR. POSTON:  I had proposed that we have the



question read and the answer, as provided here, and then



the Conferees could ask any one of our experts here to



elaborate or clarify anything they had in mind.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, I thought that is what we had



outlined in the procedure to begin with.  Letfs go on with



the first question.and see how it works.



          Mr. Hall, would you read the question, please?



You know who is going to handle each answer, don*t you?



          MR. POSTON:  Yes.



          MR. STEIN:  Question 1.



          MR. HALL:  Question No. 1:  Will an 80 percent



reduction of phosphates in all wastewater discharges in



the Lake Erie basin eliminate algae in the western basin?



          Mr. Stein, would you like me to read the answer?



          MR. STEIN:  You or anyone else can read the



answer.



          MR. POSTON:  Well, Dr. Bartsch provided the answer



on this question.



          MR. STEIN:  Why don't you handle that?



          I would suggest the one who is the specialist

-------
                   Questions and Answers



provide the answer.




          Dr. Bartsch.




          DR. BARTSCH:  If you need identification for your



record, I am A. F. Bartsch.



          The answer is as follows:  No.  Elimination of



algae is neither feasible nor desirable.  Algae are



necessary as food for higher forms of life.  They are now



present in an abundance several orders of magnitude greater



than necessary to sustain those higher forms.  An BO percent



reduction of waste phosphate input will reduce the algae



population to nearer a balance between that population and




those of the higher forms.  More importantly, it will be



somewhat selective in that those algae which require




greater amounts of phosphorus will experience greater



reduction in population.  It is these algae (mainly blue-




green) which are the most troublesome in water supply and




in their ability to produce massive "blooms."



          In contrast to Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, at



least in the western basin, already has reached a historical



stage capable of producing planktonic algae in amounts



considered to be excessive.  Such production is an expression



of the fertility of the water — its chemical composition —



and a response to physical factors such as light energy,




transparency  and suitable temperature.  In discussing

-------
                                                       10
                   Questions and Answers

nitrogen and phosphorus as algal nutrients in connection

with considerations in Lake Michigan, I, FWPCA, stated,

"In any event, the quantity of algae a lake can grow is

largely determined by the amount of nutrients available.

The more nutrients there are, the more algae there will

be, the greater the nuisance will become.  There is

evidence that continued input of nutrients can finally

bring a lake beyond the point of no return — to the stage

where continuous recycling of nutrients already present

can result in production of nuisance growths of algae."

          It should be recognized that there is no real

magic number for nitrogen or phosphorus (other than zero)

below which there will be no growth.  If even greater

algal production in the western basin is now curtailed

because nutrient supplies are exhausted as growth

approaches the peak of a bloom (as opposed, for example,

to light extinction or some other physical cause), any

actions that decrease nutrient availability will result

in a smaller algal crop.  If one can formulate a program

that will bring soluble phosphorus to a level of 0.010 mg/1

and inorganic nitrogen to a level of 0.3 mg/1 before the

growing season begins, the resulting crop of algae will

be small, consistent with these levels  and presumably

tolerable.

          Dr. R. Vollenweider, after reviewing for the

-------
                                                        11
                   Questions  and Answers
 Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  all
 circumstantial  data  available on nutrients versus algal
 problems  in lakes throughout  the world, finds basis for
 belief that loading  rates  and recycling from sediments are
 more  significant  than concentrations existing at the moment,
 He  concludes  that critical loading rates in this sense  are
 0.2 to 0.5 g/ra  /year for phosphorus and about 59™/m2/year
 for nitrogen.   The influences of sediment-water interchange
 are superimposed  on  this.
          Because no systems  are perfect,  and because
 nutrient  input  comes from  many sources, some not measured
 and perhaps some  not even  known, it is believed that a
 remedical campaign should  not be satisfied with aiming
 toward these  specific numbers but should be designed to
 curtail nutrients in every possible way from every known
 source.  It is not known if Lake Erie is now at the point
 where continuous  recycling of nutrients already present
 can result in production of nuisance growths of algae, but
 there seems little question from our knowledge of Lake
 Erie conditions that the action must be remedial and not
 preventive.  In any event,  curtailment of nutrient input
must be so designed that phosphorus concentrations avail-
able for algal growth are brought down to levels that will
 permit the total lake system to purge itself of existing

-------
                                                   12
                 Questions and Answers



abundant supplies.



          It is quite possible, and perhaps probable that,



in the western basin, even though the reduction in algae



may be substantial, it still will not be to a desirable



level with an BO percent reduction of phosphate input.



More than half of the phosphorus discharged to Lake Erie



is to the western basin, including a large amount in



runoff.  An $0 percent reduction there still leaves a large



amount entering the lake and this amount will surely



increase in the future if positive steps are not taken



to reduce phosphorus levels in waste effluents.  Therefore,



serious consideration should be given to greater than $0



percent reduction, since this is now feasible.  Even then,



algal production in the western basin will be greater than



in the rest of the lake, but that is understandable because



the western basin is also the most productive of fish and



food requirements are greater.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Dr. Bartsch.



          Are there any comments or questions?



          MR. OEMING:  Dr. Bartsch, will you clear up some-



thing for me?  When you are using the term ''phosphorus,' you



are expressing it as 0.010.  Is that as phosphorus or as PO,?



          DR. BARTSCH:  No, that is as phosphorus.



          MR. OEMING:  So the level would be as PO, , about
                                                  V


.03, wouldn't it?

-------
                                                   13
                 Questions and Answers




          DR. BARTSCH:  Yes.




          MR. OEMING:  Do you recall, Dr. Bartsch, what




recommendations were made at the original Interstate Lake




Erie Conference?  Was it .03 as PO, ?




          DR. BARTSCH:  I am sorry, I cannot answer that.




I do not know.




          MR. OEIIING:  I think that is correct.  I wondered




if you knew that, or if you were proposing a different




level here than had been recommended and accepted by the




original Conferees to the Lake Erie Conference.




          DR. BARTSCH:  My impression is that is the same




level.  MR. OEMING:  It is the same. I would like this to




be verified though by someone else here.




          MR. POSTON:  Mr.  Harlow can answer that.




          MR. HARLOT:  My name is George Harlow, Director




of the Lake Eric Program Office of the Federal Water




Pollution Control Administration.




          This is the same level, Mir. Oeming, that was




recommended by tho Technical Committee.   This is the level




upon which they based their recommendation for phosphorus




and nitrogen control.




          I don't recall at the original meeting in 1965




the Conferees deciding upon a level at that time.  They




left it- in abeyance and it depended upon the recommendation

-------
                 Questions and Answers




of the Technical Committee.




          MR. OEMING:  They had not decided on a level but




the record is full of recommendations by the biologists




of FWPCA and I think the figure was .03 and that is what I




am trying to confirm as PO^.  Does this represent a change




in the ground rules?




          MR. HARLOW: No.  This is probably correct and it




has always presented, I think, a confusing picture of this




phosphorous problem, how you talk about it.  But to my




knowledge, in every instance when we spoke of 0.03, we




were talking as PO,, and when we talk about 0.01, we




are talking as P.




          MR. STEIN:  Any other comments or question on




the first question?



          Yes, Fir. Poole.




          MR. POOLE:  This is not a comment exactly, it is




a question.




          When we are talking about 0.01, are we talking




about total phosphorus or soluble phosphorus?




          DR. BARTSCH:  These recommendations, as I under-




stand them, have reference to soluble phosphorus and not




total phosphorus.




          MR. STEIN:  Are we in agreement?  Are there any




other comments?  Any other comments or questions?  If not,




we will try to get on with Question No. 2.

-------
                                                        15
                   Questions and Answers



          MR. HALL:  Question No. 2:  Is the natural level



of phosphates in Lake Erie adequate to permit algal growths



even if all phosphates  are  eliminated from municipal and



industrial discharges?



          MR. POSTON:  George Harlow.




          MR. HARLOW:  The answer:  Yes.  Bureau of



Commercial Fisheries' observations have noted algal growths



in quiet coves of Lake Superior where natural phosphorus



levels should be lower than the "natural level" in Lake



Erie.  Lake Erie can never reach a completely "natural"



level now because of the impossibility of controlling




entirely the runoff of artificially introduced phorphorus.



However, it is suspected that something near the natural



level now exists, at least for part of the year, in raidlake,



central, and eastern basin waters and these waters do



sustain algal growth, though not at obnoxious levels.



          Natural levels of phosphorus in Lake Erie prior



to the impact of domestic and industrial waste discharges



to the system are, in fact,  not known.  The influence of



domestic and industrial wastes on the concentrations of



calcium, chloride, sodium-plus-potassium and sulfate



during the past 50 years in Lake Erie is well documented,




however.




          That completes the answer to the question.

-------
                                                        16
                   Questions and Answers



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions



on this one?



          Yes, Mr. Poole.




          MR. POOLE:  I am assuming, George, when you are



saying "natural level," you are including in that what we



get from soil runoff.



          MR. HARLOW:  This is true.



          MR. EAGLE:  Mr. Chairman.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.



          MR. EAGLE:  Mr. Harlow, I think you need to



clarify here:  what is the relationship here now between



phosphates and these other chemicals that you point out



about calcium and chloride and sodiura-plus-pctassium, and



so on?



          MR. HARLOW:  The second part of this question



was answered by Dr. Bartsch, I believe.



          If I may be permitted, I think they are inferring



because of the increases in these other substances that one



can imagine or think that you have had somewhat similar




increases in phosphorus.



          We have measurements well documented in the past



of these other substances in Lake Erie.  We do not have



comparisons on phosphorus many years ago, and it is by



inference that you would presume that phosphorus has also

-------
                                                         17
                   Questions and Answers



 increased  in Lake  Erie.




           MR.  EAGLE:   Isn't it true that  some of these



 increases  have not been very significant?  What do your




 figures  show?



           MR.  HARLOW:  I don't know specifically each one.



 I  can think of one that is, I think, very well documented



 that comes to  mind, and I think it gives a pretty good idea



 of the general overall change of the chemicals in the lake,



 and that is total  solids.  Total solids has gone up from




 around —  1 think  these figures are correct -- somebody




 correct me if  I am wrong — from around 145  milligrams



 per liter  around 1900 to almost 200 milligrams per liter now.



          MR.  EAGLE:   Yes.  I don't want to belabor the



 point, but I don't think this is a valid comparison because



 these total solids might be from industry, for example,



 which had no contribution of phosphates, so I don't quite



 see the comparison.  I am not going to belabor the  point



 further, but I don't  believe it is a valid comparison.



          MR. HARLOW:   I think there is no question in my



mind and in the people that I have talked to that we  are



getting substantially  greater inputs of phosphorus  than



we used to, and it seems to me  that it is axiomatic  if



you are going to  get more in the lake  you are going to have




more in the lake.

-------
                   Questions and Answers



          MR. EAGLE:  Yes.  I don't think there is any



argument about that.  But just because we are getting more




total solids, I don't want it to follow that this makes it



true that we are getting more phosphates.  It may have no



relationship at all.




          MR. STEIN:  Dr. Stephan.



          DR. STEPHAN:  Dave Stephan, FWPGA, Washington.




          I would just like to strengthen George's comment



here that the reason this particular statement was added



or included in here was simply to indicate there is docu-



mentation on available records as to the increases in




various soluble components in the lakes.  These are



mentioned here:  calcium, chloride, sodium, and so on.



          Data do not exist historically on the concentra-



tions of phosphorus or of soluble phosphates in the lake,



but I think one can infer that some increases have occurred.



That is all we are trying to say.  There is some data



indicating increases in soluble inorganic salts in the




lake.  Phosphates, I think one would infer very strongly,




were also included.



          One other point:  The levels of phosphorus as



compared to the levels of chloride, which cause problems



in the lake,  pollution  problems in the lake are quite




different.

-------
                                                   19
                 Questions and Answers




          We are talking in terras of hundredths or tenths




of parts per million in terms of phosphorus, whereas we




are speaking maybe in terms of tenths or in some cases



scores of parts per million of other materials such as



chlorides.



          MR. BOGEDAIN:  These increases of inorganic salts




-- are they related to the algal problem?  Are they also



nutrients or material for algal growth?




          DR. STEPHAN:  No.  This was not the intent of the



inclusion of these in here, not to imply that at all.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?




          DR. BARTSCH:  Fir. Chairman, I would like to




comment on this question, too.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.



          DR. BARTSCH:  The question was asked whether some



of these other contributions to the total dissolved solids



might or might not be involved as algal nutrients, and I



would like to go back and tell you some fundamental biology



for the moment and simply point out that there are many



elements which make up the total nutrient requirement of




plants and we ordinarily think of some ten major ones, and



if you want to remember how to remember this, you simply




think of this ditty that says, !iC. Hopkins Cafe, Mighty




Good.1   I know that some of the biologists here are familiar




with what I have just said because this is a clue to the

-------
                                                        20






                   Questions and Answers



fact that we are talking about calcium as a requirement; we




are talking about carbon as a requirement; iron, magnesium,



nitrogen, phosphorus, and so on.




          When you follow that ditty, why, then, you have



the identity to those ten.  Some of them you will recognize



contribute to this total story of dissolved solids in the



lake.



          In addition, there is an array of other elements,



many of them metals, and some getting over into the organic



compounds such as vitamins which are required as micro-



nutrients in exceedingly minute amounts.




          So I think I did want to emphasize that so far




as the total dissolved solids picture is concerned, if we



have a buildup of them, one can anticipate that the supply




of essentially all of these nutrients for algal growth



are going to be there in increased amounts.



          MR. STEIN:  Mr. Richards.



          MR. RICHARDS:  Earl Richards from Ohio.  I think --



one additional comment, Fritz.  I think it has been reported



in some of the European lakes that possibly some of these



other elements are triggering mechanisms, right?



          DR. BARTSCH:  I think there is a question in this



array of 1? that refers to triggering mechanisms, and I



think maybe this is not a true usage of the word so far as

-------
                                                        21
                   Questions and Answers

the  nutrients are concerned.  I prefer to think of this

in this  sort of way, that the triggering mechanisms have

to do with rotation of the earth, for one thing, which

determines the seasons of the year, the length of day, the

intensity of solar radiation.  These in some complicated

fashion  are really the triggering mechanism that determines

when you have a bloom of diatoms, when you have a bloom

of blue-green algae, and what the sequence is in the annual

succession.

          Think of the nutrients not so much as triggering

mechanisms but the governor on the system that determines

how  big  the crop will be.

          MR. OEMING:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask

Dr.  Bartsch a question to clear this matter up for me.

          It would have been much more clear in my mind

if that  second paragraph had been left off.   Isn't the

answer in your first paragraph here, and isn't this second

paragraph extraneous material really?

          The question was asked:   Is the natural level

sufficient to have growths of   algae    without municipal

and  industrial discharges?  And the first paragraph answers

the  question.  What  is the purpose of the second?   You got

me lost.

          DR. BARTSCH:   I hate  to disclaim responsibility

for the  second part  of the answer.   I am not sure  that this

-------
                                                        22
                   Questions and Answers



was the intent or not.  In fact, I had some doubts in my




own mind as to what was really meant by the word "natural"



and if one interpreted it as I did originally to mean what



was the phosphorous level in Lake Erie before the white




man came around — if this was the meaning — why, then,



I would conclude that the phosphorous level in Lake Erie



was very low perhaps, sufficient to grow some algae, but



most likely not to a level which would be obnoxious or



onerous to people.



          MR. OEMING:  That is the answer I wanted and that



is all I want to know.




          MR. STEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.



          MR. POSTON:  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that maybe




the first sentence, the word "yes" would have answered it.



          MR. STEIN:  I think there is more to it than "yes.w



Yes, but in certain levels not to obnoxious levels and



presumably — it is always a pleasure to listen to Dr.




Bartsch.



          You know 20 years ago, Fritz came to me, before



anyone ever heard of this, and he said, "Let's leave the



Government and go into business and clean up the algae



problem in the lakes," and I never thought it was a



problem.  I wish I had your prescience.



          Are there any other comments?

-------
                                                        23

                   Questions and Answers
          MR. HALL:  The third question:  Who documents
the blooms in Lake Erie?  Is there a continuing record of
blooms?
          MR. POSTON:  George Harlow.
          MR. HARLOW:  Answer:  To our knowledge, no
concerted continuous effort has been made for reporting
algal blooms for Lake Erie as a whole.  However, the
following institutions are among those studying the lake,
and all of them have had studies on algae:
          FWPCA, Cleveland Program Office
          FWPCA, Detroit Program Office
          Canadian Centre for Inland Waters at Toronto
and at Burlington
          Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Sandusky
          Western Reserve University, Department of
Biology, Cleveland
          Great Lakes Research Division, University of
Michigan
          Ontario Water Resources Commision, Rexdale
          Central Michigan University, Department of
Biology, Mt. Pleasant
          U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Ann Arbor
          State University of New York, Department of
Civil Engineering, Buffalo

-------
                                                        24
                   Questions and Answers
          Syracuse University, Department of Geology
          State University College, Division of Physical
Sciences - Geology, New Paltz, New York
          State University of New York, Great Lakes
Laboratory, Buffalo
          While blooms are not routinely documented, it is
also true that the term "blooms" has not been precisely
defined.  Lackey defines a "bloom" as more than 500
organisms per milliliter, but, because of the great
diversity in size of organisms, a number-per-unit-volume
parameter is not universally applicable.  Nonetheless,
with regard to "continuing records," Michalski (Canada)
has a four-year record of abundance at north shore water
intakes and Davis has a 30-plus year record at Cleveland.
These records and the term "bloom" consider only planktonic
forms, not Cladophora or other attached algae.
          MR. STEIN:   Thank you.
          Are there any comments or questions?
          MR. EAGLE:   Yes, I would like to ask Mr. Harlow
a question.
          George, is FWPCA now carrying on any studies to
correlate nutrient levels in the lake with blooms?  Are
you making any observations on a continuing basis now?
          MR. HARLOW:  These kind of observations have
been made in the past, but I wouldn't say with just that

-------
                                                   25
                 Questions and Answers




thought in mind.  I cannot answer this as to this, but I




do know that there are studies going on elsewhere in FWPCA




to correlate phosphorous levels with blooms.  I don't




think Lake Erie is the type of place to make that kind of




investigation.	it is too large.  We need to do it on a




smaller lake.  To my knowledge, FWPCA is doing this and




maybe the others would prefer to answer this.




          MR. EAGLE:  I don't quite agree with you, • it




is too large.';   We have some areas with very prolific




growths.  There isn't any question about this.  Don't you




think you should be making some nutrient measurements in




these areas on a continuing basis?




          MR. HARLOW:   We do take measurements in these




areas and we correlate algal growths with levels of




phosphorus.  The Nutrient Committee was very explicit on




this point that where we are getting the high levels of




algae, this is where we find the high levels of phosphorus.




          MR. EAGLE:  Is this information available in a




report form from your office?




          I-IR. HARLOW:   This is reported in the Nutrient




Committee Report.




          MR. EAGLE:  In a technical committee report?




          IIR. HARLOW:   Yes,  the technical committee.




          :iR. POSTON:   I would like to ask Dr. Bartsch to

-------
                                                   26
                 Questions and Ansv/ers




comment on this with regard to eutrophication studies.



          DR. BARTSCH:  I am not sure about all of the



confines that Mr. Stein put on the roaming around in the



subject matter, but if we have freedom to leave Lake Erie








          MR. STEIN:  Surely.




          DR. BARTSCH:  —- I would like to go back to about



1942 or thereabouts when Claire Sawyer went down the begin-




ning of the road that led to some of these critical numbers



that we have heard, which incidentally, as many of you



know, have been misinterpreted many times.




          But with this beginning and, in fact, other



observations made by many of the old-time limnologists



that go back to the time of Jacob Verduin and the turn



of the century, it was demonstrated which many people now



acknowledge that in any lake where you start to increase the



nutrient levels, you get a resulting and following increase




in the production of plant material.



          Dr. Sawyer, you may recall, examined fourteen, if



I remember the number correctly, lakes in southeastern




Wisconsin for this very purpose of ascertaining what



relationship there is between the levels of nitrogen and



phosphorus and the annual production of algae.  More



recently -- and this, incidentally, is the basis for the

-------
                                                        27
                   Questions  and Answers

0.01  figure for phosphorus and the 0.3 figure for nitrogen.

          More recently, Dr.  Vollenweider, whom I cited in

the answer to the first question, has made this kind of

scrutiny of available information on all of the lakes in

the world, and while you recall that I said that he said
or felt that the rate of input is perhaps more significant

than  the concentrations existing at the moment, he did find

essentially the same basis, the same numerical relations
that  Dr. Sawyer found in the Wisconsin lakes some 20 or 25

years ago.
          To tie the context of this together, let me say

that  I see nothing in Lake Erie to indicate that there

should not be expected to be a response of the algae in

increasing numbers as the nutrient levels increase.

          MR. RICHARDS:  I believe that Dr. Sawyer,  as I
have heard him state many times  and many of the other ex-

perts that talked to the technical committee,said it was
quite dangerous to try to extrapolate from one body  of
water to another as far as the phosphate level or nutrient
level of any kind.  In other words,  they did not want to
stick their neck out and make a specific figure for  any

particular water,  Lake Erie being includedf so I feel that

it would be quite  appropriate to  accumulate as much

information as we  can with respect to the waters of  Lake

Erie and algal blooms.

-------
                 Questions and Answers



          DR. BARTSCH:  In response to your comment, which




I think is well taken, I have absolutely no disagreement.




I think what you say here with respect to eutror-hication



we all know with respect to a vague knowledge in the field



of water pollution generally, but I think we also



have to recognize some basic fundamental facts of biology



— and this is really an ecological problem — that if we




are serious about reclaiming Lake Erie, and once we reclaim



it, keep it in a condition which it is usable, we have no



choice except to take this knowledge, and to me this means




we have to reduce the nutrient input to a level that




eventually we are going to get the nutrients out of the



lake.  This means we have to have the input down to a level




less than the rate of output into the lake.



          MR. STEIN:  I would like to make a comment



because I think Mr. Richards raised an interesting phil-



osophic point of view.



          I, of course, agree with everything you said,




but as I understand Dr. Bartsch, it is pretty generally



known what the general trend is going to be.  If you put




more nutrients in the lake, according to what Dr. Bartsch




said, you will have an algal growth.



          Now, by the same token, we cannot protect unless




we predict, unless we get data on each stream precisely

-------
                                                   29
                 Questions and Answers



what each sewage treatment plant or industrial treatment



plant is going to do, before we put it in,  unless we make a




particular study.



          The question, it seems to me, here is:   Do we



have enough knowledge to be able to apply a nutrient




reduction program in Lake Erie without having that par-



ticular knowledge on precisely what is going to happen in



a body of water, or are we going to have to wait until we




get all that information?  If we do that, do we exercise



the same kind of precise control in your State programs




before you ask anyone to put in an industrial waste plant,




or a sewage treatment plant, because I think this can be




applied to every waterway we get into.



          Now, I think this kind of approach we have here



is a significant one.



          Mr. Oeming.



          MR. OEMING:  I wonder, Dr. Bartsch, if you have



in your own mind a definition of what the term "bloom"



means or how you define that area.  We are dodging the issue




here by reporting in the literature and everything, but we




are depending a lot on you here and I would like to know



if you have a definition.



          DR. BARTSCH:  Yes, I have a definition.  I have




a definition for the layman, and I think with respect to the

-------
                                                        30





                   Questions and Answers



layman, this is the only way the term should be used.



          To the layman, by my definition, a "bloom" is




any growth of algae which has reached such proportion that



it becomes nuisance-forming or obnoxious.



          Now, the scientist has attempted to define a




"bloom," and every time he has tried to do this he gets



into difficulty because there are too many exceptions-.



A-nd if you are interested why there are exceptions, I will



go into thisy but I think if we can agree that a "bloom"



of algae simply means that condition of algal production



in a body of water that we don't like; then this is what



we will agree a "bloom" is.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?



          MR. EAGLE:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.



          A member of my advisory committee, Mr. John



Weaver, I believe has a question from Mr. Harlow if this



is in order.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes, Mr. Weaver.



          MR. WEAVER:   I think that we would be interested



in the history of what has happened during 1968 as far




as algal blooms are concerned, George.



          MR. HARLOW:   In Lake Erie?




          MR. WEAVER:   Yes.



          MR. HARLOW:   Are you talking about season by

-------
                                                        31





                   Questions  and Answers



 season?



          MR. WEAVER:  I am talking 196B from the growing



 season on.  Now, what has happened this year?




          MR. HARLOW:  I can  only report as to particular




 cases that have appeared since spring.  I cannot really



 report on point by point in the lake on exactly how the



 algae have gone up and down day by day, month by month.



 I think you have to recognize that we are dealing with  ten



 square miles of lake, and you get ups and downs in the



 algae counts all over.  You cannot be everywhere at every



 time.  But lately, I can say that we are getting the usual



 counts of blue-greens in the lake.  We are having a



 tremendous "bloom" right now in the western basin.  We



 have had "blooms" all along the south shore of the lake,



 to the extent that we are having some rather difficult




 taste and odor problems at  water intakes.



          We went out this year testing water quality in



 the lake emphasizing summer water quality.  This was in



 response to a request by one of the Conferees that we



 dwell on the dissolved oxygen problem in the lake, and



 it was during that time when we traversed the lake about



 a month ago that we made some observations regarding the



 algae,     1 asked my people what levels of algae they



visually saw compared to last year  and they said visually

-------
                                                        32
                   Questions and Answers




they looked greater this year.  You can use that any way




you want, because the year before they may have been less,



or next year they may be less, because there is such a



great variation in levels of algae from year to year



depending upon the kind of things that Dr. Bartsch spoke



of.




          I am not sure I can answer your question exactly



the way you want it, but these are observations here and



there of how the algae is doing this year.



          MR. WEAVER:  That is exactly what I was after.




I think your answer is very responsive.   The reason really



for the question was:  At least our Ad Hoc Committee has



not been aware of these "blooms'* and I think that was one



of the reasons for the basic question of who documents the



"blooms," and so forth, because we have  not simply been



aware.



          MR. KARLOW:  Algae counts are  documented, I do



know, every day at the Cleveland water intakes, and they



have been doing this for 30 years.



          MR. POSTON:  George, you talked about ten square




miles here.  Does this mean —



          MR. HARLOW:  Ten thousand square miles — Lake




Erie.



          MR. POSTON:  Also what are some of the effects

-------
                                                   33
                 Questinns and Answers



of these algal "blooms" that are on now?  What do you know




about this?  How can you elaborate on this?




          MR. HARLOW:  I think there is a question later



on that talks about this.  As a matter of fact, I think we




have already answered it to some extent about the fact that




during the summertime we are getting these tremendous



growths of blue-greens in the lake.  These are the kinds



that seem to spring up very suddenly in the summertime



when the water gets warm and are the most obnoxious,



and these are particularly troublesome at water supply




intakes.




          The blue-greens are also the algae in the lake



that give it this pea-soup color.  Also, during the



summertime, we get these tremendous growths of Cladophora




along the shoreline wherever we have a suitable growth for



algae, for these clinging type algae.  In fact, I would



suggest that each of the Conferees, if they could take some



time out, just might go swimming in Lake Erie.  I did.  I



picked out one of those beaches that I thought was safe



and I went swimming.  In order to get into water that is



swimmable, up around waist deep, you have got to wade



through ankle-deep water for about 10 or 1$ feet that is



as thick as bread dough with algae.  To me that is a



problem and we have got to do something about it, and it

-------
                                                   34
                 Questions and Answers



stinks something awful.




          MR. POSTON:   Does this affect the water supplies?



          MR. HARLOW:   Well,  it is affecting the water



supplies right now in Cleveland.




          MR. POSTON:   How?




          MR. HARLOW:   They are reporting fairly serious



tastes and odors and I think I mentioned this previously.




          MR. STEIN:  Let me go off the record a minute.




          (Discussion off the record.)



          MR. STEIN:  Let's go back on the record.



          Dr. Bartsch.




          DR. BARTSCH:  I don't want to prolong this



meeting unnecessarily, but I think Mr. Weaver presented



to us a good opportunity to make an observation that I think



if you are not aware of it you ought to be.  That is that



you cannot really tell too much by looking at the produc-



tion of algae for any given year, because like fishing and



many other things there are good years and bad year.  If




you look at lakes — not just Lake Erie but lakes in general




— you will find that sometimes if you have a cool year with




a lot of rain, the amount of algal production is low.



When you have dry years and low water, the algal production



goes up.  But if you have people development on the water-



shed or in the vicinity of the lakes, then you have a

-------
                                                    35
                  Questions and Answers




graphic situation which is something like the Dow Jones




average.



           If you want to plot it out month by month and




year by year, you will find that there are ups and downs




along the way related to these local, seasonal and annual




conditions, but the general trend is continuously upward.



           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Eagle.



           MR. EAGLE:  Yes.  I would like to comment that



as far as the staff of the Ohio Water Pollution Control




Board is concerned, we are very much aware of the algal



problem in Lake Erie.  We know that it is a nuisance.  It




is a very serious problem.  It interferes with recreation;



it is unsightly; and on occasion it causes a difficulty in



our water treatment plants and our water supplies.




Certainly Ohio is very much affected by this, and we are



very much interested in trying to control and do something



about it.



           Now, the purpose of the question, I think, is



primarily to bring out the fact that I think that we need



a better base line than we have at the present time in the




way of making a rather scientific observation and tests,



and so on,  hopefully, as we move forward in the future



that we can be able to measure some of our progress.




           DR. BARTSCH:  I have no disagreement with that.

-------
                                                    36
                  Questions and Answers



I think that is a logical and reasonable point of view.




I think many times we have failed to do this thing when



we should have.




           MR. STEIN:  I would like to make a comment.   I



would agree with that.




           Now, it seems to me that we are faced in the



algal problem with a lot of problems we have in the water




pollution control field.  When we do not have this precise



data, people sometimes think we tend possibly to almost



ask for too much because you need a safety factor, when



you really don't know.  Now, it seems to me that then we




always have to equate what we are going to do in the program



in the gathering of data, whether we hold up the remedial



program until we have the data or we do the best we can



on the judgment we ha^e now — the best scientific judg-



ment — and gather that data and refine that in the future.



           MR. EAGLE:  That was not my implication that  we



should hold up anything, but I do think we need better




measurements of the progress that we hopefully wish to make,




           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  But, George, let me ask you:



What field in water pollution control don't we have that?



Right now — and I will be specific — we have a large




plant — a large plant is going into St. Louis.  For the



first time, as far as I know, we have an extensive stream

-------
                                                       37






                   Questions and Answers



survey for a year before the plant goes Into operation and



a year after it, and this is something that you would have




thought would have been done through the years to see what



a plant in a major city really did.  As far as I know, this



hadn't really been done before.  I hadn't been able to find



it.



          The point is, what you are saying about phos-



phates — and I couldn't agree with you more — I find is



true about almost every area of water pollution control



that we deal with.



          MR. EAGLE:  In many places in Ohio this has been




done for many years.  Cincinnati is an example.  This has



been going on for 30 years where we have been taking




observations and tests on the river, and we have them for



extensive periods before and after.,, So it is being done



in many places, and I think that this is of such dire



importance in Lake Erie that every effort should be made



to get all of the scientific data we can.



          MR. POSTON:  I would say that I have lived in



Cincinnati and I have watched them study the water in



Cincinnati  and the Ohio River, but I still go to



Cincinnati and I find out how that water tastes down there,



and I would submit that you have got to do more than study




it.

-------
                   Questions and Answers



          MR. EAGLE:  Well, it doesn't taste as bad as it



used to, Wally.




          MR. STEIN:  What we want to see is that Lake



Erie water doesn't deteriorate so far that there is only




one way to move and that is up.




          If there aren't any other comments, then may we



go on with Question 4, please?



          MR. HALL:  Question 4:   What are the "natural"



levels of phosphorus (soluble and total) in each of the




Great Lakes?  Do the lakes with lower phosphate levels have



algal blooms?



          MR. BOSTON:  George.




          MR. HARLOW:  Answer:  The "natural" levels (and



average levels) of phosphorus are difficult to determine



in lakes because of phosphorus* instability chemically,



organically, and physically.   One can only estimate these



levels based on averages of analyses by FWPGA, Bureau of



Commercial Fisheries, and others, of midlake waters away




from source areas as follows:



             Lakes                Sol P. Total P (mg/1)




            Superior                 < .01/.01



            Michigan                 ^ .01/.01



            Huron                    < .01/.01




            Erie                     > ,01/>.02




            Ontario                     .01/.02

-------
                                                       39





                   Questions and Answers



          The  lakes with lower phosphate levels do have



 algal  "blooms,"  in other words, in Lakes Superior and




 Michigan, diatoms occur in sheltered areas and/or along




 shore  but the  "blooms" do not anywhere near approach those



 occurring in Lake Erie.  Also, the phosphate levels con-



 tributing to these blooms may possibly be higher than the



 "natural level"  in each lake.



          MR.  STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions?



          MR.  POOLE:  Mr. Chairman.



          MR.  STEIN:  Yes, Mr. Poole.



          MR,  POOLE:  I just want to comment a little



more on this "natural level."



          I raised the question before and my original




definition would have been the same as Dr. Bartsch said



his would be,  namely; if you are talking about natural



level, you ought to go back to the time we had the Indians



around the Great Lakes.  Obviously we cannot do that, but



I want everybody to understand that we are including soil



runoff in natural levels, and this to me substantiates



Mr. Eagle's plea on the previous question that we get a



base line level here as quickly as we can,  because I



think I am safe in predicting that as agriculture intensi-



fies, our natural levels are  going to go up.   If this is



the case, and  if we don't find some way of doing something

-------
                                                    40
                  Questions and Answers




about this, it can only mean one thing, and that is that



we may be talking about 80 percent reduction for the



artificial levels today, whereas 10 years from now we are



going to have to think of 90 or 92 or 95, and so on, as we



go up the scale.




           MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments on that?



           MR. HARLOW:  I am interested in knowing what was




meant by the word "natural" here.   George, you asked the



question.  Are you talking about the levels if you exclude



domestic waste?




           MR. EAGLE:  Exclusive of domestic waste.




           DR. STEPHAN:  May I make a comment about this?



There is some confusion over this term of natural level —




that is the reason we tried to place some explanatory infor-



mation in the answer to the earlier question.



           I wonder if perhaps it  might clarify for us to



use the term "background level" and "natural level," natural



being what Fritz and Blucher said:  when the Indians were




here there was a certain amount of phosphorus in the lake,




and that was natural and unaffected by the white man's acti-




vities.  "Background level" might  be a better term for that




which is in the present state of development not readily



controllable.  This would presently include agricultural




runoff.




           MR. STEIN:  Let me ask a question about that

-------
                                                    41
                  Questions and Answers




because I think that might be productive.



           We use the term "background level'; in working



with radiation, as you know, but we are more stable.  I




do think that Mr. Poole and Mr. Eagle both have a signifi-



cant point here in dealing with this, if we talk in terms




of "background level."



           If we are thinking of including agricultural




land runoff and excluding domestic or industrial wastes,




it is not quite going to be like radiation where you can




stay at a relatively stable base.  You are going to have



to project yourself an increment each year as we get in




agricultural activity in the runoff, isn't this correct?




           DR. STEPHAN:  I think this is correct, a natural




level by this definition —



           MR. STEIN:  No.  I am talking in terms of back-



ground.



           DR. STEPHAN:  Right.



           MR. STEIN:  But are you ready to buy a background



that will be X, and in 10 years will be X plus 10-A, A




standing for agriculture, and if you are ready to buy that,




then what becomes of an BO or a 70 or a 90 percent reduc-




tion in phosphates and what is the meaning?  I think we




really have a very interesting problem.




           DR. STEPHAN:  I think the analogy you are making



with radiation is perhaps a reasonably adequate one.  One

-------
                  Questions and Answers




would assume that the natural levels would remain constant




because that is something that occurred historically and



there it was.  Background level, however, I quite agree, one



would expect to change.  There will be a background level



this year and there was a background level 10 years ago,




and there is a background level that is going to be here



10 years from now.




           The means for accomplishing effective pollution




control of the lake is going to have to take into account



a changing background level, as you will see in the answer




to one of the later questions.  There will have to be some




account taken of it.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions or




comments?



           If not, may we go to Question 5?



           MR. HALL:  Question 5:  What are the phosphorus



levels in the tributary streams?  Is it adequate to permit



a bloom to start in the tributary?  Would such a bloom



potential be realized in terms of a bloom in the lake?



           MR. POSTON:  George.




           MR. HARLOW:  Answer:  Phosphorus levels in south



shore streams, above lake-affected zones, based on averages




of biweekly  FWPCA sampling in 196? are as follows:

-------
                                                       43
                   Questions  and Answers



           Stream                   Total  P  (rng/1)




     Maumee  River                        0.42



     Portage River                       0.44



     Sandusky River                      0.49




     Huron River                        0.62



     Vermilion River                     0.10




     Black River                        2.22



     Rocky River                        2.30




     Cuyahoga River                      2.32




     Chagrin River                       0.17



     Grand River                        0.09



     Ashtabula River                     0.0?



     Conneaut Greek                      0.05




     Cattaraugus Creek                   0.12



           The Detroit River, at the mouth in 196? — from



data of the  Detroit Program office — averaged 0.09 mg/1



total P, but was widely variable across its width with



spot concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 0.35 mg/1.



Considering  only phosphorus, the levels in all tributaries



are adequate to start "blooms."  These bloom potentials can



result in blooms in the lake although the full potential



may not be realized because of the precipitation of phos-




phorus to sediments and the rapid dilution of inputs once



in the lake.

-------
                  Questions and Answers



           MR. STEIN:   Are there any further questions?



           MR. POSTON:   I would like to ask Dr.  Bartsch  to



comment on this, and I  think it is significant here that



every one of these is higher than the concentration in the



lake, and where does this phosphate go, then, Dr.  Bartsch?



           DR. BARTSCH:   I think one comment I would like



to make relative to this — I am not sure what was intended



in the question — when I read the question first  I wondered



if it was asking:  with these levels in rivers,  why aren't



there blooms in the rivers?



           If this was  intended, then,  I think I should  say



this:  that the kinds of algae which grow well in  Lake



Erie -- and I believe at the present time judging  from



some of the odor in the public water supply, someone said



that this is realted to an amoeba — I  don't know  — but



this kind of an amoeba,  being an example, grows well in



lakes.  It does not grow well in rivers.  The planktonic



or free-floating blue-green algae, which are characteristic



of lakes customarily, do not grow well in rivers.   The



slower the flow of the river the more like that these



kinds will be present.   This means, then, that even though



there may be high nutrient levels, I would not expect to



find tremendous blooms of these planktonic blue-green algae



in the inflowing streams.

-------
                                                       45





                   Questions  and Answers



           I  think your  reference to  the high  levels, Wally,




 would  imply  that this is  a tremendous phosphorous  input and



 that one would  expect to  find near the mouths of these



 rivers places where there might be fairly high production.




           I  think the answer  to the  question  already has



 indicated  that  some of  this phosphorus does not become



 involved in  the biological cycle because if there  are silt



 loads, it  can carry some  of it down  to the bottom.  There




 can also be  some other  mechanisms by which the phosphorus




 can be dispersed or precipitated or made unavailable for



 algal  growth.




          MR. OEMING:   I  just want to be sure I understood




 you correctly.  There are two paths  of fate for these



 things, their biological uptake and the sediment,  is that



 what you said, or did I miss  something?



          DR. BARTSCH:  Yes, there are more fates than



 that, more mechanisms than that.  The one I mentioned was



 dispersion ,—wnen the water- from a river empties into a



 lake, ooviously it is going to disperse in the lake, So



that these high concentrations of phosphorus will by




 dispersion produce lower concentration of phosphorus in



 a large volume of water.  In addition, the phosphorus



will be in part precipitated by sediment and other




mechanisms.  The third is the uptake by the biological

-------
                                                       46






                   Questions and Answers



 system itself.




          MR. STEIN:  Are those precipitated phosphates



 lost to the biological system foreverraore?



          DR. BARTSCH:  I think, Murray, there is an answer




 to that question in one of the later of the seventeen ques-



 tions, but certainly not all of it is lost.  Some of it is



 made available, then, through the turnover and the resolu-



 biliaation of the phosphate compound.




          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments or



 questions?  If not, let's go on to Question 6.




          MR. HALL:  Question 6:  How was the recommended




 #0 percent reduction determined?  The technical committee



 report assumed the per capita contribution of phosphorus



 and also assumed full dispersion in the lake.



          MR. POSTON:  George.



          MR. HARLOW:  Answer:   At the June 4, 1968, meeting



 of the Lake Erie Conferees in Cleveland, &0 percent removal



 of phosphate as well as 92 percent removal of phosphorus was




discussed by all the Conferees  with no formal recommenda-



tion being made and no decision being reached.  It was men-



tioned that the #0 percent consideration was based on



achieving a similar agreement to that which was reached at



the Lake Michigan Conference.



          The BO percent consideration was supported by

-------
                                                       47






                   Questions and Answers



Mr. Oeming of Michigan and Mr. Poole of Indiana and a



general consideration along these lines was concurred in



by Pennsylvania.  Ohio and New York, however, would not



consider such a proposal.



          It is our best understanding that the &0 percent



recommendation for Lake Michigan was agreed upon because



this was thought, at that time, to be a level of removal



which could be achieved with assurance utilizing phosphate



removal technology which was actually available.  This is



apparently also the basis upon which the State of Michigan



has made their recommendations both on Lake Michigan and



at Detroit.



          MR. STEIN:  Any comments or questions?



          MR. OEMING:  Mr. Chairman, I have a comment.



          I am not sure that this is entirely responsive



to the question, or what the writer had in mind.  This



only picks up in 1965, but if you will recall my earlier



questions this morning, if you go back and look at the



record of the conference, the original conference in 1965,



you will find repeated reference by the biologists, the



experts, that we needed .03 or less.  That seemed to be



the figure that was most reliable at the time — this is



phosphate <,



          Then you left it up to the States to determine

-------
                  Questions and Answers




what they needed to do — these Conferees — and Michigan




went back and looked at the Detroit River and said in order




to reach .03 with the level that it was now, it would re-




quire SO percent removal of all of the contributors of



sewage and wastes to the river.  This includes industrial




wastes.



           Now, at that time  and  that was in 1966 —



the technology for phosphate removal was not at the level



it is today, and yet it was determined at that time that



for the Michigan situation we had to remove BO percent to




get to this level that the experts recommended.  I think




that is the origin at least so far as I am concerned of



the BO percent removal, and it was not tied to what was




achievable at that time but what was necessary.



           MR. STEIN:  Right.



           MR. POOLE:  Question:  Are you talking about .03



as what, PO,?



           MR. OEMING:  That is right.




           MR. STEIN:  My recollection coincides with that.



Let me check on that, because you recall when we talked



about the 80 percent we weren't quite sure that the



technology then could get it.  In other words, we were



shooting for — we put a figure down that presumably was




arrived at, where we would get concentrations of phosphorus

-------
                                                    49
                  Questions and Answers




which would reduce this critical nutrient and which we would




be below what we considered reasonable nuisance conditions.




Even though the technology hedn.Tt come up to that point or




we weren't sure of it then, we recognized that this had to




be done, I think, from some of the other information we




have.  I hope they are right.  Fortunately, the technology



has overtaken us now and we think we can do it.



           MR. EAGEL:  Mr. Chairman.



           MR. OEMING:  May I further comment, so I can



clear this up for the record here?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.




           MR. OEMING:  That this SO percent removal was




based upon using one-third of the flow of the Detroit




River.  It was not the total flow of the Detroit River.



And this is based on hydrological studies, and so on.



           I just want to make it clear that the SO percent



that was established by Michigan here was felt, on the basis




of the conference record, to take care of Michigan's obli-



gation to Lake Erie, and I think that is where the SO




percent, so far as I am concerned, came from.



           I don't recall that there was any SO percent




removal talked about in the original conference proceedings



anywhere.



           MR. EAGLE:  I would like to have Mr. Harlow

-------
                                                       50





                   Questions and Answers



explain how he arrived at his 92 percent that was dis-



cussed, I believe, briefly on June 4.



          MR. HARLOW:  That is answered very explicitly,



I think, in the next question, Question S, George.



          MR. EAGLE:  All right.



          MR. STEIN:  As a matter of fact, I think the



statement — and correct me if I am wrong — this 92



percent discussion by the Conferees, while it might be



technically correct, was at least to my recollection not



what I would call an extensive discussion.



          MR. OEMING:  No.



          MR. STEIN:  It may have been mentioned in passing,*



          MR. EAGLE:  Well, Mr. Harlow had it in his report



which was not presented.



          MR. STEIN:  Was not presented, and I don't know



-- you know, I grew up in the old fashioned school.  When



you have a document in your pocket that you don't put in



the  record, I am not sure that was a discussion.



          MR. EAGLE:  It was distributed but not presented.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments or



questions?



          If not, may we go on to the next question?



          MR. HALL:  Question 7:  The flow pattern of the



Detroit River into Lake Erie demonstrates a stratification

-------
                                                        51






                   Questions  and Answers



 of  the  discharges, Detroit  along the west bank  and Windsor



 along the  east.  With an  30 percent reduction at Detroit,



 what will  be  the resultant  phosphorus  concentration down-



 stream  unless there is positive dispersion provided to




 insure  utilization of the full river flow?  Will it be



 adequate to trigger an algal  bloom?



           MR. POSTON:  George.




           MR. HARLOW;  Answer:  Using  0.35 mg/1 (Detroit



 Program Office) as the maximum phosphorus concentration



 along the  west shore of the river at the mouth, one could



 expect  80  percent reduction of present loading to a ttain a




 minimum concentration of 0.07 mg/1 total phosphorus in this



 area decreasing to 0.03 at the center  of the river.   Con-



 centrations in this range are sufficient to provide the



 phosphorus requirement for an algal crop considered as a



 "bloom" but not necessarily to trigger it.  Further, the



 "blooms" would be less severe, less extensive  and of



 less noxious  species.  One would expect these "blooms'



 to be perhaps similar in density to those commonly occurring



 now along the northeast Ohio shore.




          MR. EAGLE:   George,  could you be more explicit



 as to where these are commonly occurring?  Gould you give



us a few for instances?



          MR. HARLOW:   Where what is commonly occurring?

-------
                                                    51-A

                  Questions and Answers
           MR. EAGLE:  What you said in the last sentence.
           MR. STEIN:  "One would expect" —
           MR. HARLOW:  These are throughout the shoreline
waters from the area along Painesville or Fairport Harbor
east.
           MR. EAGLE:  Well, now, I would like to go back
to the answer to Question 1.  I don't think that this
answer is quite compatible with the answer to Question 1,
where you say that "Therefore, serious consideration should
be given to greater than BO percent reduction, since this
is now feasible."
           I would like to think we need to get it estab-
lished at this point what is technologically feasible on
a practical basis, I hope, at this time.
           MR. STEIN:  Dr. Stephan, do you want to try to
address yourself to that question?
           DR. STEPHAN:  We can certainly go into that now,
but t.hat is covered in question  number --
           MR. EAGLE:  If you wish to hold it it is alright
with me.
           DR. STEPHAN:  I would like to hold that.
           MR. STEIN:  Why don't we hold that question
because I think ->-- and let me make this point — I think you
have the questions developed  in logical order, and I think
Question 8 should be a basis for that next one,  if we could
wait.   Thank  you.

-------
                                                       52






                   Questions and Answers



          Are there any other comments or questions?



          Mr. Oeming.




          MR. OEMING:  Mr. Chairman, I think I am going



to have to take exception to the answer because, as I



mentioned previously here, a great deal of care and a




great deal of computations were performed to reach the




levels that are being required of Michigan industries and




municipalities.     The levels, as I spoke of, the founda-



tion for this whole program on the Detroit River is .03



phosphorus as P04, and I cannot subscribe here to the



SO percent reduction which would result, in .07.  I think



there has got to be another look taken at this.



          Furthermore, we are not dealing in concentra-



tions entirely, but in fixed numbers of total poundage



of phosphorus* In addition to the SO percent removal,



the total poundage figure is put in there, so that whatever



percentage is necessary will not exceed the ceiling




figure.



          Mn. STEIN:  Mr.  Harlow, do you want to comment




on that?




          You know, while Mr. Harlow is coming up, I would



like to make one comment.   Your remarks,  Mr.  Oeming, on



six and seven, I think, indicate to me at least procedur-



ally why a meeting like this is desirable, because I think

-------
                                                    53
                  Questions and Answers



with the modification you had in six and the questions you



had in seven, if those answers were left to stand and we




weren't together, we might be off and running and take a



long time to get us back.  I think something like this can




keep us more on the track.




           Mr. Harlow.




           MR. HARLOW:  The way the answer was formulated,



I think, is possibly an oversimplification to try to arrive




at a concentration at the mouth of the Detroit River.  I do




know that Mr. Oeming did go through a rather sophisticated



set of computations to arrive at what he thought the level



should be.  I cannot answer to his computations.  I think



that in order to really get to the meat of that question,



you would need to know exactly how Mr. Oeming arrived at his



calculation, and I don't know how that is.



           MR. OEMING:  I bring this up at this  time because



this is very significant here to this whole problem —



attacking this problem, Mr. Chairman, in that this was




reported to the Conferees at least on one occasion and



the Conferees subscribed to the Michigan program as




adequate; and, secondly, I would like to question the




"minimum concentration" in the third sentence — "to attain




minimum concentration of 0.07" with $0 percent removal on



present levels.



           Do you mean minimum or did you mean maximum?

-------
                                                        54




                    Questions and Answers



          MR. HARLOW:  Actually the 0.0? is figured from



the 0.35 and SO percent reduction of the 0.35 will give



you a 0.07.




          MR. OEMING:  Well, if that is the case, Mr.



Chairman, all I can say, without prolonging this for



weeks here, is that I would take exception to this answer.




          MR. POOLE:  Well, Mr. Chairman, if I am correct,



the Michigan computation is on PO^ and the FWPCA compu-



tations are on phosphorus, and if that assumption is



right, well, we have got a considerable difference here



and I think this is pretty damned important.



          MR. STEIN:  Is that assumption correct?




          MR. HARLOW:  Yes.



          MR. POOLE:  Take 3.0 times .07 and you get .21.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, it would seem to me that we



should at least have computations for all of the times



that we are working this on the same basis.



          Now,  is there anything wrong with using the




PO/^ concept in  working up your computations, or is it



the same basis?



          MR. OEMING:  I would agree with the P concept,




the phosphorus.



          MR. STEIN:  Now, the question I am getting at:



If you use the  same basis for your computation, would

-------
                                                      55
                   Questions and Answers
there really be any difference between your statement



and Michigan's statement here?  Is there a substantive



difference or is this just a difference in approaching




it?



          MR. HARLOW:  I really cannot tell, because, I



think, Mr. Stein, you have to go back to Michigan's




original computations.  I think the way we computed it



is a very simplified approach, maybe oversimplified, and




it is straightforward, #0 percent reduction of 0..35 will




give you a 0.0? figure.




          MR. STEIN:  I don't mean to be legalistic, as



this is a technical meeting, I know, and we want to leave



this completely open  and I don't mean to be legalistic,



but Mr. Oeming did raise the question.  He came forward



with his computation.  We looked at it.  Our technical



people went over it.  The Conferees and the Federal



Government endorsed the Michigan program.



          Now, if there was doubt about their method of



computations other than translating that into probably



more  universal terms, why didn't we bring this up before?



          MR. HARLOW:  I am not disagreeing with Mr.




Oeming's statement at all.   I think what I am saying



here, if you followed it the way I calculated it, that




is the answer you will get.  I think there are many, many

-------
                                                      56






                   Questions and Answers



ways you can go through the mechanism of calculating how



much phosphorus you should put in the lake to maintain a



certain level of the lake.  There are many, many ways



you can calculate it to arrive at a level.



          1 think perhaps we just went through different



ways of calculating and came up with different answers.



          MR. STEIN:  May I make a suggestion here, that




we are going to put this in the record in questions and



answers, that you attempt to get together with Mr.




Oeming's staff and we attempt to come up with an answer



to this, if we can, which both you and Mr. Oeming can



subscribe to at least in figures?



          If we cannot do that, then we should know it.



But I think what we may be coming up here with is a dif-



ference which is caused by the way the calculation is



made rather than the substantive difference.



          MR. OBMING:  Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, while



I certainly have no objection to working with anybody,



I think there is a basic problem here that is not going



to be resolved by that, bec?use there is at least one



industry that has complied with the SO percent-plus



removal of phosphates already.  Now, if we are going to




chancre the rules In the middle of the game, we are never




going to get phosphates out of that river,

-------
                                                        57
                   Questions  and Answers




          We  already  have  people under  order.   We  have




 them working  on  programs.  We are well  along  — within




 a  year or a year and  a half — of actual construction,




 in some cases, with plans  drawn.




          Now, how are we  going to reverse this project




 and say,  "Boys,  we made a  mistake.  We  have to  do  this



 all over  again."



          I am not happy with that.



          MR. STEIN:  I haven't heard the suggestion- —



 maybe  it  will come up later — as to changing the  rules.



          MR. POOLE:  Mr. Miller just reminded  me  that



 we  think, at least, without having been involved in




 either of the computations that the discrepancies  are



 not  as great as they  appear.



          I think Mr. Harlow's was based on the maximum



 of  .35  which, as I recall earlier, was the maximum that



 was measured in the Detroit River, and we believe the



Michigan computations were based on annual averages



 and this in itself could account for quite a difference,



you see.



          MR.  STEIN:   Would we agree,  Mr.  Oeming,  without



 changing any of the rules or any proposal,  that what we



 should  do, if we have a difference just  on the basis of



 computation, not on the basis  of theory  or difference in

-------
                  Questions and Answers




substance, that we should try to get these ironed out so



the figures will be meaningful to both groups?




           I have the feeling the same way,  that a good




portion of the difference here may be because the same



methodology was not precisely used in arriving at the



answer to the question.




           MR. OEMING:  Well, I would hope that was the



difference, and I hope we are not changing the rules in




the middle of the game, because that is fatal to pollution



control.




           MR. STEIN:  If we are changing the rules, the




Conferees will get together to do that.  We are not going




to do it here.  But I hope we are not getting in — as




Joe Quinn used to say at one of the "technicating" sessions



— he used to say, "Here go the boys again,  trisecting a



BOD."  I hope that we don't come up with that kind of



difference.



           If you both are saying about the same thing,



let's try to see if we can get that together and maybe




he can endorse your statement.  I would suggest that




before we go into eight, because this looks like a very




juicy one, we recess for ten minutes.




            (Short recess.)




           MR. STEIN:  Question B.



           MR. HALL:  Question No. 8:  The report

-------
                                                      59





                   Questions and Answers



distributed by Mr. Harlow at the June 4, 196&, meeting



recommended a 92 percent reduction.  How justifiable is



this calculation?  If the 92 percent factor is correct,



would the 80 percent program be ineffective?



          MR. HARLOW:  FWPCA would prefer to see all




phosphorus of waste origin removed from wastewater entering




Lake Erie.  This is the only way to begin to return to a




"natural" phosphorus level throughout the lake.  In arriving



at the 92 percent figure, FWPCA assumed, for reasons of




practicality, that the runoff contributions of phosphorus



will not be reduced but will probably increase from a



present load of 33,000 Ibs/day to a load of 42,000 Ibs/day



in the year 2020.  That load of 42,000 Ibs/day was then



used as a base not to be exceeded.  Assuming further that



the present in-basin loading is 137,000 Ibs/day, 95,000



Ibs/day must be removed and all of it from the municipal



and industrial loading of 104,000 Ibs/day.  This means



then that this loading must be reduced to 9,000 Ibs/day.



Allowing Canada 1,000 Ibs/day of this amount,  the United



States is left with 8,000 Ibs/day, and, hence, a 92 percent




reduction.  With increasing volumes of waste,  this goal



will require essentially 100 percent removal of municipal



and industrial waste phosphorus by the year 2020.  It



will also be necessary to develop and employ procedures

-------
                                                       60





                   Questions and Answers




for reducing phosphorus runoff from agricultural and other



lands.




          The calculation is justifiable on the basis




that (1) 92 percent is near the current maximum feasible



removal, (2) that attainment of a near-natural aging rate




of Lake Erie is desirable, and (3) that the highest



possible removal is now mandatory to stop the accumulation



in the sediments of a rapidly enlarging nutrient reserve.




It is felt that the reserve in bottom sediments is now



sustaining the phosphorus level in Lake Erie in midlake



from the islands eastward, mainly because this level is



so constant, does not decrease eastward, and is slightly



higher than the upper lakes.



          The discharge from the lake is on the order of



40,000 Ibs/day.  By reducing the inputs to that amount,



the western basin and shoreline waters should be brought



near the concentrations of phosphorus found in midlake.



If the inputs could be reduced to near that amount, the



available nutrient reserve in the bottom sediments could



begin to be drawn upon and algae populations would be




reduced to levels capable of being sustained by the



nutrient reserve.  These populations will not be obnoxious



because they are not now in midlake.



          The 80 percent factor would not now be

-------
                                                       61






                    Questions and Answers



 "ineffective."  Any removal at all would be beneficial




 because  it would reduce the rate of accumulation of




 phosphorus in the lake.  But lake improvement will not



 be  directly  proportional to removal rate.  As 100 percent



 removal  efficiency is approached, each percent of additional



 removal  will have proportionately much greater effect than



 it  will  at lower removal efficiencies.



          MR. STEIN:  Any comment?



          MR. EAGLE:  Mr. Karlow, your present recommenda-



 tion then is 92 percent — we should be talking about 92



 percent  removal in the basin generally, right?



          MR. HARLOW:  Well, I think I would like to see




 as  much  as you can take out in municipal waste.



          MR. EAGLE:  You say that 92 percent is feasible?



          MR. HARLOW:  I think this is going to be discussed



 later on, on what is now feasible in municipal wastewater



 treatment plants by Dr. Stephan.



          MR. STEIN:  Now, let's see if I remember this



 record,  so we don't get off.



          I don't remember about the report distributed by



Mr. Harlow.  The report was not put into the conference



 proceedings, as I recall it, and the question of the amount



 to  be removed, I hope, is the kind of profound policy



 judgment that will be made by the Conferees.

-------
                                                    62
                  Questions and Answers




           Now, I think we are in the situation with this



phosphate removal involving some of the States here that



the Conferees have not had unanimous agreement on a percent-



age removal.  Lake Michigan arreed on a minimum of $0 percent




removal.  But since we have been working on this in Lake




Erie,  the technical advances have made additional removals



more feasible.  This is a question of equating what is feas-




ible and what it is going to cost, etc.




           But I think that any recommendation made on what




should be removed should, if we follow our technique in




Federal-State relations, try to be made by the States and




the P'ederal Government unanimously.  As far as I know, up




to this time, the Federal Government has not put forth any




recommendation to the Conferees as to a percentage removal.



           MR. EAGLE:  Well, Mr. Stein, I read the second



paragraph as a recommendation.



           MR. STEIN:  Well, this is precisely why I said



that.




           No. The question here is — and you know what



we do — all our technical people present their notion of




what they are to do, as to their best judgment, except




when we have a joint report, and then it becomes an




institutional report.  We have made no such recommendation

-------
                                                         63
                    Questions and Answers

as far as I look at the record  on a percentage removal of

phosphates from Lake Erie.  We did not put any specific

number into the official conference record.  As far as I

see this, this is a computation made by Mr. Harlow, and

that is his view.

          Are there any other comments or questions?

          MR. BOGEDAIN:  Yes, Mr. Stein.  Bogedain, New

York.

          Back in the Technical Committee Report, some

6000 pounds per day, as an input by New York and Pennsyl-

vania, is indicated.  Could you give me what New York's

contribution is estimated to be?  This figure was lumped

together.  If it is not readily available, may I ask that

you confirm it to our department at some later time?

          MR. STEIN:  Can we do that?

          MR. HARLOW:  Yes, we can.

          MR. STEIN:  You can't do it now?

          MR. HARLOW:  No, I don't have the basic data.

          MR. STEIN:  May I ask the technical question:

Who is allowing Canada a thousand pounds a day?

          MR. HARLOW:  Maybe we should allow more for

Canada.

          MR. STEIN:  I mean how did we do that?

          MR. BOGEDAIN:  I only wanted to know if this was

confirmed with the Canadian Government.

-------
                                                    64





                  Questions and Answers




           MR. STEIN:  Right.  Let's leave this on the



record.  You know, I have been up — possibly —



           I guess any guy in the State Department can




tell you this:  Anything more difficult than Federal-State



relations is foreign relations.  But when I visit our




Canadian friends, they get very sensitive about this




stuff, allowing them X pounds —   Okay.



           MR. BOGEDAIN:  Another question.




           Could you elucidate a little bit further on




what you mean by the attainment of a ''near-natural aging



rate of Lake Erie"?  What is the aging rate of Lake Erie?




           MR. HARLOW:  The natural aging rate?




           MR. BOGEDAIN:  Well, just pick any aging rate




if you will.




           MR. HARLOW:  I think perhaps here that the words



 aging rate1' or the word ''aging'5 is a rather loose term,



and we have to go back to the fact that all lakes age



naturally.  Lake Erie's rate has accelerated to the extent




that it is aging unnaturally.  We want to go back to this



natural rate, the rate that existed — as close to that




rate, anyway, that existed before we started using the




term "white man," and by reducing phosphorus to the extent



that we are discussing, we are going back as close as




we can to that near natural rate.



           KR. BOGEDAIN:  But that near natural rate has not

-------
                                                          65
                     Questions and Answers

been nailed  down.

          MR. HARLOW:  Well, we don't know what it was

before the Indians.

          MR. BOGEDAIN:  Nor do we know it today.

          MR. HARLOW:  Well, this is not measured in that

kind of numerical value that you can say Lake Erie has

aged so much.  It is aging unnaturally and by removing

phosphorus we want to go back as close to the level of

natural aging as possible.

          MR. BOGEDAIN: In other words, it is purely your

estimate as to what these conditions are which prevail now,

or in the past, or at sometime in the future.

          MR. HARLOW:  I think it is anybody's estimate.

We don*t know how it existed before man came here.

          MR. STEIN:  Yes, Mr. Poston.

          MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, you referred to the

Lake Michigan Conference, and back in February of this

year, Dr. Weinberger testified, and Dr.  Weinberger indicated

that you could remove phosphorus at, oh,  almost any rate

that you wanted to,  up to a hundred percent  if you used

all of the available methods — maybe distillation,  or

what-have-you.  But  the practical rate  was 80 percent  —

was the figure that  I remember he put out, and I  would like

Dr. Stephan to comment on this  if he would care to.

          DR. STEPHAN:   Once again,  this  is the subject of

-------
                                                         66
                     Questions and Answers
Question 15.  I would be happy to go to it if you would
like.
          MR. STEIN:  No.
          MR. POSTON:  Maybe that would be the more appro-
priate time.
          MR. STEIN:  I didn't know you could distill
phosphorus!  I wondered what you drank the last time you
came. (Laughter)
          MR. RICHARDS:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to
comment that during the considerations of the Technical
Committee, the Ohio represetnatives went through a calcula-
tion based on available information with respect to inputs
of phosphates or phosphorus to the lake, and it was
indicated that to attain a level that would meet the
.01 parts per million of phosphorus would require over
90 percent reduction of the controllable increments of
waste.
          MR. STEIN:  Does anyone want to comment on that?
          Mr. Harlow, did you want to say anything?
          Let me raise a question — and I think we possibly
should bring this up — while the 92 figure wasn't put
out, as I understood it, this was a computation based on
Ohio personnel which seemed to fit in with this.  Is this
substantially correct?
          MR. HARLOW:  During the deliberations of the

-------
                                                         67






                    Questions and Answers



Technical Committee, the Ohio member came forth with a



calculation for removal of phosphorus to reduce the con-



centrations to the level proposed in the objectives, and



Earl Richards is correct.  I don't recall the exact figures



because I didn't make the computations.  It was in excess



of 90 percent.  However, I do know that it was done a



different way from the way I made my calculations.



          This material was not included, however, in the



report of the Technical Committee.



          MR, STEIN;  Well, let's --




          MR. HARLOW:  I think if we are going to go into




how it was calculated, I think you need to  call on the




Ohio people  if it is necessary.



          MR. STEIN:  Unless you want to — are there any




further comments?



          Let's see if we can go to Question 9.



          MR. HALL:  Question 9:  If the algal bloom



problem is in the western lake,  why is the  contribution




east of the islands being considered in the calculations



to determine required percentage reduction?



          MR. POSTON:   George.



          MR. HARLOW:   Answer:   The algal "bloom" problem



occurs in the nearshore area throughout the lake and



occasionally in midlake.   Gladophora is a problem everywhere

-------
                    Questions and Answers



there  is a proper  substrate and depth, usually in nearshore




areas.  The aim in reduction of phosphorus is not to make



the algal problem uniform but to lessen it everywhere.




          MR. STEIN:  Questions or comments?



          Ten.




          MR. HALL:  Question No. 10:  The proposed



percentage reductions were based on annual average concen-



tration for phosphorus.  Is this realistic?  Since the




contribution of wastewaters from municipalities is constant



throughout the year and the blooms are seasonal, the trig-




gering mechanism must be comething other than an annual




average concentration of phosphorus.  What are the concen-



trations of total and soluble phosphate before, during  and



after a bloom?  How are these concentrations related to the



computed annual average reduction?



          MR. POSTON:   Could I ask Dr. Bartsch tc comment



on this?



          DR. BARTSCH:  Answer:   The triggering mechanisms



that determine when substantial  algal growth occurs are



largely related to physical characteristics of seasonal



nature, that is, solar radiation, length of day, temperature,



turbulence,  and so on.  The size of the crop is more likely



governed by  nutrient availability.  Nutrient availability




is related to the  load of phosphorus discharged to the lake

-------
                                                    69
                  Questions and Answers



over a long period of time such as, for example, a year.




Therefore, it is the amount of phosphorus discharged




annually that is important and this is, of course, related



to the average removal efficiency achieved annually.  The



calculations referred to in Question 8 lead to the con-




clusion that the treatment efficiency should average 92



percent annually.  In fact, even high removals during




the period just prior to and during the g.rowing season




would be desirable.




           The concentrations of total phosphate in the lake




should not change materially with or without a bloom.




Soluble phosphate concentration in lake water should be




higher before a bloom, low during a bloom and rising




after a bloom.  Exact concentrations related to algal




populations in Lake Erie are not known.  Calculations used



in reduction calculations are annual averages of analyses.



Their relation to average input reduction can only be esti-



mated.  The concentrations before, during and after a bloom



have not been directly related to the computed annual aver-



age reduction.




           MR. STEIN:  Any comments or questions on this?



           If not,  thank you very much, Dr. Bartsch.




           DR. BARTSCH:   Mr. Chairman, as long as I am




here, with your permission, I would like to philosophize a



little on the last question and in particular the reference

-------
                                                    70
                  Questions and Answers




to anticipated increase in inputs from agricultural land,



for example.




           I think that while it may be necessary to take



a dismal view toward this runoff increasing in the future,




I think it also points up the need that over the long range




this is an area in which we need to develop some control



procedures also.




           In relation to the reference to natural aging



process, I think we should all pay attention to the fact



that we are in difficulty in many of the hundred thousand




small lakes in this country which have reached eutrophica-



tion stages which are objectionable solely as the result of




the natural process.




           So far as Lake Erie is concerned, this means



then that over the long haul and weather, in three or four



or five generations from now, we are going to have to begin



to think about slowing down the rate beyond that which we




can consider natural.



           MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



           Are there any comments or questions?



           I hope you are right, Dr. Bartsch, that this




doesn't come to reality or just remains a dismal view,




because we liave an extensive area that we call the dismal




swamp back east.

-------
                                                         71






                    Questions and Answers



          Will you go on with Question 11?




          MR. HALL:  The primary algal problems in Lake



Erie are blooms of Cladrmhora, blue-greens in August and



the "pea soup" earlier*  Do the phosphorus requirements



differ for these?  What is the particular triggering agent



for each?  What is the role of the physical aspects of the



western lake (depth, light penetration, temperature,



anchorages, bottom composition, etc.) which might control



or promote the bloom in this area as compared to the




central or eastern basins?



          MR. POSTON:  Dr. Bartsch, do you want to comment




on that one?



          DR. BARTSCH:  Answer:  Phosphorus requirements



do differ for different species of algae; however, the




concentrations found in Lake Erie surpass the limiting




requirements.  For example, the phosphorus requirement for



blue-greens is relatively high while for Gladoohor^ it is



relatively low.  The triggering agent for blooms is complex



and has not, as yet, been basically described.  The science



of algal physiology has not yet answered this question but



it is apparent that the physical aspects are  important:



          Depth,  related to light penetration, influences



the volume/area participation in photosynthesis and,



therefore, algal  production.

-------
                                                        72






                    Questions and Answers



          Temperature dependence is known only in a general



way.  Increases in temperature produce two effects:  changing



algal population composition and increasing production.



Temperature increases favor the growth of blue-green species.



          Anchorages are necessary if Cladophora is to grow



in profusion.



          Bottom composition is principally important in



relation to recycling of nutrients during periods of rapid



consumption.



          There is probably not a single "triggering" agent



for each species of algae.  If there is one, it is the



latest agent to reach an optimum after all other requirements



have reached an optimum level.  That triggering agent can,



therefore, be any one of many (e.g., light intensity,



temperature, water motion, depth, phosophorus concentra-



tion, nitrogen content, pH, or any of a multitude of



required trace elements or compounds).



          The physical aspects of western Lake Erie are



such that they promote greater algal growth than elsewhere



in the lake.  The western basin water has a theoretical



average residence time of only about 50 days because of



its small volume and high inflow.  This residence time is



reduced to much less than the average during times of high



flow in spring and early summer.   During times of high

-------
                                                        73
                      Questions and  Answers

inflow the  concentrations of phosphorus in that inflow are

also high,  leading to a rise in nutrient content in the

western basin.  These times are also times of high silt

input coupled with increased wave-stirring of bottom muds,

therefore transparency is less.  Wave stirring also brings

nutrients from the bottom into suspension.  At the same

time the western basin water is warming rapidly.  Under

normal circumstances the conditions of ideal nutrient

supply, temperature, calmness  and water clarity are soon

set up and  productivity is stimulated.  Plankton will in-

crease rapidly and attached algae will abound on the

extensive shallow rock surfaces of the western basin.

          The deeper, clearer waters of the central and

eastern basins are  over most of their area  much less or

not at all  affected by similar physical aspects.  Turbidity

is less, temperature rise is slower, wave-stirring of muds

is insignificant, retention time is long   and shallow reefs

are scarce.  However, along the shore, particularly the

south shore, conditions are approached which are similar

to those of the western basin.  Algal production is thus

similarly stimulated.

          MR. STEIN:   Thank you.

          Are there any comments or questions?

          MR. FOGLE:   I have a comment for clarification,

Mr. Chairman.

-------
                                                  74
                  Questions and Answers




           I don't quite understand,  Fritz,  how you have,




say, during times of high inflow, a concentration of




phosphorus when the inflow is also high.  To me this can




mean that it has to come from soil runoff if that is the




case.



           DR. BARTSCH:  I think it has reference to that,




yes.



           MR. POOLE:  But does the record actually indicate



that during high inflow we do have high phosphorus.




           DR. BARTSCH:  Yes, this is my understanding.



           MR. STEIN:  By the way, this was a tremendous




piece of writing, Fritz.  We are going to give all these




people who sat through this a graduate degree.  This is




very good.



           DR. BARTSCH:  I must admit with respect to this



question my input was only about one-third of the work.



           MR. STEIN:  Well, whoever did it, this is a




classic.  Thanks.




           Any other comments or questions?




           Twelve.



           MR. HALL:  Question 12:  The estimated discharge



from Lake Huron is 20,000 pounds per day.  This means an



average of 0.02 rag/1 in the flow of the Detroit River.  The




recommended limit for phosphorus in the western basin is

-------
                                                         75






                    Questions and Answers



0.025 mg/1 and in the central basin is 0.015 mg/1.  Reported



concentrations in Lake Huron exceeded .03 rag/1.  How do you



reconcile these objectives?



          MR. POSTON:  George.



          MR. HARLOW:  Answer:  It is stated in the nutrient



report to the Conferees that the discharge from Lake Huron



is less than 20,000 Ibs/day.  This figure was estimated



high intentionally.  However, 196? data from the FWPCA



Detroit Program Office from repetitive sampling at the



head of the St. Glair River indicate that the estimate is



approximately correct for phosphorus.   In Lake Huron,



phosphorus data from the same office indicate an annual



average concentration of about 0.01 mg/1.  The recommended



limit for phosphorus concentration in  the western basin



allows for a considerable additional input from in-basin



sources coupled with natural phosphorus precipitation



and algae utilization.   The objectives are, therefore,



not inconsistent if the value for Lake Huron of .03 mg/1



is considered erroneous.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions?



          If not,  may we go on with Question 13.



          MR. HALL:   Question 13:   Mr. Harlow's recommenda-



tion is to limit the municipal contribution to S,000 pounds



per day for all the basin states.   With an #0 percent

-------
                                                    76
                  Questions and Answers




reduction in the Detroit discharge what would be the Detroit




contribution and how much of the $,000 pounds would Detroit




take?




           MR. HARLOW:  Answer:  This is straightforward.




           MR. STEIN:  I hope all your answers are!




           MR. HARLOW:  Maybe too much so!




           The Detroit metropolitan area discharge of an



estimated 40,000 Ibs/day reduced by BO percent is $,000




Ibs/day, which of course is all of the recommended limit.



However the question has combined two recommendations



as one.  My recommendation also calls for 92 percent reduc-



tion, thus reducing the detroit area contribution to 3>200



Ibs/day.  Its proportionate share of allowable discharge



would be approximately the same as its share of the present



total load.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any questions or comments?



           MR. EAGLE:  Yes.



           Is it true, Mr. Harlow, that if we stayed with



this $0 percent figure at Detroit, then everywhere else we




would have to go to a hundred percent to come down to the




$,000 pounds per day, right?



           MR. HARLOW:  I don't know, George.  You said




everywhere else.



           MR. EAGLE:  Everywhere else on Lake Erie.

-------
                                                         77






                    Questions and Answers



          There would be no allowable discharges from



anywhere else because the Detroit area would have used



the entire &000 pounds, right?



          MR. HARLOW:  If you adopted this #0 percent.



          MR. EAGLE:  Yes.



          I wanted to make this point clear and —



          MR. HARLOW:  This is only my recommendation.  It




is certainly up to the Conferees to decide.



          MR. STEIN:  Can you answer the question though?



Is that substantially correct?  If Detroit were to put



out this &0 percent, the other discharges would be required



to be reduced substantially a hundred percent in approaching




it.



          MR. HARLOW:  Well, if it was agreed upon that you



would reduce to #000 pounds per day, and if Detroit removed



SO percent, they would remove down to the &000.



          MR. EAGLE:  Just checking your calculations in



another way, this would be, according to your calculations,



a hundred percent for other discharges  to Lake  Erie  if



Detroit only reduced by BO percent and you met the 8000




total.



          MR. HARLOW:  Based on the method by which I



calculated it.



          MR. POSTON:  Of course,  this also assumes that

-------
                                                      78






               Questions and Answers



the load coming down the Detroit River remains a constant



— or coming down the St. Glair River.



          MR. EAGLE:  This is my second question then:



Does it necessarily need to remain a constant?  Aren't we



reducing in the other Great Lakes areas also?  Have you



made any calculations on that, George, what that might be




reduced to?



          MR. HARLOW:  In the other Great Lakes?



          MR. EAGLE:  Yes.



          MR. HARLOW:  No, I haven't.




          MR. EAGLE:  My question is: D o we have to




continue to accept this discharge from Lake Huron?  I mean




is it logical to consider it?



          MR. HARLOW:  Whether it is going to stay 20,000



from now  on?



          MR. EAGLfi:  Yes.



          MR. HARLOW:  I would hope that the level would



go down.  As I understand it, there are other control



programs going on elsewhere that should reduce the level



of phosphorus throughout all of the Great Lakes.



          MR. STEIN:  I think it is fair to say here that



as much as we love Oeming and Remus in Detroit, the



likelihood of the Federal Government coming up with a



requirement that they only have to reduce 80 percent and

-------
                                                    79
              Questions and Answers




the State of Ohio has to reduce a hundred percent is remote.



           Now, what we are trying to do, and we know this




isn't perfect, but it is the kind of a thing with municipal




treatment anyway — I would hope we would come up with a




uniform requirement that will apply to all, unless there are




persuasive reasons that make different classifications.  I




have been out here, coming back and forth a long time, and




I can't really make a distinction between Michigan and Ohio



as to the kind of treatment they should put in when they




discharge to Lake Erie.



           MR. EAGLE:  Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, this



will explain a little further my reluctance on June 4 to



come to an immediate agreement on $0 percent reduction,




because I don't think that is enough.  I think if we are



talking about controlling algae in Lake Erie, then we are




going to have to go considerably above 80 percent and we



are going to have to do a lot of other things, including



agricultural drainage, and so on.  So, although I have




been accused of foot-dragging, certainly, believe me, this



is not Ohio's intent, and if we can arrive at a reasonable




program, certainly we will be in there with flying colors.




           MR. STEIN:  Well, I am sure no one ever said




Ohio is dragging its feet.  But I think one thing we can



discount right here, and I think we can all do that, is

-------
                                                        80
                    Questions and Answers


that in the States getting together  or the State and Federal


Government  that we can't conceivably, any of us, live with


one requirement for a city in one State and another in


another State.  I think we pretty much have to go down the


line on this together.


          Are there any other comments or questions?


          Question 14.


          MR. HALL:  Question 14:  What documentation is


available to show the role of phosphorus in the bottom


muds in algal formation?


          MR. POSTON:  Dr. Bartsch was going to account


for No. 14.


          DR. BARTSCH:  Answer:   The role of bottom muds


is that of providing a nutrient  reserve which feeds the


overlying water.  Although the release of mud-contained


nutrients is essentially incessant,  it is by no means


constant in amount.  Special conditions of EH, pH and DO


content near the interface can cause very rapid release.


These rapid rises of nutrients in overlying water occur


when the water is temperature-stratified and DO is low or


absent.  Some of these nutrients migrate upward to surface


waters through the hypolimnion and some are mixed throughout


at the time of autumn turnover.   The nutrients released to


the water stimulate algs1 growth wherever there is adequate


light, including the hypolimnion.  There is much documentation

-------
                             References
                                                                        SO-A

                                                          Attachment 1
1,  Carrltt, D. and S. Goodgal.  1954.  Sorption reactions and come
     ecological implications.  Deep Sea Research 1.,  224-243.

2.  Hayes, F. R. and E. H. Anthony.  1950.   Lake Water and Sediment
     I. Characteristics and v?ater chemistry of some  Canadian  Eact  Coast
     lakes,  Litnnol. 6. Oceanog, 3, 305.

3.  Holden, A. V.  1961.  The removal of dissolved phosphate  from  lake
     waters by bottom deposits.  Verh. Internet, Verein.  Limnol. 14.
     247-251.

4,  Jitts, H, H.  1959,  The adsorption of  phosphate by estuarine  bottom
     deposits.  Australian Journal of Marine end Freshwater Research,
     10, 7-21.

5.  MacPherson, L. B., N. R. Sinclair, and  F. R. Hayes.  1958. Lake
     Water end Sediment.  III.  The effect  of pH on  the partition  of
     inorganic phosphate between v;ater and  oxidized  mud or ito ash.
     Limnol. 6. Oceanography 3_, 318-326.

6,  Morgan, J, J. and W. Stumra.  1964.  The role of  nultivalent metal
     oxides in limnological transfoi .ations, as exemplified by iron and
     manganese.  Second International Conference on  Water Pollution
     Research.  Section 1 Paper No, 6, 12.

7.  Mortimer, C. H,  1941,  The exchange of dissolved substances between
     mud and water in lakes.  J, Ecology 29., 322.

8.  Olsen, S.  1964.  Phosphate equilibrium between  reduced sediments  and
     vater.  Laboratory experiments with radioactive phosphorus.   Verh,
     Intemat. Verein, Limnol. 15.. 333-341,

9,  Pomeroy, L. R., E. E. Smith, and C. M.  Grant, 1965.   The exchange of
     phosphate between estuarine water and  sediments,  Limnol, and
     Oceanography IP.. 167-172,

-------
                    Questions and Answers '



available to show the mechanics of release of phosphorus



from bottom sediments and its effect on algal "formation."



          Delineating the role of bottom sediments in algal



production is the objective of a number of research efforts.



The ten references given in Attachment 1 relate to this



subject.  In addition, FWPCA's National Eutrophication




Research Program will publish a critical review of the



literature on this subject area under title "Release and



Uptake of Nutrients by Bottom Sediments Chemical and



Physical Processes" in January 1969.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




          Are there any comments or questions?




          MR. OEMING:  I would like to ask Dr. Bartsch a




question.



          You are aware, aren't you, Dr. Bartsch, of the



studies that were made back several years ago, which showed



— I have forgotten how many thousand acres of area in the



bottom of Lake Erie opposite Cleveland that were oxygen



deficient in the bottom layer.  Do you remember that,  or



are you aware of that?



          DR. BARTSCH:  Yes, I am aware that there have



been these areas in Lake Erie which annually become oxygen




deficient.  I do not know the details from my own knowledge.



          MR. OEMING:  There is some area out of there —

-------
                    Questions and Answers



 40,000 acres,  or miles, or square miles  or something.



          This would mean, applying what you have said




 here, that there is a nucleus of a problem right in the



 central lake,  in the central basin, I guess, isn?t it,




 that is east of  Point  Pelee  where you would have a




 nucleus of a release of materials from the bottom sediments.



 This would be quite a sizable contribution here.




          DR. BARTSCH:  I would consider this to be a



 potential contribution which would be triggered by the




 anaerobic conditions in the sediment surface and it would



 then depend upon whether the current patterns were such as



 to bring this phosphorus into circulation to the levels



 where it could be utilized by the algae.



          MR. OEMING:  Don't go away.  But,  Mr.  Harlow,



 can you remember how much of the area in the central basin



was oxygen deficient from your studies?



          MR. HARLOW:  Twenty-five hundred square miles.



          MR. OEMING:  Twenty-five hundred square miles of



 oxygen deficient area, and this is then the central basin.



We have been talking about the western basin which is bad,




but here is another potential area of trouble,  isn't it?



          DR. BARTSCH:  This makes the very point that —




 one of several points that we attempted to make earier —



that we have to consider the input on an annual basis

-------
                  Questions and Answers



rather than the existence solely at the time that there




are blooms.  It also makes the other point that if we are




going to cleanse this lake, we have to create circumstances



that will bring the nutrients out of the sediments and get



them also out of the lake, or at least get them out of the



surface film of the sediment so that they are no longer a



participant on the total nutrient cycle.



           MR. EAGEL:  This was only below the thermocline.




I want to make this clear for the record that we are talking



about below the thermocline and not the total water supply.



           MR. OEMING:  Yes.




           MR. EAGLE:  I have a question.  I would like to



ask Harlow, I guess.  George, these studies that are being




carried on by the Corps of Engineers in connection with




their dumping of dredgings in the Lake Erie — is the nutri-



ent phosphate problem being monitored or checked in connec-



tion with these studies, and, if so, what kind of discharges



are we getting from these?



           MR. HARLOW:  The nutrient content of the spoil



from the Corps of Engineers dredging program is being




monitored both by our agency and the U.S. Lake Survey.



           Harbors were divided up.  They took so many and




made measurements and we took some.  Our office emphasized




the Cuyahoga area because it happened to be part of the

-------
                  Questions and Answers




pilot plant program of the Corps.  This was an area in




which they had a pilot dike under study, and we did make



measurements of the nutrients that were contained —




concentrations that were contained in the dredgings as



they went to the lake.




           MR. EAGLE:  Wouldn't these dredgings from the



Cuyahoga River be very high in nutrients?



           MR. HARLOW:  Yes, they are.




           MR. EAGLE:  And they are just being dumped into




Lake Erie, aren't they?



           MR. HARLOW:  The Corps is intending to put all




this inside the dike this fall and a portion of this was




put inside the dike this year.



           MR. EAGLE:   But it still leads into the lake,




doesn't it?



           MR. HARLOW:  I think most of it stays in the dike



and ends up in the sediment in the dike.  The Corps is also



planning to build a new dike.



           MR. EAGLE:  I challenge that.  Do you have data



to prove this — that it does stay within the dike?



           MR. HARLOW:  We have data that leads us to




believe that a heavy load of the phosphorus that goes inside




the dike stays in the dike.



           Now, I caution you on this kind of determination.

-------
                  Questions and Answers




This dike has only been built just recently and the data




were obtained just recently.



           MR. BOGEDAIN:  As the result of your determina-




tions, what order of magnitude are the orders of phosphorus




in these dredgings?



           MR. HARLOW:  I can't recall offhand.




           MR. BOGEDAIN:  You said they were high.  How



high?



           MR. EAGLE:  You have got 2.2 in the Cuyahoga




River.



           MR. STEIN:  The question we always come around




to here — and I wish a Corps man were her to speak for




himself — but you don't only have to deal with the con-




centration in the dredging, when you compare the volume of




these dredgings dumped with what comes from the cities and



the industry it isn't very much, not that that shouldn't



be taken care of, but, again, we have looked at this — in



Lake Michigan.



           MR. BDGEDAIN:  Mr. Chairman, you made my point.



Thank you.




           MR. STEIN:  I will give you my view on that.  I



don't think that pollution from dredging is one of the



tremendous factors in pollution in the lake.  Now, I have



made it also clear that my personal position on this is



that I don't think we should clean up the lakes just to

-------
                  Questions and Answers



make them a dump and every contribution, large and small,



has to be taken out.



           Are there any — oh, Mr. Poole.



           MR. POOLE:  Fritz, I want to come back to this



2500 miles in the middle of the lake, because as I said



in this document I got the impression that the algae



content in the central and the eastern portion of the lake



is much less than it is in the western portion, and, well,



we will say down almost to tolerable levels.  As I read



through this yesterday, then, the question came to my mind:



How did we get this 2500 miles out in the middle of the



lake?  Where did it come from?



           DR. BARTSCH:  Well, I may have to call on George



Harlow to assist me in an answer.  But let me say at least



this much:  That the development of anaerobic conditions in



the bottom of the lake are commonly an aftermath of the



production of tremendously large crops of organic matter,



whether they are good algae or bad algae, or animal



plankton, and these crops of organic material, when they



die, settle to the bottom and become a part of the sediment



itself.  This organic matter drawing on the oxygen resources



of the water which becomes trapped in the hypolimnion is



set off from the circulations with the overlying water.



           Now, perhaps one of the reasons for what appears

-------
                                                         87





                    Questions  and Answers



 to be  a discrepancy here  —  the  low DO  on  the  one hand and



 the lack of tremendous blooms  on the other —  is the dis-



 tance  of communication between whatever exchange occurs




 in the  bottom  sediments and  the  area in which  the algae




 can grow.



          Maybe George can comment  further on  this.  I




 think  this is  perhaps the best I can do,



          MR.  STEIN:  Say, Fritz, before you get off,



 what does "hypolimnion" mean?




          DR.  BARTSCH:  Well,  the hypolimnion  is the name




 given to one of the three layers which become  establi shed



 in a lake as the temperature increases in  the  summertime,



 so that  you have at the surface layer the  epilimnion,



 which is a layer in which the wind is able to  circulate



 the  water, and the temperature in this layer is uniform



 and  generally  it is the highest temperature you will find



 in  the lake.  This is the area where the production of



 algae typically is going on.   Then,  if you measured the



 temperature with increasing depth,  you would find that



 there becomes a rapid drop in temperature,  and by defini-



 tion to be the next layer which is  called the thermocline.



 This temperature drop has to  be one  degree  Centigrade per



 liter of depth.  Once you get through this  layer,  you




will find a layer where the temperature  is  uniform but

-------
                  Questions and Answers




lower than the surface water.   This is the hypolimnion.




This is cut off by the thermocline from the wind and circu-




lation of the surface water.  It becomes a sort of storehouse



for nutrients that are typically not put to use by the




biological system.




           MR. STEIN:  One thing I know, all these people




are smarter than I am!  They used the terms before of Eh,




pH and DO.  Do you want to explain that Eh?



           DR. BARTSCH:  Maybe George can do it better than




I can.



           It refers to electromotive force of the electro-




motive situation in the bottom sediments as it is applied



here.  If I remember the figures from some of my people



correctly, when you have a potential charge there of about



two-tenths of a volt — someone will correct me if I am



wrong, I hope — you have an electrical circumstance in the



environment that is conducive to bringing about solubiliza-



tion of the phosphorous compounds.




           MR. STEIN:  You know, it shows  you how much you




learn.  Before I came here, I thought Eh was a Broadway




show last year.




           George, do you want to continue?



           MR. HARLOW:  I don't know if I can add to any-



thing that Dr. Bartsch said; he always says it so well.



           I think, Blucher, however, a partial answer to

-------
                                                        B9






                    Questions and Answers



what you said:  The reason we get the low DO in the central




basin and don't get it in the western basin is because we



don't ordinarily develop thermocline in the western basin



because the water is shallow.  If we had a thermocline in



the western basin, I think we would get a similar DO complex.




          MR. POOLE:  I can buy all that, and I don't




want to belabor it,     I know that the low DO comes from



all kinds of organics that are down there, but I can't



visualize the sludge from Detroit, and Toledo, and Cleveland



getting out there into the middle of the lake in such



quantity as to do this.  So the only thing I can conclude




is that this 25 miles is due basically to dead algae.



Now, maybe that conclusion is wrong, but that has been




mine, and then when you come along and make the inference



that we have got tolerable algal levels in the central



and eastern basin —



          MR. HARLOW:   Surface waters.



          MR. POOLE:  -- I begin to wonder if we have or



not.




          MR. HARLOW:   Surface waters in the central and



eastern basin.



          MR. POOLE:  Well,  are they tolerable, if there



are enough of them that when they settle and start




decomposing they give  you 25 hundred miles in the  middle

-------
                                                    90
                  Questions and Answers




of the lake with no DO?




           MR. HARLOW:  A lot of the algae growing along




the western shore find their way to the hypolimnion in




the central waters.



           MR. POOLE:  I will accept it for the time being.



           MR. STEIN:  Fifteen.




           MR. HALL:  Question 15:   What places in the



United States are now  reducing phosphates as a routine



part of the treatment?  What volumes, concentrations in



the influent and the effluent, and methods of treatment



are utilized?  What are the unit costs, construction and




operation?



           MR. POSTON:  Dr. Stephan.




           DR. STEPHAN:  Answer:  Full-scale — from some



of your earlier comments, you have all been waiting on the



answer to this one.



           Full-scale waste treatment plants designed and




operated specifically for high phosphate removal are now




in routine operation at South Lake Tahoe, California



(7.5 mgd), Prince William County, Virginia (1 mgd),



Amarillo, Texas (13 mgd), Chicago (Hanover Park), Illinois



(1 mgd), Las Vegas, Nevada (1 mgd), and Lansdale, Pennsyl-




vania (about  .03 mgd) — there is a typographical error in



the written answer — Two small package plants (30,000 and

-------
                                                        91






                    Questions and Answers



SO,000 gpd) are also in  fulltime operation at Kinzua




Reservoir, Pennsylvania.  Full-scale plants at San



Antonio, Texas (24 mgd) and at Baltimore, Maryland (20 mgd),



while not specifically designed for phosphorus removal, are



also achieving high efficiency phosphorus treatment quite



routinely.  In addition to these installations, pilot



plants for phosphate removal are in full operation at



present at Nassau County, Long Island, New York (.5 mgd),



Detroit, Michigan (.1 mgd), Washington, D.C. (.1 mgd),



Lancaster, California (.07 mgd) and Ely, Minnesota (.02



mgd).  Further full-scale demonstrations have been con-



ducted and completed at Pomona, California (2 mgd),



Washington C.H.,  Ohio (1 mgd), Xenia, Ohio (1 mgd),




Grayling, Michigan (.3 mgd), and Lake Odessa, Michigan,




(.5 mgd); a^d full-scale operations are under design or



construction at Colorado Springs,  Colorado (2 mgd),



E. Chicago, Indiana (.5 mgd),  Dallas, Texas (.5 mgd),



Piscataway, Maryland (5 mgd),  Lancaster, California



(.5 mgd), Santee,  California (2 mgd), State College,



Pennsylvania (2 mgd),  Grayling,  Michigan (.3 mgd),



Holland, Michigan  (4.5 mgd), Elkhart, Indiana (20 mgd),



and Rochester,  New York (100 mgd).



          The variety  of processes  utilized, flow rates



treated, geographic locations  involved  and feed

-------
                                                        92






                    Questions and Answers



compositions handled make it difficult to provide any



brief and simple summary of process costs and performances




achieved.  In most cases also it is not clear how to



assign any definite fraction of cost to "phosphorus removal."




This is because the selected process may shorten conventional



detention time or improve other treatment objectives either



deliberately or as a side benefit.  Also of importance in



costing is whether phosphorus control is to be incorporated



into existing structures or planned into the design of new



treatment facilities.  It should be clear that the actual



costs encountered at any given location can only be



defined through an engineering analysis at the specific



site,.



          For most of the cited cities as well as for a



number of other examples of phosphorus removal technology,



the processes utilized, costs  and performances were



reported in detail at the two FWPCA Workshops on Phosphorus



Removal, May 1-2 and June 26-27, 196S, in Chicago, Illinois.




Copies of the programs for these two workshops are attached



and copies of many of the reports presented are available



from participants.   These reports of actual installations



and available technology really provide the requested



details on process,  performance  and costs.



          In summary, however,  it may be stated that  80

-------
                                                       93
                    Questions and Answers



 percent phosphorus removal may be readily achieved by a



 variety of processes for a total cost, including capital



 amortization, of 5^/1000 gal. or less.  This statement



 is conservative — the workshop presentations indicate



 that lower costs (perhaps 3£/1000 gal.) and higher



 efficiencies (up to 95 percent removal) may well be



 achieved.  Using chemical precipitation with lime, for



 example, a 90-95 percent removal can be accomplished in



 a typical 10 mgd plant for less than 5^/1000 gal. beyond




 the cost of a well operated secondary plant.  The attached




 figure summarizes the cost projections for this process.



          If you will refer to two pages over,  the chart




 there indicating the treatment costs versus design capacity,




 it has four lines.   The line sloping upward sharply to the



 right is the capital cost,  (reading) capital cost in millions



 of dollars.  The other three figures relate to  treatment



 cost in cents per thousand gallons,  the upper one marked



 T being the total cost;  the 0 and M, the operating and



maintenance cost;  and A is



          MR. STEIN:   Thank you.




          Any comments or questions?



          (The  above-referred to  chart follows,)

-------
Figure
3.       SOLIDS REMOVAL BY COAGULATION & SEDIMENTATION

   Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost,  Deb*  Service
                              vs.                      —
                         Design Capacity
94

2 8
C *
o 7
iH 7
•-* K
CO *
60 b

If 3
o
., 2
CD
O
o
a
a>
S 10
§ 8
£ 7
5-0 s
4
3
2
1-0 ,0
9
8
7
S
5
4
3
2
.10 ,
f ' '
• "i i '
i , ! i
j | ! i.

' i-i
~ ' . *


~
_
:c::j-

_ ui
4^
4
T
rr _^ ....
_t_i_..,.
- -'4-
-H-H
f

'.— .

_:.
gas^r.;

rl-

-»-
_|ijrr5.



!li
Cos

- , f-f
• : :,

* i
Jii'


rr i '
1 L '

r-

Tr:.;
., j.
.B:
-H 1 !
~ s
-!-;-• • | ,^'
^
-



-^

, _ . _
Ej£

r':
;[:
::
	 ::-
Efe!:-7r-
ErjT.I:
~i i
&'->-'•
: I i f ;
1*1.
rr f f :
ft
.-Irr,
T-fe
"tfjl
.u [.,

1 I '


i i ;
t /
•.i
;;;
"' r
, ' '
! r '

1 !_ |

' •
' L ' .


sre

...
. i ' '
.Li L .
1 F ! .'
X.

r1
1 ' L;

. i . ,
r^:

r^ f '
[It [
i'i-'
i





.: .
" ;
iii'

.I1
Ul!
i1
* i i


1 1


j.**:o~
^»
t --• '
- r. .
,'*V

1 , ,
' ; ,
1 . !*
'-* i '
'IP

i i i
i1 ;
; "

• 1
i 1
ustc
i
[_
*
1
| j
i ;

; ' ! '
; [;
i ', _
i .

!|
1 1


i-rl!


1
-t: :
-i — i
₯
1?
"3B3(J;
• ^
: '
r h
:."• r
-tyt I-
fr
;-! : •
i~!"4 L
l-l-r
Fiff
i
nil 1
(r
, I


>d 1
; i ' 1
'!!:
1 rl-'
i ri
, 1 1
' ' r
-;;:;
M1'
I f '

-III
Ii
if!


, 1 <
1 '< i
r;
** ~I
^:


i ,
^0




-"' f> ,

LI',
1 , i
ji
1!
1 1 1


t ; '



•—V _),
OSc-ja-^:
; . [ .,-v
x>-
(^
lij
f{i.
i n •
;TI
1 1 f •
jj!3-j'-'>'~i
r
! l .
[ 1
,:•!
- M1
PM '

i r \i
i'ili
i '
r
i '
; i '

i!!
u:
iri
i i M
::t-
fifi
|:;'
i
1 ' |
i '


i
Ju
i



3T-
-P
i:
f
-i;
- :-

-r
,-

ri
5

£
P
p-
-i
H-

:t
1

r
t:
r
T
1
, -j !


i
ne,
j- ,
J

4-.t
J' -i"
L L

1


( I

1


"T."
~t •*"

, i
-F;
^T?
• L
; '

.L..
:li
r -
r r
r
L
I |
I 1 '
i

1967
4-' :
: 1
-
1

1
i-



1
-; ;i_-pr
i-^^rr
. ^~.--..

1 it:
i - L-
! l"
z

-
t

_L
,-;-'
. , i-| :

i • i
li'l
i ! i
i r i i
xq{
i 1 n
-_.TT-
-;__;T
-j— T-1-
fflf
rr
•ati
M i
n i
.-. j .
•C
< 1
1 r
i > i
1 1
---
-4-

' i:
Tiijij;

"^-t'-r
-j-i-J-r j - ,^1
---J— -; , M
T-T*""

iiir
: I :' i
l: t •
i ' , •
i
. .' ,-x
, -'''^:~
i -| -f-!--| f :-f-^j-^-r;i
---rj-M •yi'Vl •
- .7
:-p
-"jicB-
s
?
^X-':^
;^j--^
^^

!


i:
!*r-. :_•

i i
: • ; ••
i ! . i : :
; I , : .'
: i • I : .
t
i • i ' i >
-.:•'.: j-:i;
T-— ;
4-^-- :-!---• '
T" ". z\ ' *" :







!.':':
1 ii
-•'







—


'- ^
i~~~*~'1 ~"r*j /»y
" ' 1 .-'/>
^ ^X 1 . r rl
1 	 ' •- *-)
; --f--r
rr--i--H
i — h;^
-^j - -
-:_^-i\~^:_ :_
Ll.~ ~_| "-.'
r,_^( 	 ' -- -

in
• 'I
^r
rH-
•r>
' '
'".'J
'"'r.
— i™
"^
i-
~T
-^~-

-f
—
-
._-
"--






!-
4-
--
- r^
*"t~
T

i
~L
-\~
r
!-
T'
-t

-4-
;^
-^fefe
"^a^wyfB^wx-j^rV^
- t-r-p -
- -— — —
j- -±^~~
' 1 I
l+l+f1
1 i
	
'--^a.




-1... -pX
	
:;±b
1 i 1
Tii±
; i |
-1 —
—
S"

.-L-.
TT

i 1 1 , <
•1

r I
'—

• i '- ; - - •
Js-r
!-'--*
! -> p; .

L. ;;i.
. --t—

:l it
-
g
^

- (.
.f ; . .- r, -
' _i '~_ n^i ir
r -| —
f -t1
i i
t r
T~
i i
ti"
.3?y^
. L! !
i i

-cr^
fj+f
• -'hT
t .
i |
4a

iii!
r-:-!
tr-~

|S
-t *-~

H i
•-.

(';!
i-"3- T':
>;:
^-i-r
•rrr
i_;^4
i : i r
1 '
u --
L ~-
"f i '

t
_^_ .„. r -. ^~
_,_ - f —
f^Ttr
' i t
si
_t — „
til- [r.^
,...[ .
r^-
ol!
i - 1 c

__
-•^
r


4«?«^V2::Ei
f-r -; ' : r
^i- i."

•I1


.


^
i "
_ ._. -
£•
i
|;
^- -•
-r
-h-
-
x.
T
ft
'*V-
«J:"'
-r
—
— f — '
X
4-
T
i
l
-1-

	
^--


f:
i
-'
•r
p^is?7frr

'-;i
frr^^tr;:}-";^

!5§jf

•iiEE-^
-Q — ,-_t .
- ~ ~\ '
i rn
-r

_^i:
-r; ;
-i;-
l'ir


_i_

^

fl:
-4
—
-T
_L
hrr^
— f -
p|..-
E~tf :

J


T

J
r
JL
"II !


-f



5


-^ 1 0

03
-- i-t
H
O

O
I 1
? H
^-i
S

1 ^
:: K
L o
O
H
O
-»- 0 1 •"

f "
I
- -

\
~ -
~:
I'
F
ho. 01
                           4   567H910
                                                         4   &  678910
         1.0                          10.0

                Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
                                                            100.
               C = Capital Cost, millions of dcllers
               A = Debt Service, cents per 1CCO gallons(^ 1/2 - 25 yr.)
           0 & M = Operating and fcintanance Cost, cents per 1COO gallons
               T = Total Treatcant Cost, cents per 1000 ga

-------
                                                    95



                  Questions and Answers




           MR. BOGEDAIN:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.



           The factor of, let us say, 5f^AOOO gal.  — this



is a cost per thousand gallons actually treated, not



necessarily the rate of plant capacity, so this might mean



for a 1 mgd plant, what, $50 per day?



           Has any attempt been made to estimate the



overall costs throughout the basin for certain phosphorus



removal as to what could be incurred in, let's say, BO



percent phosphorus removal?  Are those figures available?



           DR. STEPHAN:  You are talking about summing up



all of the treatment plants in the basin.  I have not done



it.



           MR. BOGEDAIN:  The question would be:  What would



our taxpayers be asked to pay?



           DR. STEPHAN:  While a total has not been made, it



could.  If you equate this to a unit cost, per capita per



day, five cents per thousand gallons is roughly three-



quarters of a penny per day per capita.



           MR. OEMING:  Are you through?



           MR. BOGEDAIN:  Yes.



           MR. OEMING:  Mr. Chairman, there is a couple of



experiences here that we have been having — you mentioned,



Dr. Stephan -- and while I wouldn't say that these were



high type installations, these were put in as interim to



see what we could do.  They are full-scale but they are

-------
                                                      96






                    Questions and Answers



not designed and all set up and everything operating




perfectly. But I think this caution ought to be thrown



in, that while performances in the range of 90 to 92



percent were attained, this would not be a consistent



removal -- that is, if you are talking now about monthly




averages, and I don't know what we are talking about



here — if we are talking 92 percent — it has been thrown



out here as an objective.



          Certainly that is going to be an average,



isn't it?  In order to achieve that you are going to be



talking about 99-plus maybe, at the top, and 10 percent



below that, as a variation, and the thing that I want




to caution you about is when you are talking 92 percent,



if you are talking an average, I question whether you




are going -- we haven't seen anything that you are going



to get that yet, and in Detroit the same thing.  Trying



limes and trying aluminum compounds and iron compounds



is a routine thing.



          MR. STEIN:  Mr. Stephan.



          DR. STEPHAN:  Right.



          MR. STEIN:  Doctor — I am sorry.



          DR. STEPHAN:  One point I would like to make



clear:  The degree of removal attained is dependent



quite highly on the type of treatment process that is

-------
                                                    97
                Questions and Answers
employed.
           Now, there are several generalized types of treat-
ment when you are considering phosphorus removal.  One might
be characterized as the biological uptake or the biological
treatment process; typical of these would be the two I men-
tioned at San Antonio and at Baltimore, Maryland.
           Now, there the removals have been, as you suggest,
quite variable at times.  Again, forgive me, I don't have
the exact details in my head, but my recollection is at San
Antonio the plant removal, as mentioned, is from about 60
percent up to as high as 90, maybe 95 percent, and that is
quite variable.  For that type of system, we donft know
enough about it at this point to control the level to any-
thing other than perhaps a long-term average of BO percent,
and I think we could probably achieve that but we couldn't
control it on any given day or any given season.
           On the other hand, as you go into what I would
consider on the other extreme of the types of treatment,  the
strictly chemical type of removal, and this is exemplified
by the one I chose to give for detailed example here — the
lime precipitation as a tertiary treatment process following
existing primary-secondary.  There I believe that we can —
and, in fact, we are in pilot-scale equipment and I suspect
they are achieving it now at South Lake Tahoe in fullscale
— we can achieve essentially whatever degree of phosphorus
removal you care to program into it, up to this maximum

-------
                                                    93



                  Questions and Answers



level of 90-95 percent.  I think we could hold it at least



at 90 percent.  I think we could go to 95 with no particular



difficulty.



           Now, the reason for this is what when you get into



the chemical types of treatment, the parameters which affect



removal are much better known than they are in the biological



treatment of sediments.  We know if we control the pH; and if



we control the dosage with respect to the alkalinity that we



can precipitate out—in the type of system here — all the



phosphorus in this 90 to 95 percent range, I think, with a



high degree of reliance.



           The plant at Tahoe — I have not seen their



data — I was out there in May and they were achieving this



sort of removal quite routinely then.



           MR. OEMING:  But you did say, Dr. Stephan —



and I listened very carefully — that you were still



talking about the maximum that is achievable now, that



you have some certainty about.  This is not an average on



30 days or 90 days or anything like that, except in a



special case in Tahoe.



           DR. STEPHAN:  I am not quite sure I understand



your question.  At Tahoe the removals are in the 90 to  95



percent range.



           MR. OEMING:  But the ranges elsewhere are wider



than that.

-------
                                                    99
                  Questions and Answers



           DR. STEPHAN:  Yes, quite dependent on the type



of process, that is correct.



           MR. OEMING:  This is our experience, and I think



also there is this about it?  That we are finding that in



certain cases, depending upon the type of sewage you have,



that you cannot just go out and say you have got to process



and go ahead and design it.  I have in mind one particular



case in the Lake Michigan basin where we have a combination



of cherry cannery wastes plus sewage, and nobody has yet



found — and I think none of us have any confidence of what



we know today without a demonstration project.  We wouldn't



know how to design a plant to even achieve $0 percent on



the average.



           DR. STEPHAN:  Of course, I can't speak on



individual cases I am not familiar with.



           MR. OEMING:  I think you are going to have a lot



of indidivual cases.



           DR. STEPHAN:  I think my point would be the same:



Every one is an individual case.  But I would say the vast



majority of indi vidual cases we are confident now that one



can achieve 80 percent removal without — I would say



without any substantial question of success; 90-95 percent



removal only selected processes with achieve that, and



even those, I think, we have a quite high reliability that

-------
                                                       100






                    Questions  and  Answers



 we  would succeed.   On an  individual  case,  I  couldn't



 respond to.




          MR.  STEIN:   Mr.  Poole.




          MR.  POOLE:   Well, I  want to  comment on  this



 because I think we  are getting down  now to the nub of




 the whole thing as  far as  this meeting is  concerned about



 Lake  Erie.     I don't have the benefit of the June Work-



 shop  Conference, unfortunately, although that is just a



 fault of ray own shop  not getting the memorandum around



 to me.  But I am not convinced  yet  that on a year-round



 basis,  we will say, that you can go much above BO percent




 and stay within the realm  of what  I  call economic



 feasibility.



          Now, I have  got  some figures here that Mr. Miller,



 who is  our sewage man, did give me, and he said that



 Pomona,  California, got &2 percent reduction with lime at,



 a cost  of $45 a million.  He says  South Lake Tahoe got



 &6 percent reduction with chemical treatment, and then



 when they took the chemical treatment through a mixed



 media filter after that, it went up to 93.   But he also



 says it  cost $#6/million gallons to do it.   One of the



Michigan plants got &4, and one at Grayling, he said,



 got 92  — and you have already thrown up a flag of



 caution  about this, and I think what little I know about

-------
                                                       101






                    Questions and Answers



 it  confirms what Larry and Dr. Stephan are  saying that



 there is going to be quite a variation between individual




 plants.  It seems to me that this has to be taken into



 consideration in any conclusion we come to  as to what



 we  are going to shoot for here in 1963 as far as Lake



 Erie is concerned, and it is going to take  some argument



 to  get me to go much above 80 as an annual average.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, do you have any comment on



 that?



          DR. STEPHAN:  Yes.  I would like to point out —



 I am sorry you weren*t at the two two-day workshops we



 had in Chicago.  I think they were quite enlightening.




          The first workshop was handled by FWPCA Research



 and Development personnel reporting on our own experiences.



 The second conference, on the other hand,  was a much more



meaningful one in that it was a conference at which the



various equipment manufacturers and design engineers  and



 consultants involved in the business of actually doing



this job,  presented to the public at that  point what they



believed the technology was that they had  in hand to




remove phosphorus.



          Again,  as I indicated in my written answer,  the



responses  at that workshop  and the materials and topics



covered were quite varied.   There were some nine or ten

-------
                                                    102
                  Questions and Answers



different fundamental approaches toward phosphorus removal



considered.  I think perhaps only one of them that I



recall claimed a percent removal less than £0, and I



believe all of the rest were claiming and I think rather



well assuring removals in the BO percent and up level.



           I would also point out that most of the costs were



projected to a midwestern situation — the Great Lakes situa-



tion were in the 5^/thousand gallon range or much less.  The



Tahoe costs you quote are certainly correct.  One of the



reasons for this is the fact that their multi-media filters



are aimed at accomplishing much more than phosphorus removal



because they are accomplishing 9&-99 percent removal of BOD



at the same time.  Other minor factors are simply the loca-



tion of Lake Tahoe and the difficulty of bringing chemicals



in.



           MR. POOLE:  Well, this five cents a thousand, or



a quarter of a cent a day, or something, doesn't sound like



much, but I want to ask Mr. Wirts back here what it is cost-



ing Cleveland for activated sludge plants now.



           MR. WIRTS:  About that same figure.



           MR. POOLE:  This is the point I want to get



across.



           We have got much smaller plants than Cleveland.



We have our cities in the fifty to a hundred thousand



bracket that are making contracts with suburban areas for

-------
                                                    103



                  Questions and Answers



$100 a million, and they are making a little profit out of



that.  So we can say five cents a thousand, but actually



what we are doing here is that we are upping the cost of




sewage treatment from 50 percent to 100 percent depending




on the size of the installation.




           MR. STEIN:  Just treatment not amortization?




           MR. POOLE:  No, this is debt service.



           MR. STEIN:  Debt service, too.




           MR. POOLE:  Yes.




           DR. STEPHAN:   Mr. Poole, one comment on that is



this:  The best cost data we can put together now on




typical or average costs of conventional primary-secondary




treatment in this country, let's say at a 10 million gallon



per day scale, is around eleven cents per thousand gallons



for a total plant.




           The Easterly Plant here does not handle its



own sludge and I suspect that is one of the factors.  In



addition, the efficient operation of John Wirts, of course,



leads towards a unit cost which is somewhat less,  and



also it is a larger plant.  But this, I would agree with




you, sort of treatment would add something on the order of




50 percent to the cost of conventional treatment that




is now practiced.




           MR. EAGLE:  This is my comment on Cleveland,




and I believe we would like to get this in the record

-------
                                                        104






                     Questions and Answers



 about the costs, and we do have to consider them, even



 though some people may not think they are very relevant.




           But we are here in Cleveland, so let's talk about



 Cleveland a little bit:  roughly 200 million gallons of




 sewerage a day, so we are talking in the neighborhood of




$10 thousand a day additional cost, and this is about




 $4 million a year, or close to it.  Then this would



 amortize probably $40 million worth of bonds — something




 on this order.  So we have already got a $211 million



 program in Cleveland, and you add $40 million onto it,



 and something has got to give somewhere, and something



 is going to have to be slowed down or shoved in the back-



 ground if we are going to go into this program.  This is



 a decision that we will have to give consideration.



           MR. OEMING:  Mr. Stein, I can't let go of Dr.



 Stephan quite this easily.



           Dr. Stephan, you have placed quite a little



 confidence in the claims that were made at the Chicago




 conference,     I think all of us in the business know how



 to put these claims into perspective,  and that gets into



 perspective pretty fast when you are on the front line



 eyeball to eyeball with the person that says you have got



 to do this, and he is searching for that fellow that said,



 "Yes, I can do it," and that fellow isn't there then.  He

-------
                                                       105
                    Questions and Answers
is there when you have a nice conference like this, but he
is not there when you lay the job on the table and say,
"All right, mister, now you said it, now you guarantee that
you will remove it."  And I think I would like to put that
in the perspective, if you haven't already, that:  don't
place too much reliance on this — and you are a research
man, you know this is so.  The proof is in the pudding,
and all I say is that when you project this much beyond
SO percent with what you have given us to work with today,
that you are stretching yourselves quite a little, and
we have operating experience, I think, that we feel is
pretty reliable.
          DR. STEPHAN:  I would like to point out, as I
am sure you are aware, the technology of phosphate removal
is very rapidly emerging.  In 1965  we did not have any
technology for phosphorus removal other than conventional
systems, which I think at best would average around 30
percent removal of phosphorus.  So, in the rather short
period between 19&5 an^ 196B, we have come to the place
where I believe you have indicated that SO percent removal
is pretty well agreed upon can be obtained.  The 90 to 95
percent, I admit,  is on the margin.  It is in the area
where, I believe,  we can attain it with one or two
processes, not with a large arsenal of techniques.  Eighty

-------
                                                    106
                  Questions and Answers



percent removal, I am convinced, we can achieve with a



variety of processes, and of course I am familiar with the



number of full-scale and pilot scale activities now underway



where we are actually achieving this.  I really have no



doubt in my mind the 80 percent figures at that cost.



           MR. STEINJ  Dr. Stephan, I think we may be



getting at the same kind of problem that we have had in



various aspects of pollution control.



           Now, again, possibly some of us who have different



aspect of this business to look at share different views.



           I know the notion of my going around the country



and looking at plants that are rated at 90-92 percent,



and seeing the days that they fall into the 70s, it gets



rather dismal sometimes.  But I think this is to be expected.



           Now, you pointed out, one, that you are dealing



with a chemical process and not a biological process.



When the biological process goes sour, you just have to



tinker with it until you write it up again and there isn't



enough money in the world that can do it.



           The difficulty that I find — and maybe some of



the manufacturers here, too, I am not talking in terms



generally — I have not found in the past if we were deal-



ing in the chemical process, we were hitting the optimum

-------
                                                    10?
                  Questions and Answers




mark too much better.  The point is you can control the




chemical process perhaps more than control the biological




process.  Only one rub:  You are going to have some more




chemicals and it is going to cost you money and these




fellows operate on a budget and the guy — and this works



both ways — as you know, with the biological and chemical



process, you put the biological process to work and it runs.



A guy gets a tight budget on running a plant on a chemical



process and the first thing you save is a little bit of the




chemical you pump in, and if you fail to meet your budget




that week the chemical doesn't get in.




           I am talking here with administrators from five




States and the Federal Government and the people that we




have to deal with.  So, I am not sure that we realistically



can talk in terms of a minimum, say, of 92, at this stage,



because they generally fall to the 80s.  On the other



hand, if you say a minimum of 80, wouldn't they have to have



a plant that was capable of doing about between 90 and 95



to achieve that minimum of 80?




           I am asking the question.



           Do they have to hit that high a level?



           DR. STEPHAN:  Mr. Chairman, I don't think you



would have to go that high; 90 to 95 is the peak removal

-------
                                                      108





                    Questions and Answers



to average 80 with  some of these processes.  Certainly



with  others you would.  But you are quite correct, the



average  of SO is obviously going to be attained by



averaging out some  days, some hours, where the removal



is substantially less than 80 and some where it is sub-



stantially higher.




          MR. STEIN:  Now, let me ask one question here,



because  I think this is the crux of it, and I think Mr.




Eagle and his group raised this.



          With all of the figures, if we are talking



about terms, say, of a 92 or a 95 percent removal, and



the Conferees make that as their recommendation, would




we be kidding ourselves and kidding the public  or could



we really attain it, given the state of operation of



waste treatment plants in the country today and the



midwest where we are dealing with the situation.



          Is this realistic for us to say we are going



to get 95 percent removal and expect to come out 365



days a year and find we are getting it?



          DR. STEPHAN:  I think the simple answer to that




is no.  I don't think it is realistic to consider the 95



percent removal you have suggested as an annually attain-



able average removal which could be assured at this date.



          MR. POOLE:  Of course, Dave,  if we advance as

-------
                                                       109
                    Questions and Answers



much  in the next five years as we have in the last three,



it  could be realistic, couldn't it?



          DR. STEPHAN:  Well, we certainly are hoping to



improve the technology to where we can do that, but I



think you will find that the rate of approaching the optimum




is  going to fall off as we approach the optimum.  Where we



have  come from 30 percent attainable removal in 1965 to



80  percent attainable removal now, we are obviously not



going to keep up at that rate of improvement over the next




three years.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments or




questions?



          MR. RICHARDS:  I think one other comment might




be  in order, and that is:  If you say 80 percent removal



and indicate that this is going to be satisfactory in



time, this is what you are going to get.   I think it would



be better to say maximize the removal of —



          MR. STEIN:  Oh, yes.   Some of you may know about



this  controversy that we are having with some of the



southern States on temperature  removal, and some of the



people here — the biologists,  for example — have talked



in terms of five parts per million  of dissolved oxygen.




          The notion that some  of these people have who  have



the operating programs in the south  is :   Give them their

-------
                                                       110






                    Questions and Answers




streams from time immemorial — when the Indians came




or were here — you couldn't get five anyway, you would dip




below five.  Now, the argument that is made sometimes, if



we have a minimum of four parts for oxygen — per million




of oxygen—in order to achieve that four parts,  they are




going to have to have five parts most of the time.



          Now, there may be an approach made to  set a



minimum here, and then say to maximize that when you can.



And I am just suggesting that because we have had to



do that in other fields when we have had these variables.



This may be a way that we will be able to handle this.




I don't know.



          Are there any other comments or questions?




          If not, we have two more questions, and it is



1;00 o'clock.  You have to leave at 4:00, don't  you?



          DR. STEPHAN:  I have to be on a plane  at 4:00.



          MR. STEIN:  We have got to go on.



          Let's take 16, and then we will decide — will



you continue with Question 16, please?



          MR. HALL:  Question 16:  Is data available from



these places to show what the resultant effect has been



in the receiving waters?  Are these plants discharging




to lakes or rivers?



          DR. STEPHAN:  Answer:  For the sites at which

-------
                                                      Ill
                    Questions and Answers



full-scale phosphorus removal operation or demonstrations



have been conducted, no data are available at this time to




show the resultant effect on the quality of receiving




waters other than to confirm the obvious:  that less



phosphorus is in the receiving water than would have been



if treatment were not employed.  To our knowledge, reliable



data to demonstrate a reduction in the frequency or



intensity of algal blooms as a direct result of the imposi-



tion of phosphorus removal treatment at these locations




does not yet exist.  The reasons are varied:  for South



Lake Tahoe, discharge is not to a natural water body but



rather  to a man-made reservoir constructed solely to hold




the effluent prior to reuse; for Prince William County,



Chicago (Hanover Park) and Kinzua Reservoir, the plants



have only recently gone on-stream;  for San Antonio and



Baltimore, the low phosphate effluents are mixed with other,



less well-treated effluents before  discharge;  for Pomona,



Washington, C.H., Xenia,  Grayling  and Lake Odessa  the



demonstrations were of a short-term duration;  while for



Amarillo, Las Vegas  and Lansdale  the effluents are not



discharged but  rather  are deliberately reused.



          Nonetheless, there is substantial experimental




evidence that removal of phosphorus will have  a beneficial



effect  on water quality.

-------
                                                     112





                    Questions and Answers




          Shapiro and Riberio (JWPCF July 1965) studied



the addition of secondary sewage effluent to river water.



They concluded that the river water alone was capable of



supporting small levels of algae but that the addition of



plant effluent increased their growth in proportion to



the addition.




          Mr. Chairman, there are several pages of




similar citations which I can go through and read.



          MR. STEIN:  They more or less confirm the first




one, don't they?




          DR. STEPHAN:  Yes.



          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



          (The remaining part of the above-referred to




answer follows:)



          In selective addition of phosphorus and



nitrogen they were able to show that both were needed to



stimulate growth of green algae but that phosphorus alone



could stimulate growth of blue-green algae.  They were




also able to show that the removal of phosphorus from



the sewage effluent would control the growth of botn green




and blue-green algae to a degree commensurate with the



degree of removal.



          Neil (12th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference)




studied unnatural fertilization of Sturgeon Lake in

-------
                                                       112-A
                    Questions and Answers



Southern Ontario and concluded that phosphorus does seem



to be the common denominator in most lakes that are regular



bloom producers.  He also felt that to assist in the control



of blooms a large input of inflow low in nutrients would be



necessary to offset the addition of recirculated nutrients




from the sediments and the algae themselves.



          Ohle, W. (1953, Vom Wasser Vol. 20) in his



study of eutrophiclakes concluded that phosphates must be



regarded as the initial factor in the development of




eutrophic conditions.



          Sawyer (JAWWA November 19&5) has concluded from



his studies and literature search that phosphorus removal




from municipal wastes is the most practical means of



controlling growth of nuisance blooms of algae.  Sawyer



(JWPCF May 1966) also concluded that waters having a



nitrogen to phosphorus ratio of less than 15 to 1 (which



is the case in Lake Erie) will have productivities that are



phosphorus dependent.  He also concluded that restrictions



on phosphorus discharges can be shown to limit and alter



the nature of plankton growth.  Furthermore,  he stated



that although there are many factors such as depth,  size,




shape,  and geographical location which determine  the degree




of eutrophication,  in general the basic factor involved is



the algae nutrient  budget of the lake and that the

-------
                                                      113






                    Questions and Answers



biological  productivity  is related directly to the



nutrients available.  In conclusion he says that it is



axiomatic that a major factor in the control  of eutrophi-



cation depends on limiting the amount of nutrients entering



a lake.



          Oglesby and Edmondson (JWPCF Septmeber 1966)



reported on the control  of eutrophication in  Lakes Washing-



ton and Green in Seattle.  They found that phosphorus was



the key element limiting the level of algal production



in regions  where most nuisance conditions exist.  They



proposed the removal of  phosphorus at its source and the



dilution of phosphorus in lakes by the controlled addition



of water low in nutrients.  This was done in these two



lakes and as a point of  interest the dilution water was



added at about the same relative rate that Lake Huron



water is added to Lake Erie.   From their studies they



concluded that algal growths could not be maintained by



fertilization from the sediments alone and that algal



production and water quality in the lakes improved



dramatically even to the extent that eutrophication was



reversed.



          Missingham,  G. A.  (JAWWA  February 196?)  showed



that domestic sewage supplies a high percentage of nitrogen



and phosphorus and that a high degree of correlation exists

-------
                                                      114





                    Questions and Answers




between nuisance algal conditions and extent of sewage



fertilization.  He warns that if nutrients from sewage



plant effluents are allowed access to the water resources,



then one can envisage increased algal growth, large



populations of zooplankton, a depletion of dissolved oxygen



in the hypolimnion, and replacement of game fish with the




less desirable varieties of fish.  Recreational uses of




water have been and will continue to be reduced due to



algal problems, with attendant reduction in property



values.  (This is just what has happened in Lake Erie.)



He further warns that the onset of overfertilization can



be so insidious that it often passes unnoticed until it



is too late.  He was able to show that blue-green algae



will grow in the presence of a plentiful supply of



phosphorus and a deficiency of nitrogen and concluded



that phosphorus is a key element in the fertilization of




lakes.



          A survey by an AWWA Task Force (JAWWA March 196?)



revealed that the major problem resulting from nutrients



was eutrophication or a stimulation of algal growths in



lakes and that human wastes and built detergents normally




are the greatest contributors of phosphorus, one of the



essential nutrients.  They concluded that domestic wastes




and perhaps some industrial wastes appear to be the only

-------
                                                        115






                    Questions  and  Answers



 sources  in which the  phosphate concentration  is  sufficiently



 high to  make  removal  feasible. Domestic wastes  are a  large



 contributor of  phosphorus  so that  removal from this source



 should help significantly  in reducing the rate of eutrophi—




 cation.




           Fruh,  E. Gus  (JWPCF  September 196?) states that




 an  algal bloom  occurs when the number of algae per ml



 exceed 500.   He  summarizes the results to date on Lake



 Monona,  one of the Madison chain of lakes from which




 sewage effluents have been diverted.  He states that




 qualitative data show a marked improvement following




 diversion  and even though  blooms still occur, the frequency



 and  nuisance  intensity has decreased.  He philosophizes



 by  saying  that the reason  for the preoccupation of the



 sanitary engineer with nitrogen and phosphorus does not



 lie  in the underestimation of the cosmic importance of



 photosynthesis, but rather in the recognition that this



 process is for all practical purposes, beyond control.



 Little can be done to alter light or C02 supply.   By



 contrast, nitrogen and phosphorus,  which are important



 in plant growth, are subject to control and  modification



through diversion or tertiary treatment of sewage.




          Gordon M. Fair in direct  testimony before the



Lake Michigan Diversion cases in 1963 verified that

-------
                                                       116






                    Questions and Answers



phosphorus and nitrogen are the key elements promoting



eutrophication and that in order to arrest the growths




of algae the supply of phosphorus and nitrogen should be



cut off.  He furthermore supported the work of Sawyer by



stating the Sawyer* s data support the conclusions that




the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen should be reduced




below certain concentrations in lakes in order to control




nuisance blooms of algae.  Sylvester (1961, Algae and



Metropolitan Wastes) also reached similar conclusions



from his studies of the Seattle lakes.



          Missinghara (196?) and Oglesby (1966) and




Shapiro have shown why phosphorus is often singled out



as the key to control of algal growth and eutrophication.



They say that:



          1.  Its supply naturally is low in surface



waters to the extent that nuisance conditions of algae



would not ordinarily exist and where it can be found in



waters in abundance it is usually added by man's activities




and therefore relatively controllable.  Nitrogen, on the



other hand, generally is much more abundant in soils and



water and under aerobic conditions is much more soluble.



          2.  Phosphorus is more easily controlled than



nitrogen.  Blue-green algae can fix nitrogen from the




atmosphere.

-------
                                                       117
                    Questions  and Answers

           3.   The  phosphorus requirement of  nuisance

 algae (blue-greens) is  high.

           4.   Phosphorus  will  stimulate algae fixation of

 nitrogen.

           Inorganic fertilizer (10-6-4) was  applied by

 Ball,  R. C.  (194#, Transactions American Fisheries Soc.

 Vol.  7$) to two lakes in  northern Michigan.  Heavy growths

 of  plankton and filamentous algae occurred and during

 the second winter after fertilizer application, all the

 fish  died  from lack of oxygen.  Two nearby control lakes

 showed no  appreciable algal growths or oxygen depletion

 and fish levels remained  constant.

           Mclntire and Bond (1962 Transactions of the

 American Fisheries Soc. Vol. 91) investigated four newly

 excavated  ponds before and after fertilization with

 nitrogen and phosphorus.  After fertilization, chemical

 and physical conditions were altered considerably by the

 production of  large quantities of planktonic and benthic

 organisms.   They found that the growths increased with

 increasing applications of nitrogen and phosphorus.   In

 ponds that received nitrogen but no phosphorus,  production

was low.

          In a report titled, "Removal of Algal  Nutrients

from Domestic Wastewater," by Rand and Nemerow of Syracuse

University (March 1965)  for the New York State Department

-------
                    Questions and Answers



of Health, it was concluded that the "indications are




quite clear that the removal of nutrients from wastewaters




will often aid in solving eutrophication problems."



          Other authors have shown the importance of



phosphorus in the control of lake eutrophication.  A few



of these are:



          Lawton, G. W. (I960, Algae and Metropolitan




Wa st e s)



          Oswald, W. J. (I960, Algae and Metropolitan




Wastes)



          Odum, E. P. (I960, Algae and Metropolitan




Wastes)



          Lackey, J. B. (Sewage Works Journal, 1945)



          Benoit and Curry (I960, Algae and Metropolitan




Wastes)



          Hasler, A. D. (1947, Ecology Vol. 2B)



          Mackenthus, K. (Fertilization and Algae in Lake



Sebasticook, Maine, January 1966)



          Thomas, E. A. (Biological Problems in Water




Pollution Third Seminar, 1962)



          Voss, W. (Gas—Wasserfach, Vol. 104, 1963)



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions?



          If not, we can possibly go on.



          One question I would like to raise with this

-------
                                                      119





                    Questions and Answers



one:— you know you can always raise this question:  you




can take Question 16 -- the data are available to show




what  the resultant effect has been in receiving waters



after we put  up  conventional treatment plants either in



industries or municipalities, and I think we have a



shocking area of  non information.  I think Ohio is to be




commended on this, because any test of any plant we put



up is going to have to be what happens in the receiving



waters afterward and not that you just put a plant in and



another big monument to water pollution control which may



or may not be doing the job.



          Are there any questions on 16?




          If not, let's go to 17.



          MR. HALL:  Question 17:  What data are available



to show the effect of more effective dispersal devices at




treatment plant outfalls?



          DR, STEPHAN:   The answer to this is delightfully



short.



          We are actually unaware of sites where devices



have been used for more effective dispersal of algal



nutrients contained in  treated sewage.   At best, however,



it would seem that such devices would potentially



contribute only to a reduction in local concentrations



of nutrients and would  not reduce in any way the nutrient

-------
                                                      120
                    Questions and Answers
load entering the water body in the discharge.  As
explained in the answer to Question 10, nutrient avail-
ability is a key factor in determining the size of an
algae crop and nutrient availability is a function of
load discharged.
          MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or questions
on that?
          If not, thank you very much.
          Now, does any of the Conferees or the technical
people they have invited or their advisors have any
comments or want to say anything while we have the experts
here?
          MR. EAGLE:  Yes.  I would like to thank Dr.
Stephan and Dr.  Bartsch and, of course, Harlow and others
who have participated here for the work they have gone
to, tc answer these questions.  I think by and large they
did a very excellent job and we appreciate that.
          Several of the members of my Advisory Committee
came here today  and, by the way, they are the gentlemen
that are responsible for most of these questions.  We
have only had one meeting but, believe me, it was a very
good meeting and we expect to have more to work out a
solution or solutions to this problem.
          Now, I would like to ask if any of these

-------
                                                      121
                    Questions and Answers




gentlemen have anything they would like to  say  or any




comment  or  statement they would like to make?




          Sharon Bresler is a member of our Ohio Water



Pollution Control Board and has been a very active member



of this  committee, and Sharon — at least I would like



to have you stand up so they can see who you are and if



you would like to say a few words —



          MR. BRESLER:  I don't care to make any comments



at this late hour.  I am sure everyone is very hungry and



so am I, but there is one thing in my mind  that I haven't



quite had clarified here today.




          I am very sorry that we didn't have the answers



to these questions earlier so that we could have studied



them and perhaps asked more intelligent questions than



perhaps this one is, and I am still a little bit confused




about the #0 percent and the 92 percent.



          I heard at one point where we have this in our



pocket but we didn't use it at another meeting and there-



fore we concentrated on discussing the 80 percent.



          I heard the Conferee from Michigan indicate that



they have definite plans to proceed on the basis of removal



of BO percent.



          At another point  I heard where  if this is done,



in order to reach our objective,  all other contributors to

-------
                                                    122
                  Questions and Answers



the phosphate concentration in the lake will have to remove



a hundred percent.



           Now, somewhere along here,  I am having a little



difficulty in my mind —



           MR. STEIN:  Well, we can understand that.  I



think we can answer that very, very rapidly.



           One, no one had anything in their pocket that



was a secret.  Some people made a computation — some of



the staff people made a computation at the last conference.



I am sure you get that in the State.  We get that in the



Federal Government for the various reasons that we heard



here today:  1)  that 92 percent figure was not used largely



because it was felt that the BO percent figure was the



attainable one, and 2) as we heard again here today, as an



operating program — and this is to give you something —



we could not reasonably impose a limitation of 92 percent



and expect that to be achieved and there not to be a viola-



tion.  The notion was that with the kind of approach that we



are going to make, an 80 percent minimum with an attempt to



maximize, this would give you a substantial reduction in



phosphates showing significant results and be achievable.



           Now, on the basis of what we have done here in



the Lake Michigan Conference — and you also have to

-------
                                                    123
                  Questions and Answers




recognize that we first had a conference on the Detroit




River before we started the one on all of Lake Erie —




that Michigan has moved ahead with its program and has




incorporated this SO percent removal in its program.



           The notion would be that if Michigan — it is




a hypothetical question — if Michigan would keep on with




that BO percent and we would ask 92 percent for the whole



lake reduction, all of the rest of the communities would



have to put in about a hundred percent, and the answer to



that is yes.



           But this is just a hypothetical question.  The




Conferees, it seems to me, have to come to the judgment




of whether they are going to: 1) ask for phosphate removal



or control at all, or 2) if we are going to ask for a per-



centage amount, how much?  We have agreed in the past con-



ference that we were going to ask for phosphate removal.



           Now, in Lake Michigan, we have asked for an SO



percent removal.  The question here is whether you should



come up with any figure at all or whether you should ask



for SO percent removal or a higher removal.




           At the first conference, three of the States on




Lake Erie — Michigan, Indiana and Pennsylvania, as far



as I remember the record — indicated that an SO percent

-------
                                                    124





                  Questions and Answers



minimum would be satisfactory to them.  The Federal



Conferee indicated that would be satisfactory to him.



Ohio and New York had not had this resolved yet.  As



you can tell, there are various difficult technical



points, and I think the issue is clear on the basis of



this.  What do you think Ohio would recommend and want



for the program for the lake?



           MR. BRESLER:  Sir, if I may say this —



           MR. STEIN:  Let me again state, I think because



Mr. Eagle points it out, money is a significant factor.



           MR. BRESLER:  Well, it was established I



believe that the goal was that a reduction to .01 milligrams



per liter as a goal that should be striven for.  Is this



correct?  Did we say this?



           MR. STEIN:  At the conference —



           MR. EAGLE:  This report says so.



           MR. BRESLER:  I believe it was mentioned in the



discussion.



           All right, what we are saying is our objective



has got to reach that goal, but to make some reduction in



concentrations of phosphate —



           MR. STEIN:  No.  Here is the way I understood



this — and maybe I am incorrect in it — we have a time



schedule set up for the  installation of municipal and



industrial waste treatment facilities about 1970.  Unless

-------
                                                    125
                  Questions and Answers



we fold in the phosphate reduction plants now, it is



going to be a lot more expensive and we are just not



going to make that schedule.  We have to do this.



           Now, the question here is:  Given the state of



the art, whether you hold back the whole program and not



have the phosphate reduction in there, or you have some



measure of phosphate reduction, or we have a minimum that



we can fold in now to go ahead and make these gains.



           I think part of the judgment that several of



the States had — that you can meet this time schedule and



fold the phosphate reduction features into the plans if



you had an SO percent reduction requirement.  Now, that is



not presumably going to get to the objective, but as they



point out, the technology is improving very rapidly.  Lake



Erie is not improving in condition.  Do we want to go ahead



with this construction program without the phosphate removal



features of the plans.



           If we do want them in the plans, it seems to us



we have to come to some kind of policy and set a guideline



on what they should be.  At least we should make a judgment



one way or the other.



           Mow, these are the issues, and I also think that,



again,  in this Federal-State-relation operation we almost



have to go in together if we are going to make it.

-------
                                                     126





                    Questions  and Answers



          MR. BRESLER:   Thank  you,  sir.



          No further  comments.



          MR. EAGLE:  Anybody  else?



          Thank you,  gentlemen.




          MR. STEIN:  Are there any other  --




          MR. BOARDMAN:  To put Pennsylvania in the



record, we are here today.  Unfortunately,  we didn't



through some mixup probably in our own mail room, receive



a copy of the answers to the questions, so I was in the



same position that many of you were in that I didn't have



a set of the answers  in front  of me.  But  our staff had



looked at the questions and their answers  were quite




similar, but maybe not as eloquently put as those that



were published today.




          We, like Mr. Eagle, I think  have the same



goal—that we would like to solve the pollution problems



of Lake Erie.  We feel that probably &0 percent phosphate



removal is much better than 20 or 30 percent removal and



maybe isn't ideal, but we would like to see the Conferees




come to agreement rather rapidly on some minimum require-



ment so that we can get on with the job of at least start-



ing to take a crack at the problem in Lake Erie.  So we



hope that this meeting will be the next step toward a



rapid resolution of this problem so that we can get moving

-------
                                                       127






                    Questions  and  Answers



 on Lake  Erie.



          No further  comments.



          MR.  STEIN:  Are there any  other  comments?



          Mr.  Poole.




          MR.  POOLE:  Well, first, I want  to  commend Dr.




 Stephan  and Bartsch and Mr. Harlow for putting this



 together and sending  it around.   I got mine Friday after-



 noon, and I think it  has certainly expedited  this meeting




 here today, and you have done a top-flight job as far as



 I  am concerned.



          I want a little clarification of some of your



 remarks, Mr. Chairman.



          You  referred repeatedly to 80 percent minimum,



 and I have referred to 80 percent as far as Indiana is



 concerned.  But I am talking about an annual average of



 BO percent ,     I want to be sure you are not talking



 about a minimum today of BO percent, because we get to



 operating treatment plants and there is a lot of difference



 And we are prepared to subscribe to an 80 percent annual



average with the understanding — particularly with bigger



installations -- that they be admonished when they go



into this,  that if the art develops and their experience



expands,  if they can do  it better than 80 percent we  are



going to expect them to  do it.  That is presuming that  the

-------
                                                    128





                  Questions and Answers



costs are reasonable.  The time schedule of 1970 — that



shocks me a little.  I wasn't aware that we had ever had



any discussion of 1970 for phosphate removal around the



Lake Erie Basin.  To be perfectly candid with you,  if Uncle



Sam doesn't get his money up where his mouth has been for



the last four or five years, we are not going to meet any



1970 objective in Indiana, because these knuckle-headed



Hoosiers are very strongly resisting spending their money



when they think they can wait another year and maybe the



promises that were made in the Water Quality Act will come



through and they will get a grant.  So I can't bind Indiana



to any firm date of 1970.  I think I could for 1972, for all



of the major installations, and I have only one other



comment.



           We are concerned right now with the little town



of Huntertown, which is up the river from Fort Wayne, that



has a 660 grant and a State grant to build its first sewage



treatment plant.  I think it has about 700 population.



The plant is all designed.  We wrote them back the other day



and said, "What about phosphate removal?"  Candidly, I hate



very much to force Huntertown, Indiana, into being the first



phosphate removal installation in the State.  I think we are



going to play footsie with you on these little installations



for maybe something longer than even 1972, because I do



believe that there is an  element of realism that has to be

-------
                                                    129
                  Questions and Answers



worked in this program.



           MR. STEIN:  I think that most of the positions you



have stated, I could be persuaded — possibly the Federal



conferee can.  I don't think we are going to be far off.



There is one point of clarification, and this is the one I



made.  With the dates we've set, we set those dates as you



recall for the conventional treatment plant, it would be a



tremendous savings in money for the design and the operation



if we could come up with a unified program and begin folding



those in now.



           MR. POOLE:  I agree with you completely.  We are



asking all of our municipalities on both the Lake Erie and



Lake Michigan watershed if they are making plans now either



for plant expansion or for new installations, to include



phosphate removal.



           MR. STEIN:  And you know, I guess, we have gone



through this socio-routine many, many times.  But when



you talk about those knuckleheads in Indiana — and I can



sympathize with them — about Uncle Sam putting his money



where his mouth is, I don't know who puts up their money



but the representatives in the Congress of the five States



represented here — and including my State of Virginia and



any other State — and I don't know who is skinning whom,



because wherever that money comes from, it is our money.

-------
                                                    130
We pay for it one way or the other,  but I understand the



position.



           What I think is abundantly clear,  and I will make



this very clear:  One of the major cities in  Indiana,  which



is the best example of this we had,  acknowledged if we wait



and we don't get this program going, for every year we wait



it is going to cost a lot of money.



           Mr. Poole got an order against one of his major



cities in Indiana, and they took him to court and fought



that for years.  By the time they got around  to building



that plant I think it cost them three times as much as it



would have cost them originally, and this is  the point I



am making.  Gentlemen, make this abundantly clear.  We



have a multimillion dollar program ready to go on Lake



Erie.  There is one item that may be holding  this up,



and this is the agreement and the policy on phosphate



removal.



           The sooner we get that resolved — every day



sooner you get that resolved is going to mean a savings



of a considerable amount of money to get these things



going right now and not wait and fight this rising cost.



           Are there any other comments or questions?



           If not, now, we have several things we are going



to take up, and I don't think we have to keep everyone



here.  One is the surveillance that Mr. Eagle talked about.

-------
                                                    131
                  Questions and Answers



I think we will have to work that program out.  The other



is some of the problems you mentioned to the Technical



Committee which we revised, and hopefully we would like to



canvass the State Representatives here to get the Conferees



together as soon as we can in perhaps just a short session



without anyone except the Conferees participating, although



under the law, of course, you can bring anyone you wish to



participate to try to resolve, if we can, this phosphate



issue and get on with the program.



           If there are no further comments —



           MR. POSTON:  Do you intend to do this today?



           MR. STEIN:  No.  We are going to adjourn sine



die pretty soon.  If you have anything to say, say it.



           MR. POSTON:  Well, I would say that it appears



to me that we have been changing in this whole field of



waste treatment requirements from primary to secondary



and we are even talking about tertiary now, and this has



been over a realtively short period of time.



           I think that at the time Detroit was involved,



the Enforcement Conference, at the request of then



Governor Swainson of Michigan, came up with certain



recommendations about phosphate removal, and then Gov-



ernor Rhodes called a conference about Lake Erie problems



because of his great concern not only locally but

-------
                                                    132
                  Questions and Answers



State-wide and internationally.  He thought there was



concern, and this is the reason that he asked that a



Federal enforcement action be called.



           I think I personally felt that we had gone a



long ways towards getting an action program going when



Michigan implemented certain suggestions and came forth



with an SO-percent-removal figure for phosphates from



Detroit, Michigan's waste discharge to the river in that



area, and when the Lake Erie action called for maximiza-



tion of the phosphate removal, I felt that until you get a



number that you can shoot for, maximization can mean a



lot of different things.



           I think our technical people assure us — and



they have done that again here today — that 80 percent



is well within our grasp.  I think my concern is Lake



Erie, to do something for the situation that exists there,



and I think the sooner we get on with this, the better it



is going to be for Lake Erie and for our use of Lake Erie



in the future.



           I won't promise that we might not have greater



restrictions in the future because that is the way the



whole picture looks, from primary — we didn't think of



secondary for a lot of plants in the past and now we are



talking tertiary, so I think it is pretty plain to me at

-------
                                                        133





                    Questions  and  Answers




 least  that we  ought to move  along  with  the  program that



 we  have  in our grasp here.



          MR.  EAGLE:  Wally  forced me to speak  again  --



 1 can't  let  this go by — that just because  this group



 doesn't  set  a  figure here that nothing  is being done  in



 phosphate removal.  A lot is being done in phosphate



 removal.  We have three plants right here on Lake Erie



 that are going to be constructed very shortly.  I think



 some of  them are almost ready to submit contracts that



 embody phosphate removal, and many more are on  the draw-



 ing boards that embody phosphate removal.  So a lot is



 being done on  phosphate removal here in Ohio and the



 program  is moving forward.   This is not to say  we




 should not have some agreement here.  I donvt mean that.




 On the other hand, I don't want the general conception



 here that nothing is being done in phosphate removal at



 this time, because an awful  lot is being done.



          MR.  STEIN:  Do any of the Conferees have anything



 to say?



          I want to thanK you all for coming.   I know I



felt this was  a very productive meeting.  The fellows did



a magnificent  job.   They made a very good seminar.   Thank



you all for staying with us.   We hate  to go this late,



and when we run a meeting this late — you know, as the

-------
                                                       134




                    Questions and Answers



Governor of North  Carolina  said to the Governor of South



Carolina, "It is a long  time  between drinks!"



          (Whereupon,  at 1:33 P.M. the conference was



adjourned sine die.)
                              ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1968 O - 326-932

-------