Technical Session
                                        August 26, 1968
                                        Cleveland, Ohio
Pollution of Lake Erie and its Tributaries-
Indiana, Michigan, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania


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



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.


               Murray Stein, Chief, Enforcement,

          Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-

          tration, Washington, D. C.


               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


     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


     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

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,


               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

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

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

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


                   OPENING STATEMENT


                   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


          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


          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


          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
          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.

             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.


               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


          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

                   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


          Dr. R. Vollenweider, after reviewing for the

                   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

                 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

.03, wouldn't it?

                 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.

                   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,


          That completes the answer to the question.

                   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

                   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


                 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


          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


                   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


          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

                   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


          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

                   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.


          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?


                   Questions and Answers
          MR. HALL:  The third question:  Who documents
the blooms in Lake Erie?  Is there a continuing record of
          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
          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

                   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

                 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

                 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

                   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

                 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


                   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


                   Questions  and Answers


          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

                   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


          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


          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


          MR. POSTON:  Also what are some of the effects

                 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


          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

                 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

                  Questions and Answers

graphic situation which is something like the Dow Jones


           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.

                  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


                   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


          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


                   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


                   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

                  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


           MR. STEIN:  Let me ask a question about that

                  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-


           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


           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:

                   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.


                   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


                   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


                   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


           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

                  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


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


                   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


          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


                   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?


                  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
           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.


                   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


          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

                  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?


                    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

                   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


          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


                   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,

                   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


           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


           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


                   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


                   Questions and Answers

for reducing phosphorus runoff from agricultural and other


          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


                    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.

                  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


           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

                    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


          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


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

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

confirmed with the Canadian Government.


                  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

                     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

                     Questions and Answers
Question 15.  I would be happy to go to it if you would
          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
          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


                    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?


          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

                  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

                  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.


                    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.


                    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


          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

                      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.

                  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


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


           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?


           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


                    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

                  Questions and Answers

reduction in the Detroit discharge what would be the Detroit

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


           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.


                    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


          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


          MR. HARLOW:  Based on the method by which I

calculated it.

          MR. POSTON:  Of course,  this also assumes that


               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

              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

                    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


                                                          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.

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


          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


           MR. EAGLE:  You have got 2.2 in the Cuyahoga


           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


                    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


                    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


          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

                  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


           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


                    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


                    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


          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

                    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,)


   Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost,  Deb*  Service
                              vs.                      —
                         Design Capacity

2 8
C *
o 7
iH 7
•-* K
CO *
60 b

If 3
., 2
S 10
§ 8
£ 7
5-0 s
1-0 ,0
.10 ,
f ' '
• "i i '
i , ! i
j | ! i.

' i-i
~ ' . *


_ ui
rr _^ ....
- -'4-

'.— .





- , f-f
• : :,

* i

rr i '
1 L '


., j.
-H 1 !
~ s
-!-;-• • | ,^'


, _ . _

~i i
: I i f ;
rr f f :
.u [.,

1 I '

i i ;
t /
"' r
, ' '
! r '

1 !_ |

' •
' L ' .


. i ' '
.Li L .
1 F ! .'

1 ' L;

. i . ,

r^ f '
[It [

.: .
" ;

* i i

1 1

t --• '
- r. .

1 , ,
' ; ,
1 . !*
'-* i '

i i i
i1 ;
; "

• 1
i 1
| j
i ;

; ' ! '
; [;
i ', _
i .

1 1


-t: :
-i — i
• ^
: '
r h
:."• r
-tyt I-
;-! : •
i~!"4 L
nil 1
, I

>d 1
; i ' 1
1 rl-'
i ri
, 1 1
' ' r
I f '


, 1 <
1 '< i
** ~I

i ,

-"' f> ,

1 , i
1 1 1

t ; '

•—V _),
; . [ .,-v
i n •
1 1 f •
! l .
[ 1
- M1
PM '

i r \i
i '
i '
; i '

i i M
1 ' |
i '


- :-





, -j !

j- ,

J' -i"


( I


~t •*"

, i
• L
; '

r -
r r
I |
I 1 '

4-' :
: 1


-; ;i_-pr
. ^~.--..

1 it:
i - L-
! l"


. , i-| :

i • i
i ! i
i r i i
i 1 n
-j— T-1-
M i
n i
.-. j .
< 1
1 r
i > i
1 1

' i:

-j-i-J-r j - ,^1
---J— -; , M

: I :' i
l: t •
i ' , •
. .' ,-x
, -'''^:~
i -| -f-!--| f :-f-^j-^-r;i
---rj-M •yi'Vl •
- .7


!*r-. :_•

i i
: • ; ••
i ! . i : :
; I , : .'
: i • I : .
i • i ' i >
-.:•'.: j-:i;
T-— ;
4-^-- :-!---• '
T" ". z\ ' *" :

1 ii


'- ^
i~~~*~'1 ~"r*j /»y
" ' 1 .-'/>
^ ^X 1 . r rl
1 	 ' •- *-)
; --f--r
i — h;^
-^j - -
-:_^-i\~^:_ :_
Ll.~ ~_| "-.'
r,_^( 	 ' -- -

• 'I
' '
— i™


- r^


- t-r-p -
- -— — —
j- -±^~~
' 1 I
1 i

-1... -pX
1 i 1
; i |
-1 —


i 1 1 , <

r I

• i '- ; - - •
! -> p; .

L. ;;i.
. --t—

:l it

- (.
.f ; . .- r, -
' _i '~_ n^i ir
r -| —
f -t1
i i
t r
i i
. L! !
i i

• -'hT
t .
i |


-t *-~

H i

i-"3- T':
i : i r
1 '
u --
L ~-
"f i '

_^_ .„. r -. ^~
_,_ - f —
' i t
_t — „
til- [r.^
,...[ .
i - 1 c


f-r -; ' : r
^i- i."



i "
_ ._. -
^- -•
— f — '





-Q — ,-_t .
- ~ ~\ '
i rn

-r; ;



— f -
E~tf :



"II !



-^ 1 0

-- i-t

I 1
? H

1 ^
:: K
L o
-»- 0 1 •"

f "
- -

~ -
ho. 01
                           4   567H910
                                                         4   &  678910
         1.0                          10.0

                Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
               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


                  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


           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


                    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

                Questions and Answers
           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


                  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


           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.

                  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


                    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


          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


                    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


          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

                  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


           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


           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


                  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


                     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

                    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

                  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

                  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


                    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

                    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


          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


                    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

                    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.


                    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

                    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


                    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


          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


                    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


          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


                    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—


           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


                    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


                    Questions  and Answers

           3.   The  phosphorus requirement of  nuisance

 algae (blue-greens) is  high.

           4.   Phosphorus  will  stimulate algae fixation of


           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


          Odum, E. P. (I960, Algae and Metropolitan


          Lackey, J. B. (Sewage Works Journal, 1945)

          Benoit and Curry (I960, Algae and Metropolitan


          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


                    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


          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

                    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
          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

                    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

                  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

                  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


                  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


           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

                  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.


                    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


                    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


                  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


           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

                  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.

We pay for it one way or the other,  but I understand the


           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


           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.

                  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

                  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


                    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


                    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